I do not like spreading.  Clear communication is key.  Evidence makes your case stronger.

Hey, I'm Thomas.

I am a third year PF debater at Marist.

Please add me to the email chain!trmastella@gmail.com

General Stuff:

- tech > truth

- speed is fine, just please try and be clear if you do decide to speak fast.

- send speech docs

- please signpost

- weigh (make sure you engage with your opponent's weighing mechanisms).

- warrant your argument (tell me why what you say is going to happen)

- defense is not sticky

William Mastella

Current Debater (Freshman) -- Marist School (2022-Present)

Please add me to email chains wgmastella@gmail.com and maristpublicforum@gmail.com

I am a high school debater who has debated in every level of competition including local circuits, nats, etc. As your judge, it is my job to make the round as fair as possible and provide a learning experience to both teams. I am tech > truth -- open to pretty much any type of argument as long as you have warrants and implicate your argument. I'm fine with speed, just don't spread. If needed, you can always share your doc with me before your speech. Additionally, I'm fine with most forms of theory but I do prefer substance. I believe that debates centered around the topic result in better competition and a better debate in general. For online debate, I expect you to be there on time with your camera on and ready to debate at the selected start time. Don't be sexist, racist, etc.

What do I want from a round?

In every round, I will be evaluating which teams better responds to their opponents' arguments and extends their own. I always like a good clash around the topic that results in close debates. I will listen to cross-fire, but I won't evaluate anything until you've brought it to my attention in a speech. Similarly, if it's in final focus, I expect it to be in summary. If it's in summary, try to have it in rebuttal.

How should teams exchange evidence?

If both teams agree to it, exchange evidence prior to the speech it will be read in. Try to get it done quickly, so that we can keep moving through the round. I expect evidence to be a properly cut card with a proper citation and highlighting to indicate what was read. Cards with no formatting or just links are as a good as analytics. Evidence should be attached in a document, not in the text of an email to deal with formatting issues.

How do I decide speaker points?

My base level for speaker points is around a 28.5. Good debates will result in higher speaks.

Things I look for:

1) Be smart. I believe that the whole essence of debate shouldn't be centered around who has cut more evidence/better evidence (I still take these into account) but rather who actually goes into the round with strategy. Think outside the box, find holes in your opponents case, and try and turn their own evidence against them.

2) Use cross to your advantage. Being good at cross is a skill, but once you have mastered it, it can win and lose debates. I suggest using cross as a time to tear down your opponents case piece by piece by asking strategic questions, some of which you may already know the answer to.

3) Don't go for too much. In a round, aim the final focus around 1-2 things. Far to often, teams will go for way to much in final focus, meaning they are not actually taking the time to go in depth with arguments that really matter in the round which means they aren't persuading the judge in one particular way. Going for 1-2 arguments that you believe are your best chance of winning is your best bet.

Good luck!

Judge Paradigm:

Background:
As a judge, I believe in fairness and objectivity. My role is to evaluate the debate based on the arguments presented, not my personal beliefs or knowledge. I appreciate clear, logical argumentation and effective communication.

Flow/Structure:
I will flow the round carefully, so I appreciate clear signposting and roadmap speeches. A well-structured case that’s easy to follow will always benefit you. If you want me to weigh a specific argument, make it clear in your summary and final speeches.

Evidence vs. Analysis:
I believe both evidence and analysis are important. Strong evidence should support well-thought-out analysis, but a debate that is too evidence-heavy without explanation or context may lose persuasive power. I value quality of evidence over quantity—just throwing a lot of facts at me without tying them to your argument won’t win you the round.

Speaks (Speaker Points):
I evaluate speaker points based on clarity, delivery, and engagement. Confidence and professionalism in presentation matter, but you don’t need to be flashy. Effective use of rhetoric, persuasive tone, and strategic word choices can enhance your delivery.

Cross-Examination (CX):
Cross-examination is key to identifying weaknesses in your opponent’s case. I appreciate debaters who use CX to ask meaningful questions and clarify points rather than trying to score cheap wins. It’s also a good opportunity to control the narrative.

Theory/Framework:
If you run theory, make sure it's warranted and not frivolous. I am open to hearing theory and framework debates, but it must be well-justified and impact the round significantly. I am more inclined to vote on these if the abuse is clear and affects the debate directly.

Speed (Spreading):
I’m comfortable with speed, but clarity is a must. If I can’t understand what you’re saying because of speed, it won’t make it on the flow. I’ll call for "clear" if needed, but keep in mind that over-spreading can hurt you more than help.

Weighing:
I highly value good weighing mechanisms. Make sure to tell me why your impacts matter more and how they compare to your opponent’s arguments. Impact calculus is crucial in close rounds, and I prefer to hear clear explanations of magnitude, probability, and timeframe.

Voter Issues:
In the final speeches, please be clear on your voting issues. Summarizing key arguments and telling me why you should win will help me when making a decision. I prefer to see debaters focus on crystallizing the debate rather than introducing new arguments in the last speeches.

Conclusion:
In summary, I look for clear, structured, and logical arguments. I’m open to all kinds of debate styles, but clarity and strategic choices are key. Make sure to tell me why you win, and I’ll base my decision on what’s presented in the round.

Student Judge with Extensive PF Experience

If I'm Your Judge (and not js me but in general) Consider These Things -

1. Tech >>> Truth
2. If you don't defend your case enough, consider it dropped
3. AFE (Attack, Frontline, Extend) in that order for rebuttals
4. If u don't weigh in summary I will automatically be leaning against you, unless you pull off something crazy in FF
5. Final Focus is really just about clashes and weighing. This is by far the most important part of the debate imo, so make sure you nail this.
6. Cross is by far where I can distinguish the difference between the quality of the teams, so make sure u have good rhetoric (Tip: Take Prep Time For Cross)
7. I don't mind fast speakers, but if you do cross 200-250 WPM I will be asking you to create an email chain - raaghav.modukuri@gmail.com (once again not at all required)
8. Lenient with speaks - +0.5 if you sneak in some good references (ex: pop culture, sports), +0.5 if you can name the 2011 Cricket World Cup Winner at the end of the round and 0.5 if you can name the first Football World Cup Winner
9. Ks/Theories r ok as long as u explain it well. I come from a BP background initially so I won't mind it
10. Pls timer ur own speeches and cross, if you exceed 10 seconds while speaking I WILL stop flowing
11. Good Logic > Bad Evidence for most debaters unless ur evidence is really bad. I do love a good explanation on a certain topic, but warranting is ESSENTIAL. If u don't extend warrants I will be dropping that.

Remember, at the end of the day, it isn't about winning or losing, but having a great time. Good luck to all the participants!

I'm a second year debater for Marist

add me to the email chain: Jacob.w.scherrer@gmail.com (no locked docs please)

a couple things for PF:

• WEIGH! Tell me why your impacts are better than theirs or I won't know why to vote for you.
• Please be respectful of your opponents in cross
• I'm generally tech > truth
• I shouldn't have to say this but no racism, sexism etc. just be respectful of everyone
• don't read theory on novice/ms teams, it's just not a good time for it
• I'm ok with a short off time roadmap, but make sure you signpost, I don't need a 5 minute roadmap
• Don't read new ev in final focus, I just won't consider it
• if you plan on spreading send me a speech doc
• time yourselves, but if I notice you go way over I'll just stop flowing
• disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad

2nd Year Public Forum Debater at Marist School

I am a tech judge so tech>truth.

In cross both teams should be respectful and each team should be able to ask and answer questions in cross.

no reading theory against middle school or novice teams

I am ok with speed but if you spread send me a speech doc.

In second rebuttal frontline and answer arguments and WEIGH.

In summary extend rebuttal arguments and your own case but make sure you WEIGH.

Final Focus should be a shortened version of summary; I will not consider any new arguments made in final focus.

Give me short roadmap and signpost. Do not give me a five minute roadmap.

Collapse on to arguments

add me to the email chain amanthaga69@gmail.com and also add maristpublicforum@gmail.com

I am a second year PF debater from Marist School.

Some notes for PF

• Don't read theory against Novice/MS teams
• I am ok with speed (but send a speech doc if over 250 wpm )
• Try and command cross, don't be to aggressive (this is the best time to gain speaks)
• I am a tech judge, tech over truth but if its a blatant lie then I'm not voting on it
• Tell me where you're starting, I don't need a 3 minute road map, just sign post (If you start giving me info off time, I will dock speaks or take it out of you're speech time.)
• I vote Neg on presumption (unless presumption calls for the aff (unlikely))in case of no offense on either side
• Make sure to weigh, impacts that aren't weighed won't be taken into consideration.
• If you make an email chain, add me grayson.zeigler@gmail.com
• This is obvious, but don’t be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc.

Notes for any other event (Speech, LD, CX)

I've never done anything besides pf before, but I'd love to see some new stuff. Just keep it simple, and consider me a lay judge.