A little bit about me: I coach for Millburn High School in New Jersey. I competed on the circuit in high school and college.

I do my very best to be as non-interventionist as possible, but I know some students like reading judge's paradigms to get a better sense of what they're thinking. I hope that the below is helpful :).

Overall: You can be nice and a good debater. :)

Here are some things to consider if I'm your Parliamentarian/ Judge in Congressional Debate:

- I am a sucker for a well-executed authorship/ sponsorship, so please don't be afraid to give the first speech! Just because you don't have refutation doesn't mean it isn't a good speech. I will be more inclined to give you a better speech score if you stand up and give the speech when no one is willing to do so because it shows preparedness.

- Bouncing off of the above bullet point, two things I really dislike while at national circuit tournaments are having no one stand up to give the earlier speeches (particularly in out rounds) and one-sided debate. You should be prepared to speak on either side of the legislation. You're there to debate, so debate. I'm much more inclined to rank you higher if you flip and have fluency breaks than if you're the fourth aff in a row.

- Asking the same question over and over to different speakers isn't particularly impressive to me (only in extreme circumstances should this ever be done). Make sure that you are catering the questions to the actual arguments from the speech and not asking generic questions that could be asked of anyone.

- Make my job easy as the judge. I will not make any links for you; you need to make the links yourself.

- Warrants are so important! Don't forget them!

- If you are giving one of the final speeches on a piece of legislation, I expect you to weigh the arguments and impacts that we have heard throughout the debate. Unless there has been a gross negligence in not bringing up a particular argument that you think is revolutionary and changes the debate entirely, you shouldn't really be bringing up new arguments at this point. There are, of course, situations where this may be necessary, but this is the general rule of thumb. Use your best judgment :).

- Please do your best to not read off of your pad. Engage with the audience/ judges, and don't feel as though you have to have something written down verbatim. I'm not expecting a speech to be completely flawless when you are delivering it extemporaneously. I historically score speeches higher if delivered extemporaneously and have a couple of minor fluency lapses than a speech read off of a sheet of paper with perfect fluency.

- Be active in the chamber! Remember, the judges are not ranking students based upon who is giving the best speeches, but who are the best legislators overall. This combines a myriad of factors, including speeches, questioning, overall activity, leadership in the chamber, decorum, and active listening (i.e. not practicing your speech while others are speaking, paying attention, etc.) Keep this in mind before going into a session.

- Please please please don't speak over the top of one another. This being said, that doesn't mean you have a right to monopolize the questioning time, but there is a nice way to cut someone off if they're going too long. Use your best judgment. Don't cut someone off two seconds after they start answering your question.

- I rank based on who I think are the overall best legislators in the chamber. This is a combination of the quality of speeches, questioning, command of parliamentary procedure, preparedness, and overall leadership and decorum in the chamber.

Let me know if you have any questions! :)

Here are some things to consider if I'm your judge in Public Forum:

- Please add me to the email chain if you have one: jordybarry@gmail.com

- I am really open to hearing almost any type of argument (except K's, please don't run K's in PF), but I wouldn’t consider myself a super techy judge. Do your thing, be clear, and enjoy yourselves!

- Please debate the resolution. It was written for a reason.

- It's important to me that you maintain clarity throughout the round. In addition, please don’t spread. I don’t have policy/ LD judging experience and probably won’t catch everything. If you get too fast/ to spreading speed I’ll say clear once, and if it’s still too fast/ you start spreading again, I’ll stop typing to indicate that I’m not getting what you’re saying on my flow.

- Take advantage of your final focus. Tell me why I should vote for you, don't solely focus on defensive arguments.

- Maintain organization throughout the round - your speeches should tell me what exact argument you are referring to in the round. Signposting is key! A messy debate is a poorly executed debate.

- I don't weigh one particular type of argument over another. I vote solely based on the flow, and will not impose my pre-existing beliefs and convictions on you (unless you're being racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, or xenophobic). It's your show, not mine!

- Please please please don't speak over the top of one another. This being said, that doesn't mean you have a right to monopolize the questioning time, but there is a nice way to cut someone off if they're going too long. Use your best judgment. Don't cut someone off two seconds after they start answering your question.

- Be polite!

- Make my job easy. I should not have to (and will not) make any links for you. You have to make the link yourselves. There should be a clear connection to your impacts.

- Weighing impacts is critical to your success, so please do it!

Any questions, please feel free to ask! Have fun and good luck!

I was involved with debate in high school for two years where I completed in Public Forum debate and several speech events. I have spent the last 8 years working with various high schools with their programs, and judging at multitude of tournaments during those years. I have also been a tournament director for over 30 tournaments, and am currently an assistant coach at the school I teach at. I am a more traditional judge overall, but I have no issues with progressive and spreading as long as it is meaningful to the debate. I want clash between sides, and I want good coherent arguments with evidence and reason. Make sure you are directing your claims to the judge and that I understand what you are talking about. Organization is key for me and you should have and order to what you are saying. Impact calculus is the key thing for me overall though, tell me why your argument works, the probability, and the impact. Good luck to both sides.

I am blank slate, tabula rasa. What I hear is how I judge.

I want to understand you while speaking (I’m in sales) and I want you to debate each other for the topics presented in the round. I will not read any files unless there is a clear distinction of misunderstanding.

My paradigms would be in the construction and fluidity of presentation and how well a speaker is able to engage an audience and actively spread their message/point!!

Hi! I'm excited to be your judge today. I am a trained speech and debate judge but did not compete myself.

For debate - Please don't speak too quickly. If you speak too fast, I will stop flowing and your arguments will not be evaluated as part of the round. Please add signposts to make arguments as clear to me as possible. Impacts are important to me - I want to understand the real world significance of the argument. Don't just tell me the argument, tell me why I should care.

For speech - I love speech events where you incorporate personal stories and humor. Have fun, because your energy will be contagious!

Hi there! I've been performing since I was very young, and I am a 2007 graduate of the American Musical & Dramatic Academy in New York City. I direct both adult and youth productions at my local theatre and have been an active judge in both this year's, as well as last year's, tournament seasons.

I have completed the NFHS Cultural Competency course, and I identify as diversity enhancing!

POI/PR/PO: Show me a strong commitment to your material, with bold but organic choices. Use your binder --this is a reading event-- but don't hide behind it!

HI/DI: Make sure your piece tells a decisive story and that your character transitions are smooth enough that I know who's talking at at all times! Also important: sure, bold choices are good, but I still want to see the nuances behind your characters and what you're saying. Rather than just doing stock characters, approach them from a place of truth. That almost always yields funnier and/or more powerful results!

EXTEMP: Research, research, research! I'm looking for a well-organized speech that answers the question clearly and provides a lot of cited sources.

OO/INFO: I love how much I learn when judging both of these categories. Remember your top priority is to teach us something, and that good lessons are organized, compelling, and easy to understand.

CONGRESS: Ask great questions of your fellow debaters and be researched enough to be able to provide convincing answers to the questions that are asked of you! Looking for strong points and organization in your speeches!

Remember that no one can offer exactly what YOU offer, and embrace that! Most of all, have fun!

A little about me :)

Marcus Repsher

I have done PF for 5 years among other speech/debate events

Student at Bixby highschool

What I consider interventionist on the judges part and I will not do

I will not call for evidence unless told to by your team

I will not decide if a teams argument is factually based on my own knowledge of the topic that is up for you to prove to me

I will not ask clarifying questions after the round

my job as the judge is to simply observe all information presented to me and the way you want me to interpret it so please tell me how

Debate stuff

I will evaluate literally any k, shell, or random theory (within reason...) just make your interp clear, if you decide you want to change the norms of debate and turn this into a theory round I'm 100% behind you if you can make your line of reasoning sound and explain violations etc.

style- I am not a progressive debater in the sense of ks and non-topical arguments but i will go along with most things but that doesn't mean I enjoy hearing shoe theory or the like.

Flow/tech judge

Tech > Truth almost 100% of the time

Debate is not a game and is to be considered much more than just that rudimentary definition. Remember the topics you discuss often have real-world impacts that affect others and or your opponents, debate isn't always about the ballot.

TW/CONTENT WARNING/Misgendering

I am a firm believer in TW theory and the violence that can be caused by debaters not reading content warnings before potentially triggering topics. I ask that you read your case before the round and consider with each contention if it needs a CW, if there is even a question about the contention needing one please include it before the content is read. If your plan is to read a case that includes potential triggering content as most topics have, please include some format of an anonymous opt-out system and a backup case/contention. If in the event these standards are not met I am fully prepared to drop the debater or tank their speaks. If you have any questions about this/your case please speak to me before the round or coin flip. I will fight tab about dropping the debater who violates this before I allow debate to become an exclusionary event.

TKO
At any time you can Invoke a TKO (Technical knock out) and I will end the debate there with a win to your team and award you 30 speaks, however if not your speaks will be set at 20. This basically means that at any point of the debate you believe you’ve solidly already won the debate, beyond a reasonable doubt, (dropped T argument, double turn, strategic miscue that is irreparable by the other team) you can invoke a TKO and immediately end the debate BUT only do this if you believe that your opponent has absolutely no route to the ballot.

Some other stuffs

Run whatever you want, I will do my best to follow. Judge adaption is a sorry excuse for lay judges to be lazy and not actually learn debate.

You may read your cases as fast as you would like, but if you would like me to flow key cards or points please slow down on them or send me your speech doc.

If you plan on running very long link chains please explain them to a full extent or include me on an email chain- marcus.repsher@gmail.com

if evidence is asked for at the end of a round please make sure the entire card is at least an 8 point font or I assume you don't want me to read it.

If in Lincoln Douglas, the same goes for card font also if your running unique Criteria or Value please explain them to the full extent if you wish for them to be flowed.

I usually value tech over the truth but I do not think in a strict offense/defense paradigm. Terminal defense, presumption, and negligible risk are possible.

post rounding is acceptable if you have nice things to say or questions for me or your opponent, post rounding is not the time nor the place to argue my RFD, if you absolutely disagree with my RFD please take it to your coach or a tournament director arguing with me in round will get you nowhere.

PUBLIC FORUM

Public Forum is an evidence-based debate.

Do not rant during speeches, be absolutely clear and precise.

The basics of every round and the way I am going to judge, the AFF must prove a net gain, the NEG must prove a net loss, unless offered a framework or observation this is how i will judge your round.

I do not mind sitting during grand cross, during 1st speaker and 2nd speaker cross i do prefer you stand.

There is a difference between being assertive and rude.

I will assume you to be well versed in the rules in public forum, understand I will mark it on your ballot if you do not follow them.

I will assume if you drop an argument or contention whether it be offense or defense you agree with it and will flow it to your opponent's side unless they don't mention the drop then ill just pretend like I was hallucinating.

If you would like me to understand exactly what your doing, please give some format of an off time road map before each speech after case reading. basically PLEASE SIGNPOST

If you don't offer a framework of what you need to prove to win or the opponent needs to prove, i will hold your opponents framework in the round (technically you should just adopt their framework but you get the idea), If neither of the teams offer one I will decide the round over the weighing that has been offered to me.

Crossfire- unlike many flow judges I do flow cross x as i believe it holds value to the debate or you wouldn't be doing it.

Impacts- Do not give me anything scalar without explaining why it matters.

Weighting- If you have dropped the arg or lost access to it don't use it as a weighing mechanism. weighting is an action not a word to be used for fill.

drops/concedes- I am a flow judge i promise i caught the drop/conceded arg, so if your going to tell me that something was dropped or conceded tell me why its important rather than "this went cold conceded!!!"

style- I am not a progressive debater in the sense of ks and non-topical arguments but i will go along with most things but that doesn't mean i enjoy hearing debate is always bad K's

Lincoln Douglas

Do not rant during speeches, be absolutely clear and precise.

The basics of every round and the way I am going to judge, the AFF must prove a net gain, the NEG must prove a net loss. Of course other factors will be taken into consideration but this is the very basics.

I will assume if you drop an argument or contention whether it be offense or defense you agree with it and will flow it to your opponent's side unless they don't mention the drop then ill just pretend like I was hallucinating.

If you would like me to understand exactly what your doing, please give some format of an off time road map before each speech after case reading. basically PLEASE SIGNPOST

There is a difference between being assertive and rude, please understand the difference.

You can stand or sit during cross, doesn't matter much to me.

I will assume you understand the rules of Lincoln Douglas debate, understand I will mark it on your ballot if you do not follow them.

Please understand these are the absolute basics of how I will judge your round. Of course other factors will influence my decision, but that is tailored to each round.

Crossfire- unlike many flow judges i do flow cross x as i believe it holds value to the debate or you wouldn't be doing it.

Impacts- Do not give me anything scalar without explaining why it matters.

Weighting- If you have dropped the arg or lost access to it don't use it as a weighing mechanism. weighting is an action not a word to be used for fill.

drops/concedes- I am a flow judge i promise i caught the drop/conceded arg, so if your going to tell me that something was dropped or conceded tell me why its important rather then "this went cold conceded!!!"

style- I am not a progressive debater in the sense of ks and non-topical arguments but i will go along with most things but that doesn't mean i enjoy hearing debate is always bad K's

General rules

I do not tolerate mansplaining

I'm not an interventionist judge in any sense I weigh the round how you tell me to, I will, however, become interventionist when you become homophobic, racist, transphobic, or any other form of bigotry.

If you are going to spread, please ask all parties involved before the round starts (aka case reading).

If you ask me to disclose after round, I will but only if asked.

Do not trap your opponents into some terrible tunnel vision of a framework. (I know this doesnt translate to everyone so if you have a question about this ask me before round)

Please keep cross as professional as possible, I understand the want to prove a point, this does not mean you can be rude to your opponent.

Please take any critique that I give you to heart, I am in no way a snobby judge who will get mad if you move your hands too much, I really wish for you to do better.

Of course all of this goes deeper and if I listed all rules I think debaters should follow we would be here all day. The most important rule is for you to go to a tournament and enjoy yourself, debate is in no way meant to be a exclusive rude community.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ASK BEFORE THE ROUND STARTS

I prefer speechdrop but here is my email for document sharing/evidence chains if you need it:betty.stanton@jenksps.org

I'm the head coach of a successful team, and have been coaching for 18 years. I did CX in high school so long ago that Ks were new, and I competed in college.

LD: I'm a very traditional judge. I like values and criteria and analysis and clash. I want framework debate to actually mean something.

PF: I’m a very traditional judge. If the round becomes a very short CX round instead of a PF round, we have a problem. I want evidence and actual analysis of that evidence, and I want actual clash.

CX: I can handle your spread and I will vote where I'm persuasively told to with the following exceptions: 1) I have never voted on T. I think it's a non-starter unless a case is so blatantly non-topical that you can't even see the resolution from it. That's not to say it isn't a perfectly legitimate argument, it's just to say that I will probably buy the aff's 'we meet's and you might have better uses for your time than camping here. 2) If you run a K, you should firmly and continuously advocate for that K. 3) I, again, will always prefer actual clash in the round over unlinked theory arguments.

General Things ~

Don't claim something is abusive unless it is.

Don't claim an argument was dropped unless it was.

Don't advocate for atrocities.

Don't be a jerk to your opponents (This will get you the lowest speaker points possible. Yes, even if you win.)

My history is such that I have participated in Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Public Forum, and Congressional debate. The vast majority of it was spent in a very traditional district in Lincoln-Douglas. That being said, I do believe that my varied background does allow for an understanding of progression in each format of debate. I am not entirely shut off to hearing anything, I might not wear a smile on my face about it... but I have voted on things like topicality and theory stuff. Now, if we want to get down to the specifics.

LD: First and foremost, Lincoln Douglas is evaluative debate. It doesn't always necessarily call for specific action, sometimes (most of the time) it just calls for justifying an action or state. I don't buy that there always has to be a plan. Additionally, I'm of the mindset that there is framework and substance. I tend to favor substance debate a lot more, that being said, if there can be a good amount of discussion on both sides of that, even better. I like to hear about the resolution, policy started to degenerate in my area to a series of Kritiks and bad topicality argumentation. I walk in expecting the resolution... I'd like to talk about things pertaining to the resolution if at all possible. The role of the ballot begins at the beginning as who was the better debater, if you want to change that let me know, but I tend to like it there. Finally, in terms of evidence, I hate calling for cards, but if it is so central and the round leaves everything riding on that piece of evidence I'll call for it. (Also if it's that key, and I for some reason miss it in my flow... Judges are human too.)

PF (UPDATED): Having judged and coached for a few years, I've learned to let a lot of the round play out. I HIGHLY value topical debate. It is possible to have critical stances while maintaining some relationship to the resolution. Additionally, I think PF is designed in such a way that there is not enough time to really argue K or T stances in a truly meaningful way. Take advantage of the back half of the round and CLARIFY the debate, what is important, why is it important and why are you winning? Tell me what I'm voting for in the final focus, make my job easier, and there's a good chance I'll make your tournament better.

One last note, please don't be mean spirited in the round, don't say that something "literally makes no sense." Don't tell me there is a flaw, show me the flaw.

In summation, run whatever you are happiest with, I might not be, but it's your show, not mine. Be great, be respectful, have fun. And if you have any other questions, feel free to ask! I'm not a mean judge (Unless I am decaffeinated, or someone is being disrespectful).