** For Policy Debaters, 2020-2021. My graduate academic background is in comparative criminal justice, meaning that I probably have a lot more content familiarity than a typical judge, albeit not necessarily the debate world version of the literature. I will probably have opinions about some of your sources. Ask if you think this may help or hurt you **

I am a former policy debater and have coached and judged (at least 100 rounds of each) policy, public forum and LD debate. I flow and can whatever speed you want to throw at me, but I'm not impressed by it. I am old enough to remember LD and Public Forum debate in their infancy and what traditional policy debate was.

There are no formal rules in debate; please do not assert so in the round. There are rules about evidence that you should adhere to . . .

Debate is both a competition and an educational activity, and as a judge, I try my best to be fair and to promote debate as much as possible as a learning activity. I know debaters work hard and I try not to spoil that work by inserting myself into the round. As a result, I try as much as possible to let the round be decided by you, the debaters, and not my preferences, knowledge or values as a judge. Concretely this means:

I will not vote based on whether I like or dislike you, notions of debate etiquette or style of debate. If you behave in a way that would be a concern for a good Human Resources director, I will assess it in your speaker points, not the decision for the round.

All debaters have to argue both sides of any topic or resolution; I generally do not like arguments that systematically favor one side (pro or con; aff or neg) over the other.

I think evidence is important, not because evidence makes things magically true, but because it allows me to anchor your claims to some empirical reality. Emphasizing evidence allows me to reward you for doing the learning and work before the round. Both sides have access to the same evidence. This is the easiest way for me to be fair and promote learning as a judge. You should be able to produce any evidence read in your opening speeches within 30 seconds, WIFI willing, and you should be able to produce any source read in any speech within a few minutes.

Evidence is not necessary; you can assume that I am a fairly well-read and knowledgeable person who cares about public policy and public affairs. However, I do not agree with those who think their analytical arguments somehow trump expert analysis and sources. I have watched a lot of debate rounds over a long time in a variety of frameworks, I have yet to see Ciceronian rhetoric or Socratic logic appear. I find that what most take for "analysis" is bowlderized ECON 101 on domestic topics and IR Realism for foreign policy topics; the world is much more complex than this. Policy analysis is operationalized common sense, but there is more than one common sense out there.

I try to decide the round by evaluating two competing RFD presented in the FF or 2AR/2NR. I then use my flow of the round to hypothesis-test the RFD presented to me.

During the round, if one team clearly seems to be winning, what I am thinking about is: "what would the team that is currently losing need to do to win this round?" As a result, I tend to be a squirrel on most elimination round panels.

While I think that there

MAGIC: another way to weigh arguments (Adapted from Yale Psychologist, Robert Abelson, Statistics as Principled Argument), substitute the words "arguments" or "evidence" for "effects" and I think this is a good framework to weigh.

1. Magnitude - How big is the effect? Large effects are more compelling than small ones.
2. Articulation - How specific is it? Precise arguments are more compelling than imprecise ones.
3. Generality - How generally does it apply? More general evidence and arguments are more compelling than less general ones. Claims that would interest a more general audience are more compelling.
4. Interestingness - interesting arguments/evidence are those that "have the potential, through empirical analysis, to change what people believe about an important issue". More interesting arguments are more compelling than less interesting ones.
5. Credibility - Credible claims are more compelling than incredible ones. Debaters must show that the claims made are credible. Claims that contradict previously established ones are less credible

A good summary of common logical errors made in arguments

Rhetological Fallacies:

https://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/

I am a former debater from Bronx Science (graduated June 2020)

Generally, run whatever you want but I have a few preferences:

1. You can run complicated cases, but make sure you actually understand them. It’s pretty easy to tell when you didn’t make your case.

2. I don’t really like tricks, but if they go unresponded to, I will vote most likely vote on them

3. I don’t care if you’re winning in every part of the debate, if you say something overtly racist, sexist, ableist, xenophobic, etc. I will drop you, so don’t do that.

4. Don’t be an asshole to your opponents. Ask their pronouns and use them, don’t personally insult them, that kind of thing. Debate should be a safe space.

I don't judge often, so excessive speed is counterproductive on the debaters' part. I follow where the rounds are going, and expect to be led to the big arguments for either side, which I hope will somehow conflict with one another. In the average PF round I've seen, decisions boil down mostly to a couple of points, so if each team has three voters separate from the other side's voters, you're asking me to intervene. Pick the arguments you really want me to decide on.

Hello! My name is Matt Murno.

In order to win here are some things you should do:

Things you should do:

1. I feel like weighing has been decreasing a lot throughout the years, so if you are in front of me you should have clear weighing at the end of your speech and link to the winning FW.

2. It’s been a while since I have heard spreading, so I would prefer more conversational speed, but nothing much faster than that.

3. Voters are huge for me, I want clear numbered voters linked to the FW.

Things you should NOT do:

1. Don’t spread, I won’t be able to understand you.

2. Don’t be too techy, I’m truth>tech, so if an arg is definitely false I won’t vote on it even if it was dropped (I.e. racism doesn’t exist)

3.Don’t read args like racism, sexism, etc good.

4.Be respectful to your opponent.

5.Don’t read theory or K’s, you can make those kinds of arguments, like an AFF about something K-ish like feminism or racism but not something super complicated. For theory, don’t read a shell, I might consider paragraph theory if it is reasonable and not frivolous and VERY CLEAR what I’m voting on and why.

I did speech and debate in high school, 3 years of LD and 1 year in PF. I'm alright with any kind of argument you want to read (theory, k's, etc) just explain what you're reading well and make sure you can communicate your advocacy. I'm also okay with speed, but if you are planning on speaking really fast, please email me your case. My email address is msavransky01@gmail.com.

I'm a flow judge and prefer tech > truth but your arguments obviously still have to be true for me to vote for them.

How To Win My Ballot

Arguments should be extended in the summary and final focus speeches, if an argument is brought up in the 2nd rebuttal and final focus but not the summary, I won't vote on it.

Weigh your arguments against those of your opponents, that's one of the most important things for me in the round! In your speeches, you should be explaining why voting for your side has a bigger impact than that of your opponents using different criteria like magnitude, scope, timeframe, probability, and reversibility. This is especially important in your final focus and summary speeches.

Your final two speeches should look somewhat like my ballot, explain the main arguments that the round comes down to and why they should be the key voting points. Say why those arguments flow your away and weigh them against the arguments your opponents.

Don't go for too many arguments in the final speeches, you shouldn't be talking about everything discussed in the debate, only the most important things. Otherwise, the debate tends to get messy as there ends up being a lot of extended arguments that have little interaction with each other.

Cards should be explained through out every speech, when you extend a card, you should not only be saying the name of the author but also the warrant of the card and the implication of it. Also, you should be weighing your cards against those read by your opponents i.e say why your evidence is better quality, why there is more of it, and so forth. When two teams have competing cards, this is what helps me decide which one to believe and side with.

All I'm all, just extend your arguments and cards in every speech, weigh the most important arguments against each other in the final speeches and you'll definitely win the round/get great speaks.

Thanks for reading and I look forward to judging you !

Updates for Kentucky:

I have never used this online system so forgive me if I don't know what's going on with the technology.

If there's something wrong in terms of technology I'll be very lenient so don't worry about that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If I'm judging you in LD, sorry in advance, I'm a PFer. With that being said, I just want to be entertained, so if you have the most fun running K's, theory, or tricks do so, I'll vote off anything if it's explained properly. If you take "I'll vote off anything" as me being clueless, you're probably right. Otherwise, I have nothing else to say to you but to have a good and clean debate.

Now into PF land (I'm a first-year out, 1 year of policy and 3 of PF in high school):

The crux of what I said above still holds true; I want to have fun and I want you to have fun too.

Some overarching things

- Please time everything yourself, I'll try to time everything, but sometimes I forget to press the button and am pretty lackadaisical on that front as a whole

- Don't speak to your partner during their speech or crossfire. They already have so much going on, another voice is just distracting and tends to produce worse results. Even if they're forgetting something important, I think it's better to let your partner be self-sufficient so they can learn for later debates.

- While eye contact is nice, don't bore holes into my skull. I'm probably too busy flowing or writing comments to notice anyways

Onto more speech by speech things

CASE:

- Clear link stories and quantified impacts make me a happy camper.

- I enjoy unique arguments, but I know that it's harder writing up really obscure cases, so don't worry about running stock arguments.

- Speak clearly. I can handle any speed below legitimate spreading so don't worry too much about that. If I can't understand you, I'll audibly say something once. If you don't heed that, then it's on you.

Rebuttal:

-SIGNPOST! I can generally figure out where you are when you speak, but I don't want to have to do that work.

- As much as I find card dumping hilarious, I don't think it's particularly effective so please don't just string off a hundred cards in a row.

- I like there to be some weighing in Rebuttal, even if it is just 15 seconds at the end of the speech.

- Rebuttal is for Rebutting. If you are just reiterating your case for no purpose other than reiterating your case, kudos to you for using your time, but it's really not necessary. This is not to say don't defend your case in the second rebuttal, but if you're not actually engaging in with the arguments your opponents have put down I don't know what you're doing.

Summary:

- Some people like to treat this as a second rebuttal, but it really should be boiling down the round to a few key issues.

- EXTEND YOUR OFFENSE! I don't know how you plan to win a round without offense, but if it's not mentioned in summary, I'm not letting it through to Final Focus.

- Don't give me a one-off sentence with just a claim. Try to do some explanation behind the argument.

- WEIGH! Just do it.

Final Focus:

- OFFENSE! Tell me why you are winning the round. Make it easy for me to write the RFD in your favor.

- WEIGH!

Some other things:

(Copied from Aadharsh Pannirselvam)

In general, don't lose sight of the fact that debate is a game, and that novice year(s) are supposed to be about learning first, fun second, and W's third.

(Now my own words)

I love humor. Debate is stuffy enough as it is, making me laugh will reflect well on your speaker points. I love meme cases, but if you want to run one, make sure your opponents are on board, debate is still supposed to be an educational activity and I don't want to see one team being deprived of that educational experience.

I'm known to inflate speaker points. If you got below a 28.5 then something really didn't go well.

If you want to run policy-esque K's or other unorthodox arguments, then I'm probably your best judge to do that on. However, if you are running theory or a K, then again, I would want you to at least warn your opponents as to what you are planning to do. I will legitimately vote off of anything, but that being said, you need to clearly explain things no matter what argument you try to extend.

Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth>Tech>Truth

^Make of this what you will

Bonus speaks for accurate and sensical application of chi-squared analysis.

If both teams want me to simulate a non-flow judge for whatever reason I can do that.

I plead the fifth

conwayxu93@gmail.com

Contact: 20zavaliagkos2@lexingtonma.org - for questions and email chains

I'll vote on anything just don't be rude.