Background: I am a former PF debater and current PF coach at Phillipsburg High School. I have over a decade of experience in all debate and speech events.

PF Paradigm --

Email Chains: I don't want to be involved in the email/evidence chains. I trust you all to present/use your evidence fairly and accurately. If there is a lot of back-and-forth on specific evidence throughout the whole round, I might call for it after the round, especially if it will greatly impact my decision.

Progressive Debate: I am a traditional PF debate judge who focuses majorly on clash, substantial weighing, and topical arguments. I am not a fan or very familiar with progressive debate so please no theory/k’s and impacts out to nuclear war/extinction. If that is what you want to run you probably won't get picked up by me. When it comes to tech over truth I lean towards truth, use your best judgment, I think logic is incredibly important in PF. Just because it is on the flow doesn’t mean it is absolutely true. Links should be explicit don’t just say impact terrorism or nuclear war, I want to see logical link chains and impacts.

Speed: When it comes to speed I can handle a little bit but no spreading in PF, please. If you want to send a speech doc then you are probably going to speak too fast and I am not going to read it. Present your case articulately and clearly, PF is not policy or LD.

Weighing: Comparative weighing and good impacts are super important to me. Also, be super explicit, don't just say things like "we win off magnitude and probability" tell me exactly what your impacts are "we win on magnitude because we help 327 million more residents blah blah.." again please just be explicit. When it comes to weighing probability is very important to me. I will almost never outweigh on a low probability huge magnitude impact i.e. nuclear war/extinction.

I value clear PF debate: good frameworks from the start of the debate, impact-driven debates, and good weighing.

Other notes:

• Funnel down/collapse – I don’t want the summary to just be a second rebuttal. Also if you are listing 10+ responses and doing line-by-line in the summaries then you aren’t prioritizing. Tech debate in PF has been focusing too much on quantity and not quality – 10 blippy responses that don’t have a logical basis are not better than 2 sound logical responses with good warranting.
• Provide me a narrative and an advocacy, it is not the team with the most cards and most responses that wins, it is the team that narrows the debate down to the major areas of clash and provides me a better worldview of either the AFF or NEG.
• Please spell things out clearly: links, turns, especially extensions ex: Don't just say "Extend Connor 22" say "Extend Connor 22 which says a 3% increase blah blah..." Being more explicit is always better.
• Signposting is important, please please please do it. I don't like messy debates and I want to know exactly what you are responding to.
• I don't flow CX but if a good point is made and you bring it back up in speech I will listen. Also be respectful in CX.
• If you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, ableist, etc. I can and will drop you.

LD Paradigm:

I would also identify as a traditional LD judge who is very open to well-thought-out and engaging arguments. My background is in PF and I tend to only judge LD on the traditional circuit. I will evaluate the round in the best way you present to me and I really appreciate strong values, VC, and FRs in the round. When it comes to things like kritiks and other super tech LD, I will evaluate to the best of my ability and I think that if they are well done and add to the debate in a substantive way that is fine. I don't love theory debates because I don’t really understand super tech LD so you probably won’t win on that with me as the judge. One other thing is that I do look toward more realistic impacts bc of my PF background. Impact calc is very important but if there are massive unrealistic logical jumps I am not going to buy it i.e. impacting on nuclear war/extinction in a round concerning animal rights. Lastly, when it comes to speed, I can handle a little bit of it but I prefer slower cases so I can more thoroughly flow and pay attention better.

Rutgers College, Rutgers University, BA Russian and East European Area Studies

Rutgers Business School, MBA

I teach History, AP Economics, and Business. While I'm a new judge and have a lot to learn, I can already tell you I'm not a fan of spreading and throwing out statistics, data, and vocabulary when it's obvious you don't understand the stats and data, and lack fluency with the vocabulary. Use less data intelligently and make your point. More data thrown out and used poorly won't impress me. It will underwhelm me. Present a cogent and well thought out argument that is supported by your data. Oh, and by the way, please clearly state where your sources are from. If you don't state where they are from or I can't understand you, your support is merely conjecture/opinion to me and holds no water.

Hi! I'm an IE/debate judge residing in Chicago and working in finance, and am also an assistant high school speech coach. In high school my focus was persuasive/OO and poetry interp, and in college I expanded my events to include duo, impromptu, POI. You name it, I did it. I lead my college's team as one of the 3 student lead collegiate teams in the country, so I know the hard work it takes to not only put together pieces/write/prep, but to lead a team simultaneously.

FOR SPEECH:

1. Quality over quantity. In written events, sources are great to get your point across, but too many can disrupt your thesis. Delve into your sources more and give me concrete, flowing explanations. Do not put sources in just to "have them" or meet your source quota.

2. Include trigger warnings. I do not have any personal triggers that will affect me judging your piece, but your peers who are watching might. Be respectful of everyone you might encounter.

3. Interp Events - Give Me SUBSTANCE! The emotional range of topics vary greatly. Emotions are valid and should be part of an interp piece. However, too much emotion where it isn't warranted during the performance shows me you may be trying to cover up for not having enough substantial material.

3. Be Yourself. Coming from a speech background myself, I know trying to "butter up" the judges may seem like a good idea, but it does not work with me. I am here for your performance. Show me what you've worked on and the reward follows.

FOR DEBATE:

I also have experience judging Congress and LD. For the purpose of this week's tournament, in LD I look for the following:

1. Let the opponent ask questions in their entirety during cross x. There could be a bit of information in the question that could be very relevant to how you answer, and if you miss that piece of information, that is on you. Make sure everyone has the right to speak and finish their questions.

2. Focus on your opponent's information. Really show me you are listening to what they are saying and add that into your rebuttal and cross x. I know you've been working really hard on your personal research for this topic, but I look for someone who listens to their opponent and use that information to help their argument and cross x. It shows an attentive, experienced speaker in the round.

3. Start out with substance over theory. Starting with theory is a much bigger hurdle to overcome and you may not have enough time in your speeches to enhance, yet alone, prove them.

4. Balance out your recent and past history examples. Too many recent history examples (especially with the November/December topic), leads me to believe you are just searching for the easiest examples, the first ones that come up when researching. Dig deeper, show me you researched the past, say, 70 years or so!

I have been judging speech and debate since 1988. I judged L-D the third year it existed and remember the start of PF. I have coached multiple national finalists. That said, I am primarily a speech judge. I vastly prefer a lucidly persuasive argument that doesn't zip by at the speed of light with an over abundance of jargon.

Be kind, rewind.

I am an attorney with an extensive history in Speech and Debate - primarily in the public speaking categories. That being said, I also competed in Public Forum in the past and am very familiar with the relationship between claims, warrants and impacts. No "spreading" or ultra-fast talking throughout the round, please, but I won't mind you rushing through the last few words of a sentence in order to finish your thought before time expires.

From the outset, please note my general preference for the debate to remain focused on the assigned topic (within reason). I recognize that no debate can be truly exhaustive due to time constraints, but I expect you to be thorough and to advance the debate to the extent allowed by the rules--i.e., please avoid repetitive or circular arguments. I will be paying attention to the extent that you anticipate the arguments put forth by your opponents as well as, of course, how well you rebut the arguments already put forward.

Even in debate rounds, I expect to see presentation skills that match or elevate the quality of your argument. I will be paying close attention to your articulation, rhetoric, and the effectiveness of your gestures, and these will affect my decision as to the winning team and the losing team in a round that is even on the merits/substance.

In Brief: I am a PF and LD coach at Phillipsburg High School and a pretty standard PF judge. I value impacts, weighing, argumentation, and argumentative structure.

PF Paradigm:

Email Chains: I don't want to be a part of email/evidence chains, I trust that you are presenting your evidence fairly and accurately. If there is a specific piece of evidence which keeps being brought up, I will call for it to evaluate, but I would prefer not to.

Progressive Debate: I’ll never tell anyone that they lose just based solely on their case (unless it is offensive or otherwise egregious) but I will say that running theory or a K won’t get you very far with me. I’m open to the idea of a good faith criticism of the logic of a particular resolution but just I would say don’t do it unless you have something really good.

Weighing: To me, comparative weighing and clear impacts are the bread and butter of debate. Impacts should be explicit and clearly backed up. I value clear PF debate: good frameworks from the start of the debate, I care very heavily about impact-driven debates, and good weighing.

Logic and Reasoning: Your cards are important, but they are not the end-all-be-all of the debate. I will typically side for a logically constructed argument without a specific card over a logically weak argument that has a card.

• Frontline in second rebuttal.

• Spell out links, turns and extensions clearly : links, turns, and extensions ex: Don't just say "Extend Connor 22" say "Extend Connor 22 which says..." You know what your cards say, I do not.

• Signposting is important, please please please do it. I don't like messy debates and I want to know exactly where we are on the flow.

• Keep it civil during crossfire and grand crossfire.

• It is the judge's prerogative on calling for cards. It is usually not a problem, but if you are calling for 5 cards after every speech and holding up the tournament, I will intervene.

• I am usually good with speed but if you start spreading, I will stop writing. If you are going too fast i will motion for you to slow down.

• I will almost certainly not buy your nuclear war or extinction impact unless it is directly related to the resolution.

• If you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, ableist, etc. I can and will drop you.

I am a new debate coach at Summit HS! Therefore, I am a lay judge, but I do know how to flow your cases. I am a biology teacher, so I love science! Any science jokes are greatly appreciated! I can also take debate joke suggestions! My one joke is getting old ):

No points if you are a bully.

Preferences: No spreading! If I don't hear it and it's not on my flow, then you didn't say it. The purpose of debate is not trying to get as many words in as possible but it is to convince me of your argument, whether if it is a lay judge or not. I am not a tech judge but I try my best to make sense of your case. I always ask myself the WHY and HOW on my flow. I should be able to answer this based on the information you provided to me. I do not usually flow crossfires however I do listen to pick up any information I may have missed during case/rebuttal/summary. During the RFD I try my best to provide you with an exact reason why I voted for or against your ballot based on my WHY and HOW, but I don't have enough experience with case writing/debate to really go into specific links within the argument. I would not mind judging a theory/K round I am open to trying it, as long as you are thorough in you explanations. I would love the experience!

Most importantly... you do this for fun! Don't stress about winning/losing/bids you are still going to do great post debate regardless.You are learning a new skill from this.

Hi! I'm excited to be your judge today. I am a trained speech and debate judge.

For debate - Please don't speak too quickly. If you speak too fast, I will stop flowing and your arguments will not be evaluated as part of the round. Please add signposts to make arguments as clear to me as possible. Impacts are important to me - I want to understand the real world significance of the argument. Don't just tell me the argument, tell me why I should care.

For speech - I love speech events where you incorporate personal stories and humor. Have fun, because your energy will be contagious!

I am a traditional debate judge. I like clash, weighing of arguments, and substantive, not blippy arguments. I do not believe that Kritiks and theory have any place in PF debate. Speed should be reasonable. I can handle speed, but again, I don't think it belongs in PF.

I focus the most on the summary and final focus speeches where the debaters should be funneling the round down to the key issues and comparing and weighing them.

I have over a quarter-century of experience in the dynamics of corporate environments, navigating the nuanced terrains of high-stakes boardroom discussions, strategic planning sessions, and vigorous debates with both peers and executives at the highest levels. These experiences have not only underscored the profound influence of adept speech and debate in shaping outcomes but have also instilled a deep appreciation for the art of persuasion, critical thinking, and collaborative problem-solving. Additionally, I’ve been a proud member of SAG-AFTRA for three decades which has enriched this perspective, reinforcing the indispensable value of performance, passion, and precision in communication. This unique mixture of corporate strategy and theatrical expression has profoundly informed my understanding of the transformative power of effective communication—whether it's captivating an audience on stage or influencing decision-making in business.

The model I adopt as a judge in these debates is deeply rooted in the conviction that quality, not quantity, of argumentation reigns supreme. It is a philosophy born out of real-world applications where the power of a well-articulated, passionately delivered argument can pivot the course of discussions, sway opinions, and forge consensus. It is a testament to the belief that the essence of impactful communication lies not in the volume of information conveyed but in the ability to craft arguments that resonate on a deeper, more meaningful level with one's audience.

While it may be tempting to speak rapidly and provide copious amounts of information, I'd like to encourage you to consider the following points that I feel are important:

The Power of Persuasion: In the world of Parliamentary Debate/PF, your ultimate goal is not just to present information but to persuade your audience. Whether you're addressing policy makers, executives, or peers, your ability to convince them of your viewpoint is paramount. Quality arguments, backed by sound reasoning and passion, have a far greater impact with me than a sheer volume of facts and figures.

Effective Communication: Imagine you are addressing a boardroom full of executives or a panel of policy experts. In these real-world scenarios, they are not looking for information overload but for a clear and concise articulation of your ideas. For me, there is only so much information I can consume, digest, and absorb in a given period of time. If you race through arguments you run the risk of diminishing the impact and persuasiveness of your case.

Memorability and Impact: Quality arguments are memorable. They linger in the minds of your audience long after the debate is over. Quantity may overwhelm momentarily, but it often fails to leave a lasting impression. In the real world, your ability to make a lasting impact is a valuable skill.

Real-World Application: Consider that the skills you are developing in Parliamentary Debate/PF are not just for competition; they are for life. In professional settings, you will encounter situations where you need to influence decisions, present ideas, and lead discussions. The ability to make a compelling case while maintaining clarity and coherence is a prized skill.

I want to emphasize that, as a judge, I place a greater emphasis on the qualities that make an argument compelling and persuasive rather than solely focusing on technical details. Craft your speeches with precision, emphasizing persuasive language, tone, and clarity. Remember that your power lies not in overwhelming your audience but in persuading them effectively.

I like the use of more current evidence that backs up your value criterion.

Speaking skills are also something important.

Make sure your arguments are clear and concise.

Often I choose who wins based on the argument that leaves me with the least amount of counter argument questions by the end of the round.

Spreading is fine.

Please weigh your impacts.

Be respectful to each other no matter how heated the round can become.

David Yastremski
Director - Ridge High School
30+ years experience coaching and judging

LD/PF/PARLI
I'm considered a very traditional flow judge within the various competitive debate arenas. I appreciate slightly-higher than conversational rates as a maximum. I will afford you a 'clear' if necessary.

I do expect and reward debate with a clear framework of understanding. I also like direct application of your argument to clear and defined system(s). I don’t believe we exist in a vacuum – there must be context for me to consider and weigh an argument, and I recognize the resolution is created and should be interpreted within a particular context. Therefore, hypothetical worlds must be warranted as reasonable within a pragmatic context developed within the resolution. I appreciate creative, though plausible and non-abusive, House interpretations in Parliamentary rounds.

In LD and PF, all evidence must be clearly tagged and clearly linked to the grounds within your claims; signposting is a must. In Parliamentary, examples should be true, contextually-defined, when appropriate, and directly linked to your claims. You can create hypothetical examples or indicate your personal beliefs on an issue; however, if you are unsure what a particular constitutional amendment or Supreme Court decision states, please avoid introducing it. I also am not a big fan of open cross.

Crystallization is key to winning the round. Be sure you allow yourself ample time to establish clear grounds and warrants on all voters. I don’t consider arguments just because they are uttered; you must explain the ‘why’ and the ‘so what’ in order for me to weigh them in my decision, in other words, directly impact them to the framework/standards. I do appreciate clear signposting throughout the round in order to make the necessary links and applications to other arguments, and I will give you more speaker points if you do this effectively. Speaker points are also rewarded for competence, clarity, and camaraderie during the round. In LD and PF, I will not give below a 27 (using the 25-30 scale) unless you're rude and/or abusive.

Overall, please remem.ber, I may not be as well-read on the resolution as you are. I do not teach at camps; I don’t teach debate in any structured class, nor do I judge as regularly or frequently as others. I will work hard to reach the fairest decision in my capacity. I really enjoy judging rounds where the contestants make a concerted effort to connect with me and my paradigm. I don't enjoy rounds where I or my paradigm is ignored. Thanks for reading this far!! Best of luck in your round.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE:

I have 25+ years experience in Congressional 'Debate' and REALLY enjoy judging/parli'ing great rounds! I evaluate 'student congress' as a debate event; hence, if you are early in the cycle, I am looking for clear affirmative and negative grounds to establish clash and foundation for the remainder of the debate. If you speak later in the cycle, I expect extensions and refutations of what has already been established as significant issues in the debate (beyond just name dropping). I see each contribution on the affirmative and negative sides as extensions of the previous speeches presented; consequently, if there is a significant argument that has not been addressed to by opponents, I expect later speakers to build and expand on it to strengthen it. Likewise, if speakers on the other side do not respond to a significant issue, I will consider it a 'dropped argument' which will only increase the ranking of the student who initially made it, and lower the rankings of students who failed to recognize, respond or refute it; however, it is the duty of questioners to challenge opposing speakers thus reminding the room (including the judges) on significant arguments or issues that have gone unrefuted. In other words, students should flow the entire round and incorporate that information into their speeches and questions. I also highly encourage using the amendment process to make legislation better. Competitors who attempt it, with germane and purposeful language, will be rewarded on my ballot.

Most importantly, enjoy the unique experience of Congressional Debate. There are so many nuances in this event that the speech and debate other events cannot provide. Own and appreciate your opportunity by demonstrating your best effort in respectful dialogue and debate and be your best 'self' in the round. If you do, the rewards will far outweigh the effort.

EVIDENCE: All claims should be sufficiently warranted via credible evidence which ideally include both theoretical and empirical sources. I reward those who consider constitutional, democratic, economic, diplomatic frameworks, including a range of conservative to liberal ideologies, to justify their position which are further substantiated with empirical examples and data. All evidence should be verbally-cited with appropriate source and date. Students should always consider biases and special interests when choosing sources to cite in their speeches. I also encourage students to challenge evidence during refutations or questioning, as time and warrant allows.

PARTICIPATION: I reward participation in all forms: presiding, amending, questioning, flipping, and other forms of engagement that serve a clear purpose to the debate and fluent engagement within the round. One-sided debate indicates we should most likely move on to the next piece of legislation since we are ready to vote; therefore, I encourage students to stand for additional speeches if your competitors are not willing to flip, yet do not wish to move to previous question (as a matter of fact I will highly reward you for 'debating' provided that you are contributing to a meaningful debate of the issues). I expect congressional debaters to remain engaged in the round, no matter what your speaking order, therefore leaving the chamber for extended periods of time is highly discouraged and will be reflected in my final ranking. Arriving late or ending early is disrespectful to the chamber and event. Competitors who appear to bulldoze or disenfranchise others regarding matters of agenda-setting, agenda-amendments, speaking position/sides can also be penalized in ranking. I am not fond of splits before the round as I've seen many students, typically younger folks, coerced into flipping; hence, students should just be ready to debate with what they've prepared. If you are concerned with being dropped, I recommend exploring arguments on both sides of the bill/resolution.

PRESIDING OFFICER: Thank you for being willing to serve the chamber. I look highly upon students who run for PO. If elected, be sure you demonstrate equity and fairness in providing the optimum opportunity for every competitor to demonstrate their skills as a debater and participant in the chamber. I value POs who assert a respectful command and control of the room. Do not allow other competitors to take over without your guidance and appropriate permissions (even during breaks while others may be out of the room). Your procedures of recognizing speakers (including questioning) should be clearly communicated at the top of the round to promote transparency and a respect for all members of the chamber. Mistakes in recency or counting votes happen -- no big deal (just don't make it repetitive). Public spreadsheets are appreciated.

DELIVERY, STYLE and RHETORIC: Good delivery takes the form of an argument and audience-focused presentation style. Authorship/ Sponsorship/ first-negative speeches can be primarily read provided the competitor communicates a well-developed, constructed, and composed foundation of argument. These speeches should be framework and data rich -- and written with a rhetorical prowess that conveys a strong concern and commitment for their advocacy.

After the first speeches, I expect students to extend or refute what has been previously stated - even if offering new arguments. These speeches should be delivered extemporaneously with a nice balance of preparation and spontaneity, demonstrating an ability to adapt your advocacy and reasoning to what has been previously presented. Trivial or generic introductions/closings typically do not get rewarded in my rankings. I would much prefer a short, direct statement of position in the opening and a short, direct final appeal in the closing. Good rhetorical technique and composition in any speech is rewarded.

DECORUM & SUSPENSION OF THE RULES: I highly respect all forms of decorum within the round. I value your demonstration of respect for your colleagues referring to competitors by their titles (senator, representative) and indicated gender identifiers. Avoid deliberate gender-specific language "you guys, ladies and gentlemen" etc. I encourage any suspension of the rules, that are permitted by the tournament, which contribute to more meaningful dialogue, debate, and participation. Motions for a suspension of the rules which reflect a lack of decorum or limit opportunity are discouraged. I also find "I'm sure you can tell me" quite evasive and flippant as an answer.