I am a parent judge, but I will exclusively base my ballot on the flow. I place the greatest emphasis on rebuttals. You must be able to successfully take apart your opponent's case, while simultaneously responding to what they say about your case. I would like your arguments to be firm and clear, without being able to flow on both sides. Overall, I will choose my ballot based on whoever's argument holds the most weight and has held strong throughout the round. I don't like spreading. Make sure that your speaking is clear and easy to follow. Be sure to always be respectful to everyone in the round. Any disrespectful attitude or approach is an automatic loss and low speaks.

I think of debate as an art of argument. The arguments that are formed by sound research, are well structured and conveyed clearly. I have judged congressional debate a few times in the last few years, big questions debate once but a lot of Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas debates. I have also judged almost all speech events. I enjoy all forms of speech and debate. I look for well researched, well structured arguments delivered clearly. I understand that students might need to go a little faster than the normal conversational pace but I hope it is not too fast. I also pay special attention to cross examination. This is a great opportunity to challenge your opponents arguments respectfully. I don't appreciate when a speaker does not give the other speaker a chance to question or launches into a big speech in response to a question. This results in monopolizing the time and talking over each other. Good luck to the teams!

michaeldepasquale21@gmail.com

Public Forum

Short version: collapse onto one contention in summary, weigh weigh weigh, extra speaker point for each team if you start an email chain before each round and send evidence that way. Include me on the email chain.

I did policy debate for 3 years and now am coaching public forum. With that being said, i am okay with some spreading but i need to be able to understand what your saying. Ill vote on anything, however, if your going to go for something it needs to be rebutted throughout the entire speech. You should try and write my ballot for me at the end of the round by giving me 2-3 of your best arguments and going for them. If I look confused its because I am confused, so try to not do that. I pay attention to cross x, but i dont flow it. If I feel like theres an important point being made ill for sure write it down. Cross x is the most entertaining part of the debate, so make it entertaining. Be confident but don't be rude, theres a big big difference. I prefer that you have more offensive (your flow) than defensive arguments (your opponents flow) but you need to have both in order to win the round.

If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.

Policy

Like i mentioned in my PF paradigm, i did policy debate for 3 years and am now coaching Public Forum. I am good with anything you do. That being said, I don't know a lot about this topic. I'm cool with speed, but you have to be clear. Bottom line, ill vote for anything, as long as you give me a clear reason to vote for you at the end of the round. I consider a dropped argument a true argument.

Im not okay with shadow extending. If something gets conceded, you need to explain to me the argument, and why its important to the round. If your going to do an email chain, which id prefer, id like to be on that. My email is at the top of the paradigm.

Topicality: love T debates, i need a clear limits story. I am more willing to vote for you if theres in round abuse, but you do not have to prove an abuse story to win.

Ks: I will listen to them, but i am not great with Ks. I am not up to speed with all the k jargon. I need a clear link and alt. If you can prove at the end of the round why you won, and i think its convincing, ill vote for you. I recommend slowing down in the 2nr, especially if your going for the K.

Das: I do not buy generic links. If your going to read a politics da, you need to give me case specific links. Ill also be more than likely to vote for you if you can provide me with good and comparative impact calc.

Case Negs: I love case specific debates. Ill vote on presumption, and honestly any type of solvency takeout. I give analytical case arguments, especially if they are good, a lot of weight. Love impact turns.

Affirmative: I tend to swing aff when it comes debating against ptix disads with a bad link story. Same goes for cp solvency, and k links.

If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.

I am a parent judge. I flow the cases and look for rigorous, well-linked arguments. If you argue that x leads to y, the mechanism by which that happens should at least be addressed - no magic wands. I appreciate well-developed cases, but will score skilled debate over the quality of the case. Obviously it pays to have both.

I prefer a simple, well-crafted case to spreading and surgical arguments to shotgun rebuttals.

I did public forum for 4 years in high school and have been coaching it for 3 years now. I am going to divide this into 3 parts because I usually judge PF, LD, and policy (occasionally). Also apologies if this is all very long and confusing! If you have any questions, please ask me before the round and I will answer! Or if you have questions about the round after it's over, ask me!

Public Forum

I am okay with speed. However, send me your case if you think you will be speaking fast. I need to understand what you are saying if you want me to vote for you. I like to see clear and clean extensions of your links, warrants, etc. I have been seeing a lot of shadow-extending recently and if it happens in round, I can't vote for you on those arguments, cards, warrants, or whatever it is. You don't need to weigh too much in your rebuttal, but you need to start weighing in summary for me to vote for you. In PF, I prefer a line-by-line debate that has a lot of warranting, making it clear what arguments you are winning, whatever it may be. And make sure to signpost too. For summary, I think that the round needs to be brought down to 1-3 key issues on your side and your opponent's side as to why you are winning and starting impact calc. Basically, summary should be treated as a longer version of final focus. For final, I like impact calc that does a good analysis on both sides, with good warranting with why you win and why you win the impact debate. And don't be rude in the round to your opponents, such as being mean during cross or during your opponents' speeches. I am more likely to vote you down solely based on that.

Lincoln Douglas

I have been judging LD for probably the last 2 years, so I have a lot of experience of the format and how the round works. And also with the background of PF that helps too. My big thing is that I love a framework debate. If you win framework, I am more than likely to vote for you. Because (unless your opponent accesses your framework too), you have the better explanation for why we must evaluate the round based on that interpretation. If both debaters agree on framework, then it becomes a round based on who accesses framework better, becoming more of a standard "line-by-line" debate. If both sides don't discuss framework enough or just drop it, then I will resort to judging it similar to a PF round.

Policy

For the national circuit - I apologize if I am your judge. I will do my very best but please do not spread. I hate spreading and most people doing it aren't amazing at it. I would rather you speak clearly and focus on good arguments.

For the local circuit - I know most of you don't spread, but don't do it regardless.

email - johnevans201413@gmail.com

Hi, my name is Naga, and I'll be your judge today!

As a judge, I will be impartial and be objective in my decision. Please note that I am a parent judge and therefore do not know most debate or topic terminologies. You can use certain obvious debate jargon like turn, probability, or non-unique, but do not use terms that non-debaters will not be able understand. Please explain the points you are making, such as why it is a non-unique or why it is a turn, so I can understand the point you are trying to make. If I don't understand what you are saying, I will not be able to take it into account for my final decision.

The way I will judge will be thoughtful and analytical. I value tech over truth and follow the sky is red theory, meaning if an argument may be inherently flawed, but it is warranted and front-lined well and has a clear and quantifiable impact, I will buy it. The way I judge a round is first looking at who won the main arguments or clashes of the round, and I "award" these contentions or arguments to each of the teams based on who wins them. Then, I vote the contentions based on the quantified impacts and the relevance towards the round (aka the weighing debate). I expect you to do the heavy lifting for me, meaning you need to weigh these impacts and explain why you win the clashes of the round yourself.

In summary, to win my ballot, speak slowly, clearly, concisely, and confidently, and support your arguments with evidence and thoughtful analysis. Most likely, I will not vote for a contention that does not quantify the impact because I need to see the impact put into perspective.There are exceptions, but majority of the time, I expect clear link chains, evidence, and a quantifiable impact.

In crossfire, I expect to see that you allow your opponents air time to express their points and answer your questions. I will penalize you for being abusive towards your opponents, so remember to be respectful towards your opponents and towards me as a judge. I will not tolerate any statement that is extremely racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, etc.

In this debate, I hope not only to be a fair judge, but also learn a lot about these topics. Good luck!

PF/LD/Parli: I am a flow judge; however, arguments must be clearly stated and explained (i.e., minimize spreading). Since I will be flowing, please accurately summarize your case during your final focus. If you inaccurately state that someone has dropped an argument or brought up new evidence, I will lower speaks. I like to see technical arguments tied logically to outcomes. I prefer arguments directly connected to the resolution (i.e., I consider long link chains to be generally weaker arguments). I expect all participants to behave in a polite and professional manner.

I'm a parent judge, and my son is a PF debater.

I won't really know that many "debate" terms and I also won't like when people spread.

Don't be disrespectful and let's have a good tournament.