Jack Howe Memorial Tournament
2024 — Long Beach, CA/US
Novice Public Forum Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideHi y'all, I'm Shriya! I've done public forum for 7 years.
If you are sharing evidence or disclosing cases, please add my email as well (shriyabidani1@gmail.com).
Things that make me happy :)
- cases with framing- ex: "prioritize the environment first for x reasons"
- organized refutations- please don't hop around the flow
- good time management
- managing your own prep time
Things that make me sad :(
- not having cut cards of your evidence (don't send a link and say "control f")
- non-comparative weighing
- bad sportsmanship (being is assertive is fine; bullying is not)
- no content warnings for graphic content
- no signposting
- taking too long to share evidence
- depending on me for timing speeches and prep
Defense is not sticky.
Don't do anything too complicated if I'm judging you in an event besides public forum.
No formal Speech and Debate experience besides judging, but a four-year MUN member and ex- club president. I value etiquette above all else. Be kind to your opponents. Do not spread. If I can’t tell what you are saying I will not try to listen.
Mariel Cruz - Updated 11/10/2017
Schools I've coached/judged for: Santa Clara Univerisity, Cal Lutheran University, Gunn High School, Polytechnic School, Saratoga High School, and Notre Dame High School
I judge mostly Parliamentary debate, but occasionally PF and LD. I used to judge policy pretty regularly when I was a policy debater. I judge all events pretty similarly, but I do have a few specific notes about Parli debate listed below.
Background: I was a policy debater for Santa Clara University for 5 years. I also helped run/coach the SCU parliamentary team, so I know a lot about both styles of debate. I've been coaching and judging on the high school and college circuit since 2012, so I have seen a lot of rounds. I teach/coach pretty much every event, including LD and PF, but I have primarily coached parli the last few years.
Policy topic: I haven’t done much research on either the college or high school policy topic, so be sure to explain everything pretty clearly.
Speed: I’m good with speed, but be clear. I don't love speed, but I tolerate it. As I've started coaching events that don't utilize speed, I've come to appreciate rounds that are a bit slower. I used to judge and debate in fast rounds in policy, but fast rounds in parli and the other debate events are very different, so fast debaters should be careful, especially when running theory and reading plan/cp texts. If you’re running theory, try to slow down a bit so I can flow everything really well. Or give me a copy of your alt text/Cp text. Also, be sure to sign-post, especially if you're going fast, otherwise it gets too hard to flow. I actually think parli (and all events other than policy) is better when it's not super fast. Without the evidence and length of speeches of policy, speed is not always useful or productive for other debate formats.
K: I like all types of arguments, disads, kritiks, theory, whatever you like. I like Ks but I’m not an avid reader of literature, so you’ll have to make clear explanations, especially when it comes to the alt. Even though the politics DA was my favorite, I did run quite a few Ks when I was a debater. However, I don't work with Ks as much as I used to (high school parli has fewer Ks), so I'm not super familiar with every K, but I've seen enough Ks that I have probably seen something similar to what you're running. Just make sure everything is explained well enough. If you run a K I haven't seen before, I'll compare it to something I have seen. I am not a huge fan of Ks like Nietzche, and I'm skeptical of alternatives that only reject the aff. I don't like voting for Ks that have shakey alt solvency or unclear frameworks or roles of the ballot.
Framework and Theory: I tend to think that the aff should defend a plan and the resolution and affirm something (since they are called the affirmative team), but if you think otherwise, be sure to explain why you it’s necessary not to. I’ll side with you if necessary. I also think conditionality and topicality are important. I usually side with reasonability for T, and condo good, but there are many exceptions to this (especially for parli - see below). I'll vote on theory and T if I have to.
Parli specific: Since the structure for parli is a little different, I don't have as a high of a threshold for theory and T as I do when I judge policy, which means I am more likely to vote on theory and T in parli rounds than in policy rounds. This doesn't mean I'll vote on it every time, but I think these types of arguments are a little more important in parli, especially for topics that are kinda vague and open to interpretation. However, I'm very skeptical of theory arguments that seem frivolous and unhelpful (ie Funding spec,
Policy prep: I’m fine with paperless debate. I was a paperless debater for a while myself. I don’t time exchanging flashdrives, but don’t abuse that time. Please be courteous and as timely as possible.
General debate stuff: I was a bigger fan of CPs and disads, but my debate partner loved theory and Ks, so I'm familiar with pretty much everything. I like looking at the big picture as much as the line by line. Frankly, I think the big picture is more important, so things like impact analysis and comparative analysis are important.
Hello All!
My name is Candace Gomez, and if you are reading this, I am most likely going to be your judge. I am a parent for a Fairmont Prep student. As for my debate experience: I have judged middle school debate in the past; I have been practicing law as an attorney for the past 22 years; and while in law school, I won first place in the nationally recognized mock trial competition. Please treat everyone in the round with respect. Additionally, when speaking make sure to go at a comprehensible speed. I often find myself to struggle when people don't annunciate or speak softly. Overall, I think this is going to be a fun round and I look forward to being impressed by your hard work and creative arguments.
I am a relatively new judge to Debate, and will do my best to be fair and balanced in my ballot decisions. Like any human, I am not perfect, but I try to do the best I can in these cases.
- I like a clear framework that lets me know how your arguments are laid out.
- I prefer logical, well-supported arguments. I appreciate clear warrants, impacts, and real-world application and tend to not favor hyperbole or end of world consequences.
- Engaging with your opponent’s case, rather than just extending your own, is important.
- I prefer a moderate speaking pace. Speed (spreading) can make it difficult for me to evaluate arguments effectively, so I encourage clear and structured speaking. If I cannot understand what is being said, I will not evaluate it on my flow.
- I am a History teacher, so well-explained philosophical ideas can be very persuasive, but I also appreciate empirical evidence when relevant. Citing credible sources and explaining their significance will strengthen your case.
- Persuasive speaking, logical reasoning, and effective rhetoric can be just as impactful as technical argumentation.
- Respectful and professional behavior is expected at all times. Rudeness or aggressive behavior will negatively impact speaker points.
I hope this helps, and good luck!
Be polite and kindly please don't spread! Novice judge. Patience much appreciated.
Flow and respond to what the other team says.
I don't have the speech doc open so do things that make it easier for me to flow. Position yourself so I can hear you. Don't speak into your laptop or stand on the opposite side of the room. Don't read typed-out things like they are the text of a card. Slow down and change the intonation of your voice when you're speaking.
If I don't understand something, I will not vote on it even if it is conceded.
Corss-x starts right after the constructive speech ends.
Starting and stopping prep each time you need to use more prep time will cost at least 15 sec.
Very simply, if you have trigger warnings because the topics are more taboo then I am not the judge for you. If you can't explain it to your school administration or parents without them raising concerns then don't run it in front of me. Time and place are important.
Things I will not vote on (AUTO 25 Speaks):
Arguments that suggest students should engage in risky behavior.
Death is good.
Fear of death is bad
Aff's that don't defend the resolution.
Aff's that link to debate in general instead of the resolution.
Judge pref disclosure
Disclosure
Asking me to vote on something that happened before the debate round started.
Asking me to vote on something that happened after the debate round is over.
Vote for a team because they are part of a marginalized group.
Bataille
Baudrillard
Settler Colonialism
Deleuze
Psychoanalysis
ontological argument
epistemological arguments.
In fact, it would be better if you just didn't run a K.
PIC's
Condo CP's
Topical CP's
Consult CP's
conditions CP's
A Critique of Full Text Disclosure
Spreading bad
A Critique of Disclosure
Vote only for women
This list will be ongoing. I will update it to let you know.
So what is left you might ask:
Case debate
Topicality
Da's
CP's that are not listed above.
Other things you might want to know:
1. Da's can have a zero-risk.
2. Aff adv's can have zero risk
3. Solvency can have zero risk
4. Substantial will be important in these types of debates.
5. The neg will get a healthy dose of presumption.
I really would like to listen to a debate about the resolution.
Updates:
PF is different from Policy. PF shouldn't try and be policy. If you try to be policy in a PF then you won't be as successful. You don't need to spread. Few cards are better. Explaining good. Tagline extensions only are bad.
I have been judging lots of PF rounds. And here are some things you should know.
- I am more truth over tech.
- You might have evid on the world is flat. It doesn't mean it is true. The other team might not have evid on the world is round. I am still going to vote on the world is round, if they say it is round without evid.
- The more internal links you have to your impact. The less likely it is.
- Probability is more important than possibility.
- Having 20 cards with two-sentence each won't get you very far.
- Cutting evidence out of context is becoming a problem. Don't do that. Seriously, don't do that.
- The big questions on the topic matter.
- Common sense arguments are better than stupid arguments with cards.
- Saying the other team dropped an argument when they didn't will cost you speaker points! I am tired of hearing this and I would suggest you flow.
- I listen to cross-x. Cross-x is binding.
- Spreading in PF is not needed. Your time is better spent going for fewer arguments better than lots of arguments poorly. The whole point is to collapse and explain.
- When the timer goes off, I stop flowing.
Your evidence better match your claim. It is becoming a race to the bottom with evidence. If the evidence does not match your claim then I will not evaluate that argument. simple!
Maybe I am getting old. I like what I like. If you don't want to adapt to this judge then strike me. If you have me and don't feel the need to adapt then you take the risk on what happens at the end of the round, not me.
If you have questions before the round ask me.
UPDATE: 10/27/23---- Be on time! In fact, be early.
UPDATE: 9/25/24--- From everything I have read about public forum debate there are several key elements that make it different form policy debate.
- accessible
- conversational format
- advocacy
Link debates are more important to me than your impact. If you can't win a substantial risk of your link then more than likely you won't win the debate. Comparing the risk assessment of the links (Pro vs Con) is very important.
Hi! I'm a third-year student at CSU Long Beach majoring in Philosophy, and I have about two years of debating experience. While I mostly focus on collegiate Policy I have a good chunk of experience in NPDA and IPDA as well. My experience in Policy DOES inform my preferences in structure/argumentation more than my limited prep experience.
I will consider any argument made as long as it is warranted and explained well enough for me to grasp. WITH THAT BEING SAID anything that is racist, transphobic, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist, ableist or any other -ism is open to critique by opponents. My personal beliefs are left out of the debate space but if there is a warrant and explanation of how something is problematic it has the potential to flip a debate.
Any blatant disrespect will not be tolerated. Period.
Basics
- I'm super comfortable with debate jargon so feel free to refer colloquially to stuff. Spreading is fine I can follow along for the most part but if I can't I'll call clear and after one warning I'll deduct speaks.
- I keep a rather basic flow but I monitor dropped args heavily.
- The argument is more important to me than style. If you know your material and can defend it while running offense you're fine.
Prefs
- I love clean well-structured debates, leaving out key args until the last minute will lose you the debate.
- If you don't create a reasonable clash I have very little to go on and then it becomes a toss-up mess as to who I vote for
- K's on Aff and Neg are WONDERFUL (I have experience here)
- Framework makes or breaks a debate. If you lose FW you lose the debate
- I'm not off-put by a debater with personality at all
- I evaluate arguments as they are explained and extended into rebuttals
- I will decide impact/framing if not explicitly done in a debate
- EXPLAIN. don't assume we know your literature
Speech Doc email :p
csulbmk@gmail.com
Background: I did speech and debate at Cypress College and now compete for CSULB. I've done parliamentary, but mostly compete in LD. I've also done speech events :)
I am okay with speed, but I believe it is up to your opponent. If your opponent asks you not to spread, please do not. Good clash and articulation of any and all arguments is a must. I don't mind a little back and forth, only if you are respectful to your opponent. I do not and will not tolerate homophobia, racism, ableism, or transphobia. Ultimately, I want the round to be fun and enjoyable!
T:I am not a big fan of T's, mostly if they are being used as time wasters. If they add something to the debate and flow well, I really enjoy them so being meticulous with them please.
Kritiques:I don't know much about kritiques, but I enjoy debates with them. I find them interesting!
If you have any additional questions, you can always ask me >_<
email: alex15kj777@gmail.com
Alexis (they/them)
I am new to judging !
Please be respectful to the room and be nice to your opponent and tell your story clearly. I will follow !
Thanks
Lay judge. I work as a Data Scientist, so I appreciate clear use of statistics and numbers to support your arguments! However, I value overall clarity and persuasive reasoning just as much, so make sure your arguments are well-explained and accessible. I do not mind what speed you use; if you choose to speak quickly, I can keep up. Please remember to be respectful and kind to one another during the debate.
Hello,
I am a parent judge with little experience. However, I have sat in multiple Congress sessions so I'm familiar with the flow of the round.
Judging criteria:
- Be professional, NO profanity or racial slurs
- Be respectful, don't interrupt or be rude
- Speak clearly and loudly
- Have your arguments structured and organized
- Arguments should be relevant to the topic, have clear logic, and have reputable research
- Do not ask questions to the same side during CX because it does not contribute or advance the debate and wastes a questioning block
- Be engaged with the round by refuting/including opponent's arguments
Please ask specific questions should you have them. Prefer substantive debates. And, fully support teams who take the initiative to stop rounds when concerned re: evidence ethics (the instructions are fully detailed in the NSDA High School Event Manual, pp. 30-33). On Theory and other such arguments in Public Forum Debate:
https://www.vbriefly.com/2021/04/15/equity-in-public-forum-debate-a-critique-of-theory/
I started debate in my sophomore year of college, less than a year ago, competing in IPDA and am currently making an attempt to enter NPDA. I mostly lean conservative, but the ultimate guide I follow is the Bible. I try to be fair when judging, but if something someone is asking me to vote on goes explicitly against that moral code, I will throw out that specific voter.
- Experience:I’m new to Public Forum but have a background in Lincoln-Douglas (LD) debate.
- Fairness:I strive to be fair and objective, ensuring my personal biases or prior knowledge do not influence my voting. I base my decision on which team debated better, not on which team aligns more with the truth.
- Style:Please speak slowly and clearly. Make sure to flow your opponents’ arguments and address their main points in order. I prefer debates with clear organizational structure, allowing for reasoned judgment.
- Quality Over Quantity:I prioritize the quality of arguments over the number of arguments. I vote for the team that presents stronger debating. Source credibility is important to me—if you cite qualified sources, mention their credentials and provide exact quotes rather than paraphrasing, as this increases their believability.
- Note Taking:I will take notes during each speech to keep a detailed record, which helps me organize the debate and evaluate which side wins.
- Rebuttals:In your summary speeches, be sure to highlight the key points you want me to consider and explain why they outweigh your opponents’ main arguments.
- Respect and Enjoyment: Have fun and do your best! Please treat each other with respect throughout the debate.
I’m a co-owner of a speech and debate academy and head speech coach with kids who’ve done well nationally. I’m a professional actor and a member of SAG-AFTRA. I am also a licensed attorney in CA with a background in civil litigation. I enjoy traditional LD, especially helping students learn about different philosophies, effective research and writing and developing great analytical and persuasive skills.
What I Value: I value organized, clear and coherent debate with clash. I value traditional debate and especially appreciate creative but applicable values and value criteria. A thoughtful framework and clear organization is very important, both in the framework and argument. I really enjoy hearing well-structured cases with thoughtful framework and value/Value Criterion setups. I have seen cases decided on framework and I think it is very educational for students to learn philosophy and understand more of the philosophical underpinnings of resolutions and even democratic society. Don't forget to show me how you achieved your value better than your opponent, or even how your value and VC achieve your opponent's value better. Don't forget to show your organization of claim-warrants-impact in your arguments. I don't think solvency is necessary in LD, but if you have a persuasive way to bring it in, I am okay with it.
Speed: A proper pace and rhythm of speech is important. I am fine with coherent, articulate fast talking that has a purpose, but I really do not liked spreading. I find it and double-breathing very off-putting and contrary to the fundamentals of public speaking and good communication and the notion that debate should be accessible to all. Normal people sit bewildered watching progressive, circuit-level debaters, unable to comprehend them. Furthermore, it appears that progressive debaters typically give their cases via flash drive to judges and opponents who then read them on their computers during the round and during decision-making. This then becomes an exercise in SPEED READING and battle of the written cases.
Theory: I don’t know much about theory and all the tricks that have trickled down from policy into progressive LD. However, I am open-minded and if done intelligently, such as a valid and applicable spreading K, I believe it can be an interesting way to stop abusive practices in a round.
Final words: I think all of you should be very proud of yourselves for getting up there and doing this activity. Please remember that being courteous, honest and having values you follow are going to take you much further in life than unethical practices such as misrepresenting your evidence cards or being rude to your opponent. Good luck!
*Varsity Speaks: Boost in speaker points when you compliment your partner in-speech - the more fun or earnest, the higher the speaks boost :) I've found this gives some much needed levity in tense rounds.
*Online: Please go slower online. I'll let you know if you cut out. I'll try on my end to be as fair as possible within the limits of keeping the round reasonably on time. If the tournament has a forfeit policy, I'll go by those.
Background: 3 years of college debate - v traditional policy (stock issues/T & CPs) & some parli. I've been coaching PF for 6+ years, mostly MS/some HS.
PF:
Firm on paraphrasing bad. I used to reward teams for the bare minimum of reading cut cards but then debaters would bold-faced lie and I would become the clown emoji in real time. I'm open to hearing arguments that penalize paraphrasing, whether it's treating them as analytics that I shouldn't prefer over your read cards or I should drop the team that paraphrases entirely.
Disclosure is good because evidence ethics in PF are bad, but I probably won't vote for disclosure theory. I'm more likely to reward you in speaks for doing it (ex. sharing speech docs) than punish a team for not.
“Defense is sticky.” No it isn’t.
To be clear: fully frontline whatever you want to go for in second summary in second rebuttal. Same logic as if it's in your final focus, it better be in your partner's summary. I like consistency.
It shouldn't take you long to send cards if you were literally just reading them. Make it quick or it starts coming out of prep.
Collapsing, grouping, and implicating = good, underrated, easy path to my ballot! Doc botting, blippy responses, no warrants or ev comparison = I'm sad, and you'll be sad at your speaks.
Cleaner debates collapse earlier rather than later.
I'm super into strategic concessions. "It's okay that they win this, because we win here instead and that matters more bc..."
I have a soft spot for framing. I'm most interested when the opposing team links in (ex. team A runs "prioritize extinction," team B replies, "yes, and that's us,"), but I'll definitely listen to "prioritize x instead" args, too. Just warrant, compare, etc.
TW/Para theory/K's - judged a couple times, but by no means an expert. I'm not saying you can't run these debates or I'm unwilling to listen to them, but you're better off going slower than usual and making your judge instructions very, very clear.
All else fails, I will 1) look at the weighing, then 2), evaluate the line-by-line to see if I give you reasonable access to those impacts to begin with. Your opponents would have to really slip up somewhere to win the weighing but lose the round, but it's not impossible. I get really sad if the line-by-line is so convoluted that I only vote on the weighing - give me a clean place to vote. I'll be happy if you do the extra work to tell me why your weighing mechanism is better than theirs (I should prefer scope over mag because x, etc).
LD:
I’m a better judge for you if you're more trad/LARP. The more "progressive," the more you should either A) strike me if possible, or B) explain it to me slowly and simply - I’m open to hearing it if you’re willing to adjust how you argue it. Send a speech doc and assume I'm not as well-read as you on the topic literature.
All:
If it's before 9am, assume I learned what debate was 10 minutes ago. If it's the last round of the night, assume the same.
Open/varsity - time yourselves. Keep each other honest, but don't be the prep police.
On speed generally - I can do "fast" PF mostly fine, but I prefer slower debates and no spreading.
Content warnings should be read for graphic content.
Have warrants. Compare warrants. Tell me why your args matter/what to do with them.
Don't post-round. Debaters should especially think about who you choose to post-round on a panel when decisions echo one another.
Having a sense of humor and being friendly/accommodating toward your opponents is the easiest way to get good speaks from me. Be kind, have fun, laugh a little (but not at anyone's expense!!), and I'll have no problem giving you top speaks.
If I smile, you did something right. If I nod, I'm following what you say. I will absolutely tilt my head and make a face if you lost me or you're treading on thin ice on believability of whatever you're saying. If I just look generally unhappy - that's just my default face. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Hello. I am a parent judge, specifically a flay judge. I have judged tournaments in the past for PF, LD, and Parliamentary, and I have knowledge about basic technicalities. Please make sure to be aware of your timing as I would like the round to adhere to the official timings. I may signal a debater that their time is up if a speech runs too long.
I will be flowing throughout the round, so make sure to utilize your time effectively when defending your case and attacking your opponent’s case. As long as you have solid evidence and logical reasoning, you should be able to succeed. Remember, debating is not about aggression; it is about assertion. Please make to remain respectful to your opponents as I will mark down speaker scores if anyone speaks disrespectfully to others. Do not interrupt the opponent’s statements.
As for speed, I would prefer no spreading because if I can’t properly flow and understand your contentions, it will be hard for me to understand important points in the debate.
As for speaker points, I will adjust speaker scores based on delivery and in round behavior throughout the round; again, please remain respectful and courteous during the debate.
Hi I'm Sam (she/her) and I’m a junior in college. I have 3 years of experience in PF, 1 in Parli, and now I coach PF.
Add me to the email chain: samsemcheshen@gmail.com
------------------------------------------
All:
Read content warnings for anything that might need it and have an extra case if someone opts out.
Be respectful, I'm fine with rounds being casual but everyone in the round should be respected. Be nice, be polite. If I look annoyed, that's probably just because I'm tired, but if I make it very obvious that I have stopped flowing and I am just staring at you, you're probably doing something wrong. Bad behavior will reflect in your speaks and in some cases possibly my decision.
Speed is fine (not spreading though lol) but I prefer slower debates, especially if we are online.
Time yourselves please I'm lazy. If it's novice I'll time, but you should still try and time yourselves in case I forget and so you don't have to rely on me solely.
Keep each other accountable but don't be the prep police or speech sheriff. For speeches, I'd say give each other like a 10 second grace period.
HOWEVER, I don't know why I keep seeing this but a lot of online people just start taking prep without saying anything. Please don't do this or else I am going to have to nag to make sure you're not stealing prep. If you're gonna take prep please just say so before you start.
SIGNPOST!!!! or I will have no clue what is going on.
Terminalized impacts please, I don't care that the GDP was raised by 1% what does that even mean. I should also not be hearing your impact once in constructive then never again or you just referring to it as "our impact" without restating what it is. EXTEND IMPACTS.
I'm cool with a rowdy cross those are fun just don't get too carried away and make sure everyone is able to speak.
Also, reading whole cards in cross is my pet peeve. Try not to do that.
Some evidence things!!!!:
- To save time, set up ev exchange before the round starts. (I think email chains are best but its your call)
- On that note, I don't have a set time limit for how long pulling up evidence should take, but it shouldn't take long. I've seen teams struggle to find a "card" they just read in their speech and like ???? You either got the card or you don't.
- If you just send a link and tell someone to "control f" I am gonna cry. Send cards, its not hard.
- To help enforce better norms, if I see that when your team's evidence is called for, it is properly cut and shared in an appropriate way (AKA not pasted into zoom/NSDA campus chat or handing each other your laptops), I will give your team a speaks boost. All evidence shared must abide in order to get the boost.
PF:
PF has the worst evidence ethics so go ahead and reread the evidence points I put earlier just in case.
I'm cool with paraphrasing cards but you better have a cut card version if someone calls for it.
I hate when people wait until 2nd summary to frontline. I am more comfortable evaluating frontlines done in 2nd rebuttal than if you skip that and only frontline in 2nd summary. Frankly, if the other team comes up in ff and says that frontlining only in summary is unfair, I'll probably agree with them and you'll be out of luck.
Is defense sticky? NOPE!
If it is not extended into summary, I'm not evaluating it in ff. Don't just spam your impact numbers, remind me how you get there. If you don't think you have time for that, then maybe you should have been collapsing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Basically, if you end up not extending your case properly, oh well your loss. Literally your loss.
Other:
For LD, Policy, Parli, etc. just treat me more trad.
I can evaluate theory but I am not super experienced with it. If you want to do it anyway, make sure you slow down and REALLY explain it well to me.
If I'm allowed to, I typically disclose and give feedback. If you have questions about my decision or want specific feedback, I'm happy to explain as long as you are going about it in a respectful way.
If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round :)
Add me to the email chain: nkshetty170@gmail.com
Parent Judge
Tag team/open cross is fine
Do’s:
Speaking clearly
Being nice to your opponent and make sure to smile!
Adding everyone to the email chain
Dont’s:
Toxicity
Non disclosure
Being mean to the judge or the opponents (there’s no reason to be mean)
Being late
Be respectful, debate is supposed to be fun. Speak clearly and don’t be condescending to your opponents.
Have fun!
Background: I don't have much experience as a Public Forum judge. However, I have shadowed some parliamentary form of debate before. I hail from finance background particularly tax law.
Judging Style: I prefer quality over quantity. Please speak clearly, with emphasis on important parts of arguments and make eye contact often rather then just reading from paper. Please speak at average speed. Well developed contentions over number of contentions matter more. Rebuttals should be clearly stated and warranted. If you don't state why your arguments prevails over the other team, I wouldn't know. Please clearly state, how your evidence supports your contention.
I give a lot of emphasis to weighing. If weighing is not effective on either side then I will base it off of the arguments. Strong arguments, supported by evidence and delivered with clarity wins over loudness and speed in your speech.
Please speak in a respectful demeanor and enjoy! Rudeness will negatively effect your scores. Be firm without being rude. Hope you enjoy your debate! I adhere to Tech over Truth.
TOC twice in Congress.
I like to see a lot of clash between arguments. I like it when competitors explain their argument and the impact of their arguments. I weigh heavily on the value criterion and voting issues expressed in the first constructive speeches, extending to the last rebuttal speeches. I do not like fast reading or spreading. I am OK with value debates, policy debate and philosophical debates.
As a parent judge supporting my son's involvement in debate, I approach judging with an open mind and a focus on fairness. I value clear communication, logical arguments, and strong evidence to support claims. While I may not be familiar with every technical debate term, I appreciate when debaters explain their points thoroughly and engage respectfully. I am impartial and committed to evaluating the round based on the strength of the arguments presented, not personal opinions. Please prioritize clarity and ensure your points are well-structured for easy understanding.
Tech > Truth