Tim Alderete - The Meadows School

-It's either Aff prep or Neg prep - No one preps for free.

-Text, from a debater I just judged to their coach, who is a friend of mine: “What is your friend on? He started my timer early because I took a deep breath.” Me: I'm gonna put that in my Paradigm!

-I do want to be on the email chain, but I won't be reading along with your speech doc - timalderete@yahoo.com

-I am cantankerous about Prep time - for me, it ends when you hit Send on the Email.

-The majority of my decisions will revolve around a lack of flowing or line by line structure.

-I will vote for most any coherent argument. A "coherent" argument must be one that I can defend to the team or debater who lost. Many think this makes me interventionist, but you don't pref me anyway.

-I not the best judge for bad arguments, the Politics Disad, or dumb theory. I will try to take them as seriously as you do, but everyone has their limits. (For example, I have never voted for disclosure theory, because I have never heard an intelligent argument defending it.)

-I do not vote for unethical arguments. The "Contact Information Disclosure" argument is dangerous and unethical because it abets online predators. It will receive a loss and minimum points.

-I don't give great speaker points. To compensate, if you show me decent flows you can get up to an extra point. Please do this Before I enter the ballot.

-I "can handle" your "speed" and I will only call "Clearer" once or twice if you are unclear.

-I have judged and coached a lot of LD rounds – I like philosophical arguments more than you may expect.

-I have judged and coached a lot of Policy rounds – I tend to think like a Policy debater.

Update:
I haven't judged since 2018, I dont think my opinions on debate have changed but maybe slow down for me as I get back into this. You definitely should slow down on texts (plant texts, alts, interps etc.) and author names pls. My email is amestoy.monica@gmail.com

Background:
My name is Monica Amestoy. I graduated in 2013 and debated for Flintridge Sacred Heart Academy in La Canada, CA. I qualified for TOC my senior year, coached a few debaters who did very well at the TOC and have taught at VBI, NSD, PDI and BFI. I also debated in college. Overview: I will do my best to evaluate the round the way you tell me to. I will try to be as objective as possible, but I think that it is impossible to be a completely "tab" judge. So instead of pretending that I will vote like a blank slate my paradigm is to let you know about some of my opinions on certain aspects of debate. Also I haven’t really edited the rest of this paradigm in a while so feel free to ask questions.

Short version: I like policy style arguments, non topical argument, Ks and theory. Read whatever you feel you are best at and when in doubt weigh. I will straight up drop you if you make racist, sexist, homophobic and transphobic arguments.

Theory: I really enjoy good theory debates.

Ks:
I hesitate to tell you about my love for the K debate because I’m scared people will think that means they have to run their K in front of me. I obviously love the K but you should run what you think you will do your best with. That being said, I have found that I am more compelled by critical arguments so if you are responding to one of these types of positions or feel that you would perform better under a different paradigm of debate then I think you should probably address questions of what fairness is and for whom/what it means in the debate space.

CPs, Perms, Plans and DAs:
Go for it
Is condo good? Bad? Idk you should tell me these things in your speech

People need to slow down for their plan/cp texts. -Slow down for card names. I think judges lie way too much about how good they are at flowing. I'm just okay.

Things I will drop your speaks for (a lot):
1. Formatting your case in a way that makes it difficult for your opponent to read: multiple colors, fonts, highlighting or lack of spacing. (honestly win the round because your arguments or ballot story is better not because your opponent has a hard time reading your case)
2. Being really rude
3. Stealing prep
4. Lying
Just have fun and read what makes you happy.

High school debate: Bay Area Urban Debate League (4 years) Cal Prep

College debate: 
Weber State University 2013-2014
Fresno State University 2014 - current 

Email: jason.auro95@gmail.com email me questions or anything really 

Debate Influences: Deven Cooper, Max Bugrov, Omar Guevara, Joseph Flores, Ryan Saxe, and Perry Green

You should feel comfortable running anything in front of me. I will try to make this debate space as safe and respectful as possible. Really I just want you to be you do whatever you want during this debate. I feel that judges are suppose to be educators and I will do my best to my ability acknowledge every argument you have, but you have to keep it warranted and consistent throughout the debate. I will always tell each team 1) Who won and why (unless there is something against this in the tournament rules) and 2) How each team can get a lot better.

I first learned how to debate and judge as a tabula rasa, but I soon learned that this is impossible, but I will do everything I can to be unbiased. Dont get me wrong I will vote on things that I disagree with despite personal beliefs. 

BE NICE. When you are mean, rude, condescending etc, be prepared for some of the bad speaker points. There is a clear delineation between competitiveness and being mean.

Case:

Make sure to always extend it… at least somehow please. I had been in too many debates where people don’t mention case after the 1ac makes me so sad.

Straight up AFF: Sounds great

Half policy - half critical Affs: Like them run it

Critical adv with plan text: You got me interested 

Critical adv w/o plan text: You better have a reason why you don’t have a plan text.

"Crazy" radical affs: I will be excited for the round, but will have "high" expectations for you

Anti-Resolution affs: Aff should have Switch Side answers down

DA:

They are great run them if you want.

CP:

They cool nothing really special to say.

PIC’s: I really like them and add a DA to them ooo you got yourself cooking

Adv CP: Better have a benefit and/or turn the other adv :)

K: <3

You got my interest. I love K debates I probably read or know most of the high theory args but this does not mean you get magic leeway for the argument. You still have to explain everything step by step.

Framework:
If no FW was read in the round I will evaluate all the impacts by who ever did the best explanation and importance of it. 

I absolutely HATE the argument that “Policy Debate is about competing policy ideas” or “Traditional policy debate frameworks are best for evaluating debates.” I believe these interpretations are anti-educational and unethical, however I will still vote on it if it goes conceded.

CX:

I will flow it if there is anything really important in there, but please try to make it powerful. The bright line in what I mean by important is if it is mentioned in the round by the other team.

Ethical challenges/“clipping”:

Also if there are any ethical challenges the debate will go in either two ways.

1. A. If it is true the team loses automatically with 0 speaker points, but the round will still continue and I will tell the points if they never made an ethical problem
2. B. The debate will continue but all the cards that were clipped will be taken out (Only in case of new debaters that never knew what clipping was).

Debate should be fun go have fun.

I debated at Apple Valley from 2000-2004. In the interim, I have judged and coached with varying frequency. At this point, I only judge the Minneapple. In general, these are my preferences.

Theory: I will listen, but I generally dislike that level of debate. I will be more likely to vote on theory when abuse is palpable.

As far as assumptions about theory go, I default to competing interpretations and dropping the argument. I don't feel strongly either way about RVIs.

K alt/Plan: If your primary advocacy is conditional, or you advocate a pure rejection alt, you will probably lose.

I am not a fan of defensive debate. Please have an advocacy. This affects your speaker points. Additionally, I am unlikely to vote on presumption.

Use evidence and please make your extensions clear. Sometimes I don't hear the full author name and if that happens, you run the risk of me missing your extensions if you only tag your argument by author name. Your warrants should be clearly extended. I won't give you credit if it's not on my flow, even if you said it, even if both debaters seem to agree that it was made.

Don't lie, don't make your opponent uncomfortable with your demeanor or your argumentation.

Feel free to ask me questions prior to the round beginning.

Matt DeLateur

Update 1/14/2023: I find the trend of cards (especially in CX) not being cut into full sentences extremely confusing, both theoretically and practically. I continue to reemphasize -- strategic vision and crystallization are drastically underrated. I don't understand why most CX debates only have substantial clash happening in the 1nr and beyond. Most advantage scenarios and disads I hear these days are mostly based on equivocations of language "we help some program that marginally involves AI" --> "runaway AI mech robots on the battlefield goes nuclear" --> "we solve nuke war". A trained leopard seal being offered a meagre amount of sardines could probably articulate why this is terrible logic. I fail to understand why the response I frequently see in situations like this not to point out fundamental leaps in logic, but to read equally badly warranted and tagged cards in a giant block, doing no line-by-line comparison of warrants. Anyway, I'm an old man, who will radically reward you for debating in a way that shows you are listening to your opponent, asking whether they have warrants and whether those warrants make sense.

CHSSA STATE UPDATE 4/24/2021: Please debate at maximum a medium speed, or run the risk of me not following anything you're saying. I think the state tournament should not be a circuit tournament -- you can still go fast, but if I stop understanding what you're saying, due to lack of clarity or explanation, I stop flowing. Strategic tips: if an opponent's link chain is bad, I will give you a lot of credit for pointing that out -- terminal defense on crappy link chains is a thing imo.

UPDATE 10/14/2017: In terms of circuit debate, I am a broken man. LD has left all sense of reason behind and now exists in an abject of state of meaningless noise. I started competing and coaching LD debate because normative ethical philosophy deserves rigorous intellectual engagement. But, though I understand there are other ways to debate, their execution in LD debate makes me want to do anything else but listen. Please, for the future, strike me if you want to read policy back-files and stupid link-chain disads or if you think debating the k without reading a framework is somehow responsive. Also, theory-hacks, please strike me. If you know how to spell philosophy and can articulate why LD is different than policy, I'm your judge. Otherwise, I reluctantly will be physically present in your round but may be more than a little emotionally and spiritually disturbed. Your humble servant, Matt DeLateur.

I debated LD for 4 years in high school and currently coach LD for Bellarmine College Preparatory. I'm open to all argumentation; speed is not an issue. The ultimate guideline behind my decision-making is that I will minimize intervention on the flow as much as possible.

Style Preferences:

Delivery: Speed is not a problem. Clarity is underrated--pauses before and after author names and during theory or analytics are good.

Speaks: Technical skill, strategy, delivery, clarity, and creativity all contribute to speaker points. My speaker points are probably higher than average.

In my view, speaker points are my way to act as an educator without being coercive with the ballot. That means if you run a topic specific plan, counter-plan, cogent D/As, innovative arguments, debate stock arguments in a positional and interesting way (or even-uninterestingly), topic specific or non-topic specific Ks, etc., you need not worry about your argumentative choices influencing your speaker points. If you choose to run any of the following things: hidden a-prioris, generic potential abuse theory shells (this is an arbitrary bright-line--use your gut--if you're running the shell simply to be strategic rather than because there is abuse, you and I probably know it), new 1AR advocacies, or anything else which I feel comfortable saying would significantly diminish the educational potential of the debate round, I reserve the right to influence the shape of the debate community using speaks.

If this seems unfair/mean to you or if any of the things I listed above that I don't like compose crucial parts of your strategy, please strike me. Otherwise, I like to think that if we agree on the above discussion of what creates an educational activity, we'll get along just fine.

LD Argumentative Preferences:

Framework: Most LD rounds and every LD resolution breaks down to competing value frameworks. As such, the easiest way to access my ballot is to either a) be very interactive and clash directly with the internal warrants of your opponent's differing system for evaluating what is important in the round, then establish yourself as the sole person with offense to the standard or b) concede the framework but uphold your burden to be comparative through really good weighing. Weighing and offense are key. I will evaluate truth-testing if it is argued for, but I default comparative worlds.
Edit 11/5/13: Recent framework debates are narrowing towards two frameworks that are meant to preclude "all other standards" for a bunch of varying reasons. Those reasons may be completely sound and valid. However, a poor debater will simply extend the number 3 or number 4 reason the standard comes first. A skilled debater will rather extend the number 3 or number 4 reason the standard comes first, but also compare the competing claims to priority that the other debater has made for their preclusive standard. I find debaters making this analysis is very productive insofar as it minimizes my intervention. Choosing between two standards that claim to "come first" without any comparison proves relatively difficult for a judge to remain neutral.

A-prioris: I don't necessarily find these arguments inherently bad in themselves. For me to vote on them, you need to 1) Win Truth-testing, or impact the implication of the a-priori to a comparative world 2) Win the a-priori. However, for me not to tank your speaks, you need to 1) clearly impact any a-prioris in your constructive speech, meaning that argument must be labeled as an independent reason to vote for you 2) Be absolutely clear and cogent if questioned about the implication/function of these arguments in cross-examination. Failure to do either of the above conditions will not cause me to vote against you, but I will exercise my subjective control over speaks as I see fit. If you meet the above two, I have absolutely no problem voting on these arguments.

Kritiks: I'm well versed in critical literature and by the end of my time in high school I was primarily a critical debater. Feel free to run anything you want. Be sure to understand your case though--nothing is worse than someone completely bastardizing an argument because they a) didn't cut it b) didn't understand it

Theory: I find theory uninteresting. That being said, it isn't my role to tell you how you spend your weekends. I will listen to any theory argument. I default competing interpretations. My thinking on RVIs has changed a touch, I tend to think that if the debater who initiates theory chooses to make theory drop the debater, theory should be an RVI. If theory is drop the argument, theory is not an RVI. If you make this argument, I will be very receptive to it.

Being blatantly offensive (rape good, racism good, patriarchy good) will earn 0 speaker points and a loss. Debate should be an inclusive and safe environment.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Fink%2C+Ryan

Anthony Gerrettie
Northern Arizona University, '05 B.S. in Public Relations and Speech Communication
University of Arizona, '08 Post Bacc in Secondary Education, English

Former Head Coach, Salpointe Speech and Debate (2009 - 2018)

Policy Debate Judging Philosophy
I'm doing my best to run a blank slate, but you need to know that I am an English Teacher (that means I love analysis), I'm a former High School Debate Coach (I'm familiar with the literature), and I keep up with what's going on in the world.

I will however leave as much of that as I can at the door and I'll listen to your arguments.

General Info for both sides.
What gets down on my flow is tag lines and author names. I'll listen to the actual article but tag lines is what I believe is important. If I need to evaluate it, I'll ask for it.

Prep time has been a disaster in paperless policy. Flash evidence efficiently or if it gets abusive or if your partner is prepping while you're flashing, I'm running the clock.

While I used to judge policy exclusively, I've only judged policy when needed for the past three years. I'VE SEEN A TOTAL OF 6 POLICY ROUNDS IN THE LAST THREE YEARS.

Speed: I've judged policy on and off for nine years so I'm decent with speed. I'll let you know if you need to slow it down, but if you're not clear, I'm not going to get it. If I can't hear it because you do not articulate, it didn't happen. Part of being a debater and winning is communication. GIVE ME THE TAG LINE SLOWLY AND THEN RAMP BACK UP.

Topicality: Very rarely do I vote that a plan is untopical. When I do, it's only because an alternative definition for something was provided and proved to be more effective that was not clashed by the affirmative and it was extended by the negative team calling the plan untopical. I SEE TOPICALITY AS A TIME SKEW THAT THE NEG WILL KICK OUT OF IN A LATER SPEECH. GO FOR T IF THEY DROP IT AND THEN MAKE IT YOUR MAIN VOTER ISSUE.

K: Kritik's are good but only with proper analysis. Here's where you need to use your voice, speed and volume to annunciate what in the K card makes that K good. I'll need more than a tag line if it's going to be evaluated seriously. You can't make critical claims without analyzing and I need to hear that analysis, but when you use K's, you really put yourself more in the hands of a judge than simply winning on other arguments would. They will have to philosophically side with your K.

CP's: I see CP's as a strong argument. Telling me you can do their plan better is a great way to win a debate. That being said, your counterplan needs to address all aspects of the preious plan. It's not a true counter plan unless it covers everything. Counter the counter plan by addressing all arguments, or perm it. A line by line argument on the flow will help with this.

DA's : Important for debate and clash. The best debates have clash and every debater has a ton of DA's, be sure you pull out the right ones.

My Ballot
My vote comes from the flow. It's which arguments were won by the affirmative team against which arguments were won by the negative team, and the impacts that come with them. Impacts always outweigh. If the affirmative team wins 4 arguments and the impact is the economy, and the negative team wins 1 argument and solves for extinction, the negative wins. It's about impacts with me, and logical impacts. Please understand that no matter what, one side will be very happy with me and one side will be very upset with me. That's the nature of this sport/activity. My decision will be made and it will be explained, but it will not be questioned any way other than for clarity.

L/D Judging Philosophy

I'm doing my best to run a blank slate, but you need to know that I am an English Teacher (that means I love analysis), I'm a former High School Debate Coach (I'm familiar with the literature), and I keep up with what's going on in the world.

I will however leave as much of that as I can at the door and I'll listen to your arguments.

General Info for both sides.
What gets down on my flow is tag lines and author names. I'll listen to the actual article but tag lines is what I believe is important. If I need to evaluate it, I'll ask for it.

Value/Criterion Debate
One of the best ways to win my ballot, especially on the criterion. Explain to me why your criterion outweighs if you have a different one than your opponent. If you have the same criterion then explain to me why your contentions will do that better than your opponent. With the evolution of L/D debate, the framework is becoming less of an important argument. If you go traditional, win ont he framework, if you go progressive, you can win on an Off Care argument or turns of your opponents case.

Contentions
I'll listen to anything. If it's outrageous, then I expect your opponent to call you on it, and then I'll side with who makes the clearer and most logical argument.

Rebuttals
Address every argument your opponent makes. Obviously this can be difficult because you are low on time. If you don't address it, and they extend it, they win that argument. If you don't address it and they don't extrend it, I'll think and decide if I buy it. Essentially, the rebuttals are your chance to tell me how to think about something. When you don't I start thinking. We may not agree but if you don't tell me how to think then what else can I do.

Voting Issues
Summariing the round before your time is up on your last speech is excellent. Why should i vote for you? What impacts do you have? What will happen if I vote for your opponent? These are all valuable questions to help win my ballot.

Progressive LD Debate

LD is becoming more and more like policy. I enjoy progressive debate but only if you are aware of the literature. Too many students are running progressive arguments and don't understand them. If you're going to be progressive understand the literature and spend a minute or two in your final speech explaining why you were progressive and why you've won. Overexplain.

My Ballot
My vote comes from the flow. It's which arguments were won by the affirmative team against which arguments were won by the negative team, and the impacts that come with them. Impacts always outweigh. If the affirmative team wins 4 arguments and the impact is the economy, and the negative team wins 1 argument and solves for extinction, the negative wins. It's about impacts with me, and logical impacts. Please understand that no matter what, one side will be very happy with me and one side will be very upset with me. That's the nature of this sport/activity. My decision will be made and it will be explained, but it will not be questioned any way other than for clarity.

Any questions?
Tony.Gerrettie@gmail.com

Public Forum Judging Philosophy

I've spent the majority of recent rounds judging L/D and PF.

Contention Level

-The first speech should build your case. Observations and Framework should come first.

Rebuttal

-Rebut down the flow. Attack everything in order as it's given.

Summary

-Figure out where you're ahead and make that your speech. The summary should contain voter issues

Final Focus

-Tell me why you've won this ballot. You can only have access to arguments that the summary beings up. If the summary didn't mention it, you can't bring it back up.

Prep Time

-If you call for a card that's fine and great. Once you get that card in your possession, prep time starts. Your prep time will be used to read the card.

Alta 2022 Judging Philosophy

Email: stevejknell@gmail.com

Education:

- DMA, University of Texas at Austin (2019)

- MM, University of Georgia (2013)

- BMus, University of Utah (2011)

Debate experience:

- Harvard Westlake School––Upper School LD Assistant; Middle School Head Coach (2014–2016)

- DebateLA––MS Parli and LD Instructor (2014–2016)

- Weber State Debate Institute––Director of LD Debate (2014)

- Wasatch Mountain Debate––Founder and LD Instructor (2013–2014)

- Rowland Hall-St. Marks––LD Coach (2013–2014)

- Bingham High School––LD Coach (2007–2011)

- Sun Country Forensics Institute––LD Instructor (2010–2011)

- Debated for Cottonwood High School––4A Utah State Champion in LD (2004–2007)

Foreword: I have judged a lot of circuit debates, but it’s been six years since I judged my last round. I’m not up-to-date on trends or new jargon in the activity, and otherwise rusty on jargon I knew in the past. You should probably not read at your top speed. I have not seen any rounds on the topic, nor coached/researched it.

TL;DR philosophy: I have over a decade of experience in LD and should be able to handle any style or argument you throw at me. I view resolutions as normative statements that are tested through some kind of evaluative standard––straight-up util, more nuanced meta-ethical frameworks, etc.––and offense which funnels through that standard. The rest is up to you, with a few exceptions:

- I will not vote on moral skepticism.

- This is new for people who know my philosophy:

o I don’t think judges have jurisdiction to evaluate the out-of-round implications of what happens in the debate. My ballot has no role except to inform the tab room of the winner of the debate.

o I also don’t think judges have jurisdiction to make an in-round decision about anything that might occur/might have occurred out-of-round. I will not vote for positions that ask me to evaluate people and not arguments.

- I will not vote for arguments endorsing or justifying any pernicious “-isms” or “-phobias,” like racism, homophobia, etc.

More things consider:

- Policymaking: These tend to be my favorite debates. Plans are great. Counterplans must be competitive and should probably negate the resolution. PICs are okay but I think they are generally bad and/or poorly executed arguments.

- Kritiks: Ks are fine, but these debates tend to be at once dense and poorly explained, and thus require good storytelling and clarity.

- T/Theory: I default to competing interpretations but will hear arguments to the contrary. Topicality and theory debates are, to my mind, the most boring variety, and uniquely challenging to judge, so I may not be the best judge for complex theory debates. High threshold for RVIs, especially for T; having said that, if the shell is clearly ridiculous and merely designed to suck your time so it can be kicked in the 2N, feel free to go hard for the RVI.

- Speed: It’s not my job to tell you how fast you should talk, but I’ve been out of the activity for years, so anything close to your top speed isn’t advisable. You’re responsible for my understanding of your arguments; if I miss a game-changing argument, you weren’t clear enough. I’ll say “clear” or “slow” twice; after that, you’re on your own. Overviews are excellent. Please don’t speak at any speed at which your opponent can’t understand what you’re saying.

- Speaker points: 27.5 is my guidepost for the "average" debater at a given tournament and I go up/down from there. I rarely go lower than 26.5 unless you are disrespectful. You can earn higher speaks through clarity, savvy strategic execution, good management of the macro-level of the debate (i.e., good storytelling), and respectful conduct.

- Presumption: Neg gets presumption, though you can always argue why that shouldn’t be the case. Please don't make me vote on presumption.

- Odds and ends: I have heard there are new arguments floating around asking the judge to decide the round after a speech which is not the 2AR––I will not vote for these arguments. Suspected evidence ethics violations must be flagged immediately, clearly verifiable, and will be a win-lose issue for both parties.

-Questions are fine, but I am wholly uninterested in arguing with you (or your coach) after the round.

Feel free to ask any questions you have, or shoot me an email before the round.

*Updated on 4/21/18 while migrating to Tabroom. I'm revising this because my former paradigm was dated, not because of any significant changes to my judging philosophy.*

Background: I coach LD for the Brentwood School in Los Angeles. I competed in LD for Robbinsdale Cooper HS and Blake HS, both in Minnesota, from 2006-10. I studied philosophy, economics, and entrepreneurship at Northwestern University, graduating in 2014. I have judged several hundred circuit LD rounds, and plenty traditional rounds too.

Overall: I am a 'least-intervention' judge, and try my best to vote on the arguments in the round. Barring certain complicated extremes (i.e. offensive language, physical coercion), I vote for the best reason articulated to me during the debate. This involves establishing a framework (or whatever you want to call it - a mechanism for evaluation) for my decision, and winning offense to it.

Some implications/nuance to 'least-intervention' - a) I won't evaluate/vote on what I perceive to be new arguments in the 2NR or 2AR, b) I won't vote on arguments that I don't understand when they're introduced, c) I won't vote on arguments that I don't hear, and d) I won't vote on arguments you don't make (i.e. if your evidence answers something and you don't point it out)

Spreading: I think speed is overall bad for debate, but I will not penalize you for my belief. You should debate at whatever speed you want, granted I can understand it. If it's just me judging you, I will say clear / slow up to three times per speech. After three I will stop trying. The first two 'clears' are free, but after the third one I will reduce your speaker points by 2 for a maximum of 28. On a panel I will say 'clear' once, maybe twice, depending how the other judges seem to be keeping up.

Speaker points: holistic measure of good debating. I'm looking for good arguments, strategy, and speaking. I average around a 28.5. A 29.3+ suggests I imagine you in elimination rounds of whichever tournament we're at. I'm averaging a 30 once every four years at my current rate.

Loose ends:

- As of the 4/21/18 update, I do not need extensions to be 'full', i.e. claim / warrant / impact, especially in the 1AR, but I do expect you to articulate what arguments you are advancing in the debate. For conceded arguments, a concise extension of the implications is sufficient.

- If I think there is literally no offense for either side, I presume aff.

- I default to a comparative world paradigm.

- I default to drop the argument, competing interpretations, no RVI, fairness/education are voters.

- I will call evidence situationally - on the one hand it is crucial to resolving some debates, on the other hand I think it can advantage unclear debaters who get the benefit of judges carefully reviewing their evidence. I will do my best to balance these interests.

Feel free to contact me at erik.legried@gmail.com.

Updated 1/11/2021.

Background: I competed in NPDA parli at Berkeley 2011-2015. I debated both policy and critical, but many of my original positions were race/gender criticisms and I leaned heavily critical towards the end of my career. I now work for the USFG - mostly on economic policy, but previously on health and immigration policy.

I have judged a few times per year on the national circuit for the past five years, but have not judged this year. If you are having me at Mile High 2021, the last tournament I judged was NPTE 2020, so I have not judged virtually before. Therefore, if you get me in the first few prelims, you may want to go slightly slower than usual. I have not been involved in topic prep at all, so keep that in mind.

Generally, you should do what you want to do (as long as you aren't a jerk) because this is your time and I'm not volunteering my weekend and/or taking time off work to watch people be miserable.

Open to answering questions - message me on Facebook, preferably before prep time begins.

Condo: I have no preference.

Ks: I'm more familiar with race/gender-based criticisms. I don't understand pomo or psychoanalysis well. Feel free whether to defend the topic or not - I read a lot of nontopical affs. But will also vote on framework.

Theory: I was not a good theory debater, and don't have very nuanced views on theory compared to where the circuit has moved. But I seem to vote on it a decent amount.

Speaks: Aside from all the usual, you will get higher speaks if 1) you are not unnecessarily an asshole, 2) you say true things, 3) you sound like you want to be there.

Miscellaneous Observations:

- I enjoy the performative aspect of debate (not limited to "performance" arguments, and not limited to grandstanding).

- I enjoy original, creative arguments.

- I think debate is a fun game and that different people get different things out of it. I tend to think that one of the things with the most significant lasting impact is how we interact with other people in the activity. Which is not everyone must be nice all the time, but I hope people can be compassionate in the context of a competitive environment, while not shying away from confronting hard things.

I have judged policy, Lincoln Douglas, and Public Forum for 5 years into the national level, supporting my son in debating not only in Idaho, but Nevada, Utah, Washington and California. Spreading is allowed; speaks will reflect judge’s comprehension. I am open to any kind of approach—topicality, Ks, etc.; however, I won’t do the debate work for you. Tell me what I am judging on and why your arguments outweigh/have greater impacts than your opponent, with links and warrants to your evidence to give the justification why I should prioritize your impacts over your opponents.

Please give roadmaps; just don't say "brief offtime roadmap." Use all of your time, but if you don't, don't say you'll "yield the rest of your time."

I'm a very evidence-focused (note, nothaving evidence, but demonstrating understanding of evidence) judge. In general, I'm sympathetic to claims that a team should be allowed to do something as opposed to not.

If you want bad speaks, here are some easy ways to get it: be rude, especially in questioning periods (rude in this case meaning cutting speakers off unnecessarily - do control your CX, but there's a difference between 'controlling your CX' and 'asserting dominance' - making snide comments, talking down to your opponents), power-tagging or otherwise being misleading with evidence (distinct from actual evidence rule violations), or making actively bigoted/micro-aggressive comments (this can easily spill over into my vote - don't say things that make me want to have a talk with your coach).

If you want good speaks: sarcasm that remains in good humor (i.e., sassy comments that aren't belittling or unnecessarily rude), really deep understanding of your argument, and creative case-writing. Generally, the style I reward with speaker points is confident and humorous, with a preference for arguments that require deep understanding to execute well.

Any position that tries to argue that sexism, racism, heteronormality, or any other form of bigotry is ethically defensible or even permissible will be dropped. Arguments that are not quite this vile, but have an easy slide to becoming them include: the impact to oppression must be warranted, you must prove why oppression is bad, or arguments placing the blame for oppression on its survivors. It’s likely that you will make that slide unintentionally, and so I recommend avoiding these types of arguments just as strongly.

Here are the things that matter:

I did not debate as a student.

I have judged and coached PF and LD for 8 years.

I don’t lean towards any style of debate, just convince me why I should vote for you and you can win.

My favorite philosophy is Utilitarianism... just sayin’

See: http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/O%27Krent%2C+Marc

LD Paradigm -- substantial revisions April 2018:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9uh69u3gaqcoh22/LD%20Paradigm.docx

LD Judging Record:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6yyg8kg6n0elx6d/LD%20Judging%20Record.xlsx

Policy Paradigm:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8r16qjhhzyfyb4g/Policy%20Paradigm.docx

Co-Director: Milpitas High Speech and Debate
PHYSICS TEACHER
History
Myers Park, Charlotte N.C.
(85-88) 3 years Policy, LD and Congress. Double Ruby (back when it was harder to get) and TOC competitor in LD.
2 Diamond Coach (pretentious, I know)

Email Chain so I know when to start prep: mrschletz@gmail.com

Summer 87: American U Institute. 2 weeks LD and congress under Dale Mccall and Harold Keller, and 2 more weeks in a mid level Policy lab.

St. Johns Xavierian, Shrewsbury, Mass
88~93 consultant, judge and chaperone

Summer 89 American U Coaches institute (Debate)

Milpitas High, Milpitas CA
09-present co-coach

Side note/pet peeve: It is pronounced NUUUUUU-CLEEEEEEE-ERRRRRRRRR (sorry this annoys the heck outta me, like nails on the blackboard)

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins. ALSO: SENDING ME A SPEECH DOC does NOT equal "READ IN ROUND". If I yell clear, and you don't adapt, this is your fault.

If you put conditions on your opponent getting access to your evidence I will put conditions on counting it in my RFD. Evidence should be provided any time asked between speeches, or asked for during cx and provided between speeches. Failure to produce the card in context may result in having no access to that card on my flow/decision.

Part of what you should know about any of the events
Events Guide
https://www.nflonline.org/uploads/AboutNFL/Competition_Events_Guide.pdf
13-14 NSDA tournament Operations manual
http://www.speechanddebate.org/aspx/content.aspx?id=1206
http://www.speechanddebate.org/DownloadHandler.ashx?File=/userdocs/documents/PF_2014-15_Competition_Events_At_A_Glance.pdf

All events, It is a mark of the competitors skill to adapt to the judge, not demand that they should adapt to you. Do not get into a definitional fight without being armed with a definition..... TAG TEAM CX? *NOT A FAN* if you want to give me the impression your partner doesn't know what they are talking about, sure, go ahead, Diss your partner. Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE"****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card means card wins.

PUBLIC FORUM:

P.S.: there is no official grace period in PF. If you start a card or an analytic before time, then finish it. No arguments STARTED after time will be on my flow.

While I was not able to compete in public forum (It did not exist yet), the squad I coach does primarily POFO. Its unlikely that any resolution will call for a real plan as POFO tends to be propositions of fact instead of value or policy.
I am UNLIKELY to vote for a K, and I don't even vote for K in policy. Moderate speed is fine, but to my knowledge, this format was meant to be more persuasive. USE EVIDENCE and make sure you have Tags and Cites. I want a neat flow (it will never happen, but I still want it)

I WANT FRAMEWORK or I will adjudicate the round, since you didn't (Framework NOT introduced in the 1st 4 speeches will NOT be entertained, as it is a new argument. I FLOW LIKE POLICY with respect to DROPPED ARGUMENTS (if a speech goes by I will likely consider the arg dropped... this means YES I believe the 4th speaker in the round SHOULD cover both flows..)

Also: If you are framing the round in the 4th speech, I am likely to give more leeway in the response to FW or new topical definitions in 1st Summ as long as they don't drop it.

Remember, Pofo was there to counteract speed in Circuit LD, and LD was created to counter speed, so fast is ok, but tier 3 policy spread is probably not.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" READ IN ROUND ) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

PLANS IN PF
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible. EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

POLICY:

If your plan is super vague, you MIGHT not get to claim your advantages. Saying you "increase" by merely reading the text of the resolution is NOT A PLAN. Claiming what the plan says in cx is NOT reading a plan. Stop being sloppy.

I *TRY* to be Tabula Rasa (and fail a lot of the time especially on theory, Ks and RVI/fairness whines)
I trained when it was stock issues, mandatory funding plan spikes (My god, the amount of times I abused the grace commission in my funding plank), and who won the most nuclear wars in the round.

Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

Please don't diss my event.
I ran
Glassification of toxic/nuclear wastes, and Chloramines on the H2O topic
Legalize pot on the Ag topic
CTBT on the Latin America topic.

In many years I have never voted neg on K (in CX), mainly because I have never seen an impact (even when it was run in POFO as an Aff).(Ironic given my LD background)

I will freely vote on Topicality if it is run properly (but not always XT), and have no problem buying jurisdiction......
I HAVE finally gotten to judge Hypo-testing round (it was fun and hilarious).
One of my students heard from a friend in Texas that they are now doing skits and non topical/personal experiece affs, feel free, BUT DON'T EXPECT ME TO VOTE FOR IT.

I will vote on good perms both ways (see what I said above about XT)

SPREAD: I was a tier B- speed person in the south. I can flow A level spread *IF* you enunciate. slow down momentarily on CITES and TAGS and blow through the card (BUT I WILL RE TAG YOUR SUBPOINTS if your card does not match the tag!!!!!!)
If you have any slurred speech, have a high pitched voice, a deep southern or NY/Jersey drawl, or just are incapable of enunciating, and still insist on going too fast for your voice, I will quit flowing and make stuff up based on what I think I hear.

I do not ask for ev unless there is an evidentiary challenge, so if you claim the card said something and I tagged it differently because YOU slurred too much on the card or mis-tagged it, that's your fault, not mine.

LD

I WILL JUDGE NSDA RULES!!!! I am NOT tabula rasa on some theory, or on plans. Plans are against the rules of the event as I learned it and I tend to be an iconoclast on this point. LD was supposed to be a check on policy spread, and I backlash, if you have to gasp or your voice went up two octaves then see below... Topicality FX-T and XT are cool on both sides but most other theory boils down to WHAAAAAAHHHH I don't want to debate their AFF so I will try to bs some arguments.

-CIRCUIT LD REFER to policy prefs above in relation to non topical and performance affs, I will TRY to sometimes eval a plan, but I wish they would create a new event for circuit LD as it is rarely values debate.

- I LOVE PHILOSOPHY so if you want to confuse your opponent who doesn't know the difference between Kant, Maslow and Rawls, dazzle away :-).
Clear VP and VC (or if you call it framework fine, but it is stupid to tell someone with a framework they don't have a VC and vice versa, its all semantics) are important but MORE IMPORTANT is WHY IS YOURS BETTER *OR* WHY DO YOU MEET THEIRS TOO and better (Permute)

IF YOU TRY TO Tier A policy spread, or solo policy debate, you have probably already lost UNLESS your opponent is a novice. Not because I can't follow you, but because THIS EVENT IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT!!! However there are several people who can talk CLEARLY and FAST that can easily dominate LD, If you cannot be CLEAR and FAST play it safe and be CLEAR and SLOW. Speaker points are awarded on speaking, not who wins the argument....

Sub-pointing is still a good idea, do not just do broad overviews. plans and counter-plans need not apply as LD is usually revolving around the word OUGHT!!!! Good luck claiming Implementation FIAT on a moral obligation. I might interrupt if you need to be louder, but its YOUR job to occasionally look at the judge to see signals to whether or not they are flowing, so I will be signalling that, by looking at you funny or closing my eyes, or in worst case leaning back in my chair and visibly ignoring you until you stop ignoring the judge and fix the problem. I will just be making up new tags for the cards I missed tags for by actually listening to the cards, and as the average debater mis-tags cards to say what they want them to, this is not advisable.

PLANS IN LD
PLANS
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible.

EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

I repeat, Speed = Bad in LD, and I will not entertain a counter-plan in LD If you want to argue Counterplans and Plans, get a partner and go to a policy tournament.

GOOD LUCK and dangit, MAKE *ME* HAVE FUN hahahahahah

http://www.vbriefly.com/2012/05/23/201205comments-for-the-circuit-on-the-ncfl-and-nfl-nationals-by-brad-taylor/

Hello! My name is Richard Shmikler. I graduated St. Louis Park in 2013 and Macalester College in 2017. I debated for 4 years in HS in LD, ending my senior year with 11(?) bids, finalist at TOC and finalist at NSDA Nationals, champion of Victory Briefs, Blake, Dowling, etc. I have been coaching ever since - all levels of LD from local to circuit, and PF primarily in China and a little in the US. My students have won major tournaments in the US and abroad, including NSDA China Nationals, Apple Valley, and Minnesota State.

I think debate is a sandbox game where you can create the round you want with limited control by rules or influence by adults. I will avoid intervening as much as possible. There is no debate style that I think is far superior or inferior, and will do my best to evaluate any arguments made. That being said, generally my order of preferences in terms of the debates I like to judge are...

Framework/Phil > Stock > LARP (policy-esque) > T/Theory > Gamey Creative Stuff (some might call tricks) > Topical K's > Pre-Fiat / Performance

Basically, go for whatever style you do best, and be respectful of everyone. If you are impacting, weighing, crystalizing, and winning on the line-by-line, you will get my ballot with high speaks.

I also save my flows from rounds, so if you have any additional questions, want to do redos, or want to grill me about my decision, you can email me at rshmikler@gmail.com.

PS: I think that 'swag' and 'flow' in debate are awesome and I will reward students who show mastery of their style and arguments - regardless of what that style is - with high speaks.

I have a wiki on judge philosophies,

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Swallow%2C+Jason

Undergraduate degree in Philosophy and in Rhetoric from UC Berkeley, and was on their Parli debate team. Also JD, NYU.

UPDATED: 4/11/2024

1998-2003: Competed at Fargo South HS (ND)

2003-2004: Assistant Debate Coach, Hopkins High School (MN)

2004-2010: Director of Debate, Hopkins High School (MN)

2010-2012: Assistant Debate Coach, Harvard-Westlake Upper School (CA)

2012-Present: Debate Program Head, Marlborough School (CA)

Email: adam.torson@marlborough.org

Pronouns: he/him/his

General Preferences and Decision Calculus

I no longer handle top speed very well, so it would be better if you went at about 75% of your fastest.

I like substantive and interesting debate. I like to see good strategic choices as long as they do not undermine the substantive component of the debate. I strongly dislike the intentional use of bad arguments to secure a strategic advantage; for example making an incomplete argument just to get it on the flow. I tend to be most impressed by debaters who adopt strategies that are positional, advancing a coherent advocacy rather than a scatter-shot of disconnected arguments, and those debaters are rewarded with higher speaker points.

I view debate resolutions as normative. I default to the assumption that the Affirmative has a burden to advocate a topical change in the status quo, and that the Negative has a burden to defend either the status quo or a competitive counter-plan or kritik alternative. I will vote for the debater with the greatest net risk of offense. Offense is a reason to adopt your advocacy; defense is a reason to doubt your opponent's argument. I virtually never vote on presumption or permissibility, because there is virtually always a risk of offense.

Moral Skepticism is not normative (it does not recommend a course of action), and so I will not vote for an entirely skeptical position. I rarely find that such positions amount to more than weak, skeptical defense that a reasonable decision maker would not find a sufficient reason to continue the status quo rather than enact the plan. Morally skeptical arguments may be relevant in determining the relative weight or significance of an offensive argument compared to other offense in the debate.

Framework

I am skeptical of impact exclusion. Debaters have a high bar to prove that I should categorically disregard an impact which an ordinary decision-maker would regard as relevant. I think that normative ethics are more helpfully and authentically deployed as a mode of argument comparison rather than argument exclusion. I will default to the assumption of a wide framework and epistemic modesty. I do not require a debater to provide or prove a comprehensive moral theory to regard impacts as relevant, though such theories may be a powerful form of impact comparison.

Arguments that deny the wrongness of atrocities like rape, genocide, and slavery, or that deny the badness of suffering or oppression more generally, are a steeply uphill climb in front of me. If a moral theory says that something we all agree is bad is not bad, that is evidence against the plausibility of the theory, not evidence that the bad thing is in fact good.

Theory

I default to evaluating theory as a matter of competing interpretations.

I am skeptical of RVIs in general and on topicality in particular.

I will apply a higher threshold to theory interpretations that do not reflect existing community norms and am particularly unlikely to drop the debater on them. Because your opponent could always have been marginally more fair and because debating irrelevant theory questions is not a good model of debate, I am likely to intervene against theoretical arguments which I deem to be frivolous.

Tricks and Triggers

Your goal should be to win by advancing substantive arguments that would decisively persuade a reasonable decision-maker, rather than on surprises or contrived manipulations of debate conventions. I am unlikely to vote on tricks, triggers, or other hidden arguments, and will apply a low threshold for answering them. You will score more highly and earn more sympathy the more your arguments resemble genuine academic work product.

Counterplan Status, Judge Kick, and Floating PIKs

The affirmative has the obligation to ask about the status of a counterplan or kritik alternative in cross-examination. If they do not, the advocacy may be conditional in the NR.

I default to the view that the Negative has to pick an advocacy to go for in the NR. If you do not explicitly kick a conditional counterplan or kritik alternative, then that is your advocacy. If you lose a permutation read against that advocacy, you lose the debate. I will not kick the advocacy for you and default to the status quo unless you win an argument for judge kick in the debate.

I am open to the argument that a kritik alternative can be a floating PIK, and that it may be explained as such in the NR. However, I will hold any ambiguity about the advocacy of the alternative against the negative. If the articulation of the position in the NC or in CX obfuscates what it does, or if the plain face meaning of the alternative would not allow enacting the Affirmative plan, I am unlikely to grant the alternative the solvency that would come from directly enacting the plan.

Non-Intervention

To the extent possible I will resolve the debate as though I were a reasonable decision-maker considering only the arguments advanced by the debaters in making my decision. On any issues not adequately resolved in this way, I will make reasonable assumptions about the relative persuasiveness of the arguments presented.

Speed

The speed at which you choose to speak will not affect my evaluation of your arguments, save for if that speed impairs your clarity and I cannot understand the argument. I prefer debate at a faster than conversational pace, provided that it is used to develop arguments well and not as a tactic to prevent your opponent from engaging your arguments. There is some speed at which I have a hard time following arguments, but I don't know how to describe it, so I will say "clear," though I prefer not to because the threshold for adequate clarity is very difficult to identify in the middle of a speech and it is hard to apply a standard consistently. For reasons surpassing understanding, most debaters don't respond when I say clear, but I strongly recommend that you do so. Also, when I say clear it means that I didn't understand the last thing you said, so if you want that argument to be evaluated I suggest repeating it. A good benchmark is to feel like you are going at 75% of your top speed; I am likely a significantly better judge at that pace.

Extensions

My threshold for sufficient extensions will vary based on the circumstances, e.g. if an argument has been conceded a somewhat shorter extension is generally appropriate.

Evidence

It is primarily the responsibility of debaters to engage in meaningful evidence comparison and analysis and to red flag evidence ethics issues. However, I will review speech documents and evaluate detailed disputes about evidence raised in the debate. I prefer to be included on an email chain or speech drop that includes the speech documents. If I have a substantial suspicion of an ethics violation (i.e. you have badly misrepresented the author, edited the card so as to blatantly change it's meaning, etc.), I will evaluate the full text of the card (not just the portion that was read in the round) to determine whether it was cut in context, etc.

Speaker Points

I use speaker points to evaluate your performance in relation to the rest of the field in a given round. At tournaments which have a more difficult pool of debaters, the same performance which may be above average on most weekends may well be average at that tournament. I am strongly disinclined to give debaters a score that they specifically ask for in the debate round, because I utilize points to evaluate debaters in relation to the rest of the field who do not have a voice in the round. I elect not to disclose speaker points, save where cases is doing so is necessary to explain the RFD. My range is approximately as follows:

30: Your performance in the round is likely to beat any debater in the field.

29.5: Your performance is substantially better than average - likely to beat most debaters in the field and competitive with students in the top tier.

29: Your performance is above average - likely to beat the majority of debaters in the field but unlikely to beat debaters in the top tier.

28.5: Your performance is approximately average - you are likely to have an equal number of wins and losses at the end of the tournament.

28: Your performance is below average - you are likely to beat the bottom 25% of competitors but unlikely to beat the average debater.

27.5: Your performance is substantially below average - you are competitive among the bottom 25% but likely to lose to other competitors

Below 26: I tend to reserve scores below 25 for penalizing debaters as explained below.

Rude or Unethical Actions

I will severely penalize debaters who are rude, offensive, or otherwise disrespectful during a round. I will severely penalize debaters who distort, miscut, misrepresent, or otherwise utilize evidence unethically.

Card Clipping

A debater has clipped a card when she does not read portions of evidence that are highlighted or bolded in the speech document so as to indicate that they were read, and does not verbally mark the card during the speech. Clipping is an unethical practice because you have misrepresented which arguments you made to your opponent and to me. If I determine that a debater has clipped cards, then that debater will lose.

To determine that clipping has occurred, the accusation needs to be verified by my own sensory observations to a high degree of certainty, a recording that verifies the clipping, or the debaters admission that they have clipped. If you believe that your opponent has clipped, you should raise your concern immediately after the speech in which it was read, and I will proceed to investigate. False accusations of clipping is a serious ethical violation as well. *If you accuse your opponent of clipping and that accusation is disconfirmed by the evidence, you will lose the debate.* You should only make this accusation if you are willing to stake the round on it.

Sometimes debaters speak so unclearly that it constitutes a negligent disregard for the danger of clipping. I am unlikely to drop a debater on this basis alone, but will significantly penalize speaker points and disregard arguments I did not understand. In such cases, it will generally be unreasonable to penalize a debater that has made a reasonable accusation of clipping.

Questions

I am happy to answer any questions on preferences or paradigm before the round. After the round I am happy to answer respectfully posed questions to clarify my reason for decision or offer advice on how to improve (subject to the time constraints of the tournament). Within the limits of reason, you may press points you don't understand or with which you disagree (though I will of course not change the ballot after a decision has been made). I am sympathetic to the fact that debaters are emotionally invested in the outcomes of debate rounds, but this does not justify haranguing judges or otherwise being rude. For that reason, failure to maintain the same level of respectfulness after the round that is generally expected during the round will result in severe penalization of speaker points.