Last changed on
Fri November 1, 2024 at 12:33 PM EST
ALL CATEGORIES:
Timing and Signals: For IEs I will provide standard time signals (2 minutes left = 2 fingers, 1 minute left = 1 index finger, 30 seconds = making a "C" shape with one hand, Time Up = Fist). In Debate, If a competitor continues speaking for ~5-10 seconds after time is up, I will verbally instruct them to stop, as this is abusive to your opponents (this will also result in a .5 speaker-point infraction (.1 - .2 at national circuit events)). I will not verbally stop competitors if I am part of a judge panel, but the speaker point infractions will continue to accumulate the longer a speaker extends their speech beyond the event category time limitations.
Competitors will be penalized if they negligently cause other competitors to be disrupted (e.g. phone or laptop noises during opponent's speech). Competitors that purposefully disrupt another speaker will be automatically disqualified from winning the round, and will suffer penalization to their scores.
SPEECH CATEGORIES:
For Extemporaneous (EXT) speakers: I find substantive information related to your topic (facts, history, expert opinions, etc.) more compelling than personal experience or how the issue impacts you personally. I give more weight to speeches that utilize an overarching theme supported by distinct points. I appreciate a roadmap and signposting. The best Extemp speeches answer the question directly while also contemplating opposing viewpoints.
For Congressional (CON) debaters: I value presentation of new issues over new facts about the same issues and especially more than a repetition of previously raised points. The exception to this is a thorough crystallization speech which a) weighs competing issues from both sides and persuades in one direction and importantly b) moves the chamber to call the question. Also, I am judging you not just on your public speaking prowess, but even more so I am ranking you based on your ability tomove legislation in your preferred direction. For example, I would give additional weight to speakers who amend legislation to successfully pass a more palatable bill. I respect and reward the duties of the Presiding Officer and will generally rank them 1st or 2nd for an exceptional performance, 2nd - 3rd for a good performance, and 4th - 6th for PO work that needs significant improvement.
DEBATE CATEGORIES:
Best described as a "flay" "trad" judge who does give some weight to aesthetic delivery. That said, I will accept technical argumentation as true if well-warranted (regardless of actual "truthfulness."). My pronouns are "coach," and that is what I identify as.
Add me to the email chain: Hunter.Sexton@sydneygrp.com. or disclose via tabroom/docshare BUT, you must verbally convey your argumentation for it to appear on my flow. This is not read and debate - its SPEECH and debate, after all. I may reference your materials but if I am forced to do so, that probably is not a good thing for you/your team.
I prohibit any "off-the-clock" rules explanations or argumentation. For example, if a competitor wants to clarify that no new arguments can be introduced in rebuttals, they must use their speech time to do this, and NOT the opponent's prep time or their own prep time. This includes any attempt to "clarify" something after the round has ended. Remain silent until I have submitted my ballot. If there is an official rules-based challenge, I will hear it after the ballot has been submitted, and if meritorious, describe the process for raising such a challenge with tabroom. When necessary, I will politely ask competitors to cease their "off-the-clock" communication. There are speaker point deductions associated with this behavior. The amount of the deduction depends on how egregious the off-the-clock communication is in the context of the round (example: disruptions of an opponent's prep time is seen as a serious violation of this paradigm).
I permit and ENCOURAGE "off-the-clock" road-mapping (especially for Policy - tell me where you're going as soon as the 2AC).
I do not permit any timing convention perversions. This mean you can not earn extra prep time if you end a speech or cross early. The only exception to this rule is if, in pre-round disclosure, one debater/team expresses that they have a diagnosed learning disability, and the opposing team offers them additional prep time, I will grant that additional prep time.
"Spreading" arguments will not result in material point gain if the arguments raised are not fully supported or are presented haphazardly. I can reasonably flow complex arguments at a 7/10 spread rate. Anything higher becomes increasingly incomprehensible. At circuit events, I will "clear" you ONCE. If you do not correct your conveyance at that point, you will be at a disadvantage on my flow. I will not "clear" debaters if I am part of a panel.
Debate Argumentation Weight: OFF....X........DEF. Turns>Blocks>Attempts>Drops. I weigh evidence-based argumentation relative to the analytical point debaters are making. This means, neither evidence alone, nor analytical arguments are fully persuasive. Your claims need to be warranted. Fully explain implications, links, impacts, etc. Importantly, you should explain why I should give you my ballot as the round comes to a close. For LD specifically, I give the more weight to argumentation that is expressly related to Value/Criterion frameworks (e.g. arguments that support your V/VC, undermine your opponent's V/VC or prove that you meet your opponent's V/VC better than they do). I am more "trad" in the sense that I do give more weight to on-topic argumentation. That said, you can certainly win/lose my ballot with a well argued/poorly addressed theory attack or kritique argument.
Debate "Styles": I can judge any style, though I am best described as a "trad" judge. I enjoy the occasional "tricks"/"traps" on cross, but they wont win you the round outright unless its a "throwaway round" and both debaters/teams agree to some goofy win condition. kritique and other "non-topical" argumentation is fine if well argued, but they are highly susceptible to eloquent procedural counter-attacks. Generally, K and Performance styles are less persuasive to me. I am a "rules"/"norms"/"institutions" matter kinda guy, so if you've deviated from the topic to make an advocacy speech or engage in performance art, cool, but I just think there are better categories for this (like OO or even Congress).
For Policy (CX) and Lincoln Douglas (LD) events, I prefer the Affirmative to present to my left (Competitors' right) and the Negative to present to my right (Competitors' left). For Public Forum Debate (PFD), Pro to my left, Con to my right.
The debate is yours, you decide the rules and conventions other than what is expressed by the tournament itself. If you want open-cross in Policy for example, sure, go nuts, but you MUST elicit agreement from the opponent to do so PRE-ROUND. Don't spring rule deviations on opps last minute.
A note on "Cap K" arguments specifically: Strike me. I have yet to find an anti-capitalism kritique ("cap K") argument compelling or persuasive. It is never an automatic loss to run a cap K, but debaters that run it have a steep hill to climb when I am their judge. The issue with cap K argumentation is that it these arguments reek of inauthenticity; and thus, the speakers presenting the argument lose credibility. The core of the "K" argument is that an issue is SO important, that it supersedes the more limited topic/resolution and so the judge should disregard the topic/resolution limitations and focus on the REAL issue - in this case Capitalism's shortcomings/unsustainability/immorality/etc. In essence, the debaters running K are using the Policy Debate medium to make an advocacy speech. A desperate real-world call-to-action. The issue for me, is that the cap K arguments ring extremely hollow. After all, it's hard to take a cap K seriously when it is being delivered by debaters wearing business suits (the unofficial uniform of Western Capitalism) and reciting their constructive argumentation from $1,500 laptops. Its also hard to be persuaded by an advocacy speech when we all know the same team running cap K is all too happy to defend the merits of Capitalism (or at the least recommend incremental policy changes to its current structure) when they draw the other side of the resolution. If the issue is indeed so important that it merits perverting the actual topic/resolution, then an authentic, credible advocate would forfeit the Affirmative and instead utilize their constructive speeches to present the same cap K advocacy they present on the Negative. If it is not so important, then debaters ought to respect the medium and debate the actual topic/resolution. TL;DR: run cap-K at your own risk.
