• Arguments: I'm most comfortable and prefer traditional arguments but will always hear you out and weigh things to the best of my ability. I’m more likely to appreciate arguments that engage directly with the topic, rather than abstract meta-debates, so it must be said; If you prefer more "creative" or less traditional arguments, maybe don't pref me.
• Quality over Quantity: I value well-developed, high-quality arguments more than the sheer number of points and evidence. I’m looking for depth, clarity, and logical consistency in your case. I want a focus on your argument rather than countless cards.
• Respect Between Competitors: Debate should be a respectful exchange of ideas. Personal attacks, condescension, or a lack of decorum will reflect poorly on you. Maintain a professional tone throughout the round.
• Spreading: I’m not the biggest fan of spreading. Don't get me wrong, speed is a natural thing, but I'm not comfortable with someone speaking fast to the point of super human. Keep your arguments clear and to the point. I want to understand your points without feeling overwhelmed or needing to ask for speech docs.
• Framework and Weighing: A strong framework is essential. Clearly establish how I should evaluate the round, and be sure to weigh your arguments against your opponent's case. Demonstrating why your impacts outweigh is crucial.
• Presentation: Effective delivery, including eye contact, tone, and composure, matters to me. Signposting is always welcome in your speech as it helps with the flow of the debate. I usually expect competitors to know timing of rounds and to time themselves.
• Disclosing: I typically do not disclose decisions in preliminary rounds. I like to move things quickly and put in feedback after in order to get going to a next round.
• Speech Rounds- Really the biggest thing I look for in speeches is the significance of what you have to say and can someone connect and relate to your message. Shock value isn't as important to me as relevance is.

Since I judge a lot more Public Forum now than the other events, my paradigm now reflects more about that activity than the others. I've left some of the LD/Policy stuff in here because I end up judging that at some big tournaments for a round or two. If you have questions, please ask.

NONTRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS: These arguments are less prevalent in PF than they are in other forms. The comments made here still hold true to that philosophy. I'll get into kritiks below because I have some pretty strong feelings about those in both LD and PF. It's probably dealt with below, but you need to demonstrate why your project, poem, rap, music, etc. links to and is relevant to the topic. Theory for theory's sake is not appealing to me. In short, the resolution is there for a reason. Use it. It's better for education, you learn more, and finding relevancy for your particular project within a resolutional framework is a good thing.

THEORY ARGUMENTS IN PF: I was told that I wasn't clear in this part of the paradigm. I thought I was, but I will cede that maybe things are more subtle than they ought to be. Disclosure theory? Not a fan. First, I am old enough that I remember times when debaters went into rounds not knowing what the other team was running. Knowing what others are running can do more for education and being better prepared. Do I think people should put things on the case wiki? Sure. But, punishing some team who doesn't even know what you are talking about is coming from a position of privilege. How has not disclosing hurt the strategy that you would or could have used, or the strategy that you were "forced" to use? If you can demonstrate that abuse, I might consider the argument. Paraphrasing? See the comments on that below. See comments below specific to K arguments in PF.

THEORY: When one defines theory, it must be put into a context. The comments below are dated and speak more to the use of counterplans. If you are in LD, read this because I do think the way that counterplans are used in LD is not "correct." In PF, most of the topics are such that there are comparisons to be made. Policies should be discussed in general terms and not get into specifics that would require a counterplan.

For LD/Policy Counterplan concepts: I consider myself to be a policy maker. The affirmative is making a proposal for change; the negative must demonstrate why the outcome of that adoption may be detrimental or disadvantageous. Counterplans are best when nontopical and competitive. Nontopical means that they are outside of the realm of the affirmative’s interpretation of the resolution (i.e. courts counterplans in response to congressional action are legitimate interpretations of n/t action). Competitive means there must be a net-benefit to the counterplan. Merely avoiding a disadvantage that the affirmative “gets” could be enough but that assumes of course that you also win the disadvantage. I’m not hip deep sometimes in the theory debate and get frustrated when teams choose to get bogged down in that quagmire. If you’re going to run the counterplan conditionally, then defend why it’s OK with some substance. If the affirmative wishes to claim abuse, prove it. What stopped you from adequately defending the case because the counterplan was “kicked” in the block or the 2NR? Don’t whine; defend the position. That being said, I'm not tied to the policy making framework. As you will see below, I will consider most arguments. Not a real big fan of performance, but if you think it's your best strategy, go for it.

TOPIC SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS: I’m not a big “T” hack. Part of the reason for that is that persons sometimes get hung up on the line by line of the argument rather than keeping the “big picture” in mind. Ripping through a violation in 15 seconds with “T is voting issue” tacked on at the bottom doesn’t seem to have much appeal from the beginning. I’m somewhat persuaded by not only what the plan text says but what the plan actually does. Plan text may be topical but if your evidence indicates harm area, solvency, etc. outside of the realm of the topic, I am sympathetic that the practice may be abusive to the negative.

KRITIKS/CRITIQUES: The comments about kritiks below are linked more to policy debate than LD or PF. However, at the risk of being ostracized by many, here is my take on kritiks in PF and maybe LD. They don't belong. Now, before you start making disparaging remarks about age, and I just don't get it, and other less than complimentary things, consider this. Most kritiks are based on some very complex and abstract concepts that require a great deal of explanation. The longest speech in PF is four minutes long. If you can explain such complex concepts in that time frame at a comprehensible speaking rate, then I do admire you. However, the vast majority of debaters don't even come close to accomplishing that task. There are ways you can do that, but look at the section on evidence below. In short, no objection to kritiks; just not in PF. LD comes pretty close to that as well. Hint: You want to argue this stuff, read and quote the actual author. Don't rely on some debate block file that has been handed down through several generations of debaters and the only way you know what the argument says is what someone has told you.

Here's the original of what was written: True confession time here—I was out of the activity when these arguments first came into vogue. I have, however, coached a number of teams who have run kritiks. I’d like to think that advocating a position actually means something. If the manner in which that position is presented is offensive for some reason, or has some implication that some of us aren’t grasping, then we have to examine the implications of that action. With that in mind, as I examine the kritik, I will most likely do so within the framework of the paradigm mentioned above. As a policymaker, I weigh the implications in and outside of the round, just like other arguments. If I accept the world of the kritik, what then? What happens to the affirmative harm and solvency areas? Why can’t I just “rethink” and still adopt the affirmative? Explain the kritik as well. Again, extending line by line responses does little for me unless you impact and weigh against other argumentation in the round. Why must I reject affirmative rhetoric, thoughts, actions, etc.? What is it going to do for me if I do so? If you are arguing framework, how does adopting the particular paradigm, mindset, value system, etc. affect the actions that we are going to choose to take? Yes, the kritik will have an impact on that and I think the team advocating it ought to be held accountable for those particular actions.

EVIDENCE: I like evidence. I hate paraphrasing. Paraphrasing has now become a way for debaters to put a bunch of barely explained arguments on the flow that then get blown up into voting issues later on. If you paraphrase something, you better have the evidence to back it up. I'm not talking about a huge PDF that the other team needs to search to find what you are quoting. The NSDA evidence rule says specifically that you need to provide the specific place in the source you are quoting for the paraphrasing you have used. Check the rule; that's what I and another board member wrote when we proposed that addition to the evidence rule. Quoting the rule back to me doesn't help your cause; I know what it says since I helped write most or all of it. If you like to paraphrase and then take fifteen minutes to find the actual evidence, you don't want me in the back of the room. I will give you a reasonable amount of time and if you don't produce it, I'll give you a choice. Drop the evidence or use your prep time to find it. If your time expires, and you still haven't found it, take your choice as to which evidence rule you have violated. In short, if you paraphrase, you better have the evidence to back it up.

Original text: I like to understand evidence the first time that it is read. Reading evidence in a blinding montone blur will most likely get me to yell “clear” at you. Reading evidence after the round is a check for me. I have found in the latter stages of my career that I am a visual learner and need to see the words on the page as well as hear them. It helps for me to digest what was said. Of course, if I couldn’t understand the evidence to begin with, it’s fairly disappointing for me. I may not ask for it if that is the case. I also like teams that do evidence comparisons. What does your evidence take into account that the other teams evidence does not? Weigh and make that claim and I will read the evidence to see if you indeed have made a good point. SPEECH DOCUMENTS: Given how those documents are currently being used, I will most likely want to be a part of any email exchange. However, I may not look at those electronic documents until the end of the debate to check my flow against what you claim has been read in the round. Debate is an oral activity; let's get back to that.

STYLE: As stated above, if you are not clear, I will tell you so. If I have to tell you more than once, I will give much less weight to the argument than you wish me to do so. I have also found in recent years that I don't hear nearly as well as in the past. You may still go fast, but crank it down just a little bit so that this grumpy old man can still understand the argument. Tag-team CX is okay as long as one partner does not dominate the discussion. I will let you know when that becomes the case. Profanity and rude behavior will not be tolerated. If you wish me to disclose and discuss the argument, you may challenge respectfully and politely. Attempts at making me look ridiculous (which at times is not difficult) to demonstrate your superior intelligence does little to persuade me that I was wrong. My response may very well be “If I’m so stupid, why did you choose to argue things this way?” I do enjoy humor and will laugh at appropriate attempts at it. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Make them specific. Just a question which starts with "Do you have a paradigm?" will most likely be answered with a "yes" with little or no explanation beyond that. You should get the picture from that.

In a good speech, I look for clarity, delivery, and content. I expect your message to be clear and well thought out.

Interp (DI, HI, POI, Duo/Duet):

If I am not taking notes or giving time signals, that's a good thing! It means I am enraptured by your performance. Characterization is key. It should be very clear. If I am not looking at you, that's a bad sign. Make your performance captivating. I want to feel what your character is feeling. I want to connect with them. Verbal delivery such as pitch and tone are very important, but I am also looking for good nonverbal delivery. I want you to use physicality to better connect with the audience.

Address (Extemp, OO, Info, etc):

In address events, I am listening to what you say but I am more so focused on your delivery. Nonverbal delivery is REALLY important. You can say great things, but if your nonverbal delivery doesn't line up with what you're saying, your speech is basically moot. I expect speakers to look confident, poised, natural, and comfortable. I'm old so I like extemp walk, but it's not required. In terms of content, clarity is the name of the game. I don't want to think too hard to decipher your message - I want it to be clearly laid out for me in a consumable format. Address events can be like a mini TED talk if they're done right and I love when that happens.

Do your best and good luck!

DAVID BRIAN MUNYAO PARADIGM

Age: 23yrs

College:Beijing Institute of Technology

Current Occupancy (Student in college, or career field): Student

1. What types of debate have you participated before and how long is your debate career?

A reasonable number of debates more than 2 years

2. How do you consider fast-talking?

Am good with fast talking Provided the debaters are audible maintain clarity and are understandable speed should not affect quality of arguments.

3. How do you consider aggressiveness?

Provided its respectable and in contest we good focus on strength of your arguments rather than personal attacks

4. How do you usually determine the winner of the debate?

According to the teams ability to defend their argument with amble evidence and impacts clear articulation,logical reasoning and overall persuasiveness,how well can debaters respond to their opponents arguments and counterpoints.

5. Please specify any additional notes you want to share with debaters, including any unique preference of the debate.

-be clear and concise in your arguments and support your points with credible evidence

6. How many tournaments have you judged in the past year?

A. 0-5

7. How many notes do you take during a debate?

A. I try to take notes on everything.

8. What is the main job of the summary speech?

A. Highlight the major points of clash and show how your team won them.

Please answer the following questions based on a scale of 1-10.

9. How important is defining the topic to your decision making? 9

10. How important is frame work to your decision making? 8

11. How important is crossfire in your decision making? 7

12. How important is weighing in your decision making? 8

13. How important is persuasive speaking and non-verbal communication in your decision-making? 8

14. How fast should students speak? 7