I am a traditional judge.

Please introduce yourself clearly.

I don't flow speed. Speaking clearly is a great way to earn my ballot. I like structured presentation with lesser words, well separated arguments that are punctuated with sufficient silent spacing rather than excessive content being squeezed into the allotted time to articulate your position.

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.

I did public forum for 4 years in high school and have been coaching it for 3 years now. I am going to divide this into 3 parts because I usually judge PF, LD, and policy (occasionally). Also apologies if this is all very long and confusing! If you have any questions, please ask me before the round and I will answer! Or if you have questions about the round after it's over, ask me!

Public Forum

I am okay with speed. However, send me your case if you think you will be speaking fast. I need to understand what you are saying if you want me to vote for you. I like to see clear and clean extensions of your links, warrants, etc. I have been seeing a lot of shadow-extending recently and if it happens in round, I can't vote for you on those arguments, cards, warrants, or whatever it is. You don't need to weigh too much in your rebuttal, but you need to start weighing in summary for me to vote for you. In PF, I prefer a line-by-line debate that has a lot of warranting, making it clear what arguments you are winning, whatever it may be. And make sure to signpost too. For summary, I think that the round needs to be brought down to 1-3 key issues on your side and your opponent's side as to why you are winning and starting impact calc. Basically, summary should be treated as a longer version of final focus. For final, I like impact calc that does a good analysis on both sides, with good warranting with why you win and why you win the impact debate. And don't be rude in the round to your opponents, such as being mean during cross or during your opponents' speeches. I am more likely to vote you down solely based on that.

Lincoln Douglas

I have been judging LD for probably the last 2 years, so I have a lot of experience of the format and how the round works. And also with the background of PF that helps too. My big thing is that I love a framework debate. If you win framework, I am more than likely to vote for you. Because (unless your opponent accesses your framework too), you have the better explanation for why we must evaluate the round based on that interpretation. If both debaters agree on framework, then it becomes a round based on who accesses framework better, becoming more of a standard "line-by-line" debate. If both sides don't discuss framework enough or just drop it, then I will resort to judging it similar to a PF round.

Policy

For the national circuit - I apologize if I am your judge. I will do my very best but please do not spread. I hate spreading and most people doing it aren't amazing at it. I would rather you speak clearly and focus on good arguments.

For the local circuit - I know most of you don't spread, but don't do it regardless.

email - johnevans201413@gmail.com

For all Debate Events:

I am what you would consider a "lay" parent judge. Please do not spread or talk super fast, talk clearly and slowly or else I won't be able to write down your arguments. Also, I enjoy good clash between teams, but please always be respectful and polite to your opponents as this is an educational activity. Finally, for PF, I do encourage, but don't require, for the 2nd speaking team's rebuttal to refute the points made in the first team's rebuttal. For speaker points, I start each debater at 25, and then based off of the quality and delivery of speeches, I will either raise or lower this score. I usually give both members of a PF team the same speaking score. I will rarely give a 30 and I will only give this score if outstanding and superior speech delivery and persuasion tactics are shown.

For all Speech Events:

Have good understanding of the material. Speak clearly and coherently. Very thorough and understandable presentation of the material.

I'm a parent judge, and my son is a PF debater.

I won't really know that many "debate" terms and I also won't like when people spread.

Don't be disrespectful and let's have a good tournament.

PF: I am a former public forum debater. This means that I have debate experience, so I will be judging off of flow. Make sure that you carry through your points and also emphasize your impacts in final focus; also, please give me voting points in final focus. My general rule is to accept new arguments through pro summary, as well as in any of the crossfires. I also generally grade likelihood & magnitude logarithmically instead of linearly. Unless there is something particularly egregious, I will be judging based on the arguments you're making, and not based upon speaking ability. Note that I can't promise I'll be able to understand anything beyond 200 WPM. My 'speaking points' are an evaluation of your argumentation.

LD: I haven't ever done LD, but I have judged it before. Basically, here's what I'm looking for: Impacting to your value and clashing and weighing about values. I do have a plausibility limit on what I will buy, although not an especially strict one. In general, I like more specific value usage instead of goodness, correctness, morality, or similar terms. I don't care about speaking ability unless there's something especially egregious, but I can't promise that I'll be able to understand anything beyond 200 WPM. My 'speaking points' are an evaluation of your argumentation.

Parliamentary/Policy: I have debate experience, but haven't judged or debated in either of these events. Similar rules apply to the other areas, but I just don't know enough to give specific feedback. I do judge off flow and don't have speaking preferences. Note that I can't promise I'll be able to understand anything beyond 200 WPM.

Extemp: I have done extemp before but have never judged it. I will weigh argumentation over speaking ability given my debate background. Don't get me wrong, speaking is important; make sure your delivery is as clean as possible. I will be thoroughly considering your logic, statistics, reasoning, etc. in judging.

Speech: I've never done or judged speech, and have rarely watched it, so consider me the equivalent of a parent judge or lay judge. I do appreciate solid argumentation though in OO and Impromptu. I don't mind if you do non-traditional impromptu, focusing on the economy, lives, or some other practical area; basically debate and PF-style reasoning is fine for me in impromptu. In events where you are presenting a piece, I will take piece quality into account on top of performance value.