I'd like to start out by stating that I used to have a paradigm and now it appears to have fled. Please know that that paradigm was much better and more comprehensive than this paradigm, but this will have to do for now. Don't let this paradigm be a reflection on me as a person.

PF

Rate- As long as you enunciate and I can understand you, have at it.

Content- Some philosophy and broad application is fine, but your arguments should be grounded in real life context and specifics.

I'm a teacher-coach, in that order. Your content and the flow matters but so does your clarity, organization, tone, and decorum. If both teams have sensational arguments and it's close I have no problem giving the win to who I think are the better speakers.

Consider myself a flay judge. The RFD is going to read more like a narrative and less like you won at argument Tetris.

Please have fun. I promise I will or, at the very least, if it's late and we're worn out, I'm still going to look like I'm having fun, and I'm going to do the best I can to give you something to work with and a clear reason for my decision.

General Info

Pine Crest School '18

Georgetown University '22

Explain acronyms (no topic knowledge)

TLDR

Do what you will, but do it well.

T-USFG/Framework/"No-Plan" Affs/Whatever you like:

As a HS debater, I pretty much exclusively went for T/FW against these affs. That being said, I really don't have strong opinions on this. For the aff, advocate something, be able to answer why the ballot matters to your advocacy, and clearly explain the impacts to your interpretation of debate or the impact turns to their interpretation. For the neg, pick your impacts and defend them. Have good counter examples to the other team's examples and be able to explain why the ballot is important to your interpretation.

Kritiks

Do specific link analysis. If your cards don't say anything relevant to the aff, do the explanation yourself. DO IMPACT CALC. Just because it's a K doesn't mean you don't get to explain why the K's impact outweighs or turns the aff. Explain the alt and all of its functions by the end of the neg block. Against the K, defend your aff, point out why their links aren't links, and 9/10 you will get to weigh your aff so case outweighs is solid, and explain why their alt isn't sufficient or have offense against it.

Counterplans

No strong opinions here. If it's theoretically questionable, then question it and win it on the flow. I've gone for enough "cheating" counterplans to really have no strong opinions on this.

Disadvantages

Same deal with the CP section. Do impact calc. Do line-by-line. Don't group things that can't be grouped (i.e. first argument and fifth argument on the flow just because they both started with no link).

Topicality

Slow down. If you're going too fast, I'll tell you. I know nothing about the immigration topic. Do not assume I know camp affs or what the acronyms are.

Theory

Slow down. If you're going too fast, I'll tell you. Have real theory debates with impacts if you plan on going for it in the last rebuttals.

Sarah Botsch-McGuinn

email: sbotschmcguinn@gmail.com

Director of Speech & Debate-Cypress Bay HS (2022-present)

Director of Speech and Debate-Cooper City HS (2018-2022)

Director of Speech and Debate-American Heritage Palm Beach (2017-2018)

Director of Forensics-Notre Dame San Jose (2009-2017)
Head Debate Coach-Notre Dame San Jose (2008-2009)



General:
I’ve been a debate coach for the past 16 years, and Director of Forensics for 9 at NDSJ, one year as Director at American Heritage, 4 years at Cooper City HS and now at Cypress Bay High School. I primarily coached Parliamentary Debate from 2008-2017, including circuit Parli debate. I've been involved in National Circuit LD pretty extensively over the last 8 years, but have judged all forms of debate at all levels from local south Florida and northern CA to national circuit.

First and foremost, I only ever judge what is presented to me in rounds. I do not extend arguments for you and I do not bring in my own bias. I am a flow judge, and I will flow the entire debate, no matter the speed, though I do appreciate being able to clearly understand all your points. I consider myself to be a gamemaker in my general philosophy, so I see debate as game. That doesn't mean that there aren't real world impacts off debate (and I tend to be convinced by 'this will impact outside the round' type of arguments). **I don't vote on defense. It's important but you won't win on a defensive answer.**

While I do appreciate fresh approaches to resolution analysis, I’m not an “anything goes” judge. I believe there should be an element of fair ground in debate-debates without clash, debates with extra topicality, etc will almost certainly see me voting against whoever tries to do so if the other side even makes an attempt at arguing it (that said, if you can’t adequately defend your right to a fair debate, I’m not going to do it for you. Don’t let a team walk all over you!). Basically, I love theoretical arguments, and feel free to run them, just make sure they have a proper shell+. *Note: when I see clear abuse in round I have a very low threshold for voting on theory. Keep that in mind-if you try to skew your opponent out of the round, I WILL vote you down if they bring it up.*

I also want to emphasize that I'm an educator first and foremost. I believe in the educational value of debate and it's ability to create critical thinkers.

+Theory shell should at minimum have: Interpretation, Violation, Standards and Voters.

Speaks:
Since quality of argument wins for me 100% of the time, I’m not afraid of the low point win. I don’t expect this to enter into the rounds much at an elite tournament where everyone is at the highest level of speaking style, but just as an emphasis that I will absolutely not vote for a team just because they SOUND better. I tend to stick to 26-29+ point range on a 30 scale, with average/low speakers getting 26s, decent speakers getting 27s, good 28s, excellent 29s, and 30 being reserved for best I’ve seen all day. I will punish rudeness/lying in speaks though, so if you’re rude or lie a lot, expect to see a 25 or less. Additionally, shouting louder doesn’t make your point any better, I can usually hear just fine.

If I gave you less than 25, you probably really made me angry. If you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, ableist etc I will punish you in speaks. You have been warned. I will kill your speaks if you deliberately misgender or are otherwise harmful in round. I am not going to perpetuate hate culture in debate spaces.

Speed:
I have no problem with speed, but please email me your case if you are spreading. I will call 'clear' once if you are going too fast, and put down my pen/stop typing if I can't follow. It's only happened a couple times, so you must be REALLY fast for me to give up.

PLEASE SIGN POST AND TAG, ESPECIALLY IF I'M FLOWING ON MY LAPTOP. IF I MISS WHERE AN ARGUMENT GOES BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T TAG IT, THAT'S YOUR FAULT NOT MINE.

A prioris:
Please explain why your argument is a-priori before I will consent to consider it as such. Generally I am only willing to entertain framework arguments as a-priori, but who knows, I've been surprised before.


Theory:
Theory is great, as I mentioned above, run theory all day long with me, though I am going to need to see rule violations and make sure you have a well structured shell. I should not see theory arguments after the 1AR in LD or after the MG speech in Parli. I also don't want to see theory arguments given a ten second speed/cursory explanation, when it's clear you're just trying to suck up time. My threshold is high for RVIs, but if you can show how your opponent is just sucking time, I'm open to this. Also open to condo-bad arguments on CPs/Ks, though that doesn't mean you'll automatically win on this.

Disclosure theory: I'm unlikely to vote on this if your opponent isn't reading something very strange. I think education and disclosure is good but that doesn't mean I think someone should automatically lose for not. Keep this in mind. PLEASE I DONT WANT TO HEAR DISCLOSURE LITERALLY READ ANYTHING ELSE IM BEGGING YOU.

Most other theory I evaluate in round. I don't tend to go for blippy theory arguments though!

Critical arguments:
I love the K, give me the K, again, just be structured. I don't need the whole history of the philosopher, but I haven't read everything ever, so please be very clear and give me a decent background to the argument before you start throwing impacts off it. Also, here's where I mention that impacts are VITAL to me, and I want to see terminal impacts.

I prefer to see clash of ROB/ROJ/Frameworks in K rounds. If you are going to run a K aff either make it topical or disclose so we can have a productive round. Please.

Presumption:
In general I default to competing interp. If for some reason we have gotten to the point of terribad debate, I presume Neg (Aff has burden to prove the resolution/affirm. Failure to do so is Neg win. God please don't make me do this :( )

Weighing:
I like very clear weighing in rebuttals. Give me voting issues and compare worlds, tell me why I should prefer or how you outweigh, etc. Please. I go into how I evaluate particular impacts below.


I like clear voting issues! Just because I’m flowing doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate you crystallizing and honing in on your main points of offense.

I prefer voter speeches follow a: Main points of offense-->impact calc--->world comp model. If you just do impact calc I'll be happy with it, but I like looking on my voter sheet for what you feel you're winning on. It helps me more quickly organize my ideas.

Impacts:
I put a lot of emphasis on impacts in my decisions. The team with bigger/more terminal, etc impacts generally walks away with my vote, so go to town. This goes doubly true for framework or critical arguments. Why is this destroying debate as we know it? Why is this ___ and that's horrible? Translation: I tend to weigh magnitude heaviest in round, but if you can prove pretty big probable impacts over very low probability extinction impacts I'll likely go that direction.

You should be able to articulate how your contentions support your position/value/whatever. That should go without saying, but you would be very surprised. I don't vote on blips, even if we all know what you're saying is true. So please warrant your claims and have a clear link story. This goes doubly true for critical positions or theory.

Preferences for arguments:

If you want to know what I like to see in round, here are my preferences in order:

K debate

LARP

Theory

Phil

Traditional

Tricks

This doesn't mean I won't vote for a tricks case but I will be much sadder doing it.

Speech and debate has been part of my life for almost ten years. I competed at the National tournament all four years of high school and I have experience competing in every event.

My main concerns for competitors are focus, polish and confidence. Own your event. Show me that you know your speech/topic/event and you are comfortable speaking in front of others.

About me: I am a father, Language Arts / History Teacher, and Speech and Debate coach. I have been a member of our community as a competitor, judge, and coach since 1990. I believe that this activity is the most important thing young people can do while in school. Trends an styles come and go, but one immovable truth guides my participation in this activity: I care for you, am proud of you, and look forward to you taking control of our country and making it better than when you found it.

About LD: I see my role in the round as a non-intervening arbiter tasked with the job of determining what world, aff or neg, we would be better off living in. I have judged V/C rounds, policy rounds, theory rounds, framework rounds. And while I have not attended a camp, or have a grasp of the current jargon in circuit debate, I find myself able to render decisions consistent with my peers even though I might not be able to vocalize my rationale the way camp debaters expect. I know who won, I just don't have the catchy phrases or lingo to explain how. You can not spread if you don't include me in the email chain. And even then, during rebuttals, I really do need clear signposting and pen time at the critical moments when you need me to hear your analysis. I am a smart guy, but as a father and teacher, I don't have the time to be hyper-versed in the literature. But if you take a small chunk of time, explain your theory, I'll get it. Ultimately, the email chain and the pen time will allow me to have a clean flow. And I (and you) want that clean flow for me to render a decision we can all be happy with.

So what are we looking at to secure my ballot. I'm a rubber meets the road kind of guy. I look for impacts. I expect engagement. I typically don't pull the trigger on T. I find most T arguments un-compelling if even my uneducated self knows about issues the Aff is bringing up. And in a world of disclosure, I am guessing most people know what's going on. This isn't to say I don't vote on T, but my bar is high. I'm open to pre-fiat arguments. I'm fine with considering RVIs. I'm fine with CX during prep if both competitors are ok with it. I don't mind audience members, but I will clear the room if I find the audience being disrespectful, or trying to cheat a glance at my ballot.

My RFDs in round are short, focus on the major voting issues, and are not open to cross examination by students or their coaches. I will write my more detailed thoughts out on the e-ballots prior to the end of the tournament.

Finally, I'm not going to be hurt by how you pref me. I'm going to do my best to do right in the round. One will agree with me. One won't. That's the nature of the game. But the sun will rise on the morn regardless of how you pref, or how I vote.

About me: I am a father, Language Arts / History Teacher, and Speech and Debate coach. I have been a member of our community as a competitor, judge, and coach since 1990. I believe that this activity is the most important thing young people can do while in school. Trends an styles come and go, but one immovable truth guides my participation in this activity: I care for you, am proud of you, and look forward to you taking control of our country and making it better than when you found it.

About LD: I see my role in the round as a non-intervening arbiter tasked with the job of determining what world, aff or neg, we would be better off living in. I have judged V/C rounds, policy rounds, theory rounds, framework rounds. And while I have not attended a camp, or have a grasp of the current jargon in circuit debate, I find myself able to render decisions consistent with my peers even though I might not be able to vocalize my rationale the way camp debaters expect. I know who won, I just don't have the catchy phrases or lingo to explain how. You can not spread if you don't include me in the email chain. And even then, during rebuttals, I really do need clear signposting and pen time at the critical moments when you need me to hear your analysis. I am a smart guy, but as a father and teacher, I don't have the time to be hyper-versed in the literature. But if you take a small chunk of time, explain your theory, I'll get it. Ultimately, the email chain and the pen time will allow me to have a clean flow. And I (and you) want that clean flow for me to render a decision we can all be happy with.

So what are we looking at to secure my ballot. I'm a rubber meets the road kind of guy. I look for impacts. I expect engagement. I typically don't pull the trigger on T. I find most T arguments un-compelling if even my uneducated self knows about issues the Aff is bringing up. And in a world of disclosure, I am guessing most people know what's going on. This isn't to say I don't vote on T, but my bar is high. I'm open to pre-fiat arguments. I'm fine with considering RVIs. I'm fine with CX during prep if both competitors are ok with it. I don't mind audience members, but I will clear the room if I find the audience being disrespectful, or trying to cheat a glance at my ballot.

My RFDs in round are short, focus on the major voting issues, and are not open to cross examination by students or their coaches. I will write my more detailed thoughts out on the e-ballots prior to the end of the tournament.

Finally, I'm not going to be hurt by how you pref me. I'm going to do my best to do right in the round. One will agree with me. One won't. That's the nature of the game. But the sun will rise on the morn regardless of how you pref, or how I vote.

Hello,

I've been judging since 2018 for the various speech and debate events. I look for clearly articulating of facts and delivering with confidence and poise. Presentation counts a lot that includes clarity, eye contact, movements and also in good participation in the debate sections.

Be respectful of the judges and other participants. Please do make best use of the time.

Enjoy, Be Strong & Good Luck!

Hi,

My name is Milan Amritraj and I'm writing this paradigm specifically for the 2022 NPDL TOC.

By way of Parli experience, I was a 2 time California state semi-finalist while competing for Campbell Hall. To the extent that World Schools Debate is similar to parli, I was also a two year member of NSDA's Team USA and captained the team during my senior year of high school. For further general background, I competed in LD, Congress and a variety of extemporaneous speech events. I've also served as assistant coach of the Campbell Hall team since graduating high school in 2016.

My paradigm is not particularly complicated, and I really don't think it should be for Parli debate. This text is not exhaustive, so feel free to ask me any questions before the round starts if you'd like specific clarification. Below are the most important points.

I'm pretty open to any arguments, theory and K's included, so feel free to run whatever you'd like so long as its well articulated. That being said, I heavily value weighing and crystallization in the rebuttal speeches, so please do a good amount of work to help clarify how you think I should be weighing these different arguments. Otherwise you run the risk of me having to enter the debate to resolve any ambiguities.

Speed shouldn't be an issue. Clarity, however, might very well be. I'll call out clear if theres an issue, but please try to avoid making that happen.

Finally, please avoid any funny business with prep or evidence if those sorts of things come up in round. I have a zero tolerance policy for foul play.

Be decent humans.

Evidence is important, but so is making logical connections to the resolution; what are the real world implications of your arguments?

I am not impressed by the speed of your constructive speeches if you can't make logical arguments.

Please do not give me an off-time roadmap in LD or PF. Also, I know that the timer will start on your first word; I do not need you to tell me that.

Be decent humans.

Be decent humans.

Evidence is important, but so is making logical connections to the resolution; what are the real world implications of your arguments?

I am not impressed by the speed of your constructive speeches if you can't make logical arguments.

Please do not give me an off-time roadmap in LD or PF. Also, I know that the timer will start on your first word; I do not need you to tell me that.

Be decent humans.

KRHAMRICK@GMAIL.COM

I've been judging debates for a long time. I prefer listening to debates wherein each team presents and executes a well-researched strategy for winning. The ideological flavor of your arguments matters less to me than how you establish clash with your opponents’ arguments. I am open to most anything, understanding that sometimes “you’ve got to do what you’ve got to do” to win the debate.

At the end of the debate, I vote for the team that defends the superior course of action. My ballot constitutes an endorsement of one course relative to another. To win the debate, the affirmative must prove their course is preferable when compared to the status quo or negative alternatives. That being said, I interpret broadly exactly what constitutes a plan/course of action. An alternative is proven a superior course of action when it is net beneficial compared to the entirety of the plan combined with part or parts of the alternative. Simply solving better than the affirmative is not enough: the alternative must force choice. Likewise, claiming a larger advantage than the affirmative is not enough to prove the alternative competitive. A legitimate permutation is defined as the entirety of the "plan" combined with parts or parts of the alternative. Mere avoidance of potential or "unknown" disadvantages, or a link of omission, is insufficient: the negative must read win a link and impact in order to evaluate the relative merits of the plan and the alternative. The 2AC saying something akin to "Perm - do the plan and all noncompetitive parts of the counterplan/alternative" is merely a template for generating permutation ideas, rather than a permutation in and of itself. It's your job to resolve the link, not mine.

I believe there is an inherent value to the topic/resolution, as the topic serves as the jumping off point for the year's discussion. The words of the topic should be examined as a whole. Ultimately, fairness and ground issues determine how strict an interpretation of the topic that I am willing to endorse. The most limiting interpretation of a topic rarely is the best interpretation of a topic for the purposes of our game. The topic is what it is: merely because the negative wishes the topic to be smaller (or the affirmative wishes it bigger, or worded a different way) does not mean that it should be so. An affirmative has to be at its most topical the first time it is run.

I don’t care about any of your SPEC arguments. The affirmative must use the agent specified in the topic wording; subsets are okay. Neither you nor your partner is the United States federal government. The affirmative is stuck with defending the resolutional statement, however I tend to give the affirmative significant leeway as to how they choose to define/defend it. The affirmative is unlikely to persuade me criticisms of advocacy of USFG action should be dismissed as irrelevant to an evaluation of policy efficacy. I believe that switch-side debating is good.

All theory arguments should be contextualized in terms of the topic and the resultant array of affirmative and negative strategies. Reciprocity is a big deal for me, i.e., more negative flex allows for more aff room to maneuver and vice versa). Conditional, topical, and plan inclusive alternatives are presumptively legitimate. A negative strategy reliant on a process counterplan, consultation counterplan, or a vague alternative produces an environment in which in which I am willing to allow greater maneuverability in terms of what I view as legitimate permutations for the affirmative. I’ve long been skeptical of the efficacy of fifty state uniform fiat. Not acting, i.e., the status quo, always remains an option.

Debate itself is up for interrogation within the confines of the round.

I tend to provide a lot of feedback while judging, verbal and otherwise. If you are not clear, I will not attempt to reconstruct what you said. I tend to privilege the cards identified in the last two rebuttals as establishing the critical nexus points of the debate and will read further for clarification and understanding when I feel it necessary. Reading qualifications for your evidence will be rewarded with more speaker points. Reading longer, more warranted evidence will be rewarded with significantly more consideration in the decision process. Clipping cards is cheating and cardclippers should lose.

I value clash and line-by-line debating. Rarely do I find the massive global last rebuttal overview appealing. Having your opponent's speech document doesn't alleviate the need for you to pay attention to what's actually been said in the debate. Flow and, for god's sake, learn how to efficiently save/jump/email/share your speech document. I generally don't follow the speech doc in real time.

"New affs bad" is dumb; don't waste your time or mine. When debating a new aff, the negative gets maximum flexibility.

I believe that both basic civil rights law as well as basic ethics requires that debaters and judges conduct themselves in rounds in a manner that protects the rights of all participants to an environment free of racial/sexual hostility or harassment.

Tim Wegener

Debated for 8 years at Greenhill '19 and Northwestern '23.

Emails for the chain:

tpwegs3@gmail.com

And if college: debatedocs@googlegroups.com

Assistant coach for Northwestern

I feel strongly that affirmatives should be topical. I am significantly better for a counterinterp + their model bad than impact turns to limits/predictability. I think I am equally good for procedural fairness and clash based offense, but the sooner the neg picks a route and sets up the associated framing questions (ballot solvency, SSD, etc.), the better.

I do not think I am very good for the K as it is generally debated. I think I am fine for more specific Ks that turn/solve the case or utilize more traditional case defense. I am much worse for Ks that rely on framework or ontology arguments to come before the case.

I'm likely to be an okay judge for theoretical objections like conditionality bad, 2NC cps bad, and arguments regarding the legitimacy of fiating certain actors (intl. actor fiat, private actor fiat, 50 state fiat, etc.). I am generally less persuaded by theory arguments that attempt to exclude a particular type of counterplan (process cps, PICs, agent cps, etc.) but I am extremely good for the aff in competition debates against these types of counterplans. Judge kick is up for debate, but it must be set up in the 2NR for me to consider it.

Inserted rehighlightings are fine if they come from your opponents’ cards. If they come from elsewhere in the articles, you should read them.

If you ask for a 30 I will give you a 27. If you go for death good you will lose. If you threaten other debaters you will lose and get the lowest possible speaks.

I try to adjust speaker points relative to the quality of the tournament/division. A 29 at a major is different than a 29 at a regional tournament or a 29 in the JV division.

Argument quality matters deeply, probably more to me than others. The idea that technical execution is the only thing that matters in debate, at the expense of research and strategy, is absurd. It shouldn't take much to defeat the argument that the next president should do the plan or particle accelerators are inevitable so it's try or die to kill billions. This doesn't mean I won't vote on bad arguments. But the worse the argument the less it takes for the other team to win.

Relatedly, I will reward with speaker points and you are much more likely to win if you demonstrate actual knowledge about the topic and the world through research and strategy. Technical execution will always be important, but the best debates accurately reflect real world discussions at the highest levels.

Be civil. Debate beyond your case. As you debate, interact with and include all of the information brought up in the round. Speak clearly, and organize your arguments in a clear and concise manner.

Traditional judge - Ask me in round.

St. Francis HS '12

UC Berkeley '16

I debated for four years at St. Francis HS in public forum, as well as competing in oratory. I was a captain of the speech & debate team my senior year. I've judged public forum on the national circuit since 2012, and judged league (read: lay) policy during the 15-16 and 16-17 seasons. I've judged 2 rounds on the current policy topic. I have judged exactly 6 rounds of (slow / lay) LD throughout my judging career.

Policy 

Topic Knowledge:

Minimal. I know what the People's Republic of China is, and have a basic understanding of what they are doing/what we are doing. Acronyms or jargon need to be explained further. I have judged two rounds on the China topic. 

Too Long; Didn't Read:

I don't understand spreading. However, I am a flow judge, and, provided you are speaking at an intelligible level, I will evaluate arguments as they appear on my flow. Since I am a former debater, you can speak faster than you would in front of a parent, but, please, do not spread. If you are speaking faster than I can understand, I will shout clear twice, and then give up. 

Flashing isn't prep unless I feel it's egregious. I'm fine with tag teaming cross-ex as long as the speaker who's not being cross-ex'ed doesn't completely take over.

Paneled rounds: I won't punish you for tailoring to other judges -- although I will still judge off the flow.

Evaluating Rounds:

I default to a stock issue paradigm: 

• Topicality: If it's logical and you can show why it's unfair for them to read the aff, I will vote on T.
• Harms: What are the problems in the status quo? Are they significant?
• Inherency: Are steps being taken in the status quo to solve the harms?
• Solvency: How does the plan specifically solve the harms?
• Disadvantage: The disadvantage must outweigh the case. You can use jargon such as uniqueness, internal link, and link, if you explain them clearly.

However, I am comfortable judging the round in other lenses (tabula rasa, offense/defense, game theory) provided the debaters explain how I should evaluate arguments and what those arguments mean.

Please, please, please do impact calculus - explain how your arguments interact and why yours are more important. This is the best way to get my ballot and the best way to get high speaks. If you do not do impact calc, I will have to intervene and one of you will be unhappy with the way I did that.

Circuit Arguments:

Feel free to read arguments like counter-plans, kritiks, or theory - however, you need to explain to me how to evaluate them and how they interact with other arguments. I'm not versed in any literature (but down for counterplans), and again - the no-spreading rule applies. 

Speaker Points:

• >29.5 --> Top three speaker
• >29.0 --> High elimination rounds
• >28.5 --> Clearing low
• >28.0 --> Average
• >27.0 --> Not quite ready for this division
• <27.0 --> Blatantly offensive (sexism, racism, anti-queer etc)

Aggression is good, rudeness is not. Make me laugh, but don't if you're not funny. 

Public Forum 

Too Long; Didn't Read:

I am a flow judge and will evaluate arguments as they appear on my flow. You can speak faster than you would to a parent, but public forum has gotten faster since I graduated, so you should probably go slower than you are able. If you are speaking faster than I can understand, I will shout clear twice, and then give up. 

Paneled rounds: I won't punish you for tailoring to other judges -- although I will still judge off the flow.

Evaluating Rounds:

• I'm pretty straightforward. I will evaluate framework first, and then look at your contentions and impacts to help me determine who won the round under the framework provided. 
• I am looking for clash -- please weigh arguments for me. That means explaining how your arguments interact and why yours are more important. This is the best way to get my ballot and the best way to get high speaks. If you don't, I will have to intervene and one of you will be unhappy with the way I did that. 
• Think of your final focus as writing my RFD for me (that is, impact calculus, weighing arguments) -- not as a fourth rebuttal. 
• If the tournament allows it, I will call for any evidence I feel is necessary. Please do not turn the round into a back and forth about what the evidence says. 

Speaking Notes:

• >29.5 --> Top three speaker 
• 28.0 --> Average 
• <27.0 --> Blatantly offensive (sexism, racism, anti-queer etc)

Adhere to my preferences and make the round easy to evaluate and your speaks can only go up. Aggression is good, rudeness is not. If you make me laugh, plus speaks. 

LD

Too Long; Didn't Read:

I don't understand spreading. However, I am a flow judge, and, provided you are speaking at an intelligible level, I will evaluate arguments as they appear on my flow. Since I am a former debater, you can speak faster than you would in front of a parent, but, please, do not spread. If you are speaking faster than I can understand, I will shout clear twice, and then give up. 

Paneled rounds: I won't punish you for tailoring to other judges -- although I will still judge off the flow.

Evaluating Rounds:

• I have very limited experience with LD.
• I generally judge rounds by first deciding the value and value criterion debate, and then looking at which debater most met the provided value / value criterion.
• Do not expect me to be familiar with literature or theory. However, I am comfortable with evaluating any arguments you want to run, as long as you explain how I should do so. 

• Please, please, please do impact calculus - explain how your arguments interact and why yours are more important. This is the best way to get my ballot and the best way to get high speaks. If you do not do impact calc, I will have to intervene and one of you will be unhappy with the way I did that.

Speaking Notes:

• >29.5 --> Top three speaker 
• 28.0 --> Average 
• <27.0 --> Blatantly offensive (sexism, racism, anti-queer etc)

Adhere to my preferences and make the round easy to evaluate and your speaks can only go up. Aggression is good, rudeness is not. If you make me laugh, plus speaks. 

I look for students who are truly interping as opposed to imitating. I want to see my students fingerprint/personality within their pieces. I like a great humor/drama, but I'm becoming increasingly annoyed by an insistence to be dirty/shocking for the sake of trying to outdo others. Make sure everything has a purpose in your piece....don't to for cheap laughs or tears. 

As for PA and debate....inspect competitors to be civil with one another. They should address arguments in a responsible and respectable manner. I will notice any and all dropped arguments, and furthermore will not be impressed by "holierthanthou" attitudes. Debates should be clean, well argued,  and respectful. 

I am a parent judge with no experience in this event. Assume I have no background knowledge about the topic you are discussing.

I'm a simple person and that's what I enjoy watching: a simple debate. I'm not interested in your fake world where Nuclear extinction kills us all and makes the opponent's every argument moot. I like practical harms and practical solutions.

I don't put together pieces for debaters so if something goes unsaid by a team, then I don't take it into consideration, no matter how significant it may be. So don't assume that everything is "common knowledge".

I appreciate a debate with some strong clash and even stronger evidence, but I do not appreciate a strictly evidential debate. Once debaters get too carried away with whose evidence is best, I just drop the point altogether and rarely factor it into my RFD.  

Lastly, though I do love the "sassy" debater, I am not fond of the "rude" debater. Watch your tone, word choice when speaking to or about your opponent, and more importantly, your facial expressions even when you think I'm not looking.

Debate is more than evidence, it's about your entire presentation.

This is basically for LD only, I have a much more specific philosophy for Parliamentary and Policy. In short: I am an anti-interventionist judge. I will attempt to evaluate every argument made before me in the round, and I will not insert my own views of debate or of the world to interfere with that. I have 6 years of varsity level debating experience and currently do parliamentary debate at the University of Oregon.

SHORT VERSION: Essentially, do what you want. Also, feel free to just call me Daniel, not judge. 

1. Theory: feel free to read it in front of me, will vote on it if there are impacts to it. 

2. Kritik: feel free to read it in front of me. Read your craziest kritik of all time, I'll listen to it. Break your new K in for the first time against me, I want to hear it. Run your experimental performance about drinking chocolate milk and dancing on the table while reading poetry. As long as you give me a way to evaluate your argument in the round, I WILL listen to it and evaluate it as such. 

3. Speed: Im comfortable with any level of speed, I'll be able to flow the round regardless. If I can't understand you, I'll likely shout "CLEAR" really loud at you.

4. Organization: I'm a flow judge through and through. However, subpoints in your 1AC and 1NC are probably a good idea for the sake of the organization of the round as a whole. A lot easier to respond to arguments directly this way and keeps my flow more organized. 

More specifically:

Theory: Feel free to read theory in front of me. I am not opposed to voting on theory if the position is not responded to adequately. As long as you give me an interpretation of your theoretical objection, some standards through which to evaluate the position, and impacts as to why it's a voter, theory can be a voting issue for me. Unlike others on this site, I won't list "good" and "bad" theory arguments; I don't think that kind of value judgement is needed in debate. If you read theory, no matter what it is, I'll listen. When responding to theory, always provide a counter-interpretation, and some counter-standards to evaluate your counter-interp through. Your response to a topicality, for example, should be more than "Gut check, judge. Do we seem topical? I think so." 

Kritik: I am more than comfortable with the K debate: chances are I have heard of your critical theorist, but in case I'm not, its always smart to offer a thesis statement at the top of your K shell. I'm most DEFINITELY the judge to read your crazy criticism against. Read your new K that you've never read before in front of me. Impact it out fully, clearly explain the ways in which they link. I prefer topic specific links for your K which gives it a little more uniqueness, however generic links are ok so long as they are well-warranted and articulated. Lastly, answer K's with offense. Putting entirely defensive arguments on a K guarantees a good K debater will run you into the floor. Link Turns are the way to go. Multiple, multiple link turns. 

Speaker Points: Typically 26-30. You've got to be pretty bad to warrant me giving anything less than a 25. At the same time, you've really got to sparkle in order to get a 30. 

In the final speeches: The best way to win in front of me is to clearly explain why you are winning the argument you're going for, and what impact that argument has. Impact weighing with final rebuttals is a must, too many debate rounds nowadays end with odd summaries of the line by line debate that don't fundamentally resolve the key issues in the round. Walk me through the ballot, literally say, "Daniel, you can pull the trigger and sign aff/neg because _____". 

I've coached debate at a small private school for several years. I was not a debater myself. I would consider myself a traditional debate judge.

I ultimately judge on my flow, but courtesy and respect are also factors. I tend to favor the debater who educates me and seems to have the best handle on the topic -- both the basics and the nuances. I am more impressed by a case focused on educational value than one explicitly designed to win a debate round.

I like to hear the bio of sources and applaud the debater who has deliberated on what source to use.

I am skeptical of definitions that seem to be simply strategic and avoid the context of the resolution. Same with observations -- I am not enthusiastic about strategic attempts to limit the playing field in a way that puts the spirit of the resolution to the side.

Give me clear voters at the end of the round! I like to hear what choices you've made regarding what you think your reasons for winning are.

This is my third year judging Public forum debates.

I like to see good source of reliable evidence during debate.

Please do not speak too fast and be courteous to other team.