UPDATED 2/21/20: I do not judge as often as I may once have. At most local events, I find myself on the operations side of a tournament.

That should not terrify you – I am a career public servant, who happens to coach debate because I appreciate everything that it taught me as a student. You should assume that I approach debate rounds this way: what is the best decision I can make given the information presented to me?

It may sound old-fashioned, but I do not wish to be on any email chains. I have sadly witnessed teams answering entire disadvantages not read by their opponents simply because they were included in said distribution. Not to be outdone, I have read ballots where judges voted on evidence that nobody read. I pledge to keep the best flow I can. If I need to see a piece of evidence, and the particular league or tournament's rules allow for that, I will call for it.

If you are short on time reading this, my paradigm can be expressed in six (6) words: do your thing and be nice. If you are really short on time, we can go with four (4): old guy, still flows.

Policy:

1. Speed is fine, but clarity is necessary. I cannot vote on what I do not have typed/written down. I try hard to listen to the text of the evidence presented;
2. Open cross-examination is acceptable, but if it is clear than one member of the team is not able to participate at the same level, speaker points will suffer;
3. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I look first to any potential violation(s) of stock issues and then default to a policymaking perspective.

Lincoln Douglas:

1. I do not mind an LD round that gets on down the flow;
2. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I will default to a whole resolution lens looking first to the value/value criterion debate.

Public Forum/Speech:

1. Nothing earth-shattering here. I am less speed tolerant in public forum and I will simply apply the ballot criteria to whatever speech event is at hand.

Regardless of event, we enter the debate knowing the resolution and some basic rules of the road (e.g., speech times, likely printed on the ballot). By tabula rasa I mean that the debaters establish the framework for evaluating debates. You should do what you do best and do it well. Arguments should have three parts – a claim, a warrant, and some sort of greater implication regardless of your style.

I still believe that good decisions should flow like water. Great rebuttals frame debates and clash wins rounds. My ballots will provide a succinct RFD, possibly pointing out either strengths or opportunities for improvement as we progress through the speeches. 3AR/3NR oral critiques nauseate me: what I say out loud (if disclosure is permitted) will almost certainly match what I am placing on your ballot. Your coach should see comments too. You did not go to the dentist; my RFD is never going to read “oral.”

Finally, be respectful of your partners, opponents, and judges. I have zero tolerance for poor behavior in debate rounds.

Lincoln-Douglas

Lincoln-Douglas debate is a clash of values, in which the values represent means to an idealistic, just world. Aff's and Neg's criteria are the lenses through which I understand and measure those values. I do not subscribe to the formulaic "My value is [...] and my value criterion is [...]" but you must clearly state your value, criterion, and contentions — please don't let me depend on your opponent's Cross-X to discover them.

In an ideal round, the winning debater will do the better job of tightly upholding their criterion with succinctly argued contentions that enable me to understand why their value creates a better world. In other words, for me to award you the round, I appreciate a cohesive narrative that persuades me your case's worldview is the better of the two in the round (and, of course, that would include a capable attack on your opponent's narrative and counter-attacks on their rebuttals). Nothing surprising.

In a less-than-perfect round, the loss goes to the debater who fails to present a well-structured case and doesn't effectively undermine their opponent's case and attacks. By the way, I highly respect a Neg case that is FOR something rather than just AGAINST.

Be aware that I don't judge Policy, so I'm not experienced in speed/spreading. If I can't "understand" how you're saying your contentions, I'm unlikely to understand what they are; a fast-paced conversational style is fine, just don't go auctioneer on me. There will not be any overt signal coming from me if you are speaking too quickly or otherwise unintelligibly; the burden of communication is on your shoulders, not mine.

Yes, I am knowledgeable of philosophical, historical, political, and socio/economic issues and hold opinions on them, but each round is tabula-rasa for me: you need not change my opinions to win — just demonstrate you're the better debater in the room. Presume as little as possible about your audience — I will base my decision entirely on whatever arguments and evidence I hear and understand during the round.

Public Forum

Most everything said above for LD applies to PF, except that PF is not values-based and is defined primarily by the concept of the Lay Judge. You must assume I know only what the average person-on-the-street knows. Consequently, in addition to concise, well-structured arguments that form a cohesive narrative that supports your case and effectively counters your opponent's, you must also demonstrate your ability to educate me in the topic and why it's important to the Real World (me).

True For All Rounds

âž  Always be civil and respectful; respect is core to debate.
âž  The best Cross-X/-Fire is the one that's a conversation and advances debate.
âž  If you ask a question in Cross, I expect you're interested in an answer (don't interrupt or dismiss your opponent).
âž  It's best you time yourself, but do not abuse the speech times; when the clock hits zero, find a place for a period quickly.

Update: Jan. 18, 2020

I’m a teacher from Toms River, NJ who teaches US1 and US2 Honors. I’ve been coached PF/LD Debate and extemp at Ridge HS for the last 9 years, but it's been probably two years since I've found myself in an LD pool. Please read this paradigm before the round for the best picture of what I’m like as a judge. This is far more detailed than the readers-digest version that I’ll give orally before the round if requested.

LD

It's been a while since I've been in an LD judging pool. Needless to say, I'm out of practice.

Speed: Start out at a reasonable pace. I need to hear your voice and your cadence for a few seconds before the spreading starts. I'll call clear two or three times before I give up flowing. If you're reading a plan text/interp/role of the ballot, don't spread it. I want to hear all of it. If you're reading theory in front of me, good luck. I'll need you to go slow and hold my hand through it.

Argumentation: I'm most familiar with policy args and kritiks. That said, I'm open to whatever you want to put in front of me.

Theory should only be read in the case of actual in-round abuse. Theory for the sake of theory isn't fun for me to listen to. If you're going to run theory, you should read it at a slightly faster than conversational pace. I'm not familiar with the arguments, and often a lot of it goes over my head. I need the abuse story to be clear and concise to the point where I can explain it start-to-finish in an RFD. The more accessible a theory argument is, the easier a time I'll have evaluating it.

I have a super low threshold on responses on spikes at the end of a constructive. I tend to ignore arguments like time skew, if I'm being honest.

Don't feel like you have to go for every argument in the round. Be strategic in the issues you select. You're constructing a ballot story for me and if all I have are blippy arguments to vote on, I (and probably you) will not be particularly happy with the decision rendered. I prefer seeing thoughtful debate with depth on one or two issues in the round rather blippy, surface level arguments about everything.

Warrants are important, logical and otherwise. "That isn't true" isn't an argument...you need to tell me why something isn't true.

Ad Hominem attacks against a debater are unacceptable. I'm not going to vote for a debater who calls their opponent racist, sexist, ableist, etc without any justification.

Racist, sexist, abelist, etc. arguments are a no-go for me. Run at your own risk.

Speaker Points: I'll follow whatever standard the tournament sets. You'll probably notice that I'm a bit stingier with speaker points than other judges. That's not to say that I've never given a 30 before, but it's not a particularly frequent occasion.

Evidence: The evidence standard in LD (in my experience) is remarkably higher than it has been in PF rounds that I've judged...that said, I still feel the need to say it...Academic integrity is extremely important. Please be honest. Don't alter a card's meaning, don't intentionally misrepresent evidence. It’s not difficult to tell if you misinterpreted the evidence because you didn’t understand it. There is a big difference between an honest misinterpretation and malicious intent.

_______

PF

Speed/Speaking: I enjoy fast/circuit style debate. However, I will not flow if you spread. Spreading has no place in PF. I consistently reward good speakers who sound like they care about what they are talking about. When I evaluate a speaker I take into account a number of things: strategic decisions, coverage, efficiency, speaking style, persuasiveness, etc.

Points: 0-25 (or whatever the lowest base the tournament allows to give) are reserved for those who are offensive (more on that later). 25.5-26 is a debater who has a lot to work on, has serious flaws in arguments, couldn’t fill speech times, and most likely will not make it to elims. 26.5-27.5 is an average debater. May make it to elims, but still has noticible flaws in arg construction, lines of logic, and is not a great speaker. 28-29 will most likely break. Lines of logic are mostly solid and I was probably impressed by the case. Args may have flaws but they are minor. 30 is the ideal debater. Flawless argumentation, a stellar and strategic speaker.

Things that will lose you speaks: The thing I most frequently award 25 speaks for is for not citing evidence correctly. A few examples of this are additions or omissions of words (even the omission of a word like “might”), straw man arguments, literally making things up. It’s not difficult to tell if you misinterpreted the evidence because you didn’t understand it. There is a big difference between an honest misinterpretation and malicious intent. Debate is an academic activity. As such, academic integrity is important to me. If you feel that you cannot debate in front of me without unethically interpreting evidence, please strike me.

While it may not earn you a 25 outright, talking during your opponents speeches is extremely rude. Your opponents speeches are not prep time for you. If you need to communicate with your partner, write or type a note. Every time a debater decides to speak during their opponents speech, I’ll subtract a half point from them.

During CX, please treat your opponent with respect. I understand CX gets heated sometimes but yelling over your opponent, being condescending, etc won’t win you points with me.

Framework: Please have one at the top of the constructive. It’s difficult to debate literally every aspect of a resolution without some reasonable restrictions to ground or without telling me how I should evaluate the round. I’m not sure why this has become a trend, but debaters have started framing debates/running observations in their rebuttals (not overviews, full blown frameworks). If a framework turns up anywhere but the beginning of the constructive, I won’t flow it. I don’t think framing the debate in the rebuttal (the second rebuttal especially) is particularly fair.

Weighing: Please weigh especially if you’re working with two different metrics (money and lives for example). If you don’t weigh, I have to do the weighing myself and I prefer not to.

Rebuttals: I understand the value of the line by line. What I dislike are massive card dumps with 8 responses against each subpoint. I reward debaters who can make sound logical arguments (with a source or two where appropriate) to dismantle a contention. Please warrant all responses. Warrants can be logical or source based. I don’t want to hear “my opponent is wrong.” Or “this contention doesn’t make sense”...tell me WHY your argument is true. (This should be self explanatory, but I’ve written too many ballots that say the words “no warrant/please warrant your response).

The Summary: There isn’t no enough time to cover a line by line in a summary. Give me logical responses (sources if you have to) to arguments and crystallize the debate. Set up the voting issues.

Final Focus: Don’t run new arguments in the Final Focus.

Id be happy to answer any other questions you have before the start of the round.

Experience judging on local and national circuits. Focused on speaking and persuasion as a foundation for the debate. I prefer well organized debates with respectful clash and clarity in warrants and impacts. Civility is very important in a good debate. Use your time effectively and make sure that you can support your rate with diction and breath support.

Public Forum

Argument > evidence > definitions. Evidence needs to back up your contentions, not the other way around. I am more likely to vote on a well-made, well-reasoned, well-presented argument that has bad evidence than a single card of "good" evidence being harangued over and over in GCX. Because public forum is meant to simulate real-world political discussion, I will bring in basic knowledge of world affairs/history "into the round." Do not feel the need to have evidence for banal claims. 

I nix mutually exclusive claims or cards. If you say A and your opponents say ~A, and both of these claims are logical, and both teams have fairly good evidence to back them up, these cancel out on my flow and will vote on other points.  

Definitional debate: always interesting, but risky. I will go with the definition I think is better. This might be bad for you if I don't like your definition. Please don't try and convince me that Oxford > Merriam-Webster. That's not how language works.

Ethics: always risky. The PF round is not well-structured for in-depth philosophical debate (this is not LD), and this might bog you down time-wise. If you have to make ethical claims, use pedestrian util as this is all we really have time for. If your position on balance mitigates human suffering more than your opponents' position (and you articulate this), I will probably vote for you. Citing philosopher x or y is cute, but because the discourse of philosophy (esp. ethics) is so manifold (and, in postmodernity, definitively fragmented), I will not consider this as "proof." Also, don't quote Kant. He's not as brilliant as you think he is. 

Don't do "off-time roadmap." Part of being a good debater is incorporating organization into your speech. I will start the clock when you start speaking, and I will certainly stop your speech when time is up.   

Policy

I have little experience with policy, and was once a public forum competitor. As such I request that teams:

• be intelligible (i.e., talk at a pace I can understand.). If I cannot understand what is being said, I cannot (and will not) consider it as having been said at all. My preferred pace is conversational. I always enjoy some flowery rhetoric. 
• not use policy jargon. Even though I name them here for the sake of example, I do not know what disads, kritiks, and permutations are. You need to explain these definitions to me in-round if you want to use them at all. When possible, use synonyms. 
• be topical. I prefer arguments that address the layman's understanding of a given topic. That being said, if both teams have to argue about something I personally consider irrelevant to practical political discourse, I will do my best to judge the argument on its own internal merits.

I have a solid background in contemporary political philosophy. Theoretical lenses such as Foucauldian genealogy, Marxism, queer theory, feminism, and post-colonialism will not faze me if used understandably and logically.

My inherent disposition toward "meta-debate" is always skeptical. I require more substantiation and explanation for those arguments that concern, for example, the internal political structure of the debate round itself (or about the role of the judge, or of the ballot as a political act, etc.) than arguments about the specific governmental/"real-world" action signified by the text of the resolution. 

Updated for 2018 TOC

Public Forum Paradigm for 2018 TOC

First thing to know about me, I am a lay public forum judge. I have judged around the circuit, but I emphasize to you, I am a lay PF judge. I am judging for Bronx Science.

I like delivery that is slow, tasteful, and artful. I prefer big picture analysis over a highly technical line-by-line approach. The role of the final focus should be to tell me who is winning the round clearly and concisely--narrative speeches are preferred. Extension is very important to me, and I will not take well to teams that extend through ink.

With that being said, ink will be limited. During speeches, I like to sit back and listen. Persuasion is very important to me, and for that reason, I value understanding your arguments over following them on the flow, and will take limited notes. I am not aware of arguments regarding topicality or kritiks, and plans are illegal in Public Forum, so I will not vote for them.

I tend to value style and argument equally, as both are very important. I will always vote for the team with the clearest arguments and delivery at the end of the round. I do not care much for how you structure your speeches, but all arguments that you expect to win on have to be in both summary and final focus--not grand crossfire. A second speaking team is not expected to cover their own case in rebuttal.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate:


To preface my paradigm, I have very limited LD judging experience. That said, you may want to strike me. If you are a brave soul and have decided not to strike me, or are considering preffing me more highly in the pool, here are what I expect to be my judging preferences as a new LD judge:

• NO SPREADING. I don’t have problems with it on principle. I just won’t understand you. If you are going too fast (spreading or not), I will simply stop flowing.
• If you are debating in front of me, I might not understand the nuances of the more complex frameworks. If you decide you don’t care and read a complicated framework in front of me, you should be using cross-x and your later speeches to make it as clear as possible for me. If I can’t understand it, I won’t vote on it.
• As someone who has more public forum and congressional debate judging experience, I appreciate good public speaking skills and a strong sense of ethos in round. I will reward these qualities with higher speaker points.
• Please be respectful. There is a big difference between being funny in round, and being rude/hostile. Debate is an educational activity, which requires a level of respect between competitors.
• Finally, to reiterate- I AM AN INEXPERIENCED LD JUDGE. Do not run your Ks, Plans, Counterplans, Disads, T-interps, or run theory arguments in front of me. I will not know how to evaluate these types of arguments. I will probably just be confused.

I guess in general I’ll say the following: You can think of me as an extremely ‘lay” judge. If I cannot understand an argument, I will not vote on it.

Most of my experience is in PF but I have judged everything in both debate and speech at one point or another.

For debate:

If something is important to your case or argument do not be afraid to repeat it. Despite my best efforts there are always going to be times where a stat, date, figure, name, or card is mentioned but missed in the heat of the round. It never hurts to repeat what matters, especially if you believe you are winning on that point.

You may time yourselves, but if I call for time you should end what you're doing. You may finish a thought/sentence after time ends but do not abuse this by adding multiple sentences or thoughts.

My preference is a debate that argues the assigned topic in good faith, I would prefer not to hear K Cases. Speed in speaking is fine, spreading is less fine but understandable.

In the interest of keeping rounds moving, I do not disclose after round unless specifically instructed by the tournament directors. If you want feedback later I will gladly discuss the debate with you between rounds.

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 am a previous debater and have been judging and coaching for five years now.

Speed is not an issue - speak as fast or as slow as you'd like so long as what you're saying is clear.

I value clear logic and relevant supporting evidence.

I also value strong crossfires as this allows teams to demonstrate their functional knowledge of the resolve.

I want to see that you understand your cases and evidence and aren't just reading from a paper.

What I'm looking for follows basically the guidelines set forth in the sepcific event that you are in. Of specific importance outside these guidelines are the following:

• clearly enunciating your speech. Take your time and effectively use your voice
• use of physical characterizations and body language to help tell the story
• creative use of your voice during charazterizations
• using pacing to a purpose
• at the close bring the entire speech together in a delightful manner