I am a second year parent Judge so fairly new.

I prefer no spreading, at a pace that all can follow. I am very much a more traditional LD judge.

Please give me your voters !! Why you should win. What makes your framework better than your opponents.

No progressive debate ie, Counterplans, K, Theory, DA's, etc. ( not qualified )

A little about me:

I competed on the regional GA circuit and national circuit for 5 years in PF, and graduated in '19. I'm now a senior at Brown. This is my second year as the PF coach at Park City HS.

As a judge, I'm pretty chill:

- I'm fine with speed but, wouldmuch preferyou to not spread. If you do, you must email a speech doc.

- I don't flow cross- if something important happens, tell me in a speech or it will not be on my flow.

- Tech>truth. Obv exception is evidence ethics - if you claim that a source says something and it doesn't, I will not look kindly at that argument.

- I won't evaluate OFFENSE that is extended through ink from rebuttal to final focus- if you want me to vote for you on it, extend it through summary.

- Also- I expect the second rebuttal to respond to all of the offense in the round. Let me just add - given that y'all have four minutes, I also expect interaction with the defense read in the first rebuttal, but I'll be more lenient with accepting those responses in summary.

- On intervention - the only time I will intervene is if there is no comparative weighing, or quite honestly, weighing at all. I don't want to ever do this. So if you'd like to win or lose the debate based on the content of the round, weigh.

- additionally, meta-weighing. Especially if you and your opponents are going for different weighing mechanisms, please tell me why I should prefer your weighing mechanism !

- I understand the appeal of progressive debate, and won't automatically down-vote a team that runs it. However, I prefer judging rounds that don't involve frivolous theory. If there has been an egregious offense in the round and/or you feel very passionately about your theory shell, I will judge it. Otherwise, please don't run theory in front of me.

- Unfortunately, I am still not the best at evaluating K's and their place in PF. That's not to say you can't run a K in front of me, but I might not evaluate it in the way you'd like me to.

- For speaks - my range is normally between 27 - 29.7. I don't usually give perfect speaks, or below a 27. But if you are blatantly sexist, homophobic, or racist, that will change.

- On evidence : I'll be a part of email chains in rounds. Please share it with nylacrayton@gmail.com. I might not read every piece of evidence in full, but if you tell me to read something during, or after, the round I will.

- Speech times - I will continue to flow your speech up until ~10 seconds after your time is up. I will stop listening and stop flowing if you continue beyond that time.

• Prep - I keep track of prep in the round, and I am always a bit annoyed when you go over that time. If you prep for more than 30 seconds past your prep time, expect to lose speaks.

- Pre-flowing : please finish before the round starts.

Anyways... if you have any more questions, either ask me before the round or shoot an email to nylacrayton@gmail.com !

I have been coaching and judging Public Forum debate for three years now. My preferences are as follows:

Timing:

I'm a stickler for time. I do not allow off-time road maps. Everything you say needs to be in your time. You need to ensure that you are timing yourself, your team mates, and your opponents. If any member goes beyond time (except for closing statements -- "and for this reason, you must ballot aff" and etc.) I consider this a failing in timing for all members, and can affect speaker points. For prep time, tell me what you've used after you've used it. Do not tell me what you intend to use. For a cross fire, if you ask a question at the end of the time, you will not receive an answer.

Argumentation:

I do flow each contention for each round. Each contention should be extended through the summary speech. Failure to extend an argument will be considered conceded to your opponent. If your opponent notices your failure to extend a contention, and also mentions it, that can sink your debate for me. The exception to this is your final focus. Your final focus needs to be exactly as it is titled -- focused. You need to consider where your single strongest contention is and explain why you win on that basis. In the process, be sure to bring back your evidence and reasoning to support your impacts for that contention. Essentially, give me your voters only.

Evidence:

I'm not a stickler for evidence, as some judges are. When prompted for evidence or a source, you should be able to provide it quickly. I hate when a debate is mired with searching through cards to find particular quotations or links. If you cannot quickly find a source, I will assume it does not exist. You should not ask for evidence unless: 1. You know your opponent is making unsubstantiated claims, 2. Your opponent has evidence directly contrasting your own evidence and claim, or 3. You believe your opponent is misrepresenting or falsifying evidence. In any of these cases, as you ask for the evidence, be clear to provide your reasoning. If you believe the evidence is false or misrepresented, I will look at it as well. Otherwise, I never ask for evidence.

Crossfires:

I don't generally note or flow crossfires unless an important development or concession is made. Respect during a crossfire is paramount. I understand and support passionate exchanges, but not at the expense of civility and respect for your opponents.

Speaking:

I can understand and follow spreading, but I generally discourage it. I think your ability to vary your tone, adding vocal emphasis to your important points, and to sound interested and passionate in your topic, are far more important than loading your speech with the most evidence possible. I award points on this basis. I have no preferences for sitting or standing at any point in a debate, and I don't care at whom you look during speeches or crossfires.

Determining Winners:

As stated, I judge each contention independently. I will award a "point" to the side who best argues each contention for each case. At the end of the round, the win will go to the side with the most points (that is, the better arguments for the greatest number of individual contentions). I don't generally weigh frameworks unless both teams provide and debate frameworks, or there is a tie in points and the framework affects the weight/scope of the arguments.

Timing:

I do not permit off-time road mapping. Use your allotted time to say everything needed. Time yourself, your team mates, and your opponents. (I will keep time as well). Speaking beyond the allotted time may affect speaker points. Questions asked at the end the Crossfire will not be answered.

ARGUMENTATION

I flow each contention for each round and take gist notes of the Crossfires.

Please remember these points:

During the Summary Speech, extend your contention.

During the Final Focus, focus on your single, strongest contention and explain why you win on that basis. Reiterate your evidence and reasoning to support your impacts for that contention.

EVIDENCE

You should not ask for evidence unless: 1. You know your opponent is making unsubstantiated claims, 2. Your opponent has evidence directly contrasting your own evidence and claim, or 3. You believe your opponent is misrepresenting or falsifying evidence.

Be clear to provide your reason for requesting the evidence. If you believe the evidence is false or misrepresented, I will look at it as well. Otherwise, I never ask for evidence.

When prompted for evidence or a source, you should be able to provide it quickly. If you cannot quickly find a source, I will assume it does not exist.

RESPECT

Maintain civility and respect for opponents during crossfire. Respect during a crossfire is paramount. I understand and support passionate exchanges, but not at the expense of civility and respect for your opponents.

SPEAKING

Please do not spread. Show passion for your topic in these ways: speaking loudly; articulating clearly; varying your tone; stress key points.

STANDING/SITTING

I have no preferences for sitting or standing at any point in a debate, and I don't care at whom you look during speeches or crossfires.

DISCLOSING

At the end of the round, I typically disclose the winner. I also provide specific, written feedback for participant.

I am a parent judge, only Public Forum to date, but don't judge me because of that. I truly care to judge as objectively as possible. To do so, presentations need to be well organized, e.g. It helps when you say, "Contention 1..., Sub-Point A... and so on." When attacking an opponent's contentions and rebuttals, be clear to associate your comments to the respective contention.

Most importantly, know your audience, and speak to your audience, i.e. your judge(s). Clarity of content is equally important to quantity. What does it matter if you think you successfully argued your contentions and defeated every point of your opponent if the judge cannot understand most of what you said, because of partially spoken thoughts and words, due to excessive speed? Don't forget to breath. Use inflection to emphasize points. Use pauses to let points sink in before starting the next point. I cannot judge fairly or objectively what I do not understand because of the speed of your speech.

I promise to give fair, constructive feedback at the conclusion of each debate, and follow up with comments that you can hopefully use to improve your positions.

That said, I'm already impressed with you before you even open your mouth to speak. Having the ambition, courage, and confidence to take on such a difficult endeavor as Speech and Debate, you've already WON my admiration regardless of debate outcomes.

Original Paradigm:

I am a parent judge who has judged only traditional debate. While I can understand faster than a conversational pace, please do not spread. I will not vote for something I can't understand. Also, I much prefer if you debate topically, and will not vote on non topical affs. I do not like theory and am not likely to vote on it, and I will not vote on tricks or skepticism. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round!

UPDATE FOR NOVEMBER 2019:

(Written by Joey Tarnowski)

So as of now, there's probably a little more argument flexibility to be had. Skep, most theory args (the more friv, the worse) and basically all kritiks are probably a no. Also you should prob keep spreading to a minimum (read: DON'T DO IT) but kinda fast is prob alright. Most non-cheaty cp's are probably okay, but pics and advantage CPs will just need a little explanation. Disads are fine, but the strat here should prob be more of a "turns case" strat than an extinction scenario. The more links in the link chain, the less likely it is you'll win on it. T on plans is probably fine, but you should prob default to a reasonability standard cause the stuff about frivolous theory applies here too. TLDR; most util strats are prob your best bet, but probability>magnitude should be what frames whatever you're running.

I debated in the late 90's. I believe in the Value Premise and Criterion. I think there should be clash. Rounds should be in a conversational speed. If I am yelling clear, I am missing an argument. I will stop flowing. I am not a blank slate judge nor will I drop someone for dropping an unreasonable argument. The last speeches are for providing voters and writing my ballot. If there is no connection back to the VP/ your position, I feel there is no ground for me to vote. I do not vote for Kritiks. I do believe a discussion with a debater about the round is ok. I think understanding points of view helps with communicating your cases in later rounds. I will not switch my decision.