Email Jororynyc@gmail.com

Perry Hs

ASU Finance

Assistant LD coach at Peninsula, 2023-Present

Cleared at the Toc.

Alot of the way I think comes from Amber Kelsie, Jared Burke, Tay Brough and Raunak Dua - LD thoughts from Elmer Yang and Gordon Krauss.

Condense the debate to as few arguments as possible and have good topical knowledge.

Mostly read K arguments - Some policy arguments on the neg. Some Affs had plans.
I am bad for Phil or Trix.
FW: Fairness is an impact,
I also have an increasingly higher threshold for K debate because most of it done in LD is bad.

I wont flow until 1NC case so I can read evidence. I also have no problem telling you I did not understand what you said if its not explicit by the last speech.

4 years of PF experience. However, assume I don’t know anything.

thanks :)

(This is my PF paradigm. For other debates, a lot of this is applicable, but I will always vote on quality analysis and speaking. Just be persuasive, and you're good.)

About Me

Hi, I’m John! I debated all 4 yrs of high school (class of 2020 baby), starting in policy and then senior year switching to PF. With that in mind, I switched to PF for a reason; please don’t give me PTSD. I qualified for NSDA Nationals in US Extemp junior year and was a National Semifinalist in USX senior year, so speaks and quality analysis are my highest priorities when judging your round. I’ll go into much more detail later in the paradigm, though.

My Judging Process

I use a Microsoft Excel document that evaluates each speaker based on speaking, analysis, and CX. Speaking and analysis both make up 40% of the score individually, and CX makes up 20% of the score. This isn’t the only thing I use when making my decision, but it is how I give out speaker rankings and does have a large impact on my evaluation of persuasion, from a (relatively) objective standpoint. Above all, I vote on persuasion. Sometimes it lines up with the flow, sometimes the excel doc, sometimes both, and sometimes neither. It really depends on the round, but if you are persuasive to the best of your ability, that is all I ask of you.

What I look for in each portion of the debate Constructive

Really, all I look for here is that you speak well and have pristine analysis. You (hopefully) spent a while writing this case and perfecting it, so I am expecting that it has no lapses in logic and everything is fully warranted/impacted out.

Rebuttal

This speech needs to be focused on attacking your opponent’s case, but I’m cool with 2nd rebuttal frontlining if they want to. If not, I won’t count it as a drop just yet. If you do frontline, just make sure it is not the focus of your speech.

Summary

This speech needs to be primarily frontlining, but at the same time, it is called the “summary” for a reason, so this speech should begin to tie everything together. If that means collapsing, that’s fine. BUT, know that if you do collapse, it could hurt you depending on your opponent’s response.

Final Focus

This speech needs to be all weighing through whatever method you prefer. Voters are fine, line-by-line works (as long as you tell me why arguments are important), really whatever, as long as you substantiate each impact and tell me why it’s important.

CX

Keep clarification questions to an absolute minimum. If you lead your opponent into a trap, you gain major respect and will gain points on CX. However, if they see the trap coming and can escape it/turn it against you, the same will happen for them. Don’t yell, but at the same time, don’t seem disinterested. Confidence is key to persuasion, but don’t be overbearing/condescending. Your speaks will go down.

My thoughts on debating styles/analysis Speed

Absolutely do not spread. You will lose points in the speaker section of my analysis. Speaking quickly is fine, but be aware that I will not flow it if I can’t understand it or if it’s too fast. Ultimately, efficiency shows ultimate debate maturity. Persuasion should be the main goal of your speaking, not getting everything in. If you persuade me, you’ve done your job. If you spit a bunch of evidence at me, I will wipe it off and ignore it. This all boils down to one simple rule: if you’re concerned that you’re too fast, slow down.

Progressive Arg’s (K’s, theory, CPs)

K’s – It REALLY has to be convincing. I have no clue how to “properly” evaluate a Kritik, so beware of my inexperience. If you are not 100% convincing (which is virtually impossible with this style of debate), you are wasting my time, your time, and your opponent’s time.

Theory – Theory is fine ONLY if you tell me why it’s important and don’t let it take over the debate. If theory takes over the debate, you lose BIG on analysis.

CP’s – Don’t run CP’s. If you run one, I will ignore it and lower your analysis score. Instead, if you can prove that something will happen in the SQ (without voting pro), you’re good. I actually like those arguments.

Ad hominem attacks

My rule of thumb is “don’t be a jerk.” Any ___-ism / offensive comments will hurt you significantly. If you are kind, you’re golden.

Flow vs. Lay

I prefer lay debate because I believe debate is about persuasion, not necessarily the nitty-gritty. However, a lot of times, if you are persuasive, that entails you win on the flow. So, I will be keeping a “flow,” but keep in mind I won’t vote based on it alone. I will, however, vote more on flow later in a tournament (elim rounds) because the persuasion really should be there at that point in the tournament.

Tech vs. Truth

I always prioritize truth. Just because you might put 20 responses on their case doesn’t mean they are quality or persuasive at all. However, if they are, you basically win on truth, so ur good.

Clarity of arguments

This might be the most important thing in the debate. If you are not clear, consistent, and refined, you will lose on both speaks and analysis. Use summary and final focus to drive in each detail of your arguments. If you are confusing there, you may as well concede the debate.

Evidence ethics

Indicts are fine, but if there is an indict, I will ask for pertinent evidence flashed/emailed/whatever to me after the round. If I find that you falsified evidence, not only will you lose that argument, but I will consider dropping you entirely and reporting you to tournament directors.

Pacing

PLEASE, don’t wait until the last minute to respond to an argument. Frontlining in summary is perfectly fine, but after that, ur done for. More specifically, onto pacing within your speeches: SIGNPOST. If you don’t, I have no idea what you’re talking about, and you lose big on clarity. Also, grace periods do not exist. If you go over time, not only will anything you say not get on the flow, but it will eat into your prep time as well. During cross, if the question is asked before 3:00 on the clock, you can answer it, but the answer better be concise.

Language

Please be professional. Jokes are fine as long as they make sense and actually make me laugh. But don’t let the round get too casual. Saying “judge” in any of your speeches immediately removes 0.1 points from the evaluation. The debate is about persuasion, not about a winner or a loser. Please don’t use big words unnecessarily. It’s pretentious. Swearing will deduct 1 point from the evaluation. Keep it clean.

Prep time

I score prep too. Using less prep gives you big points. You can work on your feet and don’t need to rely on extra time. ALSO, the team that spoke second will get fewer points on this since they get ~10 minutes of extra prep time during their partner’s speeches/cross.

Framework

If your logic makes sense, I might vote on it. If not, you’re wasting my time. I’m not very big on the debaters dictating the ballot (obviously, since I’m the one judging), but if it's legit, then it's legit.

Key Takeaways

Analysis and clarity are the biggest things I will vote on. A debate is about persuasion, especially public forum. Also, if you can pronounce my last name correctly, you get a bonus speaking point for reading my paradigm (it is pronounced like George-ee-AHH-dis).

Congratulations for participating in Speech and Debate!

I’m a debate enthusiast, and my leisure time is spent promoting the sport for all students. Whether you win or lose this round, you are developing competencies that will carry you throughout your life. Now for how to win my ballot.

I'm a FLAY (Flow /Laymen) PF judge, so while I flow the round, I expect a respectful and civil atmosphere— and make sure your narrative makes sense. In other words, don’t read a bunch of statistics to support arguments that don’t seem reasonable in the real world.

In my evaluations, I prioritize the following three factors, listed in no particular order:

1) Weighing: clearly explain the arguments made by both sides as early as the second rebuttal and throughout the remainder of the round

2) Warrant: provide logical reasoning behind the evidence presented and critically interrogate your opponents' warrants.

3) Clash/Crossfire: fully engage with and provide quality responses to the arguments made by your opponent, rather than simply disagreeing with them. With that said, don’t stress the crossfire. The crossfire is NOT going to make or break the round. At most, it may impact your speaker points. Thus, it's important to use that time to thoroughly interrogate and understand the opponent's narrative to have a meaningful exchange of ideas for the remainder of the round.

If evenly matched on all the above, perceptual dominance (i.e., tone, presence, confidence, and team dynamic) wins!

Automatic Loss:

Warning: If tempted to give false evidence, Don’t Do It!

Speaker Point deduction:

Icks:

• Repeatedly (3 or more) asking opponents for cards. You might as well ask them to send you their entire case- SUS!

• Looking only at the judge the entire round without ever looking at your opponent; I find it dismissive and rude to your opponent. It’s important to fluctuate your attention and consider both the judge and your opponent during the round.

Make My Job Easy

A couple of key points:

- T arguments need to be actually abusive. I will listen to them and flow them, but they need to be solid.

- Spreading your opponents out of the round. Whatever. But I also recommend not spreading your judge (me) out of the round either.

- Critical arguments, outlandish plans, etc. go for it. If we pretend to be the USFG, there is equal room to be space pirates.

-Make my job easy. Signpost, explicitly tell me why to vote.

She/her/hers. Currently a K-12 social studies curriculum writer, formerly a middle school and college debate coach. I returned to assistant coach for Mercer University from 2021-2022 having previously competed as our program was making its transition from small, Southern tournaments to large NPDA tournaments. I have been out of college debate for about nine years - my background is in K-12 education, and I have coached some middle and high school programs, mostly public forum debate and a little policy. My teams have won the middle school Urban Debate League national championships in public forum (2020) and the NPDA championships in novice NPDA debate (2022). I am now happily retired from coaching, but still occasionally enjoy judging.

I am not super technical, but I enjoy hearing all kinds of arguments and I like it when I can learn something new in-round. I am good with most kinds of arguments, strategies, and approaches to debate. I like good organization, lots of signposting, and rebuttals that group and collapse arguments intelligently so that I can discern exactly where you want me to vote. Overall I believe the debate space is yours. I want you to be able to debate about the things you like to debate about, in the way that you like to debate about them, but I think there are a few things that are fair for you to know about me, so here they are.

(1) I am convinced that spreading can be problematic for the activity, and is potentially ill-suited to an NPDA debate format where the topic changes from round to round and there are no text files we can share to help people follow along. To be honest top speeds and lack of clarity trigger a migraine for me nine times out of ten and I want to listen to debates at conversational to slightly faster than conversational rates. On your end, it is probably important to you that I can hear and follow all of your arguments.

(2) My threshold for voting on topicality is pretty high. If their interpretation is actually abusive and causing ground loss/education loss/etc, run it, but I don't necessarily enjoy t debates that are introduced just because you can. I won't drop folks if they run a topicality arg that I don't like of course, I just think your time might be better spent on something else with me in the back of the room. If you love T and you run it every round and it doesn't feel like debating for you without it, then please carry on.

(3) I am interested in critical debates, but I have been out of the debate world for a minute, teaching middle school social studies and being a mom, so you are going to want to explain your argument in pretty fine detail. Unlike some of your judges, I am usually not devoting a bunch of my free time to reading and cutting literature exclusively for debate. I think you should always be detailed as a rule, but I just want to be clear that I am probably not the best judge for blippy and/or very generic kritiks. Explaining your story on the link level is very important, I want to hear explicitly how you're jumping from point A to point B.

(4) I don't think that debate is just a game. I don't necessarily mind judging traditional policy-oriented rounds, but it's always important to keep in mind that the statistics and literature and news headlines that are just a means to a ballot for some are real life for many others, both within and without the debate space. Be thoughtful. Be measured. Be kind.