I first look to see how the debater has constructed their case? Is it persuasive? Is their argument ethical and moral? How is their presentation? Is it clear? Is their voice volume appropriate? What is their body language? Do they have eye contact with their audience? Have they done their research? Do they quote their sources in support of their case? Why should their position be supported? Their refutation; how do they refute their opponents argument? Do they use examples from their research? Can they identify fallacies in their opponents' argument? Are they using logical analysis to refute their opponent? The debaters ability to rebuild and clarify their argument.

I am a relatively new judge. I prefer that debaters make a coherent, logical case that could convince a person who is not an expert in the topic being debated. Talking fast and hitting many points to cover all your bases does not win too many points with me. Thoughtful rebuttal rather than pleading or simply saying the opponent is wrong is highly valued.

For PFD and LD.

Simple Paradigm, I am a traditionalist when it comes to PFD or LD so I know, when judging on the circuit I will be blocked, but this is not Policy.

Debate the resolution, not something you bought from a college student or topic you find enlightening - the resolutions are chosen, and voted on, for a reason.

It is helpful to "bullet-point" and number your arguments.

Do not bring in new topics/arguments when summarizing. This is unfair to the opposing team who will have had no opportunity to rebut. Doing this will lose points.

So, with that in mind, life is simple, right? If LD your Value should simply win out and and your VC better convince me that all those contentions and sub-points make sense, especially since you (please!) slow downed so I can actually hear them. If you speak too quickly and I cannot catch what you say, it is as though you didn't say it. =) Yes I like smiley faces, life is fun, take a step back and enjoy it! Nevertheless, if I do not catch what you say this will likely result in lost points. This also applies to PFD.

Similarly, acronyms are great short hand but do not assume I will be familiar with them. Define them at the outset before using them freely.

I like consistency in the points made and creative solutions to challenges. Twists in an argument and subtle nuances can be fun as well as win the day! Quantification of issues versus qualification of emotions, and specifics versus generalizations are both approaches which work well. Best is when your position paints a consistent and coherent picture, and exceptions and rebuttals are removed by logic and data. Logical arguments supporting your position are far more important than rewording the same statement, except when there is a need to clarify ambiguities or terms.

If PFD, well your contentions and impact better win out too! Good cards everyone, good cards and roadmap please. If you have evidence for me to see, then make sure I see it. You are responsible for confirming it was received and can be read by me.

Finally, if you want me to tell you when it is time, or 5 seconds or other time before your time is up tell me in advance and be explicit. This includes prep time. It is your responsibility to communicate this and to be sure I received and accepted the message. This is not the time to be subtle. You will only lose points if I have to tell you that you went overtime.

Oh wait, almost forgot, remember this is not policy ! If I am judging policy, well that is a whole other matter.

I prioritize clarity and well-articulated arguments over speed. Avoid spreading (excessively fast speech). If I can't understand you, I can't evaluate your argument. Maintain a professional and respectful tone throughout the debate. Personal jabs, ad hominem attacks, or any form of disrespect will negatively impact your speaker points and credibility. Provide reliable and verifiable sources for your claims. When citing evidence, ensure it is relevant and directly supports your argument. I value arguments supported by both statistical evidence and logical reasoning. Don't rely solely on numbers; explain their significance and connect them to the broader argument. When referencing studies or data, state the publication or organization to enhance credibility. Present arguments in a clear, structured manner. Signposting and roadmaps are appreciated to ensure the flow of your case is easy to follow. Make your points accessible and digestible for any judge, including lay judges. Aim to be persuasive, logical, and respectful. I value debates that prioritize the quality of arguments over quantity. It’s better to win with two strong, well-supported points than a scattershot approach of unsubstantiated claims.

If you would like to send me your argument, my email is: mr.marcus.costello@gmail.com

Hi I'm Nivi - Pennsbury 26' - cx debater - tech > truth

LD/PF: good with any speed. I have competed in both events and know the format decently well. I like well explained values and impact calc. i weigh impact calc under your fw so make sure it’s well explained. i’m familiar with most trad fw (util, sv, egal) but if your using something niche it’s probably smart to explain it a bit extra.

CX: -For background, I am a soft left debater + K/DA on the neg.

put me on doc share - Im fine with spreading and any debate jargon - clash is good - include impact calc, especially if your running FW debate - I don't care how many off you run, depth or breadth idc (be reasonable) I usually side neg for condo -theory: T/Xtra T > condo > dispo > disclo. If you run theory give the definition, limits, and harms and the impact to the round.

have fun!!

1. I am more of a traditional judge, the national organizations have defined what formats should be and their rules, I believe they should be followed, like LD and PF should not be policy, K's belong with policy. Besides that, I prefer cases that actually use evidence, pieces and speeches that I can follow, and speed is okay, but you should not sound like you are choking and cannot breath. Be respectful and remember, in debate, evidence wins the day, sign post and provide road maps.

My debate paradigm is... that you as debaters set the direction for the debate, within both the rules and generally accepted norms of your event.

Show me why YOUR approach to debate is the right one.

.

In addition, remember to:

- Always be respectful of your opponent(s) and audience.

- If you choose to spread, remember that your arguments are only as good as what your audience is able to hear.

.

Mr. Nick Malinak

Head Forensics Coach - The Hill School

NSDA Diamond Coach

I will be open. I look forward to listening to an in-depth, logical and quantifiable approach in explaining your case. Thank you for the opportunity to learn from you and to witness your development into a future leader of our interconnected world. Have fun!

The main criteria by which I judge are:

* Clarity of contentions and evidence supporting them. Appeal to authority is less compelling than statistics and factual examples.

* Logic of arguments; absurdities and irrelevant comparisons should be avoided. I am not a fan of persuasion based on emotion and voice volume. Opponents should be courteous to one another.

* Presentation skill: ability to communicate arguments clearly. I am not a fan of "spreading" because arguments are difficult to follow when presented at top speed.

* Ability to answer cross-examination questions and demonstrate understanding of the subject thereby

* Answering all of your opponent's contentions and opposing arguments

* Complete use of alloted time

Hey, my name is Justin Thomashefsky and I'm a coach at Truman High School. I competed in LD/PF from 2008 - 2010 and Policy during the 2010-2011 season. I've been judging / coaching debate since 2012 and have circuit Policy/LD experience

General debate things

I'm good with speed.

I'm good with K's (see policy for more info)

Disclosure theory is pretty meh to me. But if you make good arguments on it I guess ill vote for it.

Please analyze warrants in your evidence! This should go without saying.

Policy

I'm much more comfortable judging a policy round but I have a decent amount of experience judging critical rounds.

T - I default to reasonability but you can definetly convince me to evaluate competing interps if you win it on the flow. You need to win in round abuse to get my ballot. This goes extra for theory

K - I'm familiar and comfortable with standard K's (security, capitalism etc.) but you may lose me with high theory literature.

Please frame my ballot in your last speech. It should be clear what I'm voting for at the end of the round.

Open cross is fine but let your partner speak!

LD

For lay rounds: Debate warrants! Don't waste time on the Value/VC (Meta-ethic/standard) debate if you're both functionally the same framework. All the framework debate should come down to is what lens I should evaluate the round through

For circuit rounds: I'm not huge on the squirrel theory stuff that's been going on in circuit LD. I'll try to evaluate whatever you put in front of me but just like with T you really need to win in round abuse to get my ballot. For the rest just read policy stuff

I prefer to see lay rounds in LD. So if you're at a tournament with me that has a weird mix of lay and circuit you might want to default to lay. BUT I'll weigh whatever arguments you put in front of me in any style.

I appreciate the delivery of the spoken word at a moderate speed. I request that you utilize consideration when engaging with teammates, opponents and judges. Please present your argument in a clear, concise and organized manner. I need you to connect your details to your argument.

I am unble to judge speed reading adequately, therefore more often than not you will lose my vote. Please utilize language to clarify your points and enable your speech to be easily followed.

It is helpful to utilize tag lines, signposts. Roadmaps off - time help to clarify the organization of your presentation for me.

Debates and arguments must be persuasive. If the argument does not persuade me, I will not be able to cast my vote for it. Debaters must tell me what is importand and why I should cast my vote for their position. Please be clear and concise about what I am considering and emphasize your key points. The impacts of your contentions must be realistic. Your arguments must be clear and plausible. Please present a clear anaylsis of why you should win in the final rebuttal round.

I evaluate your fluency of speech, rate, tone, use of transitions, as well as organization of details. Please view each session as an opportunity to learn and grow. I look forward to the opportunity to learn from you!!!