Overall Paradigm:

Tabula Rasa judge:

• If the presented Plan is in a Stock Issues format, then I will vote as a stock-issues judge once Kritiks and Topicality are won.
• If a Comparative Advantage Plan is run, then I will shift to a policymaker framework and weigh Advantages against DAs (see the note on DAs below), once Kritiks and Topicality are won.
• If a Kritikal Aff is run, then all bets are off. Run framework and tell me why I should be voting for you.

Kritiks are a priori to Topicality, which in turn is a priori to the Plan.

Speed:

I enjoy spreading, but I dislike fast mumbling. If you’re not a proficient spreader, slow down. Reducing speed for tags, cites, and underviews helps your case immensely.

Theory:

Theory won’t win a debate on its own. Claiming in-round abuse or that your argument is better for education requires justification and strong links.

Kritiks:

I love Kritiks, but they must be strongly linked to the Plan. Otherwise, Kritiks are non-unique DAs.

Tell me the story of the Kritik. I want to hear persuasion and thought behind these arguments. A well-done K will make my weekend.

DAs:

It can be tough to weigh DAs against a Stock Issues case. If a Stock Issues case is given by AFF, I would appreciate NEG providing only DAs that diminish/turn the stock issues of the Plan.

Please, no politics DAs unless you can prove that the loss of political capital extends past enactment of the plan. I am a strong believer in Fiat.

Things that make my heart go pitter-pat:

• Confident, assured underviews
• Focusing on the claims above the evidence
• Teams that stay on the offense and show clear strategy
• TOPICALITY (as long as it is a well-structured T debate that is strongly linked to the Plan)

Things that make me cringe in my seat:

• Evidence battles
• Any kind of murky ethics (mis-claiming dropped contentions, falsely stating rules, overusing flash time for prep, etc.)
• Having to vote on a weakly supported, but crucial, argument that wasn't answered.

I'm a Public Forum debater through and through, and you should know that I approach judging as a debater. I want to see line-by-line, but I'm absolutely not interested in spreading. This isn't because I can't keep up with speed: I want to see a few well-considered arguments with meticulous weighing and impacts, not several poorly-consider arguments. To quote former champion high school debater and current U.S. Senator Ted Cruz: Spreading is "a pernicious disease that has undermined the very essence of high school and college debate." On a slightly separate note, a card saying something is true does not make it true if you don't have a *reasoned* warrant to back it up.

In terms of content, if frameworks come under contention I want to see some reasoning behind them. I will be open to most frameworks, but the context of liberal individualism is going to be particularly important to me when judging rounds where that might be relevant. Convincing me to accept a communitarian, collectivist or hyper-utilitarian framework is simply going to take more work. On the other hand, I will be inclined to frameworks that reject purely utilitarian perspectives and approach matters outside of a "societal" perspective. While you should never say "never," I'm probably not the judge with which to run any arguments grounded in Critical Theory. At the end of the day, solving for individual freedom almost always will matter in my decision. On a somewhat related point, I also acknowledge that there are impacts that are unquantifiable but nonetheless important: logos is the easiest thing to debate, but ethos matters and you can win on an argument because it is necessary to fulfill an agreed-upon set of values (which would hopefully be reflected in your framework).

You can email with any questions or concerns: logangrodsky@gmail.com.

Newer judge

Traditional type.

Speak well, confidently,

Moderate tone,

eye contact,

gestures,

minimize hesitations,

know subject,

convince me.

crossfire most important—why should you win.

Jim McCormack

Hey, I'm Agomoni (she/her) and I'm a junior at Queens High School for the Sciences. I debated Policy for 2 years, but I'm familiar with Public Forum.

Email Chain: zgnlooh@gmail.com

Here are my preferences:

- I'm good with any arguments as long as you can explain it!

- Even though I will be timing, please time yourself. It will help you keep your pace. Also keep track of your prep time as well.

- Please speak clearly and slow down!! I would prefer if you don't spread. Enunciating your words will help me understand your ideas and contentions and keep up with the arguments.

- Try not to drop arguments! If your opponent drops an argument, you don't have to repeat it. Focus on expanding those ideas and why you should win.

- Please signpost your arguments and roadmap before your speech! It will help my flow and know the content of each idea in your speech.

- Make sure to focus on your impacts, framework, timeframe, and weighing.

- If you focus on defense too much in your last speech, it'll make me think that your arguments have no substance.

Lastly, have fun!! :D I'm not a strict judge, but please don't be rude or make discriminatory comments towards any groups brought up during the debate.

Hi! I'm Noga (she/her) a junior student from LaGuardia HS.

I started debating in middle school for Halsey 157 in the Parliamentary division, and have since been competing with LaGuardia at the Open Public Forum division.

Some quick points I can think of:

- Speaking too fast will make it difficult for me to understand & judge your arguments

- I will be flowing everything but crossfire; if there's anything important said, make sure to bring it up in your speech

- I'm fine with collapsing

- The most important things to me in a debate are weighing and impact!! Your second half of the round is the most important

Overall, be respectful and have fun!!