Congratulations! You have the best judge in the tournament.

I am currently a coach, president and debater at the University of Maryland at Eastern Shore. I debated throughout high school at Auburn High and was president.

Let’s get to the point of how you win a round with me:

Do’s

-You can speak as fast as you like as long as I understand you. If you start to speak fast and slur your words I will stop flowing. There are ways to speed read and still be understood(I know because I do it).

-Use your prep time. There is nothing worse than not using prep time and then doing a speech start to finish and you missed half of what your opponents said. Use the time!

-I prefer facts over probability and hypotheticals. If you get up there and tell me that the world is going to end or 1 billion people die Aff or Neg I will simply start playing Monopoly Go on my phone. Let’s try and stick to the facts and research pretty please.

Don’t’s

-Don’t contradict yourself. If you got something wrong it’s better to admit it then to go back on what you said, it makes you look bad.

-Don’t say anything you wouldn’t want a class full of kindergarten kids to hear. Be kind.

Perfect speaks: Give me an interesting fact in final focus(won’t go against your time) and I’ll give you perfect speaks.

Grand Cross: I absolutely can not stand grand cross because it turns into a fussing match. If you would like- but BOTH teams need to agree on it BEFORE -the first speech, you may skip this and use it for extra prep time that is completely fine with me.

Final Note: I do allow you at the end of the round to email me websites or pieces of research that your opponent may have fabricated. If it helps you win a round then by all means do it. I will look at them before I make my decision.

I will disclose if we are allowed too, and will give critiques if you would like them.

Good luck.

& remember it’s just a debate round, don’t let us stress you out, this is coming from someone who does debate in college and let’s it stress them out. do not be like me.

While I have many years of experience as a teacher, I have very limited experience as a debate judge. Therefore, I would prefer that the speaking speed be moderate, words clearly enunciated, and arguments laid out concisely.

A resolution should be stated at the beginning of the debate, all important terms defined, and data/stats are put into context.

About Me:

I was a Kritik + Philosophy debater who rarely defended the topic. I never TOC'd (didn't try that hard beyond sophomore year) but I did learn a lot and had a ton of fun!

I attended VBI/NSD in 2020 and the UMich K Lab in 2021.

benjaminpatrickpersonal@gmail.com

NatCir LD/CX:

1 - k/k aff/performance and philosophy/framework

2 - tricky stuff (paradoxes, floating piks, what have you)

4 - policy/larp

5 - theory/t (but see below)

Traditional LD:

Overuse of rhetoric does not compensate for losing the actual arguments in the debate. That's not to say 'tech over truth' but it is to say that you should engage, not grandstand! There are definitely judges where that works (most judges) but I certainly prefer the line-by-line.

PF:

1 - normal, traditional public forum arguments

5/strike - anything else.

three more details:

1.] On theory/topicality and disclosure: There are three scenarios: A.) If you are the clearly more resourced/skilled debater in the round, you should not read these things and should opensource 30 minutes pre-round + seek your opponent's contact information and send them your case, including when it is brand new. B.) If you are equally resourced/skilled just avoid these arguments. C.) If you are clearly under-resourced/skilled, I will not penalize nondisclosure to or misdisclosure against an over-resourced/skilled debater and feel free to read theory/topicality/disclosure.

2.] If you're a circuit debater somehow paired against a traditional debater, you will employ !!!only traditional tactics!!! with traditional speed or you will lose.

3.] Debate is not a game -- I get what you mean when you say it, but it reeks of privilege and for some people it is far more than that, meaning it can be how they get into/afford college, can make extra cash judging and coaching after, etc.

Experience: Debated World Schools in Eastern and Central Europe for 6 years, and coached/judged for 4 years. This is my first time judging PF in New York, so I'm really excited to take part in this tournament!

Background:

Clashing and weighing are the things I watch out for most during rounds. It is important to me that you are actively engaging with your opponents' arguments and proving why your case matters more, has a larger impact, is more relevant, etc.

I also pay attention to the way in which you extend your arguments and ensure that they remain present or are expanded upon throughout the course of the round.

Signposting and the provision of a framework for the debate are always very helpful in keeping track of the issues being discussed.