Hey! I did CX, PF, LD, and Congress in high school, and I've been debating parli at UC Berkeley for the past two years. I'm willing to hear out a spectrum of argumentation, as long as it's well-researched and well-qualified. You're welcome to spread if you really think it'll do you the most good, but please flash me your case if you choose to do so. Please don't say anything racist/homophobic/transphobic because I would hate to drop a team automatically. I'll also be looking for continuity in flow and consistent clash—make things spicy!

Competitive History: I competed for four years in speech and debate, specializing in congressional debate. I am not new to debate and have a general idea about how the events should function. However, I will not put it past myself to get a “senior moment” when it comes to the individual idiosyncrasies of other events.

General Philosophy

Argumentation:

I have no problem with the usual debate jargon. I am not, however, an expert in all events and want to see clear signposting as a general rule of thumb. Also, I will try to be as objective as possible- #tabularasa- but that does not mean I will take unwarranted arguments on the face. An argument needs a claim in order for me to buy it and THEN I will take it as true.

When warranting your arguments, providing evidence to prove that something happens is not enough to qualify as a “warrant”, you need to construct, to at least a minor degree, some form of narrative storytelling to prove why a phenomenon is occurring for the reasons you provide. However, non-evidenced, properly warranted, arguments are no more legitimate than those that are not warranted and sourced.

For weighing, my philosophy is quite simple: do it. The standard calculus- magnitude, scope etc…- should be used but just throwing out the term does not qualify as weighing.

In terms of arguments that can be qualified as “offensive”/triggering/discriminatory, I will try to be as uninvolved in this as I can. Arguments should not just simply be called “offensive” and thus ignored in the round; the other team/debater has to prove that the argument is offensive. However, since ignorant arguments- by virtue of being ignorant- are quite easy to refute, you should not have a lot of problem doing so. There is a caveat to this, which are arguments that advocate for violence or portray a group as entirely evil and violent. Those kinds of arguments will be ignored.

Finally, this is really just for Congress kids, when establishing an argument as important, you need to explain what it’s like to be a member of the population you are talking about. While I probably know a bit about the topic, I want you to describe why life is so good or so bad for the group as a rationale for action.

Speaking: For PF/LD/CX rounds, speaking is only a detractor if it is impossible to properly discern what you are saying. Otherwise, your speaking- or lack thereof- will just harm efficiency and word economy, which will reflect in my argumentation comments.

Sources: I have no real source preference but there are exceptions. News sources are fine but don’t cite news sources with known bias or an insane amount of editorialization and op-ed writing. I won’t discount the source but an idicit is more digestible when you use these kinds of sources. I also want at least last name, year, publication when citing; you do not need to provide qualifications but they are a bonus if you use them.

Congress Specific

Speaking: I am a real big fan of the whole “role-playing” and your speaking should reflect that. Referencing people as rep./sen. Is not only respectful but is also part of the event. In addition, I really expect that you should have little to no fluency breaks, which I believe is more important than speed. If you have to speak slower to not trip up, do it. Also, really try to avoid the “Congress voice”, it just takes all the emotion and impact out of the debate.

Rhetoric: I like the usage. It is not required but benefits your arguments. The one detractor is using canned rhetoric- generalized statements that have really nothing to do with the debate but sound nice- or rhetoric from a google doc or, and this is probably the worst, using rhetoric from me, or any other competitors. Just please don’t.

P.O.-ing: Follow Roberts rules, make no mistakes, and go fast, you’ll get top three.

Do whatever you think is best.

Do not evidence-dump or spread.

Respect the debate's time limits (and our time) with your clear and concise arguments. This should help you to write my RFD for me.

My background: 4-year debater, NYU Stern grad, Strategy consultant, Learning how to use Tabroom again so bear with me pls

LD:

If you seem like you are having fun and not making the round a terrible place to be, I will listen to pretty much any argument that isn't intentionally obnoxious or repugnant (death good, racial equity bad, etc.). I prefer lines of argument that don't rely on nuclear war or extinction, but if your case is strong, go for it. Creativity and experimental arguments are awesome. Please run them.

Clash and analysis are key. Use your case to analyze and refute your opponent's arguments. Don't just toss out cards; explain WHY and HOW. If your logic/reasoning is sound, you don't need to extend every card to win. I prefer strategic condensing over shallow line by line rebuttal.

Fairness - Theory arguments about fairness in LD are, by and large, arguments debaters fall back on when they don't know their opponent's literature well enough to engage with it. Running fairness while spreading or engaging in other behaviors that exclude people from debate is unlikely to get my ballot.

K's - I thoroughly enjoy critical debate. It fits very well with the intent of LD and forces debaters to examine assumptions. Logic must be sound and you should make a concerted effort to use the conceptual framework of your K as the basis for your argumentation (i.e. don't read "We can't draw conceptual lines between people," and then respond to case with arguments that draw lines between peoples). I have a pretty high threshold for what is topical so be prepared to engage with your opponent's lit. I don't enjoy rounds that devolve to T.

Phil - Critical arguments are based on differing philosophical views of the world. The phil authors we roll our eyes at today were often the radicals of their times. I find the debate community's distinction between Phil & K debate silly to the point of absurd and based on an incredibly reductive idea of who counts as a philosopher.

Performance - Go ahead, just make sure you have clear link stories.

Make sure you weigh your impacts for me. I may have a different perspective so if you don't make the weighing explicit, you are leaving it up to my interpretation. This includes ROBs, etc.

I expect timers and flashing to work without much delay. Having issues more than once in a round will lose speaks.

My speaks start at 28 for circuit tournaments. I'll dock a varsity debater more often for nonsense or rudeness than a JV debater. Making me laugh is a good way to bump up your points a few tenths. Enunciation is also a bonus.

I studied linguistics. If you are going to talk about plurals and indefinite articles, please have read more of the article than just the card you are citing.

CX is important and clarifies for me how well you understand your own arguments. I will dock points for badgering novices. Kindness is never the wrong move.

**Virtual debate notes: WiFi strength is not universal. Audio lags make it CRUCIAL that you speak clearly and don't talk over each other.

Speed/Spread:

I don't mind speed, as long as you are clear. I will only call "clear" twice in a varsity round. Taglines, authors, and card interp should be noticeably slower. It is up to the speaker to communicate their arguments and be aware of the audience's attention level. Language has a natural rhythm. Using that to assist you will make you easier to understand than cutting all the linking words out of your cards.

**Virtual debate notes: if I can't follow your speed on a video chat, getting those extra two cards in doesn't matter. Strategy has to adapt to the medium.

Congress:

I evaluate the full participation of the chamber, from docket maneuvers to quality and variety of questions. Successful legislators are those who drive the debate, present new/unique arguments, extend/refute/deepen previous arguments, choose sources carefully, and use parliamentary procedure appropriately. Debate on the merits/flaws of the specific legislation is given more weight than general issue arguments. Delivery style can enhance the persuasiveness of your analysis, but will not make up for canned speeches, poor supporting materials, or rehashed arguments.

POs are an essential part of the chamber. They set the mood, pace, and attitude of the chamber. It is a risk, and that is taken to account when I score. POs with a good pace and no major errors are very likely to be ranked.

Note on authorships/first pros: The price for establishing recency is that your speech must provide some background for the debate and at least one reason why this legislation in particular is/is not the answer.

Evidence

The purpose of evidence in all forms of debate is to support your arguments with expert testimony, not to BE your arguments. I will only ask for cards if something sounds exceptionally wonky. Have some understanding of the bias of your sources (Are they all from conservative think tanks?, etc.). It is generally up to your opponent(s) to point out blatantly wrong evidence, but I will dock for egregious offenses.

About Me:

Private Coach (2018-Current)

Klein HS Competitor [TFA, NSDA, TOC; Congress, Extemp, OO/Info, PF] (2014-2018)

Meme (1999-Current)

Paradigms:

I've attached the links below to my paradigms. Don't be afraid to ask me anything if you have any questions before the round begins, I won't bite unless I don't get my fix of coffee/green tea.

Public Forum Debate Paradigm

Congressional Debate Paradigm

World Schools Debate Paradigm

Lincoln Douglas / Cross Examination (Policy) Paradigm (If you have to read this then I'm VERY sorry. tl;dr default to my PF paradigm & ask before the round starts for specifics, i'm pretty amenable)

Brownie Points:

Now if you really do want brownie points from me, here's my Starbucks order:

Venti Blonde French Vanilla Latte w/ Toffee Nut & Whipped Cream
- OR -
Venti Hot Green Tea Latte w/ Whipped Cream

If I'm hangry, some salmon nigiri or a nice triple cheeseburger would calm me down. Even more bonus points for the stack shack from shake shack.

This is my 39th year teaching and most of that I have also coached speech and debate. As far as debate goes, I coached LD starting in the mid 80's running on and off through 2017. I coached policy on and off from 1990-2000. I have coached PF on and off since its inception. I have coached congressional debate since the early 80's. I don't have a paradigm for Speech events, but I have coached and judged all speech events since the early 80's as well.

As a Congress Judge:

Delivery: I embrace the role play. You are all portraying legislators from across the country and should behave with the decorum that role suggests. That being said, we have legislators from across the country with various styles and habits -- that makes congress debate AWESOME! There is no single, perfect way to deliver!

Evidence Usage: CD is, at its core, a debate event. Arguments should have sound, sourced evidence that follows NSDA rules. Empirical claims require empirical evidence.

Analysis - If I am judging Congressional Debate, chances are the tournament is a national caliber tournament (otherwise I would be working in some capacity in tab). I expect high level analysis at a high level tournament. If you are the 4th speaker and beyond - I expect unique arguments and I expect analysis and refutation of earlier speakers. Crystallization speeches do not merely mention every speaker that spoke earlier on a piece of legislation. It literally crystallizes the two sides, weighs the impacts of the two sides, and persuades me of their chosen position.

Argument Impacts: Please identify who or what is impacted. Be specific. In CD, please explain real world impacts. The narrative of impacts is as important (if not more) as the numerics of impacts.

On the topic of cost benefit analysis and weighing... Be careful of playing the numbers game. A large number of persons harmed may not necessarily outweigh a single person harmed, if the single person's harm is total and complete and the larger number still enjoy existence.

Decorum: Behavior in and out of chambers is important. Respectful, educational, kind, and full of fun... these should be in balance! (I don't like boring debate)

I don't have a calculator on the above. Very seldom is there a debater who is awesome at them all... But all need to be part of the mix. If I am judging a top round, I suspect that all speakers will be amazing! That means the final ranking will come down to relevance in the round. If all speeches were brilliant, questioning and answering were spot on, and knowledge of topics is at the top, who stood out as the genuine, 'real deal'?

PF Paradigm - I embrace the notion that the event is intended to be judged by an informed public forum. That does not mean dumbing down arguments because you think the judge is dumber than you because they didn't go to camp (adults don't go to camp). I think most judges want to hear good arguments that pertain to the resolution and want to hear clash between positions. That being said, here is my more specific paradigm:

Speed - I love an energetic debate, but save spreading for policy (and sadly LD). You should have written a prima facie case that either affirms or negates. It should be written so that the first speaker can energetically deliver it. Most PF spread isn't really spread, it is spewing and incoherent choking due largely to the student's failure to adequately cut their case. I am fine with clean, clear, speed. Can I hear arguments delivered at 385 wpm? yes. Will I flow them? probably not.

Frameworks - Sure, if you really are running a framework. If it is legit (and stays up in the round throughout), both sides will be weighing impacts within that framework.

Observations - Sure, if they are observations. Observations are not arguments. They are observations. "It is raining - observation: things are wet." "If Trump wins the election it will trigger nuclear war" is an argument, not an observation.

Warrants and Impacts are your friends!! Numbers are just numbers - how do they happen? why do they happen? who is affected and why them? is there possible counter causality? Really good logic if well explained will beat blippy numbers. Well explained statistics that are connected and clear will beat poor logic.

Flowing - Yes, I flow. I expect you to do so as well. I don't flow card names and dates - so make sure when you refer to a piece of evidence you reference what it says, not a name.

Jargon - I am not a fan. Don't say de-link. It is often unwarranted. Explain how and why. Unique is a noun, not a verb. You cannot 'non-unique' something. I love turns, but don't just spout 'turn.' Explain why their argument works against them. Or show how their impacts actually are good, not bad. At its heart debate is a communication education activity; I take your education seriously.

Kritiks - They are arguments. I was okay with them in policy when they were a 'thing,' largely because policy is more game than debate. I was not okay with them in LD when used as a gimmick. I am the LD judge that still clings to the notion that we should have value debate. However, a well thought out K that communicates the impact of the issue must be answered in any debate! In PF, I might be okay if a team ran a kritik that they truly believed in, and they clearly had the ethos and pathos to convince me it wasn't just a gimmick, I MIGHT vote on the K if it is argued well. OR, if their opponents clearly understood the K but just didn't want to deal with it. A K is still an argument, and the premise of the K needs to be responded to as an argument. If not, chances are I am going to vote for the K.

I am not a fan of: rude behavior, gender put-downs, dog whistle language, or individuals being mean/cocky just for the heck of it. =26s-27s. I would go lower, but most tournaments won't let me.

I love intense and lively debate. I love true arguments that are well researched, argued, and impacted. I love smart. Smart gets 29.5s and 29.9s. It has been a very long time since I gave 30's but I do give them!

Email: debate@inboxeen.com

**Be kind. Have fun. Don’t be afraid of me! I was once you and I know what it’s like! When I award speaks, they are heavily influenced by the level of kindness and congeniality shown in round. I am judging because I love the activity as much as you, and I want to help you do better if I can!**

School Affiliation(s)

Current Affiliation: East Chapel Hill HS

Current Role at Institution: I'm currently the Associate Director for Digital Communications at the Yale School of Management, but dedicate my off-time to S&D!

Previous Affiliation(s) and Role(s)

The Bronx High School of Science (Bronx, NY)

I coached primarily Public Forum Debate and Legislative Debate (Congressional Debate) at the Bronx High School of Science from roughly 2011-2015. I judged across all events – speech included. I began my coaching career at Bronx as an extemp coach.

River Valley High School (Mohave Valley, AZ)

I have judged and coached (primarily Public Forum) throughout the years since graduating from this school.

Debate Experience

River Valley High School (Mohave Valley, AZ)

I competed primarily in policy debate at River Valley High School in Mohave Valley, AZ. I also competed in other speech and debate events.

Columbia University in the City of New York (New York, NY)

I was a member of the Columbia Policy Debate team and competed for one year during my time in college.

Other

Tell me what to do – i.e. ‘tabula rasa’ insofar as one might even exist, and insofar as it might be helpful to roughly describe my ‘paradigm’.

Please ask specific questions at the beginning of the round for further clarification. E.g. my threshold for buying a reasonability standard has significantly heightened with age.

Run whatever you’d like – hypotesting, retro theory, nothing at all! I can handle it!

Most importantly, this is an educational activity and I believe in Debater/Debate -- i.e. you are more important than the round, so please speak up if you feel uncomfortable and tell me/your coach/tab immediately if something bothers you. I believe in the platinum rule - treat others as they'd like to be treated. Be kind to each other and have fun!

My background is in comparative literatures and I currently teach high school Spanish. I prefer Congress and forensic arts over Public Forum but am equipped to judge all events. I know you are passionate about debate and I seek to provide the most objective decision possible so please make sure you are speaking at a slower rate than usual. If a PF round sounds like a ping pong match and everyone is spreading, I cannot accurately flow. Regarding research, make sure the sources are credible and current. It becomes interesting when you question, challenge and re-evaluate the opponent’s sources. Sound logic, decisive language and weighing arguments are key. There are plenty of arguments out there as to why high-probability events are worse than high-magnitude ones and vice versa, so all it takes is a little effort to come up with an effective strategy. It should go without saying but professional decorum is necessitated; before, during, and after rounds.

Harvard 2024 Update: Hi! I took time away from debate in 2020 to focus on mental health. It’s been a while, so I may be rusty and have certainly not kept up with new trends and developments in “the meta”. Please start at 70% top speed if it’s round 1-2. And please be kind to each other. I’ve missed debate and I’m excited to come out of “retirement” to judge again.

Background: LD in HS, CX at Cornell, coached for over 8 years in the Northeast.

The short: I want to see you being the best version of yourself in whatever form of debate you're inclined to. I have a few defaults but will generally evaluate the round however debaters would like me to. I don’t inflate speaks. Please be kind. I’ll call for evidence if I need it; no need to put me on the email chain.

Do

• strategic issue selection, i.e., don't go for everything in your last speech
• organization
• clash
• extend the whole argument: claim, warrant, impact, implication.
• thorough evidence comparison
• clear and thoughtful impact calc
• 30s are for people I think are a model of what debate should and can be. It's not enough to be good at debate; be good for debate.
• Circuit debaters should be nice to transitioning debaters from JV and more traditional programs. That does not mean don't do your best or compromise your round; however, it does mean giving clear answers in CX, making efforts to accommodate for tech, and maybe considering 3 off instead of 4 off.
• FLOW. +up to 0.5 speaks for a good flow. If you tell me you have a good flow and show me at the end of the round before I submit my decision, you will be eligible for some game-y speaker points.

Don't

• steal prep.
• play in CX. answer the question.
• have excessively long underviews. Read a better aff.
• read excessively long overviews. If you have a 1min+ long overview, I would prefer you read it at the bottom after you have done line-by-line. I promise I will get more of it if you do that.
• tag things as independent voters; just weigh. Do the work to resolve arguments so that I don't have to. Calling something independent doesn't make it independent from the rest of the reps/performances/args in the round.
• be a coward. Engage. Have the debate.

Kritiks

• these debates are best when debaters have a lot of content/topic knowledge and can make the connection to their theory of power. It seems sophomoric to critique something you have a limited understanding of. A lot of your authors have likely spent a lot of time writing historical analyses and it would be remiss to be ignorant of that.
• high threshold for explanations
• spend more time explaining the internal link between the speech act or the performance and the impact
• Really sympathetic to voting neg on presumption if the aff doesn't clearly articulate how the aff is a move from the status quo.
• please don't read model minority type args

Policy style arguments (LARP)

• love a well-researched position. Do it if it's your thing.
• probably the easiest type of debate for me to evaluate.
• 90% of time you just gotta do the weighing/impact calc.

T v. stock/larp

• read it
• competing interps
• RVIs on T are a tough sell in front of me

T/FW v. K affs

• these debate becomes better as methods debates implicating the relationship amongst form, content, and norms
• sometimes these get messy. I need more explanation of the implication of the arguments and how to sequence my evaluation.
• Go slow and collapse early

Theory

• Because I default competing interpretations, I treat these as CP/DA debates unless otherwise argued in round. To win my ballot, my RFD should be able to explain the abuse story, the structural implications for the activity (and its significance), and why your interpretation is the best norm to resolve those impacts. If you are not clearly explaining this, then I will have a difficult voting on it.
• I won't vote off:
  • "new affs bad"
  • "need an explicit text" interps
  • disclosure against novices and traditional debaters
• I am sympathetic to a "gut-check" on frivolous theory
• Good interps to run:
  • condo bad;
  • abusive perms bad (severance perms, intrinsic perms, etc);
  • abusive CPs bad (delay CPs, etc);
  • abusive fiat bad (object fiat, multiactor fiat, etc).
• If I'm being honest, I don't enjoy flowing more than 20 sec worth of spikes/theory pre-empts at the bottom of the AC; just read a better aff
• I don't have many defaults about 1ar theory, but generally think it's a poor strategic decision

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

School Affiliation: Plano West Senior High School - Plano, TX (2013-2021)

Competitive Experience: Policy Debate (at a small school in Texas) and very limited Policy Debate at the New School University

Judging Experience: I have been judging at local and national tournaments since 2008. These days, I mostly judge PF, Extemp, and Interp. On rare occasions, I will judge Policy or LD.

I don’t have any overly specific preferences. Just tell me how to evaluate the round. A framework with proper extensions of arguments make it really easy for me to vote. If nobody provides me with those things, I will use a basic cost/benefit framework.

Speed of Delivery – I am comfortable with speed (as typically used in Public Forum). If I can’t understand you, I will tell you during your speech.

Flowing/note-taking – I will flow the round. If you are speaking faster than I can write, you run the risk of me missing something on my flow.

Pro Tip - I am not a lay judge, but I think we will all be happier if you act like I am.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round!

I am a debate coach in PF, have experience with judging PF and have judged Congress for 1 year. To judge PF I rely on the following guidelines along with my debate experience as an observer, coach, and judge to inform how I strive to judge every debate. Included here, I am sure is info sourced from others. Here is how I judge:

I am not an interventionist, I have seen judges do this, it hurts both sides and has no place in a fair and unbiased tournament. In debate judging I try to keep what I look for simple:

Every argument a debater makes should come down to an impact.

Have a clear statement of the claim that tells me what the argument is.

Provide a warrant, logically explain the reason why the claim is true.

Provide evidence - empirical data that supports the claim and warrant with facts, examples, expert analysis.

Provide impact- positive or negative consequences that explain why the argument is significant to the judges vote.

Debaters are responsible for comparing their evidence and impacts to explain why they have won a particular argument and important to establish which voting issues should have priority in my decision.

I evaluate a team on the quality of arguments made, not on my personal beliefs, nor on issues I think a particular side should have covered.

I write notes throughout the debate, and will use these to assess the bearing of each argument on the truth or falsehood of the assigned resolution. Those debaters demonstrating logical reasoning, maturity of thought, civility and effectiveness of communication earn higher speaker points.

Debaters should use evidence, examples, and analogies for the purpose of illustration. Debaters should use quoted evidence to support their claims; well-chosen, relevant evidence strengthens – but will not replace – arguments.

Simply, the pro should convince me that the resolution should be adopted, and the con should prove that the resolution should be rejected. When deciding I ask, “If I had no prior beliefs about this resolution, would the round as a whole have made me more likely to believe the resolution was true or not true?”

Teams should strive to provide a straightforward perspective on the resolution; I will discount unfair, obscure interpretations that only serve to confuse the opposing team. Clear communication is important. I will weigh arguments to the extent that they are clearly explained, and discount arguments that are too fast, too muddled, or too full of debate jargon to be understood by an intelligent high school student or a well-informed citizen.

I will not penalize a team for failing to understand their opponent’s unclear arguments, but if you find yourself on the receiving end of one, demonstrate you can handle such a strategy with directness & grace. Debaters who use abusive arguments lose points with me. As a guide for what's abusive or not, if it's denying your opponent debating ground or making it impossible to win, it's likely abusive. (e.g., Think topic interpretation that gives an opponent no or little ground)

Speakers should appeal through sound reasoning, succinct organization, credible evidence, and clear delivery. I will use points to provide a mechanism for evaluating the relative quality of debating by each side. I will write constructive suggestions for improvement to the debaters on the ballot. Dishonesty (manufacturing, misrepresenting research sources, and or making claims (false or not) against your opponent regarding same, etc.) will be referred to the tournament directors to address/resolve.

Regarding my background, I have served as a career diplomat with the U.S. Department of State and have served in U.S. Embassies across the globe as well as in Washington, DC and at the United Nations. Prior to that, I initially began my career working on Wall Street for Goldman Sachs in corporate finance. I transitioned to consulting on international finance for Price Waterhouse, and then left to begin a career in government working for the CIA. All that to say, my background is heavy on foreign policy, economics, and finance. I have judged speech and debate for the past 15 years but most actively in the last 5 years. I have judged every speech and debate event on both the local and national circuits. Congress has become one of my favorite events to judge because almost every round there is an issue that I can relate to from real world experience and it is truly a joy to watch students delve into significant and strategic issues.

I tend to spend more time listening and evaluating your arguments than I do writing feedback, though I aim to give constructive comments. In general, I look for strong evidence to back up arguments and well constructed and articulated speeches. Coming from a diplomatic background, I like a courteous debate, although I appreciate, when appropriate, the need to be assertive and forward leaning in defending a position.

I am very objective when it comes to the issues. However, I will mark down for a speech that does not stand up in the status quo. While content and argumentation are at the forefront of my judging criteria, I do appreciate fluidity and strength in delivery. I frown on rehash and grandstanding. Speeches should also demonstrate strong impact. Questions should be relevant and purposeful. Lastly, I especially enjoy judging rounds where students are listening and creating good clash. Have fun and make it a true debate!

Congressional Debate

I care most about the round being educational and safe.

I will score speeches according to their responsiveness to the debate happening in the round. Introducing new arguments in the back half of the debate can be productive but only if it is contextualized within the debate that has come before it. Every speech after the sponsorship should be responsive.

When referring to previous speakers, please do so specifically and respectfully. Vaguely misrepresented claims aren't productive. Show me that you are flowing the round and understand what's happening in the debate.

Demonstrating knowledge of, and participation in, parliamentary procedure is a necessity to get on my ballot. Presiding officers will not receive a default rank if their leadership of the round is subpar but I will evaluate their contributions to the debate with equal weight to those who introduce keystone arguments or central rebuttals. I will assign a score per hour and consider accordingly.

In a presiding officer, I value proficiency and collegiality. Full disclosure, I have not judged an online congress tournament before and I'm not entirely certain of the best practices and standards with setting initial precedence. I will seek guidance on this.

Public Forum Debate

I care most about the round being educational and safe. Ultimately, I'm going to sign my ballot for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

I’m fairly tab, so feel free to read anything but be prepared to justify why you’re winning that argument and ultimately why that argument matters in the greater context of the round.

Defense sticks for the first speaking team until it's frontlined; it needs to be extended in FF, though. I don't care what 2nd rebuttal does, only that defense is extended the speech after it's frontlined.

Offense needs to appear in both the summary and the FF for me to evaluate it. Offense is more than just a card tag or author name - warranting is very important.

I don’t want to read evidence and more importantly you don’t want me to read evidence. My interpretation may not match yours and that preempts any muddiness in the round.

Please. Please don’t lie to me in your FF - “unresponded to” is almost never the case and is generally synonymous with “unextended.” Do the work. I won’t do it for you.

About Me:

My name is Erin and I am comfortable with any and all pronouns. I competed primarily in Congressional Debate in high school and competed in American parliamentary debate at the beginning of my time in college (pre-Covid). I am also the Assistant Coach at my old high school, primarily in charge of all things Debate :)

Congress:

I firmly believe that the event is very much a mixture of both speech and debate - do not be afraid to be more performative while speaking, after all, you are a member of congress!! But this does not mean that you should sacrifice good argumentation and the content of your speech for the sake of putting on a show!! If you are able to combine the two in a cohesive, smooth way you are off to a good start!

Speeches: I (like most judges) primarily look for strong argumentation, unique impacts, and strong, relevant rhetoric. Your argumentation should be solid and easy to follow along (no gaps in the link chains!) and should have clear structure. After the first round of speeches on a piece of legislation, I expect there to be some clash and/or extensions on what the previous debaters have stated. But please watch out for rehash!! Show me you are paying attention to your fellow speakers in your speech, but avoid repeating their contentions (unless you are running a solid extension). In terms of types of speeches, each round of congress should follow a similar flow style, going from constructive to rebuttals and then crystals. Do not be worried about how speaking towards the end of a bill will affect your placing!!! Sometimes a good, strong crystallization speech is worth a lot more than a copy-paste constructive speech! (It shows you are paying attention to everything being said in the round as well as shows you can think quickly on your feet - which is very impressive!) The use of meaningful and relevant rhetoric to help break up and break down the arguments is greatly appreciated and highly recommended! The one case where rhetoric is not appreciated is in the instance where canned rhetoric is used - try to come up with more original sayings rather than use generic ones that have been around since before I was competing…

Sourcing: I have no real preference when it comes to what sources you use in your speech. News sources are fine but don’t cite news sources with known bias or an insane amount of editorialization and op-ed writing. When citing your sources please include at least a last name, year, and publication; you do not need to provide qualifications but they are a bonus if you use them!

Questioning: This is very important!! Being active in the chamber can really help boost your overall ranking by helping you stand out, especially if you are nervous about being marked down for only speaking once due to poor recency. Good questions and answers can be the tiebreaker in situations where I am conflicted between two speakers of similar caliber. That being said - please don’t ask trap questions!! If you are competing you should have enough know-how and evidence to ask fair questions and use that information given to help talk about it in a later speech. Forcing questions is smart, but forcing answers is abusive. Last but not least - QUALITY over QUANTITY always!!

Speaking + Speed: Spreading in rounds is totally cool, so long as you are clear and concise!! If the competitors and/or judges can’t understand what you are saying, it makes it difficult for your arguments to be used in the round. The need for speed is okay (trust me I was the same way I understand completely) but sometimes less is more!! Do not try to speak faster just to fit in more arguments - instead, prioritize what you think is important and use your time wisely.

PO: I greatly appreciate the role of the PO, and as long as you do not mess up royally you are guaranteed a rank! POs should be able to control the room without having to be loud or forceful. A great PO is one who understands how the event works - makes no procedural errors, runs a quick and efficient chamber, and most importantly, is FAIR to all competitors in the room. I’ve been around long enough to be able to get a feel of who knows who in a chamber within the first few minutes. Any obvious favoritism towards certain speakers when picking questioners and speakers will not go unnoticed or unpunished. If I am your parliamentarian and you have a procedural or general question in round, do not be afraid to ask!! I would much rather you ask and get it correct than guess and make a mistake. Make sure to keep a clear chart for keeping track of precedence and recency, as a judge (and more so as a parli) I tend to keep one of my own as it helps me keep track of competitors, so I will know if you make a mistake!

Above everything else, everyone should respect one another. If you are acting a fool and putting others down incessantly both in or outside of the chamber, I will not rank you no matter how good you are. Talent does not excuse poor behavior, and therefore will not be unpunished. I have a zero-tolerance policy for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and all other forms of bigotry, prejudice, hatred, and intolerance. You are all smart enough to know better, and the usage of anything to this level will not be tolerated (it does not matter if you do not believe it- you should not need to use it to make a point). Be respectful of one another and it will be a great day!

When I am acting as parliamentarian at state and national level tournaments - my critiques on tabroom will be more general based and directed to the whole chamber. If you would like a copy of your own specific critiques and/or have any questions as to why I said what I said - feel free to send me an email (erincnmohr@gmail.com) with your name, speaker code, and what round I judged and I will get back to you after the tournament is over!

Also if you recognize me from the internet no you don't <3 /j

Max F. Neuman (he or they pronouns). If both teams want to use an email chain, please add maxfneuman [at] gmail.com

Competitive and Coaching Experience:

4 years of PF, almost entirely on the New York City Urban Debate League, at Bard High School Early College Manhattan.

1 year of APDA at CUNY, 3 years at Columbia.

Former PF coach at High School for Dual Language and Asian Studies, Midwood High School, and Bard High School Early College Manhattan. Current APDA coach at Temple.

Listened to that NPR podcast about college policy and thought it was cool.

Paradigm:

When I'm judging a round, I really want to avoid intervening ie; involving my own thoughts or doing your work in achieving the ballot. It leads to unpredictable decisions that are unfair to everybody. To prevent judge intervention, speak high, and win, here are a few tips:

• Enjoy yourself! Debate should be fun.

• Be inclusive! Respect your competitors. If speaking about an event or group, especially one that you are not part of, only make arguments you would make if the room were full of members of that group.

• If you need to make a potentially triggering argument, please give a content warning.

• I will not deviate from tab policy, speech times, or the speaker scale. Everything else is up for debate.

Everything below this point is stuff I am flexible on, but will default to absent other argumentation.

• I am a lazy judge. I do not want to intervene or do the work to prove why arguments are true or why they matter. Please be explicit about what the voting issues should be.

• Before anyone says a word, I assume that my job as the judge is to determine if the resolution is a true or false statement, and I assume that neg has won on presumption. As soon as a debater says anything, these starting positions go out the window and the role/destination of the ballot is up for debate.

• I've been consistently involved in debate since 2013, but you definitely know the current topic and the format's evolving norms better than I do. Author names don't mean much to me, so explain what cards say. If you want to make an abuse or theory call, or even do something non-traditional like a K, I'm amenable to it if it's adequately warranted and weighed in a way that's accessible to a broad audience that isn't steeped in debate pedagogy. If something is warranted well and not responded to at all, I'll consider it true, no matter how outlandish.

• Weigh and condense. Going for the whole flow at any point after second crossfire reduces the round to a whirlwind of blips, often with very little analysis about what should sway the ballot. Impact calculus is hard to master, but entirely worth it.

• I don't care about or even know how to consciously evaluate presentation things like what you wear, the sound of your voice, rhetoric, whether you sit or stand, or that sort of thing.

• Speed is fine when coupled with clarity. If you're especially fast (like 300 words per minute or more), start slow so I can get up to speed. If I can't flow you at all, I'll say "clear" up to three times

• Explaining how something works or happens is so much better than citing a source or quantifying a conclusion. Maybe it's because I've seen so many bad debaters win rounds on evidence challenges or because I'm a parliamentary debater, but I value explanation on par with evidence.

• If some offense is in first constructive or rebuttal and then never gets brought up during the round, I'm fine with a final focus/PMR/LOR/2AR/2NR weighing it to win, although the weighing needs to be stronger than "they dropped it so it's true." I will pick up a team that says "they dropped it so it's true, and we weigh it so it matters" if the weighing actually happens.

• You don't have to extend all defense in a summary/rebuttal if you've already touched an argument; you do have to respond if the other side is going for it and engaging with your refutation. If something was in the round before, regardless of whether it was in summary or second constructive, it can be in final focus and on the ballot if you mention it explicitly. I will enforce the prohibition on totally new argumentation (in all cases except the first-speaking team answering totally new content in the second team's summary) in final focus.

• I probably won't flow crossfire because I don't think I can do so with nearly as much accuracy as the speeches. If something important happened in crossfire, mention it in a speech to be sure it's in the round.

• I am begrudgingly okay with calling cards. It would be better if everyone could avoid this by not lying about evidence (your own or your opponents'). If there has been a question of validity or a direct and unresolved clash of cards during the round, I'll probably want to see the original source after the round. If you have a citation and a card, it's okay with me if you have to pull an original source off the internet when asked. Any other internet use is super duper prohibited. If the entire round comes down to a fact claim that nobody can resolve like "Russia has 15 nuclear submarines" when the brightline for impact access is 15, I'm amenable to arguments that I should google the number, and I'll default to just resolving the next most important issue in the round if it's deadlocked around an unresolvable fact claim.

If you want my flow, it's all yours! Send me an email at maxfneuman [at] gmail.com to ask for the flow or if you have any questions, preferably on the same weekend as your round in front of me. I'll probably delete flows/forget details about rounds after that. Please add me to the email chain at the same email address.

* Congress *

Just a couple notes on places where I may differ from certain other judges.

First: I see Congress as a true speech AND debate event. Rhetoric, passion, body language, facial expression, changes in pace & tone, the use of pathos & humor (where appropriate) -- these things matter! If your speech is three straight minutes of speed-reading through a list of arguments and cites, you'll absolutely get credit for the evidence & argumentation, but you'll also get dinged for treating it as a CX round, which it is not.

And, second: I find I'm much more impressed by discernible consequences than by abstract notions of fairness or inequity. That doesn't mean you shouldn't talk about big ideas, about right & wrong -- that's great, by all means you should include it. But if, for example, your Neg speech boils down to, 'Alright, the bill is better than the status quo and, sure, no one in particular is really harmed by it. But the legislation doesn't go far enough, and the benefits of the bill are distributed in an unequal way, therefore the bill is unjust and we must negate' ... then to my thinking you've accidentally given an Aff speech. Oops.

History has shown that not all judges see this issue the same way I do, and that's fine. But if you're trying to game my ballot, show me tangible harms or tangible benefits.

I am the Director of Forensics and head LD coach at Cary Academy. I would describe myself as a neo-traditionalist. I follow a traditional approach to LD with some notable exceptions. I am a typical traditionalist in that I prefer a debate centered on a common sense, reasonable, good faith interpretation of the resolution; and I believe speakers should emphasize effective communication and practice the habits of fine public speaking during the debate. I differ from many traditionalists in that I am not a fan of the value premise and criterion, and that I do not believe that LD arguments have to be based on broad philosophical concepts, but rather should be as specific to the particular resolution as possible. If you want to win my ballot you should focus on developing a clear position and showing how it is superior to the position put forth by your opponent. You should not attempt to make more arguments than your opponent can respond to so that you can extend them in rebuttal. In my opinion most rounds are not resolved by appeals to authority. The original analysis and synthesis of the debater is vastly more important to me than cards. For further insight on my views please consult these following articles I have written for the Rostrum:

http://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/ld%20Pellicciotta0202.pdf,

https://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/Luong%20RJ%20PresumptionNov'00.pdf

I am an Assistant Speech & Debate Coach at Montville Township High School. In high school I competed primarily in Congressional Debate and Extemporaneous Speaking. I've been involved in speech & debate for over ten years as a competitor, judge, and now coach.

My debate paradigm is simple. I ask that you provide me a clear explanation for why your side is winning based upon the resolution. I prefer topical cases. Debate is supposed to be an educational activity and I value the educational experience above all else.

That being said, I will certainly listen to whatever framework, paradigm, or theory you plan to throw at me so as long as it is well articulated, warranted, and explained. Context is critical for me to evaluate your arguments and understand why your side is winning in the round based upon the stated resolution. Assume that I have not researched the resolution at hand.

I prefer clear overviews that explain what you plan to do in the round and how you plan to win. I want this to continue throughout the round. How and why you are winning? Interaction with your opponent is a must. The more clash that exists in a round, the easier it is for me to adjudicate. I'm not interested in inserting myself into the round as the judge. I need weighing mechanisms.

Word economy is a valuable asset. Speed is not. I will not yell clear, even if I cannot understand you. The communication aspect of this activity is not dead. So why take the risk and spread?

Please let me know if you have any questions before a round. Good luck!

kschwab@pinescharter.net

I've been coaching and teaching Debate (as well as the AICE courses Global Perspectives & Thinking Skills) for the past 14 years.

For LD/PF/Policy

Even though I have experience on the circuit and enjoy different types of cases, I am not a buyer of the belief that the technical should rule because sometimes format is not as important as content & understanding what you are running. I would consider myself a truth over tech although it will come to the clash provided not my own opinion on the truth. I will stick to the flow unless someone gives me a good reason to vote for them that is true and benefits the debate/educational event. I believe that kritiks, theory, LARP, etc... are all beneficial to learning and play into strategy, so I will vote in favor of anything IF you are able to prove the link is logically clear and strong enough in regards to what your opponent says is the reason for why I should not accept.

I do NOT have a preference for framework/cases - I've heard almost every kind by now and all types have won and lost my vote. Extinction impacts bore me without link work done, so I'd appreciate you at least have some linked harm impacts before extinction level even if final impact is extinction.

I can handle speed (even spreading) pretty well by now - if there is an issue with understanding or hearing I will say "clear" and will also check cards at the end for anything I missed...but please keep in mind that there are certain aspects in a construction that maintains well with speed and other areas that don't (i.e. - if you need me to understand how a philosophy or theory applies then allow me to absorb each part before rushing to the next because those are building block arguments, so missing one part can make the whole thing fall).

Congress:

This is a role playing event - I would like you to act better than our current congress :) I'm big on arguments... not on summation evidence (the kind that is just a quote that someone said the same thing as your claim). I like you to talk to us...be charming or intelligent or both if you really want my top scores. I love this event because when it's good it's so good. Have fun, be smart, and don't leave the chamber during session unless an emergency - there are plenty of breaks and I appreciate when students that don't take extra ones.

Amanda Soczynski’s Judge Philosophy

A little about myself; I have been involved with forensics for 19 years as a student, judge, and coach. I am currently in my 8th year as the congressional debate coach at Edina High School. My background was originally in speech where I competed and coached. In High School, I learned policy debate as a class rather than competition on a local level, so I competed but not in a typical local circuit. I have been judging debate for the last 13 years, in all categories. I judged CX for the first 5 years and the last 7 years in LD, PF and mostly Congress. I graduated with a Mass Communications degree from University of Minnesota School of Journalism and a J.D. graduate from William Mitchell College of law in 2014. I work at Thomson Reuters on legal software & research, as a content expert. I really love congress, watching, coaching. I always try to strive to do my best! If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask. My goal is always to be an educator and help you succeed!

If for some reason my parli notes don't end up in your results packet, email me at amandasoc@gmail.com or amanda.soczynski@edinaschools.org. I will send you my google doc. I parli a lot and I always take lots and lots of notes and try to give RFD's when I can. If you don't get the link. Please ask, I put a lot of work into them. ????

I have a congress paradigm and CX,LD,PF one included in here.

Evidence / Citations / Warrants for all categories: *note - Statista is not a source, it's like Wikipedia, it's a congregation website not actually doing any of the studies that are on there. If you copy and paste the title of the stat you're looking at it will likely take you to the original source. Also the little (i) icon often will tell you where it can from. DON'T USE STATISTA as a source with me. I am a professional researcher by trade, so I care about citations! They matter and if they are from a source I don't know or if they're suspicious to me, I will google them.

Congress Paradigm:

General:

One thing to remember - judging congress is hard! It's just as exhausting for us as it is for you. We're trying really hard to compare a lot of people who have vastly different styles! I try to write as much as I can, but I spend a lot of time listening, so sometimes my comments can be lite at times. I'm working on that, the three mins go so fast. I'm hoping this will help shed some light on how I evaluate debaters.

When it comes to national level tournaments, at this point, almost everyone is a proficient speaker, so I really focus on the quality of arguments and ability to be flexible in round. Being a well rounded debater is important for me, especially as a Parli. I want to see a variety of type of speeches, and ability to switch sides, and flex to what the round demands. Make sure you are listening and not rehashing, if you're doing a rebuttal make sure you are extending or further attacking an argument.

I REALLY APPRECIATE A GOOD AUTHORSHIP OR SPONSORSHIP. Nothing is worse than judging or watching a semi-final round where there is no first aff, and having to take an in house recess immediately. Come prepared, have one. Spend the rest of your time doing great questions and defending your position there. I feel like people don't like to do this because they feel like they will be dropped. Rebuttals and Crystals are great, but there's a lot of them. If you can do this well, we'll know. It comes with the most amount of questioning time that if you know a lot about the topic you can show boat.

Linking: This is a debate skill you should have, you should able to link your impacts with others, link arguments together for rebuttal. Most national level congress debaters are great at linking within their own argument, but make sure you link and contextualize to the round. I want to see that they go together rather be a stand alone. That being said, contextualizing by: "I want to separate myself from the other AFF or NEG arguments", that's okay because you are still contextualizing within the round. Do not operate as an island in the debate, it's a good way to be dropped by me. Also remember, you can have great speeches, but if you don't ask questions, you're going to find your way to the middle of my ballot. It's a crucial part of debate.

Impacting:

THIS IS SO IMPORTANT. Again, at the national level, most people can impact to lives or economy etc. But what I find people aren't as good, is contextualizing the impact. Example: You tell me that thousands of lives are being lost in Yemen, take it one step further tell me what percentage of that population is being killed, or how that compares to another genocide for context. Make it hit home for all of us. Just giving generic #'s, sure it's the impact, but it doesn't show me the impact. Make sense? Remember I come from a policy background where pretty much everything leads to nuclear war.

Questioning:

Direct questioning is great, but make sure you're not too long winded or too brief, there's a nice sweet spot, where you have maybe a sentence or two question and answer. I've seen people basically run out the time by doing a really long answer, and I've also seen debaters ask such long questions that there's no way the opponent can answer. You only have 30 seconds, make it count.

Participation in Round:

Leadership is important. Remember, I'm comparing a lot of kids, participation with motioning and making sure that all students get to talk is important. This can help make up for bad presidency etc.

PO:

I almost always rank P.O.s in the top 5. It's a hard job, and as a parli, we appreciate good POs. A good way to get to the top 1/2 of my ballot as a PO. The round runs so smoothly I barely know you're there. You are able to solve issues of people not being prepared / docket issues. (This happens so often, time restrictions make things complicated. Especially since lots of tournaments have their own rules).

Mistakes happen, one mistake is not going to tank you. Continuous mistakes, or failing to help chamber resolve issues. This makes it harder. Fairness is also important, I notice when you pick your teammates repeatedly or if you always start in the middle of the room.

Inclusiveness - especially on the local circuit. I don't like parliamentary procedure used to limit people talking. It is also important to encourage those who haven't talked to go. Do your best to make sure the chamber is inclusive.

DON'T ALWAYS PICK YOUR FRIENDS FIRST. I know this happens. And it's easier to pick up than you think it is. Presidency means a lot in congress. Make it fair.

There's a reason I love coaching congress, it's a fun event!

CX/LD/PF Paradigm

General: As I’ve previously mentioned I come from a legal background. I am a “big picture” judge. I do appreciate the attention to detail, however, I don't like when it devolves into a debate that’s myopically focused on one thing. Make sure you take the time, especially in rebuttals to do a “birds eye view” of the debate. Remember, the rebuttal is the last time I hear from you before I make a decision, make it count. I appreciate good crossfire, and cross ex, specifically using information obtained in these for an argument.

Topicality: I like topicality, especially in varsity level debate. I think it makes a for a boring debate to have a non-topical aff. So it’s a pretty garden variety argument for the neg to make.

Critical Arguments: As I wasn’t a debater in high school, I don’t have the technical experience dealing with these arguments, however, I don’t mind critical affs on-face. Since I don’t have the technical experience, I appreciate all critical arguments to be understandable and explained properly. I catch on to arguments quickly, however I loathe having to have to fill in the gaps of an argument because its poorly argued. Make it logical, make it understandable. I generally dislike affs that are anti-topical or affs that critique the topic. I’m not saying I’ll never vote for a critical aff, whiteness aff, performance aff’s, etc, but its the one area where an affirmative is asking the most out of me as a judge. Again, I have less experience with these types of aff’s so extra explanation of sources and philosophies. For kritiks from the negative, I prefer ones that are topic-specific rather than K’s that are broad or philosophical. I’m pretty familiar at this point with cap k, neolib, fem, eco-k, anything outside of these again you’ll have to communicate more effectively as it is a bigger burden for me to decipher.

Theory: I don’t have the background in this, so this won’t be very successful with me as a judge. I overall prefer substantive arguments over theoretical or procedural arguments. My training in law, and my work, deals almost exclusively with substantive arguments, so I tend to prefer and understand those better. If you do decide to go this route, it must be very well done. My flow can’t be muddy, and the explanation must be very logical and understandable.

Speed: I have no problem with speed. I do ask two things. 1. Slow down enough on the tags so that I can understand them 2. Make your tags count. I dislike deciphering poor tags that do not tell me anything about the evidence. Keep tags like 5-8 words, long tags suck.

Post Round Discussion: Please be respectful, I don’t appreciate a “shake down” when I’m explaining my decision. I don’t do speaker points till after the round is over and all the debaters have left the room and I take decorum into account. I am a bit of a non-traditional judge and I do make a concerted effort to bring up constructive criticism and positive comments. Please take these comments as an opportunity to learn!

Experience: I have been judging Public Forum Debate for 2 years, and am a former congress and forensics coach.

I am a public speaking teacher and a parent.

Public Forum in essence is the clarity of persuasion. Clarity is driven by the ability to tell a compelling story that is supported by effective evidence. What I am looking for is the following:

Speeches

· Present your arguments in a clear and organized manner.

· Slowly speak; do not speed through your speeches. Assume I have never learned anything about the resolutions given. I want you to explain and debate as if I this is my first-time hearing about the topic.

· Robustly support your contentions with thoughtfully presented evidence. I am a truth over tech judge.

· Create realistic impacts that fall within the scope of the resolution. Do not pretend the world will end if it won't.

· Thoroughly understand your source. Be able explain how the study was done, who did the research, the credentials of the expert, etc. And be able to explain why this a strong piece of supporting evidence.

· Create a compelling story.

Crossfire and Grand Crossfire

· Propose incisive questions that the other team understands clearly.

· Succinctly answer questions using relevant evidence.

· Expeditiously produce the card for evidence if asked.

· Translate your thoughts into coherent speech quickly. Do your best to avoid "like," "y'know," and "um;" you are still speaking and being heard during cross; a judge should not have to ignore what you say or how you sound.

· Be polite and have respectful exchanges, and please do not talk over one another. Both partners should participate in grand cross.

Summary

· Explain which of your arguments flow through and weigh your impacts, noting which of your opponent's arguments you have discredited.

Final Focus

· Clearly present the weaknesses of the other side.

· Be able to extend the weighing mechanisms your partner used in summary to tell the end of the story.

Other Notes

· Make sure your judges are actually ready before you begin speaking. Don't simply ask them out of habit.

· Clearly demonstrate an understanding of the narrowness or breadth of the resolution.

· Oh, and do your best not to use nuclear war as an impact unless the topic is clearly of a military nature.

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

TLDR

Condo is probably bad. I don't like tricks and rude stuff. I don't like people beating their opponents down in a disrespectful manner. True champions find a way to win with style, finesse, and some measure of grace. Basically, "say what you mean, and mean what you say" in front of me. Kick outs and shifts are not received well. If you shift your position and the other team catches you, calls you on it, labels it a voter, impacts it, and you do not give that response serious consideration, you will have missed the opportunity to respond to something likely important in the decision. I prefer that debaters determine the issues in the round. My job is to evaluate how well, how clearly, how expertly, and how meaningfully the debaters present, refute, and summarize versus each other.

I like and am comfortable with crystal clear debaters and crystal-clear rebuttals. I am open to a lot of different types of discussions, and I'm excited to listen to what you bring to the debate space.

NO MATTER WHAT YOUR ARGUMENT, In a nutshell:

Tell Me What Your Argument Is

Tell Me Why I Should Prefer It

Tell Me Why If I Do Prefer Your Argument Why You Should Then Win The Debate---Some form of Impact Calculus/Weighting Magnitude, Probability and Time Frame-ish args are goods.

If you think you are really winning something, "sit on it" and explain why you win.

Updated 1/05/2024

Overview: I firmly believe that policy debate is first and foremost a communication activity. Consequently, oral presentation plays a large factor in my adjudication process. I focus on the “story” of the debate, but line-byline refutation can be a component of that. Know your order before you announce it. Don't change the order after you announce it. Clearly articulated arguments at any speed can be evaluated. Inarticulate utterings that cannot be understood cannot be evaluated. Especially in online debates. Slow down and be really clear on why you are winning. Be quick, but don't hurry. I will not tolerate rudeness. Cross X is binding. I don’t like “camp games” that steal time. I see you. Keep it to a minimum. If there is a mistake or misunderstanding just apologize. Saying you are sorry is often overlooked. You might clean it up well and still be in the debate. At the very least, you will save yourself low speaks if you make an honest effort to play it smart and on the level.

My paradigm biggies are as follows:

1. I agree that conditionality is "probably" bad. So, its "probably" not a bad idea to speak to this and support reasons why I might or might not vote on this---if it becomes an issue. Don’t just wait to see what I’ll do. In a vacuum of no direction on a debate argument, I am left to ignore the argument or evaluate by my own standards. I prefer to not do this. Its your debate. Clean it up. As far as just throwing out a bunch of stuff and then dropping it as a strategy---it does not usually go very well. I do not automatically judge kick. If you run 10 off, then win 10 off that do not contradict each other. Most importantly, be sure that you are clear as crystal even attempting it. When you time skew and then kick out, I am predisposed to vote for the other team if they argue time shew is a reason to reject the side that initiates such practices in the debate space. Absent compelling reasons why I should not do this--that's my predisposition. Again, its your debate so remember to tell me as the judge why I should prefer you style or point of view. Say what you mean and mean what you say is always best---as long as you are not being rude to your opponents. Practice civility always in debate rounds.

2. Topical Counterplans are probably not OK. If at the end of the round I have been effectively persuaded that there are two Affirmative teams, I'll probably vote Affirmative. Give me reasons to not do so, if this is part of your normal strategy. Explain why in a manner that includes what the AFF is doing and WHY even a topical CPLAN is preferred.

3. I prefer not to judge topicality debates. If you're ahead on it, explain to me why it’s important to care about this, or I might not understand why to vote on it. Again, compare your position to your opponents and why your side should win.

4. I enjoy case debates. Solidly clear, irrefutably presented and reasonably current inherency evidence could really win a debate. Really. Postdating sources is good. Supported evidence indicts are good. If you introduce an ethics challenge into a debate round, be prepared to win it. The penalty for challenging someone in such a manner seems to be leading toward the initiator losing the round if they lose their challenge.

5. Kritikal arguments on both AFF and NEG are fine, but pay close attention to the way you communicate your positions (clear and concise!).

6. The topic should be debated, but how you approach the resolution, and how you approach debate generally (content, style, etc.), is left up to the debaters.

7. If you're Negative, show me how your approach is specific to this Affirmative. Be thoughtful in explaining what a vote for your side means and why I should endorse it. Ask me to vote for your side. Don't completely on-face grant the 1AC in favor of pre-set tangentially related points and expect me to get why that means the Negative wins the debate. Be particularly clear on fairness and why ground is or isn't lost and warrants a decision. These are usually not presented clearly and powerfully. And without why they should matter, I tend to be persuaded by other issues

8. I appreciate when the AFF and NEG teams sit on the correct sides of the room with respect to the judge. Otherwise, I might want to vote for someone but accidentally vote for the wrong team. If you're not on the proper side of the room, at least say in your speech which side of the debate you represent and why you think your side should win the debate. That is taken for granted a lot. :)

Best,

Marna Weston