Hello! I'm Mr.Bergeron, and I'm excited to be judging your round today. I have a background in coaching and competing all platforms of debate (minus Congress), both at the high school and collegiate levels. I competed in these formats before transferring to UT Austin, where I continued my involvement in individual events. Today, my judging approach is rooted in the importance of flowing, realistic links to evidence-supported impacts, and an evaluative weighing of the round.

Judging Criteria:

1. Flow:

   • I will be closely following the flow throughout the round. Clear organization and strategic use of cross-applications will be rewarded.
   • Be sure to signpost and extend arguments throughout the round

2. Realistic Links to Evidence:

   • Ensure that your links to evidence are well-explained and supported.

3. Impacts:

   • Impact analysis is key. Clearly articulate the implications and significance of your arguments in the round.
   • Show how your impacts outweigh your opponent's, and be ready to explain why certain impacts should be prioritized over others.

4. Weighing the Round:

   • I appreciate debaters who engage in active weighing throughout the round. Compare and contrast arguments to guide me in evaluating their relative importance.
   • Make sure to address and resolve conflicting impacts, demonstrating a deep understanding of the round's dynamics.

5. Evaluative Approach:

   • My decision will be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the entire debate. This includes the quality of arguments, strategic choices, and overall performance.
   • I value debaters who adapt to their opponent's arguments, demonstrate critical thinking, and can pivot their strategy when needed.

Remember, clarity is key. Speak at a pace that is comfortable and clear for you, your opponents, and me (I am fine with speed but be clear and remember the event I am judging in). I look forward to a thought-provoking and well-debated round. Good luck!

I have been a coach and consultant for the past 29 years and done every debate format available stateside and internationally. I also have taught at Stanford, ISD, Summit, UTD, UT, and Mean Green camps as a Curriculum Director and/or Senior Instructor for LD, PF, and WSD. I think no matter what form of debate that you do, you must have a narrative that answers critical questions of who, what, when, where, why, how, and then what, and so what. Debaters do not need to be shy and need to be able to weigh and prioritize the issues of the day for me in what I ought to be evaluating. Tell me as a judge where I should flow things and how I ought to evaluate things. That's your job.

If you would like for me to look at a round through a policy lens, please justify to me why I ought to weigh that interpretation versus other alternatives. Conversely, if you want me to evaluate standards, those need to be clear in their reasoning why I ought to prioritize evaluation in that way.

In public forum, I need the summary to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the stark differences exist and what issues need to be prioritized. Remember in the collapse, you cannot go for everything. Final focus needs to be a big pic concept for me. Feel free to use policy terms such as magnitude, scope, probability. I do evaluate evidence and expect you all to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. The more complicated the link chain, the more probability you may lose your judge. Keep it tight and simple and very direct.

In LD, I still love my traditional Value and VC debate. I do really like a solid old school LD round. I am not big on K debate only because I think the K debate has changed so much that it becomes trendy and not a methodology that is truly educational and unique as it should be. Uniqueness is not the same as obscurity. Now, if you can provide a good solid link chain and evaluation method of the K, go for it. Don't assume my knowledge of the literature though because I don't have that amount of time in my life but I'm not above understanding a solidly good argument that is properly formatted. I think the quickest way to always get my vote is to write the ballot for me and also keep it simple. Trickery can make things messy. Messy debaters usually get Ls. So keep it simple, clean, solid debate with the basics of claim, warrant, impact, with some great cards and I'll be happy.

I don't think speed is ever necessary in any format so speak concisely, know how to master rhetoric, and be the master of persuasion that way. Please do not be rude to your opponent. Fight well and fight fair. First reason for me to down anyone is on burdens. Aff has burden of proof, neg has burden to clash unless it is WSD format where burdens exist on both sides to clash. If you have further questions, feel free to ask specifics.

In plat events, structure as well as uniqueness (not obscurity) is key to placing. Organization to a speech as well as a clear call to order is required in OO, Info, Persuasive. In LPs, answer the question if you want to place. Formatting and structure well an avoid giving me generic arguments and transitional phrases. Canned intros are not welcome in my world usually and will be frowned upon. Smart humor is always welcome however.

I want you all to learn, grow, have fun, and fight fair. Best of luck and love one another through this activity!!

I would like to have a respectful round. I will be judging based off the impact of your claims. I want to hear meaningful arguments and rebuttals and don't want any arguments to be dropped. In terms of speaking, I would like you to speak clearly and would like you to project your voice. Also, please speak at a reasonable pace so that I can keep track of the round.

Hello, my name is Jack Hasper and thank you for reading the paradigm.

Grapevine 24’

UNT 28’

Currently associated with- Grapevine HS, Colleyville Heritage HS

[Edited for TFA State 25']

Pronouns: He/HIM

hasper.debate@gmail.com

in round feel free to call/refer to me as judge or jack really whatever y'all want

Judges/Coaches/Debaters who have helped shape me a lot -

Fiker Tesfaye, Jane Boyd, Collin Quinn, Holden Bukowsky, Peyton Squires

I recently graduated from Grapevine High School, and now am a freshman IPDA and NFA LD Debater at UNT. So, if you have been debating on the circuit for a few years you might have seen me around. In my high school career, I TFA state qualified in Congress, Public Forum, (somehow also duet acting?) broke to out rounds at the Barkley forum in PF, and UIL State qualifier in Persuasive, and Congress. So, I am well versed in every event having competed in every single debate event except for WSD.

that being said here is what I am looking for.

EVERY EVENT-

Debate is a space for people of all backgrounds to learn and grow. if you are being racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or a bigot of any kind you can expect how the ballot and your speaks are going to go.

PFD-

I lean more towards tech>truth

however, I think that there needs to be somewhat of a balance.

EV-

It's wild I have to say this, but DON'T LIE ABOUT EVIDENCE. If your opponent asks for a piece of evidence and you just "don't have it" or "can't find it" I will be taking away speaks and not evaluating that argument. It is so high risk, low reward to lie about evidence so just don't. Also, if you give your opponent a website and say that "oh it's not cut" or something like that, I will be very weary to actually take that evidence into consideration. You should have your evidence before round, if you pull up a website it means that you were not at all prepared for this round. Don't paraphrase evidence. I think that a big part of debate is the emphasis on quality research, so I will fs evaluate evidence or author indicts.

Fw-

I really love framework, and I think it is vastly underutilized within PF. If you are running fw bring it up early in the round. If you bring it up after the second speech, I will not actually pay it mind. I prefer for you to read it in the first speech.

K's-

In PF the more that I judge, the more I am starting to like Ks in PF. Although I didn't really run them on the high school circuit, in collegiate LD I read K's almost every round. I primarily find myself reading coloniality, cap, fem, and abolition so those are the ones I understand the most thoroughly. But if you want to run another K that I did not mention on here feel free too. When it comes to K's I feel like they are hard to run well in PF due to time constraints, so ONLY RUN IF YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT. Far too often I see teams reading a K with either an author whose literature directly advocates for the opposite of their K or teams who don't truly understand what they are saying. Although I do understand the more common K's I have not read up on all of them. So when running a K do a good job of actually explaining the literature, and the importance behind what you're running.

K Aff's are really flawed in PF, and I have only ever judged one round where it was run well. So, with that being said unless you feel incredibly confident in how good your K aff is, then I would say don't read it.

Speed-

When it comes to speed, I don't love overuse of spreading because I believe that PF was made to be an accessible event, however I can keep up with just about anything. When it comes to spreading though DO NOT spread if you're opponents are not okay with it. If you're opponents tell you that they are not okay with speed, and you proceed to spread I will be taking away speaks and possibly downing the debater if they make an IVI. So overall your barrier to how fast you can go is really dependent on your opponents. I will rarely ever say "clear" or "speed" because I think it throws people off of their rhythms. So, if you want to make sure that I caught something on my flow slow down. Whether it be analytics, weighing, voters, interps etc. the more important they are for me to have on my flow, the clearer you need to be.

Theory-

Theory is cool, I'm good to evaluate it. If you are winning theory no matter how friv I will probably still vote for it. When it comes to disclosure it sometimes has it's place, for example State, TOC, Nats or any other major tournament. However I feel like sometimes people overuse disclosure in PF. Like if you are a school with 10+ teams or something and you run disclo against a small school that is just ridiculous. When it comes to theory in general if you actually warrant it out, extend your interp through every speech, and why I should care then I have no problem voting for it.

Miscellaneous Info -

SIGNPOST!

WEIGHING!

I will pay attention to cross, but I will not evaluate or weigh anything said unless you bring it up in the next speech

I will be keeping time for both speech and prep time. It is your responsibility to pay attention to the timer, and I will verbally stop teams if they are 10+ seconds over. Plus any card you start reading after the speech time is done, I will not be evaluating.

Impact calc!!! Even if you are telling me your impact, tell me why it matters or what this actually means.

Stay organized, I do not want to play where is waldo with one of your arguments on my flow

If you and your opponent want to have a silly round, I am 100% for it. Coinflip theory, random args, rap battles. I am so down to judge that round and if both parties agree I will evaluate them

I cut cards, and research for some of the teams I do consulting for. So I will have topic knowledge

Miscellaneous things I hate to see in PF rounds -

Being mean/talking down to novices - If you are doing this I will 100% lower speaks, and if it is bad enough, I will talk to your coach because that is ridiculous.

Tricks- In PF tricks are so highly flawed that I will almost never even think about evaluating them.

Wipeout- Seriously, come on. We are in the year 2025 there is no reason that you should be running wipeout. This argument is so inconceivably dumb.

30 speaks theory - ""Give me thirty speaks." How about I give you a 27 instead?" - Holden Bukowsky

Macbook Theory - Be so fr. Macbook theory is such a bad argument.

Ad Hominem - I think this one is self-explanatory.

Time Travel Counterplan - Yes I am looking at you Cameron Buhl.

Post Rounding - I am all for questions, and looking for feedback. Infact I think asking for feedback post round is one of the most important parts of debate. But if you try to argue with me about my decision, or start to like yell at me about my choice. Maybe make those arguments in round.

SPEAKER POINTS LEVEL

30- Essentially Perfect (Rare)

29- Very Solid but could slightly improve

28- My Average

27- Needs improvement

26- Needs Some Work

25- You said something Bigoted

Below 25- You said something absolutely egregious

CX/LD-

I Love Ks but if you don't know how to run them, don't try to force it. Poorly ran k's are not fun to watch or judge.

Theory is rarely used well in LD, but if you're confident go for it

I'm Good with counterplans

In LD/CX I feel like disclosure is a viable argument,

however small school>disclosure almost every time

I am good with spreading as long as you include me on the speech drop.

If you run spikes or abusive interpretations, I will very rarely flow it.

Tech=Truth

I'm fine with you being a tiny bit aggressive during cross but don't be overly rude.

Organization is key, I don't want to have to do a scavenger hunt to be able to understand your lines of argumentation.

Quality of evidence is still highly important.

If you have any further questions, feel free to email me or ask me in round.

No matter what result you get from me, do not let that discourage you from continuing to grow and improve in this wonderful community.

Good luck to all competing and let's get this Shmoney

24-25’ Judging Record -

56 Rounds

How I voted: Aff 30 - Neg 26

avg speaker points - 28.598843930636

12 out rounds- have only squirrelled 2x

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.

PF: As a former PFer, speed doesn't bother me, but I don't like full-blown spreading. I'm also not the biggest fan of Ks in PF. It's not an auto-loss if you run one, but you better have a good reason and a good understanding of the source material/theory. I'm not a strict flow judge, I prefer to vote on the most consequential and far-reaching arguments in the round. Please make sure the links between your arguments and the resolution are clear, don't leave me to draw conclusions. As both a competitor and a judge, one of my biggest pet peeves is when someone misrepresents or straw-mans their opponent's position, so please don't.

LD: I'm very much a trad judge for LD. Speed doesn't bother me at all, but I'm of the opinion that full-blown spreading and K's belong in policy. It's not an auto-loss if you run a K but, as I said for PF, you better have a good reason and a good understanding of the source material/theory. I'm a big fan of the philosophical aspect of LD, so make sure you justify and use your value/criterion thoroughly. Once again, as I said for PF, as both a competitor and a judge, one of my biggest pet peeves is when someone misrepresents or straw-mans their opponent's position, so please don't.

For TFA State:

Interp: I am a pretty open minded judge when it comes to judging interp overall but there are a few things I look for in performances. Creativity and honesty will always be the most rewarded in my book because it is why we do what we do at the end of the day. Showcasing your own interpretation, but staying true to the core of the story is important to me. Character development and emotional shifts are super important especially over a digital platform to keeping us engaged with the story and showing us the meaning behind the words. Have fun with the choices you make as long as they are PURPOSEFUL, doing something that distracts rather than enhances makes us lose connection between what is happening in the story.

Speaking/Extemp: Big thing is show your own unique style and approach to speaking because this is what separates you from other. I am a big fan of humor, but PLEASE, I BEG do not make it feel forced or this is just awkward for both of us. In terms of depth of the speech, I like more than just surface level arguments and I want to see you get to the higher end issues and core problems effectively. Structure is important obviously to make sure we can connect all of the ideas and know how you are getting to what you are wanting to. Finally, have variation in your delivery, it is important to showcase the different levels and power of your arguments and statements and so we should feel very engaged with how you are saying and what you are saying.

Worlds School Debate:

School affiliation/s : Northwest High School

Hired (yes/no) : Hired for WSD

High School Affiliation if graduated within last five years (required): Northwest High School

Currently enrolled in college? (required) If yes, affiliation? No

Years Judging/Coaching (required) I have been judging for 5- 6 years.

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event (required)

I pretty much started off my first year judging in interp and PF and then slowly incorporated all other forms of debate the following year.

Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year (required): Since August I have judged about 40 world school rounds around Texas.

Check all that apply

__x___I judge WS regularly on the local level

_____I judge WS at national level tournaments

_____I occasionally judge WS Debate

_____I have not judged WS Debate this year but have before

_____I have never judged WS Debate

Rounds judged in other events this year : 75 rounds including PF, LD, Interp, Speaking, and Congress.

Check all that apply

__x__ Congress

_x___ PF

__x__ LD

____ Policy

_x___ Extemp/OO/Info

__x__ DI/HI/Duo/POI

____ I have not judged this year

____ I have not judged before

Have you chaired a WS round before?

I have chaired multiple WS rounds before locally.

What does chairing a round involve?

Chairing a round basically is keeping the round in order and ensuring a productive and efficient debate. The chair is in charge of calling up the speakers, leading the RFD for the panel, making sure people do not ask questions during protected time (which I discuss students should keep their own timer at the beginning so we do not have this issue), and making sure a fair debate is occurring.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else?

I would describe WSD as a form of debate in which you are arguing ideas and issues to show which side of the motion is the most logical. This is way different than Americanized debate where theory and jargon is utilized more, so it is focusing on the core issues of the debate. Worlds is suppose to make sense to anyone who is listening to the debate and therefore the arguments should make rationale sense to anybody.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate?

I am fortunate enough to have a full setup for my computer. I have two monitors and on the main monitor I watch the debate, and the second monitor has my tabroom ballot where I am writing notes over each speech and speaker. I also in front of me use a notebook to flow the debate to make sure I keep up with what is being said in the round.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

This just simply depends on the topic itself. I am pretty open minded when it comes to arguments and do not have a personal preference as long as it is discussed why you chose what to advocate for. This clarity is needed to really emphasize why that approached is needed and it's on the debaters to tell me why it is preferable.

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy?

I think strategy usually is overlooked in terms of how you want structure arguments. A speaker's strategy is how do you connect the claims you present and how you word things in order to be effective in elaborating on arguments presented by the other side. Picking the right way to argue things and how you say it are definitely things to be aware of for your strategy.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast?

First, I am glad to have not judged a WSD where someone was spreading, so let's keep it that way hopefully. If someone is just not effective with their speed and tone I usually deduct points from their style.

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

As silly as it may sound, I usually vote on simply what makes sense. Since we do not have to have the 20 minutes of calling for cards (thankfully), I simply view whos reasoning and rationale makes the most sense towards the topic and arguments presented in the round. Show me your thought process through your speech and it usually comes down to who can prove their claims in a clear manner, rather than the throw everything at the wall and see what sticks strategy.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

I look at how effective and clear some model is to make sure it sets the foundation for your ideas. Make sure you think through your model to answer any potential questions individuals may have about it. I do not think all motions need a model or countermodel, so just make sure if you use one there is a purpose to it.

I am a parent judge.

PF:

What I expect from you:

• Don't use jargon
• Don't be rude in crossfire
• Don't bring up new arguments in summary or final focus (I will notice this)
• Speak clearly, loudly, and not too fast
• Weigh clearly and comparatively to show me why I should vote for you

What you should expect from me:

• I prefer arguments that are simple and historically
• I pay attention to crossfire
• I value the last few speeches the most
• Speaker points start at 28 and go up or down from there

For other events:

I am completely lay but I do value these:

• Clear speaking
• Vocal variety
• Simplicity of content
• Evidence if applicable

I have been a public speaker during my school, college and work years. Its something I have always enjoyed doing.

Growing up, I did not participate in PF but have been judging PF events for 2 years now. Things which appeal to me - clarity of thought / argument, research and data backup in framing arguments, voice projection and intonation, and ability to ask sharp and direct questions.

Treat me like a lay judge.

Please do not be too fast in speaking, please be respectful to your opponents at all times, and please stick to schedule.

I hope to enjoy this tourament with you guys and wish you all the best!

I am a new parent judge

As a new parent judge, my primary goal is to ensure a fair and educational experience for all debaters. I value clear communication, logical arguments, and respectful conduct.

toby.whiz@gmail.com

Fundamentally I see debate as a game. I think it is a valuable and potentially transformative game that can have real world implications, but a game none the less that requires me to choose a winner. Under that umbrella here are some specifics.

1. Comparative analysis is critical for me. You are responsible for it. I will refrain from reading every piece of evidence and reconstructing the round, but I will read relevant cards and expect the highlighting to construct actual sentences. Your words and spin matters, but this does not make your evidence immune to criticism.

2. The affirmative needs to engage the resolution.

3. Theory debates need to be clear. Might require you to down shift some on those flows. Any new, exciting theory args might need to be explained a bit for me. Impact your theory args.

4. I am not well versed in your lit. Just assume I am not a "____________" scholar. You don't need to treat me like a dullard, but you need to be prepared to explain your arg minus jargon. See comparative analysis requirement above.

Side notes:

Not answering questions in CX is not a sound strategy. I will give leeway to teams facing non responsive debaters.

Debaters should mention their opponents arguments in their speeches. Contextualize your arguments to your opponent. I am not persuaded by those reading a final rebuttal document that "answers everything" while not mentioning the aff / neg.

Civility and professionalism are expected and will be reciprocated.

Speech events. I am looking for quality sources and logic in OO and Inf. I have been teaching speech for 18 years and will evaluate fundamentals as well.