Overall:

I vote based on my understanding of the round. That being said, speed is fine, but I enjoy having some differentiation in tone. I do believe that there is value in remembering that this is a speech activity. Performing your speech reminds me that you are talking about something very important. There is a limit to useful speed.

I like good debates, and I reward debaters that have intelligent affirmatives with specific internal link stories and introduce impact stories. I also like debates where the negative creates crafty negative strategies that demonstrate a grasp of the case and how to beat the case specifically having a link story that shows the inherent problems specific to that affirmative. Performance/alternative debates that really teach and demonstrate impact are welcome!

Default

Debate should be centered on the hypothetical world where the United States federal government takes action. I default to a utilitarian calculus and view arguments in an offense/defense paradigm.

Topicality

Most topicality debates come down to limits. This means it would be in your best interest to explain the world of your interpretation—what AFFs are topical, what negative arguments are available, etc—and compare this with your opponent’s interpretation. Topicality debates become very messy very fast, which means it is extremely important to provide a clear reasoning for why I should vote for you at the top of the 2NR/2AR.

DA, CP, Case- The evidence is key. Good evidence had better actually be good if you are calling on me to read it at the end of the round. Having a super power tagged card that isn't warranted could cost you the debate.

Flowing

I am not the fastest flow and rely heavily on short hand in order to catch up. I am better on debates I am more familiar with because my short hand is better. Either way, debaters should provide organizational cues (i.e. group the link debate, I’ll explain that here). Cues like that give me flow time to better understand the debate and understand your arguments in relation to the rest of the debate.

Notes

Prep time continues until the jump drive is out of the computer / the email has been sent to the email chain. This won't affect speaker points, however, it does prolong the round and eliminate time that I have to evaluate the round.

I am not a fan of insert our re-highlighting of the evidence. Either make the point in a CX and bring it up in a rebuttal or actually read the new re-highlighting to make your argument.

The debaters that get the best speaker points in front of me are the ones that write my ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR and shape in their speeches how I should evaluate arguments and evidence.

Depth > Breadth

I am the coach of Stuart-Hobson MS Debate Team. I look at the following questions during the debates.

1. Argumentation:

   • Clarity and Coherence: Does the debater present clear and logical arguments?
   • Relevance: Are the arguments relevant to the resolution and the specific debate round?
   • Impact: Do the arguments have significant real-world implications?
   • Evidence: Is evidence used effectively to support claims?

2. Analysis:

   • Critical Thinking: Does the debater analyze the arguments and evidence presented by the opposition?
   • Counterarguments: Are counterarguments strong and well-supported?
   • Refutation: Does the debater effectively refute the opponent's arguments?

3. Delivery:

   • Clarity and Organization: Is the debater's speech well-organized and easy to follow?
   • Effective Communication: Does the debater use clear language and effective delivery techniques?
   • Persuasiveness: Does the debater effectively persuade the judge of their position?

4. Strategy:

   • Adaptability: Does the debater adapt their strategy to the flow of the debate?

• Risk-Taking: Does the debater take calculated risks to gain an advantage?
• Time Management: Does the debater effectively manage their time?

1. Civility:

• Respectful Discourse: Does the debater engage in respectful and civil debate?
• Ethical Argumentation: Does the debater avoid personal attacks and logical fallacies?

I further appreciate signposting and speaking at a moderate rate.

I judge on the basis of magnitude and impact

I also do open cross in rounds. I ask that rounds remain respectful at all times.

no formalities necessary, just Jax/Judge is fine

he/they

a senior at Leon M Goldstein high school for the sciences, 4th year in policy debate.

add me to the email chain jwhyte0721@gmail.com

No homophobia/transphobia/racism/islamphobia/antisemtism, nothing. I don’t care if you appear to correlate with an identity, no slurs. Automatic lose. I’ll deduct speaker points for cursing during speech or CX/CF (unless it’s a genuine slip of tongue), or for insulting your opponents at any time.

Distracting noises during round will cause me to deduct speaks, as it's hard to focus on what's being said

I give speaker points based on your actual speech and how well you did delivering your points, but the winner is the most convincing- or simply the person who had the fairest win. Not blocking arguments, or lacking evidence is an easy lose, and it can't be made up for towards the end. But, if the other side doesn't mention this, I won't give them the win just for that, when they didn't notice that you left an argument open, or countered with weak evidence. CX/CF isn't weighed for my decision, only for speaker points. If you want it to be considered, bring it up in your speech. I won't say "clear" because it wastes time, if I can't hear it, I won't flow it. That means don't yell, don't speak at a speed beyond comprehension, and don't speak too low.