This is my first year as a debate coach and judge. I have a degree in Philosophy, and am experienced at considering the merits of arguments outside of the NSDA format.

I would consider myself a traditional judge; enunciation and clearly articulating fewer points is more effective than spreading to cover more ground. More importantly, if I can't follow your argument because you are speaking so quickly, I cannot and will not consider those points in weighing the round. Per NSDA guidelines, style and delivery is less important than substance, but if your substance is not conveyed because of your style, than it becomes relevant by default.

To that point, I prefer a rebuttal that is organized similarly to the opponent's argument rather than jumping around. Your argument is more effective if it is methodical. I don't believe that an argument is won by quantity over quality, so if you tell me that your opponent has dropped a point, tell me why that point matters. If it isn't as significant as the points your opponent successfully argues, than it doesn't matter that they dropped it.

Finally, I am not impressed by slippery-slope arguments that build a long chain of improbable events to conclude that your opponent's case leads inevitably to cataclysmic results. Extreme claims require extreme evidence, and just because, for example, nuclear war is possible does not mean it is guaranteed or even plausible. You must articulate good evidence that it is likely.

Respectful, clearly articulated debates.

michaeldepasquale21@gmail.com

Public Forum

Short version: collapse onto one contention in summary, weigh weigh weigh, extra speaker point for each team if you start an email chain before each round and send evidence that way. Include me on the email chain.

I did policy debate for 3 years and now am coaching public forum. With that being said, i am okay with some spreading but i need to be able to understand what your saying. Ill vote on anything, however, if your going to go for something it needs to be rebutted throughout the entire speech. You should try and write my ballot for me at the end of the round by giving me 2-3 of your best arguments and going for them. If I look confused its because I am confused, so try to not do that. I pay attention to cross x, but i dont flow it. If I feel like theres an important point being made ill for sure write it down. Cross x is the most entertaining part of the debate, so make it entertaining. Be confident but don't be rude, theres a big big difference. I prefer that you have more offensive (your flow) than defensive arguments (your opponents flow) but you need to have both in order to win the round.

If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.

Policy

Like i mentioned in my PF paradigm, i did policy debate for 3 years and am now coaching Public Forum. I am good with anything you do. That being said, I don't know a lot about this topic. I'm cool with speed, but you have to be clear. Bottom line, ill vote for anything, as long as you give me a clear reason to vote for you at the end of the round. I consider a dropped argument a true argument.

Im not okay with shadow extending. If something gets conceded, you need to explain to me the argument, and why its important to the round. If your going to do an email chain, which id prefer, id like to be on that. My email is at the top of the paradigm.

Topicality: love T debates, i need a clear limits story. I am more willing to vote for you if theres in round abuse, but you do not have to prove an abuse story to win.

Ks: I will listen to them, but i am not great with Ks. I am not up to speed with all the k jargon. I need a clear link and alt. If you can prove at the end of the round why you won, and i think its convincing, ill vote for you. I recommend slowing down in the 2nr, especially if your going for the K.

Das: I do not buy generic links. If your going to read a politics da, you need to give me case specific links. Ill also be more than likely to vote for you if you can provide me with good and comparative impact calc.

Case Negs: I love case specific debates. Ill vote on presumption, and honestly any type of solvency takeout. I give analytical case arguments, especially if they are good, a lot of weight. Love impact turns.

Affirmative: I tend to swing aff when it comes debating against ptix disads with a bad link story. Same goes for cp solvency, and k links.

If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.

Overview

My name is Jacob Lantzman (he/him). I competed in Public Forum for all four years of high school while also dabbling in Policy Debate, Parliamentary Debate, and World Schools Debate. I competed in PF, Policy, and World Schools debate at a national level as well as Parliamentary debate on a state level. I am a relatively open judge, I will go for anything that you ask for me to go for, but you need to be able to defend it well both logically and statistically if your form of debate dictates such. If you look below, I give specific paradigms for each form of debate, but I'll highlight a couple of general key paradigms for me:

- I am not afraid to drop you on civility, or lack thereof. Debate is a great place for civil discourse on some of the most topical resolutions in current events. It is paramount that you are civil and polite to everybody involved in the round (your partner, your opponents, your judges). Throughout my time debating, I faced a fair share of debaters that were bullies in round and were incredibly uncivil. There is a difference between passion and lack of civility, it's very easy from a judge's perspective to see the difference. I don't care if you have the best constructive, best cards, best rebuttals in the history of debate, if you're uncivil in round, I will not hesitate to drop you.

- I am not going to keep track of your time for you. Keep track of your own prep time and speech time. During the round, I want to play the least role as possible so that I can focus on judging you all on the content of the debate to my full ability. If I am judging you for a larger tournament either on the circuit or national events (NSDAs, NCFLs, etc.) then I'll keep track of your time for my own purpose so that I can stop flowing after your time has expired, but I'm not going to stop you from speaking, that is your responsibility. If you are at time and you're in the middle of a sentence, I have no problem with you finishing your thought.

- Most important of all, have fun. This is an incredible extracurricular activity and has helped me throughout my educational and personal careers immensely. Enjoy the time you spend researching and debating because it can be a lot of fun.

Public Forum

- Framework: I am happy to go for any sort of framework that you throw at me. I was a big framework debater and I think it's the most underutilized aspect of Public Forum debate. Use the framework as a way for the judge to evaluate the round. However, this is not Policy or LD debate and I do not support a progressive approach to Public Forum debate, if you don't know what that means then it most likely does not affect you.

- Constructives: Structure your constructives so I know when you move from one contention to the next and can clearly flow that. Structure is a great tool to keep the debate organized and keep it from getting too sloppy.

- Cross Fires: Be respectful, let your opponents answer your questions. I've seen it all too often that a team will ask their opposition a question and then never give them the chance to answer the question without interrupting. I will dock you speaker points and potentially drop you if you continually interrupt your opponents in a rude and disruptive way. The same goes for not letting your opponents speak, the crossfire is not an opportunity for you to grandstand and have another speech in the round, it's so you can find the clash in your arguments. There's no clash if one team talks the whole time.

- Impromptu Speeches (Rebuttal, Summary, FF): Give me an off-time roadmap. I want to know the order of your talking points in your speeches so that I can follow along on the flow. Structure is so important for judges to flow the round.

- I'm not going to drop an opponent's argument just because you tell me to or because they didn't bring it up in a speech. This can be one of the most frustrating things to deal with as a debater, but as long as you don't just bring it up in constructive and not bring it up again until final focus, I'm still going to flow it.

Been associated as Judge and Volunteer for little over 2 years. I like to provide good learning opportunity, promote good education and experience for participants. As Judge, I look for clean speech, well articulated arguments with right data points supporting arguments, ability to counter the opponent team's data points, most importantly all with simplicity. Presenting themselves is key. I also promote the culture of learning the topic and presenting it with good understanding, rather just reading the materials prepared.

I also see this learning opportunity for myself, to learn from the kids. It is great platform for us, not be part of the debate rather stay outside and learn without emotions.

Encourage all to participate and learn. Happy learning!

yes I want to be on the email chain: junewearden05@gmail.com

Pittsburgh Central Catholic '18

Pitt '22

WARNING: I have only been peripherally engaged with the immigration topic - if you're going to use acronyms / do in-depth law analysis you're going to have to slow down and explain it to me

When I debated in high school I primarily ran soft-left affs, but I don't (think) I have a strong ideological preference. I'm not going to pretend I'm tabula rasa but there are very few arguments I will a priori vote down. (For instance, I'm never going to vote for racism = good)

As long as you can provide me with a coherent explanation of your world-view and how that relates to what is being said in the round you'll be okay.

If you have questions about more specific arguments/positions feel free to ask.