I based my decisions on the overall effectiveness of the debater. I usually determine effectiveness by the quality of the arguments made. Quality arguments are those that state a coherent claim that is clearly linked to the resolution at hand. Further, the claim is supported by quality evidence and quality warrants with analysis and commentary. In a very close debate, I will also consider backing, response to rebuttal, and other aspects of good argument. I find the Toulmin model of argumentation to be a persuasive model of argumentation. I favor logical appeals over appeals of ethos and pathos. However, in PF and LD, I will give weight to appeals of ethos and pathos when the argument is well-made. I will consider appeals of ethos when determining the credibility of evidence used to support a claim. I will discount the importance of a claim in which the evidence supporting the claim is shown by the opponent to be faulty because of the qualifications of the author, the context of the evidence, or other qualitative factors in the evidence. I like for contestants in debate to clash with the other contestant and explain to me when they choose not to clash for strategic reasons so that I can understand their reasoning and prioritization of their arguments. I try really hard to let the contestants tell me what is important in the round, and I try not to let my personal reflections on logic or political views influence my decisions unless the debaters provide little more than superlatives for me to base my decision on. I do not enjoy spreading and find that I loose track of the depth of arguments being made. If my flow is shallow for one side but deep for another, I may give a decision to the side with the deeper argument is the impact of that argument is sufficient when compared with any arguments on the flow that were dropped by that team. In other words, I prefer quality over quantity. When both teams give high quality arguments with clash and have similar impacts, I may base a decision on the overall clarity and effectiveness of the speaker. But, I generally reward quality of argument much more than quality of speaking. I will punish a speaker who does not conduct themselves professionally during a round, as I feel this is detrimental to the educational quality and purpose of the contest. 

With respect to topicality and other issues outside of debate on the resolution, I will give weight to those issues when supported. I will decide them much like I would any other claim. I will not grant a round based on topicality or a like voting issue if stated without warrants backing them, as I feel this would be making a decision based upon my own opinion. I feel the debaters should be rewarded for explaining their reasoning for arguments, and I look harder at arguments that are more than just  the statement of a claim without more. 

I debated PF for four years in HS.

Basically, make good arguments and convince me why you won. That's what debate is about. 

I'm fine with speed (as long as your opponents are). Frontline in the 2nd rebuttal, extend defense in the summary, and collapse the debate in the back half of the round. Tech > truth to some extent. I don't like crazy or unrealistic arguments, as I view Public Forum Debate as a means for discussing real world problems and their practical consequences, nor am I a fan of 5-6 contention cases, in which each argument is underdeveloped and poorly warranted, BUT, if an argument is clean dropped, I am very likely to vote for it. 

Please be respectful during cross. Don't yell. And remember, you are trying to convince the judge that you are right -- not your opponents! 

+0.5 speakers points if you make an Atlanta Hawks reference !! 

Email me at aananbiswas3@gmail.com if you have any questions.

Hello,

I am new to competitive debate and this will be my first time participating as a volunteer and/or judge.

To be transparent and for the sake of clarity, I do not prefer the use of only one style of judging. I prefer the utilization of multiple judging styles to provide the best overall, non-biased rulings.

I would consider myself to be “Tabula Rasa”, a blank slate with no predispositions. I prefer Debaters to do just that, debate. Arguments should support a position, not only through sound logic, but also with valid, verifiable evidence.

Secondly, Debaters should be articulate and present their arguments clearly and concisely through appropriate speech and communicative methods, including passion towards their position. Words are important. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

Lastly, I strongly believe that any issue worth debating has more than one possible resolution or position that can be taken. It is common knowledge that one’s perspective is one’s reality. In judging a debate, decisions should be made through critical analysis of Debaters’ argumentative pros and cons as they are presented. Debaters must have the ability to effectively support their position and show ‘why’ I should agree with their position, or disagree with their opponent.

Please speak clearly, concisely, and slow enough that I can understand. Supporting your claims with factual evidence is a must. Be prepared on the topic, it is apparent when you are not. Have passion which will sway my vote. Attack the other competitor's claims with reason and evidence. Tell me what arguments you have refuted and why you win the argument. Christina.Cazzola@cobbk12.org

Timing:

I do not permit off-time road mapping. Use your allotted time to say everything needed. Time yourself, your team mates, and your opponents. (I will keep time as well). Speaking beyond the allotted time may affect speaker points. Questions asked at the end the Crossfire will not be answered.

ARGUMENTATION

I flow each contention for each round and take gist notes of the Crossfires.

Please remember these points:

During the Summary Speech, extend your contention.

During the Final Focus, focus on your single, strongest contention and explain why you win on that basis. Reiterate your evidence and reasoning to support your impacts for that contention.

EVIDENCE

You should not ask for evidence unless: 1. You know your opponent is making unsubstantiated claims, 2. Your opponent has evidence directly contrasting your own evidence and claim, or 3. You believe your opponent is misrepresenting or falsifying evidence.

Be clear to provide your reason for requesting the evidence. If you believe the evidence is false or misrepresented, I will look at it as well. Otherwise, I never ask for evidence.

When prompted for evidence or a source, you should be able to provide it quickly. If you cannot quickly find a source, I will assume it does not exist.

RESPECT

Maintain civility and respect for opponents during crossfire. Respect during a crossfire is paramount. I understand and support passionate exchanges, but not at the expense of civility and respect for your opponents.

SPEAKING

Please do not spread. Show passion for your topic in these ways: speaking loudly; articulating clearly; varying your tone; stress key points.

STANDING/SITTING

I have no preferences for sitting or standing at any point in a debate, and I don't care at whom you look during speeches or crossfires.

DISCLOSING

At the end of the round, I typically disclose the winner. I also provide specific, written feedback for participant.

This is my second year judging at a Speech & Debate tournament. I am a second year coach of the Wheeler High School Speech and Debate team. 

Speak slowly enough that I can understand. You must use evidence to support your claims. Make sure to clearly emphasize impact. Be certain to listen to the opposing argument and respond directly to that argument. Don't forget to tell me which arguments you have refuted and why you have won the argument. 

Very new to debate. I will follow logical arguments. I prefer slow speeds and signposting.

Hey, I'm currently a senior at Peachtree Ridge High School captaining our debate team. I was the state runner-up for LD last year and had few bid rounds for the TOC. I definitely consider myself a progressive judge, but I can judge lay rounds too. I'll be studying economics and applied mathematics at Harvard next fall.

Lincoln Douglas-

Fine with all sorts of argumentation.

LARP>Theory>K>Phil

LARP:

I like policy affs vs da/cp. Weighing is important. If you drop an argument, I don't consider it. Just your everyday policy judge.

Theory:

I'm fine judging theory. Feel free to run anything about anything in front of me. Don't really care about abusive shells all too much -if it's dropped it's dropped.

K:

Not too well versed on K literature except cap and set col. Assume I don't know your lit and explain things well.

Phil:

Similar boat as K. I can keep up with Kant, SV, extinction, but explain things well and do weighing on all layers if you're running smth like Buddhism.

Public Forum-

Standard PF judge. Make sure to flesh out your arguments well and have fun.

Hello all,

I am new to judging, however not new to the debate circuits. In my middle and high school years, I spent time on debate teams. I look forward to being on the flipside to see and hear what each debater brings to the table.

I prefer debaters speak clearly and avoid spreading. Be prepared, know your material and know your topic and research. Clash is welcomed, as there is no debate without it.

Preparedness is very important to me, in more than just the obvious ways. Please dress professionally, speak confidently and clearly, and be prepared in respect to your arguments. Sources do matter to me and I will take into consideration where you get your information.

Rebuttal and clash are necessary and welcomed, but please be respectful and be sure to elaborate and explain why your opponent’s argument is invalid. I also value when debaters embrace the spirit of debate by weighing the impacts of their arguments against their opponents.

I absolutely do not tolerate blatant disrespect or offensive/derogatory comments towards opponents.

RAP Paradigm:

Clash. Most importantly, I value clash rather than distracters or debate "theory." For all forms of debate, clash is essential; beyond initial presentation of cases, "canned" or pre-prepared speeches are unhelpful.

Evidence. I prioritize proof. Therefore, I value evidence over unsubstantiated opinion or theory, and I especially value evidence from quality sources. Be sure that (i) your evidence is from a quality source, (ii) your evidence actually says what you claim it does, and (iii) you are not omitting conditions, limitations, or contrary conclusions within your evidence.

Delivery. I debated back in the day when delivery mattered. Persuasion is still key, so if you are monotone, turn your back, or never bother with eye contact, your speaker points will likely suffer accordingly. You may speak quickly, but you must be clear, particularly with contentions. Eye contact and a well-organized, well-documented case are much appreciated. Always bear in mind that you’re trying to persuade the judge(s), not your opponent(s) or your computer, and focus accordingly.

Weighing arguments. I don’t weigh all arguments equally. You can spread if you want, but the decision will go to the team that carries the majority of the most-substantive issues with greater impacts. I appreciate policy arguments (vs. theory), especially if they relate to law (e.g., the Constitution), economics, international trade (e.g., the WTO), international relations (e.g., the UN or international law), or government policy.

Organization. This is essential. Off-time roadmaps are okay. I try to flow carefully. Please structure your case with numbered/lettered points and sub-points. When refuting arguments, please cross-refer to your opponent(s) case structure (preferably by number/letter) and be very organized for me to keep track.

Resolutions. Please debate the resolutions. Thought has gone into these and their specific wording. Regardless of the form of debate, I prefer that students debate the resolution, and I am not a fan of “Kritiks,” “Alts,” or the like. Whatever the rubric or euphemism, if they relate specifically to the topic, okay, but if they are generic or primarily distractive, I may disregard them. In any event, they are no excuse for failing to deal with the current resolution, for failing to clash with the other side’s specific arguments, or for failing to organize your own points with a clear structure.

Ridiculous rulemaking. Please spare me any “observation” or “framework” that attempts to narrow the resolution or to impose all of the burden on your opponent(s) (e.g., “Unless the other side carries every issue, I win the debate”).

Other pet peeves. These include: not standing during speeches, answering for your partner, claiming that you proved something without reading evidence, claiming evidence says something it doesn’t, rudeness, speaking faster than you can organize thoughts, failing to clash, forgetting that debate is ultimately about persuasion, debating during prep time, etc. Avoid hyperbole: not every issue leads to “global thermonuclear war”.

Feedback. Some students find my feedback very helpful. Even if you don’t, it’s not a time for arguing against the decision or for being disrespectful, which is counterproductive with me.

My background. I was a Policy debater who also competed in Congress, Extemp, and OO. I’ve coached PF. I am an international business attorney and former law school professor, with a background in Economics and experience working on Capitol Hill. I also teach and tutor ELA, History, and SAT (Reading/Writing); words matter.

The above thoughts apply to all forms of debate. I judge a fair amount, primarily PF and L-D. Below are some thoughts specific to those types of debate:

PF—

--I prefer line-by-line refutation. I am not a fan of dropping or conceding arguments. I do not appreciate attempts to reduce the debate to “voters,” ignoring other arguments. This is particularly inappropriate when done during your side’s first two-minute speech.

--No “scripted” speeches after the initial presentations of cases. Clash is key.

--Framework is optional, not essential. It may not be used to narrow the resolution.

--Even though you are not required to present a plan, that can’t be used as a knee-jerk response to all arguments or questions concerning Solvency or Topicality.

--Remember that “There is no presumption or burden of proof in Public Forum Debate”.

L-D—

--I am not a fan of abstract philosophy. Any philosophical presentation must be tied specifically to the resolution and not presented in a generic vacuum.

--I don’t necessarily weigh framework over contentions.

--Your value and criterion should work with your contentions. Ideally, in discussing the relative merits of each side’s framework, explain specifically why your choice is more relevant rather than relying on a circular “chicken and egg” analysis (e.g., “My value comes before her value”).

I've been debating for a while as a PF debater. I have a couple of preferences.

Not listed in order:

1. Speak Clearly

2. During cross, face the judge, not the opponent! You are trying to convince me not them

3. You can speak fast, but don't speak super fast. Otherwise, you should be doing policy

4. Frontline in the 2nd rebuttal and extend defense in the summary.

5. Know your topic

6. Have cards ready. I will look at cards if it is consistently brought up

Bonus for actually reading a paradigm: +0.5 points for making a Falcons or Hawks reference during the round