Qualification: I have about 4 years of Public Forum debate and speech experience from my high school years and have judging experience.

Judge Paradigm:

1. I don't mind the general speed of the debaters but please be clear and coherent while speaking.

2. I would like to see an organized and smoothly flowed debate round.

3. Please support your arguments and refutations with thorough explanation and strong evidence.

4. Please make sure to tell me why you think you won the round by weighing out the arguments and refutations during your summary and final focus. Be sure to connect the dots of the round for me by telling me if any points are dropped or still standing.

5. Please do not be rude.

Qualification: I've competed in Speech and Debate for approximately six to seven years and have coaching and judging experience before and after my High School years. Most of my debating experience comes from Public Forum but I do have some involvement in World Style, CNDF, and British Parliamentary.

Judging Paradigm:

1. Speed is not a huge issue for me, but be considerate to everyone in the round so that contention taglines and pieces of evidence are clearly presented. (Be extra clear with presenting your contention taglines and refutation titles)

2. I will be flowing throughout the whole round, but refutations and reconstructions should be extended to the summary and final focus speeches. If contentions or refutations are dropped somewhere during the round, make sure to mention this in one of the speeches.

3. Summary and Final Focus speeches are the most important speeches in relation to making my decision at the end of the round. This also means that the team that can weigh-out arguments and present voter issues most effectively will most likely win the round.

4. Only have a framework if you are going to use it throughout the round.

5. Don't be rude.

tl;dr: I am a flay judge who votes on 1) weighing and 2) clean narrative and analysis.

--

Below is my detailed paradigm:

• I prefer clearly articulated arguments with logical links, warrants, and impacts.

• I will not have the same level of understanding of the topic as you do, so don't expect me to catch everything if you're rapid-fire-spitting content. I prefer you speak more conversationally and keep the event a "public" forum. The faster you speak, the more likely I am to miss content.

• Repetition is key to understanding. Make sure you're extending points you want me to vote on until the final focus.

• Weigh impacts and links through direct comparison. Tell me why your impacts are more significant and why your links are clearer and stronger than your opponent's. The clearer, the better and the more likely I am to vote for you.

• Please do not read theory, Kritik, or other progressive arguments. I have a shallow understanding and won't make a good decision should I evaluate them.

• Please read content warnings or have an opt-out form for sensitive topics and ask if the opposing team is okay with you reading the argument. You must have an alternate case if they aren't. I have the right to drop you if I think you're making the round an unsafe space.

I'm currently a university student studying computer science at the University of Toronto. In high school I debated for 4 years, in PF, CNDF, BP, and Worlds style, and I am currently a coach. I have been judging for almost 4 years now.

On evidence/logic: I will buy logic over evidence in certain cases, and I'm very sympathetic towards logical analysis due to my background in BP/Worlds. If a logical argument is more substantive and is able to explain why a piece of evidence is reasonably flawed/untrue, I will take the logical analysis. When challenged on statistics, teams should be able to defend their numbers by explaining exactly how those numbers were found or what study produced the numbers. For example, if an increase in the capital gains tax leads to a decrease in the size of an economy by 10%, then a team should know exactly how that 10% was measured, and under what conditions it was measured (if challenged).

On argumentation/structure: I'm very standard on structure. Do all the general things: extend arguments and refutations in summary, and weigh in final focus. I strongly value engagement with arguments: directly respond to arguments and responses, and shift the debate to a scope that better reflects the clashes in the debate. Note that I have zero tolerance for bringing up new material in final focus and I will immediately drop teams that do this. I give lots of credit to teams that can weigh effectively, and paint me a clear picture of exactly what their world would look like vs the world of the other team, and characterize the harms on either side. I strongly believe that a team doesn't have to win every single argument in the debate in order to win the round.

Crossfire: I don't flow crossfire, but I will try to remember what was said. If you want me to flow something that transpired in crossfire please mention it during the speech. Example: "during crossfire, our opponent conceded that... "

In general: Treat me as a standard flow judge, but one that accepts logical argumentation and considers it strongly. I am generally non-interventionist in rounds, so I don't have exact speed preferences as I believe that there are times for both fast speaking and slow speaking. Please adjust to your discretion and what you deem to be most effective.

Qualifications: I competed in speech and debate tournaments for five consecutive years throughout all of high school. Most of my debate experience comes from public forum and I have extensive judging experience as well.

Paradigm:

- I am fine with speed, but please talk clearly. If I cannot understand you, what you say will not appear on my flow.

- Organization is important. If you are organized, I will be able to connect your speeches throughout my flow better and (hopefully) end up voting for your team. Be especially clear with taglines.

- Weigh the impacts and clearly tell me why you win. If you don't, I will end up having to put my input into the vote.

- Impacts are important. Even if you have a clear claim and warrant, nothing will count unless you have an impact as a result of that. I will most likely vote based on your impacts and voters, so make sure they are clear and strong.

- Warrants are important. If you have an impact but no clear warrant or link to the resolution, I will not vote for it.

- Be sure your arguments are backed up by evidence. The better your arguments are backed up, the stronger it will be.

- I do not flow during crossfire. If anything important comes up during crossfire, be sure to mention that within your speeches if you want that to go on my flow.

Any clarifying questions about my paradigm can be asked before the round starts or to anstlgus02@gmail.com.

I've done Public Forum all throughout my high school years and coached for two more. Be aware, however - I'm no longer in the debating scene, so if I'm judging I'll probably be heading into each round with little topic background.

Just a couple things:

1. If you're going to use a framework, and expect me to judge under your framework, please tell me why your framework is valid. If I'm not convinced that your limitation of the debate is fair or reasonable, then I won't use it. (For the most part, however, I really do not like voting on a framework)

2. I will flow your crossfires, but I won't consider them in my decision unless you reference something mentioned during the crossfires directly in your speeches.

3. Please make sure you weigh - I don't like it when I have to do that on my own.

4. If you're going to reference a card, please read that card out (or summarize it somewhat), instead of just referring to it by the citation. I won't be able to remember or flow down every evidence card that you bring up otherwise.

5. Anything brought up in the Final Focus must have also been brought up in the Summary, with the exception of the first summary speaker who does not have to extend rebuttals if they haven't been responded to yet.

6. I'm fine with speed for the most part as long as it does not compromise enunciation and articulation.

Other than that, if you have any questions, feel free to ask!

Coming from a dominantly PF/Parli background, I'm comfortable with most things so long as debaters let me know beforehand.

Want to spread?

A-okay, just let me know.

Off time roadmap?

A-okay, just let me know.

Self time prep?

A-okay, just let me know.

Anything else?

Just let me know and we can talk it out.

The only things that I'm nitpicky about are intelligibility when speaking and timing for crossfire. Otherwise, it'll be round-by-round what I'm looking for in the debaters. Don't worry about what you think I'll want to see as a judge, just do your thing.

Please extend your points and rebuttals throughout the entire round. Don't ask me if you're allowed to do or mention certain things during the round. Time yourself. Any speed is fine. I'm not exploring or making assumptions based on where I think you are going, you guys have to explain everything to me.

1. Arguments: Please throw your point straight to the point, state your position clearly, and explain why they are important. I will not vote on a statement if it is not extended throughout the debate. I will listen to the cross-fire but won’t flow on it.

2. Warranting and response: Good warranting and well-explained responses will help you more than fast card dumps. I'll vote for an argument that is well explained throughout the round.

3. Speed: English is not my first language. I'll appreciate it if you speak at a normal conversation rate. If I miss your arguments, I can't evaluate them. I will reward slower but more efficient debaters with lots of speaker points.

4. Facial expression and voice control. I will reward excellent facial expression and voice control, as well as elegant body gestures.

5. Style: I'm open to most argumentation techniques, but I have zero-tolerance for racist language. Please be friendly and respectful to each other.

6. Others: If there are any additional questions, ask me before the round, and I'll be happy to give a more specific paradigm.