PF paradigm: I judge based on the flow. I don't judge off of my pre-existing ideas or what I believe to be true in the real world. I judge based off of the arguments presented and the rebuttals to those arguments. If your opponent says something stupid or makes wild leaps in logic and you don't call them on it, it's not my job to enter the debate as a third party and call them on it through the ballot. That's your job. I don't flow cross, so if you want me to weigh something said in cross, put it in a speech.

My preferences:

I can handle speed, but don't spread. If I can't flow it, I'm not considering it in the final judging.

Extend your arguments. Make it clear. Explain. If I don't know much about the topic, I should still be able to understand.

Be civil.

Be ethical with evidence. Don't paraphrase things that aren't actually supported by the evidence or leave out key information that changes the interpretation of the evidence.

I don't like K's in PF.

Weigh the impacts. Give me voters.

Policy paradigm: I'm pretty traditional. I'm fine with progressive arguments-- I'll weigh any arguments you want to make-- but they can't be sloppy. You have to be able to explain it to me effectively, not just read a bunch of cards and expect me to figure out how it links. If you're running something squirrelly and your opponent responds with logic, I'm probably going to prefer logic. Again, I'm pretty traditional.

If the aff makes a logical argument and the neg counters with philosophy, why should I prefer philosophy over real world impacts? Explain it to me.

I don't really love role of the ballot arguments that I have some obligation to vote for you so we can change the world. That I have an obligation to vote for you so we can send a message. My obligation is to vote for the best debaters.

I like K alts that solve. There's that traditional thing again.

Spreading is fine.

I do:

*shake hands.

*let you keep your own time, although I will keep time as well.

*like eye contact and demonstrative body language. (Hint: You can't do this as well when holding a Chromebook.)

*like it when you stand. It shows respect.

*like sources. There is such a thing as too many sources, but usually I don't see enough.

*like good evidence and easy-to-follow logic.

*like you to stay on topic.

*like easy, everyday sort of examples that help make a big topic more understandable. I particularly like personal examples.

*like open minds.

*like respect of all in the room. This includes respect for your opponents(s), topic, classroom objects, and judge.

*like ethical, professional behavior.

*like old fashioned good manners.

*like to call "time" on cross. That is the judge's job.

*like it when your contentions/topics are relatively few (with few or no subpoints) and VERY easy to identify. Repeat them many times to ensure I know what they are. I can't flow contentions that I can't easily identify.

*like when you allow your opponent a chance to ask a question during cross. (Please don't hog all the time for yourself.)

I do NOT:

*like spreading. Please slow down. I have never heard anyone go too slow.

*like when you read your content word for word from your notes. Wean yourself from your notes! Usually presentation is better when you speak from your mind and on your feet.

*like animosity, disrespect, or obscenities.

*like when you abruptly cut off your train of thought simply because your time is up. I am fine giving a grace period of 10 to 30 seconds so you can wrap it up nicely.

*like when you talk over another individual (although it can be minimally expected during cross).

My name is Cheryl Davies, I may be a parent judge, but I work in financial forensics, so don't think you can lie to me.

truth > tech

• Spreading is fine just please include me on the email chain (cheryldaviesut@gmail.com)
• I expect clear argumentation for your warrants (not just evidence, show me that you understand the evidence)
• Aggressive cross is appreciated but please be respectful of each other
• I won't flow cross so if you want to have me judge based off an argument made there, bring it up in rebuttals
• Don't steal prep time - quickly start and stop your timer
• Please time yourselves
• Stay away from personal anecdotes, I won't be giving pity points
• Don't make race or gender arguments unless you can directly correlate them to the resolution
• I won't vote for you just because you feel "personally victimized" (unless there's a legitimate ad hominem fallacy) - arguments like that take away from the debate and I consider them abusive

Ks:

If you're going to run a K, make sure it's flushed-out and has a strong link that you clearly articulate.

Theory:

I'd prefer if debaters stay away from theory arguments and stick to the content under the resolution (no disclosure or frivolous theory please)

Tricks:

No.

If you make me laugh, I'll give you an extra speaker point.

As a judge I am looking for three things.

1. I want to see that you care about the round. Show up on time (as much as possible given how tournaments run). Be kind and respectful to your opponents and the host school.

2. I want to be able to understand you. I do not like spreading, and you will get likely get low speaker points if you do this. The most common feedback I give is, "slow down when you speak."

3. I am also looking for precision. I want to see that you know what you're talking about and make it very clear what your arguments are.

I don't mind critiques (or "Kritiks" as I believe you debate kids call them) but I want to see that you have good evidence.

The most important thing for me is that you are able to do your best. Please take the time you need to set up your notes, laptop, table, water bottle, etc. I know you have put a lot of work into speech and debate and I want you to be able to improve after every round. If there is anything specific you need or are looking for in your feedback, please let me know and I will do my best to help.

Evidence and logic are most persuasive for PF and LD debates, especially as they relate to overall efficiency and the greater good.

As for speech events, I look for confidence, speaking presence, and passion for your topic.

Good luck! :)

I am a parent judge. I do not like you to speak way fast. It helps me when you recap at the end.

Decorum is paramount!

Please remember this if nothing else. I like to see good flow and obvious preparation with your case, topic, policy or presentation. In impromptu and extemporaneous I want to see your personality and natural instincts on display. I really prefer you take your time and use the grace period after to wrap up your sentence or thoughts so I fully understand and get your message as intended and not be left to assume.  I want to see good compete out of opponents and respectfully aggressive approach. Again decorum is huge with me. Being actively engaged in the entirety of every round is something I look for. You can always be learning from those around you.  And lastly have fun! I am grateful for each of you and for all of your hard work.

Speak loudly and clearly, and understand the basics of your event. That's all!

Assistant coach for Davis High School, I am laid back judge with lots of experience debating and judging.

The only thing I care about is that you signpost throughout your speeches and give me voters in your final speech, Everything else is free game.

If you want something from me to perform better to my style of judging, I really am a sucker for clear logical structure. I am awful at visualization, so if you clearly establish your line of thought in regard to your case and responses to your opponent for me to write down I will be SO happy. It is two birds with one stone, If you put emphasis on clarity, you are a stronger debater and you have made evaluation of the round easier in your favor.

Have fun

If you have any questions about my RFD, critiques, or how I interpreted the round feel free to send me an email: crisafer.js@gmail.com

Lincoln Douglas:

I look for debates that produce a philosophical argument. While statistics can be an important part of this form of debate, it should not be the main source for the arguments. Quotes from philosophers (I define this as any public figure with an opinion) should be the main source of evidence in debates.

Correctly pointing out valid logical fallacies in your opponent's argument will help to greatly weaken it.

I also need to be able to understand you and comprehend what you are saying, so make sure you speak at a normal pace.