UPDATED 2/21/20: I do not judge as often as I may once have. At most local events, I find myself on the operations side of a tournament.

That should not terrify you – I am a career public servant, who happens to coach debate because I appreciate everything that it taught me as a student. You should assume that I approach debate rounds this way: what is the best decision I can make given the information presented to me?

It may sound old-fashioned, but I do not wish to be on any email chains. I have sadly witnessed teams answering entire disadvantages not read by their opponents simply because they were included in said distribution. Not to be outdone, I have read ballots where judges voted on evidence that nobody read. I pledge to keep the best flow I can. If I need to see a piece of evidence, and the particular league or tournament's rules allow for that, I will call for it.

If you are short on time reading this, my paradigm can be expressed in six (6) words: do your thing and be nice. If you are really short on time, we can go with four (4): old guy, still flows.

Policy:

1. Speed is fine, but clarity is necessary. I cannot vote on what I do not have typed/written down. I try hard to listen to the text of the evidence presented;
2. Open cross-examination is acceptable, but if it is clear than one member of the team is not able to participate at the same level, speaker points will suffer;
3. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I look first to any potential violation(s) of stock issues and then default to a policymaking perspective.

Lincoln Douglas:

1. I do not mind an LD round that gets on down the flow;
2. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I will default to a whole resolution lens looking first to the value/value criterion debate.

Public Forum/Speech:

1. Nothing earth-shattering here. I am less speed tolerant in public forum and I will simply apply the ballot criteria to whatever speech event is at hand.

Regardless of event, we enter the debate knowing the resolution and some basic rules of the road (e.g., speech times, likely printed on the ballot). By tabula rasa I mean that the debaters establish the framework for evaluating debates. You should do what you do best and do it well. Arguments should have three parts – a claim, a warrant, and some sort of greater implication regardless of your style.

I still believe that good decisions should flow like water. Great rebuttals frame debates and clash wins rounds. My ballots will provide a succinct RFD, possibly pointing out either strengths or opportunities for improvement as we progress through the speeches. 3AR/3NR oral critiques nauseate me: what I say out loud (if disclosure is permitted) will almost certainly match what I am placing on your ballot. Your coach should see comments too. You did not go to the dentist; my RFD is never going to read “oral.”

Finally, be respectful of your partners, opponents, and judges. I have zero tolerance for poor behavior in debate rounds.

When first coming into the room, please write your last name, your code, the title of your piece, the author of your piece (VA for programs please), DE (if applicable).

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns when coming into the round. If any questions or concerns come up during the round, I will stay in the room for a few minutes after the round if there is anything you would like to discuss.

Please be respectful to me and your peers. If there are any sensitive subjects in your pieces (i.e., death, abusive relationships, mental illness, etc.), USE A CONTENT WARNING BEFORE STARTING THE TIME.

Also, please note that I am deaf in my left ear, so please speak loudly and clearly.

I strongly encourage you to use time signals. I can give you physical or verbal time signals. I will do the time signals that you want me to. Do not hesitate to ask for what you are comfortable with. You are also welcome to time yourself, however, my timer will be the final time on the ballot. Please remember that if you are consistently looking down at your timer, I will be taking notice of it.

Finally, I expect you to understand the rules of the event that you are competing in. If you have any questions about the set of rules being used at the tournament, do not hesitate to ask.

Good luck to all!

Hello,

I will pay attention to your presentation skills and understanding of the topic. My comments will be mainly on your strengths and areas of improvement.

Your clear thinking, good speaking, and exciting presentation will make you a strong speaker.

All the best!

Background: I am a new parent judge. I'm a scientist and have a natural bias towards arguments grounded in evidence as well as arguments that bring together multiple reinforcing ideas. Arguments that are strong in technique but completely unhinged from widely accepted knowledge can be difficult for me to appreciate to the same extent as a professional advocate, such as a litigator or politician. That said, in addition to being grounded in fact and logic, strong arguments for me become especially persuasive when they are easily relatable to the debaters and judges as human beings.

Always be courteous to your opponents, team mates, and judges, speak clearly, and explain your terms.

I won't need to see evidence unless the arguments about the evidence's strengths or weaknesses have become unclear. In that case I will look after the debate as part of judging.

As a judge, I prefer for debates to stay on resolution / topic, does that mean I am more traditional, yes. The formats were formed for a reason and that should be followed. If you get too progressive, well please see what I initially started my paradigm with. As for speed, can flow very well, however if it sounds like you are choking and cannot breathe, well you just dropped those contentions, cards, points, whatever you were trying to establish. In most things, quality outweighs quantity, like do you attend three, four, five colleges at once, no, no you do not that, you pick the one of highest quality and focus on that, so in that vein, remember, this is not policy, but either PF or LD and looking for quality during the rounds. Please respect each other and have a great debate

This is my first year judging. I am a former educator with 15 years of experience teaching. I am impressed by your hard work and enthusiasm.

Please be respectful of your opponents and judges at all times. If I cannot understand you, I cannot judge you.

EXPERIENCE:

I am currently a civil rights trial attorney practicing in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and the Federal Courts. Throughout my career, I have sat as an arbitrator in hundreds of cases.

I am a traditional speech and debate judge.

GENERAL PREFERENCES:

-Quality is more important than quantity.

-Substance over style.

-Be organized—provide road maps.

-I prefer clear, eloquent presentations of the issues in a round.

-Speed is acceptable, but only if clear and concise.

-Direct simple language instead of jargon.

FOR DI/HI:

I like a meaningful teaser that sets the world you are creating and tries to introduce as many characters as necessary to effectively tell the story.

I think introductions should be short and sweet and be more personal.

I like blocking and movement that is used to enhance the story.

I really look for fully developed characters that really listen and react to each other.

For author's intent, I think it is okay to re-interpret a piece if it is within the rules.

I don't have any issue with a curse word if it is used purposefully.

FOR LD/PF/PolicyD/ParliD:

Theory has its place in the right argument, but I prefer you go for substance over theory.

I would rather hear a few cogent arguments, than many quick snippets.

I am fine with speed. I am not fine with spreading by reading paragraph after paragraph at a top speed with zero regard for clarity. Slow down, be clear, and enunciate.

I love cross-examination. I pay special attention to it and think it is strategically valuable.

Make sure to clash with your adversary's arguments and point out dropped arguments. Be specific with your extensions, and remind me why I should care.

Sum up with voting issues, persuasion at the end can secure a win.

FOR CONGRESS:

I look for a healthy combination of entertaining and professional.

Entertaining can look like a lot of different things- from good humor to presenting statistics in a way that keeps me engaged. I really like it when a speech is well organized and gives proper time to each point that is being made. I value clash a lot in congress because that is what makes it interesting past the third speech on a topic. It is very impressive to me if you can prove that you have been paying attention the whole round and have done the research to prove others wrong. Please make sure your clash is professional and doesn't seem aggressive or turn it into a personal attack.

Good luck and have fun!

Competitors must speak clearly: volume, speed, and defined content. Spreading will result in deductions.

Conflicts: Pennsbury High School

Background: My educational background is a bachelor’s degree in human resources. I also have a master’s degree in human resources. My dream was to pursue a Law degree but, life got in the way.

General: I value clear and consistent speaking with good eye contact, movement, use of hands and at a reasonable pace that promotes understanding of your topic. You should always treat your judges & opponents with respect. Please communicate any time signals you desire.

I am a parent judge so; I strive to treat the competitors I judge with the same care and respect I expect for my children.

My debate paradigm is... that you as debaters set the direction for the debate, within both the rules and generally accepted norms of your event.

Show me why YOUR approach to debate is the right one.

.

In addition, remember to:

- Always be respectful of your opponent(s) and audience.

- If you choose to spread, remember that your arguments are only as good as what your audience is able to hear.

.

Mr. Nick Malinak

Head Forensics Coach - The Hill School

NSDA Diamond Coach

Hello!

This is my first time judging, so please be patient.

Thank you & good luck!

As a judge, I believe clarity in reasoning, solid rationale and quality of evidence, and showing respect to your peers are hallmarks of good debates and speech. So take a breath, slow down, and put your best foot forward. Learn and enjoy your experience!

If you're going to make an assertion, you better back it up with evidence and analysis.

If you have evidence, you better give me analysis to tie back to your point. Don't assume the evidence speaks for itself.

If you make a point you better give analysis to show it proves that supporting/negating is the way to go.

NOTE: I get REALLY cranky if I suspect debaters are manipulating (or outright faking) evidence. I also get really cranky if debaters try to claim the other side did something they did not do, or did not do something they did do. It's shady debate. Don't do it.

If you're a PF debater, don't waste your time with off-time roadmaps, because there are only two things you should ever be doing--hitting their case, and defending yours (this includes teams running a non-traditional case. Even if you're running a k, you should still be hitting their case, and defending yours). Even when you are weighing, it is just hitting their case, and defending yours. If you are organized in presenting your points it will be clear what you are doing. I'm ok with paraphrasing, but if the other team asks to see the original text and you can't produce it, I'm ignoring your evidence. I'm also ok with non-traditional approaches, but you better make it CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR that it's necessary, because I will always pref good debate over acrobatics.

If you're an LD debater, you better be giving analysis that shows your points are proving that you have achieved your value criterion. Articulate the connections, don't assume they speak for themselves. As far as non-traditional cases, I won't automatically vote against, but you better sell me on the necessity of going there, and that it's enriching the debate, and not hobbling it. (Particular note: I really hate pure theory cases, but won't automatically vote against. That being said, let me reiterate-- You better prove that what you have to say is improving the quality of the debate, and that your theory is a better/more important debate than the debate over the resolution. Which means you will have to still talk about the resolution, and why your debate is more important. If you're just doing it for the sake of being fancy, it's a no-go for me.)

I don't ever judge CX, so if you're reading my paradigm as a CX debater-- why?

No one should ever tell me when or how to time. You can self-time, but I am the final arbiter of time.

If you are excessively rude, aggressive, shouty, or derisive you will see it in your speaks. If you are racist/sexist/homophobic, or any other type of bigoted I will vote against you every single time. This includes denying a person's lived experience.

If you post-round me, I will shut you down-- you might as well put me down on your permanent strike list (this does not include students who ask me questions for the purposes of improving their debate in the future. I am always happy to answer those questions.)