Event:PF

I am a lawyer, former state official, and teacher/coach. My M.S. is in Rhetoric. I place a high value on the public forum element of public forum: oratory, inflection, clarity, rate, professionalism. But, I also flow and occasionally give low point wins. I have low tolerance for rudeness or gamesmanship, e.g., abusive carding, shenanigans with timers, loud conversations during an opponent's speech, etc.

I appreciate a lively -- even heated -- cross-fire, so long as it is about substance.

In high school (Oklahoma) and college (Northwestern), I competed in extemp (NFL Nationals), OO, and LD.

Please speak at a conversational pace. If I can't understand your argument, I can't flow your argument.

Prefer quality over quantity. One solid argument will persuade me more than a dozen undeveloped arguments.

When speaking, please introduce evidence with the author’s full name, qualifications, publication, and publication date. This information is essential to evaluating the strength of your evidence. While last name/year may be the minimum requirement per NSDA rules, it is not sufficient to win the ballot. Each piece of evidence should be introduced with a brief pause or by saying “quote/unquote.” This is necessary to distinguish between evidence and analysis.

Please signpost with arguments, not authors.

Please ensure that your evidence supports the claims you are making. Disconnects between claims and evidence will seriously damage your credibility.

(General paradigm at the top, event-specific paradigms listed in [brackets]. If you're here for congress/speech/interp scroll to the bottom.)

I judge from a blank slate. In other words, it is up to the competitors to make their arguments, prove their points, and weigh the impacts. I will vote for the side that wins on the flow no matter how good or how flawed I personally think those arguments are.

The only time I bring in outside knowledge to a debate round is for very basic facts. Example: if a debater says that the current U.S. president is Lebron James, then I know for a fact that this is wrong and any arguments based on this being true will be dropped from my flow. This is only for basic facts that I am 100% sure of and which should not be in dispute; if a fact is at all controversial, complicated, or I am not 100% sure, then I will leave it up to the debaters to hash it out and I will not judge based on my personal opinion.

You must tell me how to weigh/decide the round, then you must tell me why you win under that decision framework. The jargon I'm using here is very LD but as a general concept it's true for PF too.

On warrants: if two opposing warrants contradict each other then I resolve the conflict based on warrant quality and relevance to the argument. I very much appreciate it when debaters go into detail about why a warrant should stand/fall to help resolve the conflict. If warrants contradict and neither comes out as superior then the arguments are a wash and I drop both from the flow.

On speed: I am fine with speed but my ear isn't as quick as it used to be, so please slow down for your tags and impacts so I can make sure we're on the same page. If this is an online tournament then please keep the speed to an absolute minimum because the audio distortion is a real problem. Please take this seriously.

[LD] The value framework is only important to me in terms of telling me how the round should be judged. I am very flexible when it comes to frameworks; all I care about is that the debaters' cases follow a logical structure and they explain why I should vote for their side. It's okay to appeal to your opponent's values, multiple values, or implicit values. You don't need to talk about "values" at all if you provide a clear mechanism for weighing the round.

[LD] Kritiks/theory cases are fine but you need some sort of offense. Even if you completely nullify your opponent's case you still need something on your side of the flow showing me why I should vote for your case/world/whatever. I do not believe in Affirmative burden in LD so if the round is a wash I do not automatically vote negative.

[LD] Special note on Utilitarianism: You must always link your arguments into the round's accepted framework, especially if it is your own framework. Util is no different. If you use Util as your VC you MUST provide a Util analysis at some point in the round. All Util frameworks boil down some concept of weighing net benefit and harm. Therefore to win the round you must explain exactly why your side gives the most benefit and/or least harm, and this means directly weighing your net benefit/harm against your opponent's net benefit/harm. If only one debater provides a Util calculus and the other does not then the one who does will probably win the round. I normally don't like giving such a specific paradigm but Util is very popular these days and I think it is very unfortunate how many rounds are decided entirely because someone uses Util and then never explains why they win under their own VC. If you have no Util calculus, you have no Util link.

[PF] I view each side as advocating for or against the position taken by the resolution, not on whether or not I "accept" the resolution or the pro/con case. This means that I do not give much weight to overly specific or unconventional interpretations of the resolution, and most theory/kritical arguments are limited to rebutting specific arguments. However I do not reject any arguments outright and I will listen to your justification for making that argument. I judge entirely based on whether analysis of the flow leads to advocacy for/against the resolution position; barring extreme circumstances I do not factor debate style into my RFD.

[PF] I do not flow cross examination. CX is for clarification and explanation so the debaters can hash out how their arguments interact with each other. There is zero benefit to being combative in CX because you cannot win or lose arguments during cross. I do still listen to CX though and what is said in cross can affect my understanding of the arguments made during the round.

CONGRESS: I primarily value good discussion. A good speech should 1) Have something useful to say, 2) Say it clearly, 3) Justify it with solid evidence and reasoning. Every speech should progress the discussion; no speech should merely repeat previously made arguments, even if you're giving a summary speech. Speeches early in a bill should provide new arguments. Speeches later in a bill should directly respond to arguments made by other senators. Speeches near the end of the bill should analyze/compare/weigh the arguments already made. Questions should similarly progress the discussion and try to reveal more about the speaker's position and arguments. I do not place much emphasis on how "congressional" your style is, however I view the goal of your speeches/questions to be promoting the public good via the role of a congressperson, and I will judge the quality of your speaking to the extent that it promotes/detracts from your advocacy for/against the bill.

For both LD and PF, I am a very traditional judge. Extreme speed, overuse of jargon, and trickery are not appreciated and could cost you the round. Win the round on the strength of your argument, the veracity of your evidence, and the clarity of your presentation. I will disclose ONLY if required by the tournament host. I will offer no oral critiques. Both of those are the purpose of the ballot.

I don't judge often, so excessive speed is counterproductive on the debaters' part. I follow where the rounds are going, and expect to be led to the big arguments for either side, which I hope will somehow conflict with one another. In the average PF round I've seen, decisions boil down mostly to a couple of points, so if each team has three voters separate from the other side's voters, you're asking me to intervene. Pick the arguments you really want me to decide on.

I have been coaching and judging since 2013. I'm a flow judge, and I am fine with speed to a point. However, if you see me put down my pen, it means I've stopped flowing because you're speaking too quickly.

When it comes to argumentation, don't assume I am an expert on the topic at hand. I'm leaving all my prior knowledge and opinions about the resolution at the door, so you need to clearly explain your framework (if you have it) for the resolution, and your claims/warrants/impacts should be clear throughout your debate. Make sure to signpost your speeches so I know exactly where you are on the flow. In rebuttals, make sure to actually clash with your opponents' argument, and if you're cross-applying (which I love when it's done correctly), just mention the contention you're using to do so.

In cross X, make sure to give your opponent time to respond to your questions, and give your opponent the chance to ask questions. It will hurt your speaker points if you're rude or show a lack of respect towards your opponent during cross x.

As the debate winds down, make sure to crystalize the point you want me to vote on, and be sure to weigh those points with the points your opponent has.

Pretty much, I'll vote off the flow, so just be sure to make it as clear to me as possible the arguments you've won and why you've won them at the end of the round.

Martin Page

Assistant Director--Debate

Ridge High School

Updated for TOC 2016

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm (Scroll Down for PF)

General Update 4/2016: I much prefer rounds where specific interactions happen rather than rounds where the strategy is to extend dropped arguments and blow them up without really addressing the other debater's position(s).  This is particularly true on the negative side--I FIRMLY believe the 1NC should spend time SPECIFICALLY addressing the AC on the AC side of the flow.  This is not to say that I won't vote for you if you don't do this, but debaters who do this will get higher speaks.  Also, please stop assuming I understand dense, uncommon positions--you need to be clear in your explanation.

Overview: I've been judging circuit LD for a while now and actively coach it, so I am familiar with many different types of arguments.  Please make sure it is clear to me how your arguments function in the round/how you are interacting with the other side.   I can't think of any arguments I won't evaluate (except the offensive "rape good, racism good, etc." arguments which I will drop you for running)--my goal is to not intervene. Please make sure it is clear to me how all arguments are functioning in the round.  Slow down on tags.  Overviews are much appreciated.

Some important notes:
1--I find myself incredibly uncomfortable with frameworks that explicitly use religion as a justification (evidently called the "God" case). I will attempt to evaluate them as I would any other argument, but if you're attempting to argue that God exists in front of me and that's a reason to vote one way or another, I'm not going to be very receptive to the argument. I respect every person's freedom of religion, but I struggle to understand the place of religion in the debate space.
2--I really struggle to evaluate rounds where there is no weighing, a lack of crystallization, or limited argument interaction. Please make the round clear to me. Crystallize in the 2NR/2AR. Weigh or explain why your arguments are a prerequisite or pre-empt to those made by the other side. If an argument is dropped, don't just tell me it is dropped--implicate the drop and tell me why it matters. The more work you do telling me how arguments function in the round, the easier it will be to evaluate the round, and the lower the chance that I accidentally intervene/have to play "argument roulette" and pluck something off the flow to vote off of because no one told me how to evaluate the round.
3--I am not very receptive to arguments saying that your opponent does not have the right to speak on a certain issue. This does not apply to theory arguments that say "debaters must not X" or "speaking for others" kritiks, which argue that NO debaters should do a certain thing (they don't leave one debater allowed to speak on an issue and another not allowed to speak on the issue). But I am not very receptive to "My opponent comes from X background, so she shouldn't speak on this issue, but I can because I come from Y background." If this argument has no carded evidence attached to it, I will not evaluate it. If it does have carded evidence attached to it, I will evaluate it, but I consider it an ad hominem attack and will have an extremely low threshold for responses to it. However, I am fine with (and even like) arguments that say authors of evidence are less qualified to speak on issues because of their background; this type of argument discusses how out-of-round discourse is shaped, so I'm fine with it. 
4--You really need to slow down on the tags and implications of evidence in less common, phil-heavy frameworks, especially if they come from the analytic tradition or are not very common in LD. I am not as familiar with these frameworks, so make sure you are especially clear in explaining how they function.

5--I'm really bad at keeping track of blippy cross applications when you're on your side of the flow; for example, if you're extending out of the AC on the AC side of the flow and also say "cross-apply this to X card on the NC flow" the chances are I miss that or something else right after it. So I prefer these cross-applications be made when you are making arguments on the side of the flow you are applying them to. 

Speed: I'm basically fine with speed--though the very, very fastest LD rounds might be slightly out of my comfort zone. I’ll say "slow" if you’re going too fast, "enunciate" if the words are garbled, and "louder" if you're too soft. If you're going fast on the evidence, please make sure the tags and analysis are slightly slower and are clear.  My issue is most often with enunciation and lack of vocal emphasis on important points in the case, not actual speed, so please make sure you are enunciating as clearly as possible. 

Kritiks: I really like them, including narratives/performance arguments. I enjoy role of the ballot arguments and micropolitical positions, both pre- and post-fiat.  I do not care if you are topical as long as you JUSTIFY why you are not going to be topical.  This doesn't mean you are immune from losing a T debate; it simply means I will evaluate non-topical positions.  Please make the link story clear on the negative side.  I'm better at evaluating ks and other policy arguments than I am at dealing with heavy and uncommon philosophical positions, but I will vote off the flow. 

T/Theory: I would rather hear a substantive debate, but I don’t have a bias against evaluating theory, and I am growing more comfortable and familiar with it. Please be sure to give me a clear sense of how the shells and theory strategy function in the round and interact with the other side. I prefer theory be read at a slower pace than other positions, and PLEASE slow down on interps and implications.  I understand that theory has strategic value beyond just checking abuse, but PLEASE note the following:

--I prefer (and sometimes even like) T debate to theory debate because I find it more interesting and relevant.

--I default reasonability and drop the argument.

--When a shell is missing links or poorly explained, or if I find the theory more abusive than the abuse itself (more than 4 shells in the NR, for example) I'm going to have a lower threshold for responses.

--If the neg position is actually abusive, unlike many judges, I am receptive to theory initiated in the 1 AR, but only against an actual abuse.

--I find AFC and theory that is run against an out-of-round abuse (i.e. disclosure theory) or an abuse that is not related to content (apparently "wifi theory" is a thing?) annoying, abusive, and bad for education, so I have a lower threshold for responses on these as well, and speaks will be low.  Running these things won't get you more than a 26.9.

--If there is no voter extended in the 2AR/2NR I will not vote on it unless it is the only offense in the round.  I default to voting on substance if the theory debate is muddled and lacks a voter in the final rebuttal.

Tricks and Other "Abusive" Arguments:

I am not a fan of "tricks" and struggle to evaluate these strategies, so if your strategy is to go for extensions of blips in your case that are barely on my flow to begin with, whether those arguments are philosophical or theoretical, I am going to have a lower threshold for responses, and speaks will be low.  However, I am somewhat more receptive to skep (though I certainly don't love it) and tricky philosophical arguments that are extremely well-developed--if you are running these arguments, you need to slow down.  Running skep or well-developed analytically philosophical tricks that I understand when they are argued in the AC will not negatively affect you're speaks.

When I say "lower threshold for responses" it means I think these are weak arguments or abusive strategies, so while I will always vote off the flow, I don't like these arguments to begin with, so I'm very open to logical responses to them.

Extensions: I like extensions to be clearer than just a card name; you have to extend a full argument, but I also value extensions that are highly efficient.  Therefore, summarize your warrants and impacts in a clear and efficient way.  Most importantly, please make sure you are very clear on how the argument functions in the round.  

Policy arguments (Plans, CPs, DAs) are all fine.  If you're running a DA, make sure the link is clear and you're weighing, but in general, I like policy arguments and am probably better at evaluating them than I am at evaluating heavy and uncommon philosophical positions.

Speaker Points: I start at a 28 and go up/down from there. Please note that in addition to what is listed below, I also give some consideration to clarity of spreading (enunciation especially) and word economy. If your words are incredibly garbled, I'm not going to be particularly happy--this usually makes a difference of .1-.2 speaker points. 

26-26.9--You have a lot of work to do OR you ran AFC or disclosure theory.

27-27.9--You did a decent job, but I do not think you have a chance of breaking.

28-28.9--You will probably break, but you aren't interacting arguments enough and are not making strategic enough decisions.

29-29.9--You are one of the better debaters I've judged at the tournament.  You're clearly signposting, weighing and/or explaining how arguments function in the round.  Your strategy might have a misstep or two, but on the whole, you've executed extremely well.

30--You executed your strategy in such a way that I wouldn't reasonably expect better from a high school student.

 Some Notes on Public Forum

I've judged more LD this year than anything else, and I struggle to find out what that means for those off you who have me as a PF judge.  I will say the following: I vote strictly off the flow, I aim not to intervene, and I will call cards in PF only if there is dispute over evidence in the round or if something seemed off to me when you read the card (i.e. if you cite the Washington Post saying 90% of Americans are Democrats or something).  Some specifics:

1--I do not care how fast you speak.

2--Turns are offense.  Implicate and use them as such.

3--The summary should respond to your opponent's rebuttal against your case and generally focus on your side of the flow (i.e. focus on your offense, not defense on their case--but remember, turns are offense).  Since it's usually impossible to respond to everything that was said in their rebuttal, be strategic about which arguments you go for and please weigh. 

4--Please crystallize the round in the final focus.  If you don't weigh arguments in the summary and final focus, it will be very hard for me not to intervene, which makes everyone sad.

5--Frameworks and observations are important and should provide me a way to weigh the round. 

6--In the absence of weighing, I tend to look for clear offense (things that were dropped and clearly extended) rather than doing weighing for you.

Feel free to email me at martin.d.k.page@gmail.com if you have questions.

As a former CX Debater/coach,  I generally start with framework and observations and weigh them throughout the round, and I do not automatically count drops unless they are actually outlined. I don't mind a sense of humor. I always enjoy good clash in a debate round. Spreading is not encouraged, as what cannot be heard will not be flowed I love PF, and I have judged hundreds of rounds at every major tournament in the country including semi-finals at TOC's.  
Here are a few basic rules:
*Old policy habits die hard:  Framework, Framework, Framework,
*Arguments require claims and warrants. A claim without warrant is unlikely to be persuasive
*I don't intervene on the flow; you must make the argument. 
*Be careful with evidence; I probably know the card as well as you do.
*If you have a winning argument; I need to hear it before final focus; It must run throughout the round.
*Never lie about what the other team dropped.  

I am a traditional judge. Please don't include LD jargon in your cases. I am a Public Forum purist. I value clear and concise arguments that include compelling evidence coupled with strong analytical reasoning. Since this is real world debate, at the end of the round I decide what kind of world I want to live in - pro or con. Paint the picture for me. Be persuasive. Be competent. Be kind.

I would like you to really focus on communicating with me rather than just on saying what you have to say. Use common examples and make sure that I can really understand what the impacts mean to me or could mean to an individual in the world.

I am looking for you to really focus on prioritizing the arguments and impacts that matter most. Many arguments aren't completely won or lost as there may be harms and benefits to both sides. It's your job to tell me why those specific harms or benefits are impactful enough for my vote.

Use overt organization. Signpost. Be cordial.