I am a lay, parent judge, but I will still be taking some notes. I am not too experienced in this field, so speak clearly. No spreading, I will not be able to understand your arguments. Please be respectful to your opponents, do not talk over each other. I will vote off which side has more convincing arguments. Try your best, and all the best!

I am a fairly traditional judge with three years of experience (mainly LD, but also Congress and some PF). I do not like overly aggressive spreading. I can handle any debate jargon you throw at me, but I don't appreciate it when people speak lightning fast to try and jam up their opponents.

I am a historian by training, so I expect the contentions to be based in some degree of reality. I can accept that open borders will cause a nation's sovereignty to erode somewhat, for example, but I cannot accept that open borders will lead to a nuclear conflict between two countries. Make sure your contentions are plausible.

As a Lincoln Douglas Judge I am a very traditional judge from a very traditional area of the country. With that, comes all of the typical impacts.

I am not able to flow spreading very effectively at all.

I, very rarely, judge policy, but those would be in slower rounds as well. Because of that, though, I am at least somewhat familiar with K debate, K AFF, theory, CP's, etc.

For me to vote on progressive argumentation in LD, it has to be very clearly ARTICULATED to me why and how you win those arguments. Crystal clear argumentation and articulation of a clear path to giving you the ballot is needed.

LD paradigm:
Clash - I don't weigh contentions equally - if you establish why one contention is particularly important to the resolution I might weigh it more than another contention.

Flow - I follow flow pretty closely but its not necessary in my mind to match every piece of evidence with a counter piece of evidence, but each contention and subpoint should be countered.

Framework/Value Criterion (VC)- Any framework/VC is fine but if you don't explain why choosing your framework/VC means the contentions go your way or should push me towards/against the resolution winning the framework/VC might not be valuable to you.

Evidence - You have to read enough of the card to establish it says what you are claiming it says or summarize it. Saying the date of the card and a cursory conclusion is not sufficient.

Speed of Delivery - Speak as fast as you like but if you are so fast that I can't clearly hear/understand your points I won't be able to track them on the flow and you will likely get less credit for them. I used to debate, my hearing is fine and I don't care about delivery so you can go fairly fast but if you speak to the point where you start slurring/sounding like a machine gun you probably are going to end up with contentions that I am just not clear what you said and will give greater credence to your opponents' counters. Also see my comment on Flow - I won't give you a contention just because you have 4 pieces of evidence to their 3. If they provide better reasoning or have stronger/better cards I will award someone with fewer pieces of evidence the contention.

I have done LD (both as a competitor and judge) for multiple years. When judging a round, I first evaluate which framework is left standing, and then I evaluate all impacts in the round under that framework. If you don't explicitly link the impact to the framework, then I won't do it for you. You will win the round if you can directly link your impacts to the winning framework and clearly show me, and tell me why, your impacts are better than your opponents.

If something is dropped, you have to tell me that it was dropped, and only then will I actually extend it. If you say something was dropped and it wasn't, I will not extend it, so don't make up drops. I can handle speed, but I prefer you speak at a conversational pace and definitely do not spread. If you do talk fast, make sure you are clear enough that I can actually follow along.

.

.

.

.

"Nah, I'd win"

I am a lay judge. I prefer for the debaters to talk slow and emphasize key points so I can understand better. Otherwise everything will be fine for me.

You do you and I'll judge accordingly. Run the arguments with which you are most comfortable.

Email chain, please! jhollihan18@gmail.com

he/him

Policy:

I debated for four years in high school, most of that time being a 1A/2N, and on these topics: China Relations, Education, Immigration, and Arms Sales. Most of my 1ACs were soft left and I usually went for DA + case or the Cap K in the 2NR.

Please try not to spread or at the very least, SLOW DOWN. I have not debated competitively since high school and have become more numb to spreading; I've also become more ideologically opposed to it. If you are going at top speed, odds are I might miss something you say and you don't want that to happen. I try not to look at the speech doc, but that may depend on the speed at which you read. Try to go slower than you normally would. If you are zipping through your theory/T blocks, I will assume that you have not read this and I will be annoyed.

PF/LD:

I find myself judging very similar debates halfway through a resolution cycle. However, please don't assume I know the ins and outs or the trends of a given topic (e.g., acronyms, legislation/litigation, key arguments/data).

As a debater with a policy background, I really dislike evidence sharing norms in PF and LD. Why are we not just sharing the speech docs? Since email chains are not the community norms, you should have ALL of your evidence ready to go (though, an email chain would always be appreciated). Wasting 5-10 minutes to find one piece of evidence is not only frustrating for me, it can also hold up the tournament.

I am a parent judge, first year judging.

Tech over Truth

Speak slowly and clearly. If I can't understand what you are saying, I wont be able to flow your points.

Keep your own time and your opponents time.

Don't use debate terminology as I probably wont understand.

Use both statistics and logic in your arguments.

Clearly state in your last speech why you should win the round.

I am a traditional judge.

I would like to hear clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.

Respect your opponent, no insults.

I'm generally adaptable to the different methods of presentation I judge, though I skew more traditional when it comes to speed (full-tilt spreading is not my native style). For LD, I tend to look favorably on arguments that are clearly linked back to the value/criterion structure--cleanly articulating why the argument matters is going to be as important as proving you have won the point in question. Clear organization of your speeches is also going to be rewarded--thinking through the order of your points and signposting help strengthen your argument and are valuable skills rhetorical skills to develop. I'm more than happy to clarify my paradigm pre-round, so don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions or concerns.

I am a traditional judge. I do not prefer Spreading.

hey! i've competed in ld, parli, exd, and pf, and i'll most likely be judging you in one of these events.

-----

general:

you can speak however fast you'd like to as long as it doesn't affect clarity.

ld/pf:

i think prog args are cool but i probably won't understand them as well as you'd like me to, so i wouldn't recommend running them with me as your judge. however, if you still choose to, please make sure that your opponent is not a novice.

make sure to weigh impacts, extend arguments, and call out drops - i will rarely do the weighing/extending/dropping for you.

i appreciate quantitative impacts!!!! please do not solely use logic/create logical link chains with no evidence to back your claims up.

parli:

please don't do anything that calls for a blatant topicality, it defeats the purpose of the round.

be sure to ask/accept at least 1-2 questions per speech, but i won't penalize for not answering if you're short on time.

-----

any questions before or after the round can be emailed to me at k.pasrija1013@gmail.com.have fun and good luck!!

(i'll up ur speaks if u spin every time u say turn lol)

About me:

I’ve competed for Poland Seminary High School and Bowling Green State University. I then judged and coached for Poland Seminary High School for five years. I am now judging for McDowell High School. I have judged all speech and debate categories at multiple levels and am excited to see some great competition!

Judging style:

I like civility and respect in the round. Debate is public speaking, so speaking at a rate where your argument is understandable is important. If I miss something, I may ask for your card.

Please explain anything technical. Context is essential. Otherwise, I may be lost on your argument.

I give weight to impacts and will value points based on those.

I may not catch everything but do expect me to be flowing the round.

Off-time roadmaps help me be organized and make sure I’m on track. Always appreciated. :-)

I do not like the use of emotionally hot material (school shootings, 9/11, etc..)

Individual Speaker:

I award points on how well you speak to get your point across. I use speaking style in constructs and how you conduct yourselves in the cross. Rudeness, racism, sexism, offensiveness etc., will get you marked down to the lowest ranking.

General:

General:
ESL - DO NOT SPREAD
NO PROG
Truth > Tech
Keep Calm
Speak Loud And Clear
Maintain Proper Body Language
Keep The Topic On Track
Respect your Opponents

I am a lay judge and will vote based on who explains their argument most clearly and weighs the best. DO NOT SPREAD, I cannot judge what I cannot understand. Being respectful and clear are my main priorities. Below is more event-specific information written for more experienced debaters, but if you follow my general preferences, you will not need the information below.

PF -

Second Speakers: If you give an off-time roadmap, you have to follow it. Do not give the roadmap if you do not follow it. Start weighing as early as possible, preferably during rebuttals. This is not needed but much appreciated so I can know what your main points are. I only know trad debate, so please do not venture into the depths of prog. If you do begin making Ks or T shells, make sure the explanation is impeccable, similar to explaining to a child. Do not bring up new responses in FF unless it is pointing out that your opponent had some type of rule infraction, like bringing up new responses.

First Speakers:
NO NEW RESPONSES IN THE SECOND SUMMARY. I will drop your team for new responses in the second summary. If you do not weigh in summary, then I have nothing to vote off of in your FF, so this is a necessity. If you give an off-time roadmap, you have to follow it. Do not give the roadmap if you do not follow it. Once again, do not make prog arguments because I am only a trad lay judge. No spreading, and keep yourself organized.

Policy -

Do not spread, and make sure to disclose your cases at least 10 minutes before the round begins to give me ample time to read and understand your case. No trix, and don’t use any overly complex K or T arguments. If you make the argument, make sure you explain it like you are explaining it to a baby because I have no experience in judging policy.

LD -

I have no experience with LD judging and will need every argument to be very clearly explained. Do not use niche or hard-to-understand frameworks because I will not be able to follow their complexities. I will not be able to follow the circuit LD spreading even if their arguments are disclosed. If this tournament allows, STRIKE ME FOR LD