Delbarton JV Tournament

2019 — Morristown, NJ, NJ/US

Muiz Awad Paradigm

Not Submitted

Maria Castro Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Jimmy Chao Paradigm

Not Submitted

Cathy Jiang Paradigm

Not Submitted

Rose Joyce-Turner Paradigm

8 rounds

I have been coaching and judging debate rounds since 1987.

I expect each kind of debate to resemble its intended design.

I will flow the debate. I will stop flowing the debate when time is up. I will not listen to anything once the time has elapsed.

I do not want to read all of your evidence at the end of the round; I want to be able to hear it the first time you articulate it clearly.

You should tell me “where I am voting.”

You should tell me “how I can vote for you there.”

You should tell me “why I am voting there and not somewhere else.”

This means I am not doing this for you; you weigh the round for me. I want to hear a clear narrative that has some resemblance of a clear framework, which deals with terms and concepts fairly.

In the absence of weighing, I tend to look for clear offense rather than doing weighing for you. (this means things that were dropped and clearly extended)

Andreas Kapsalis Paradigm

In my career I have debated in over 60 tournaments mainly in Congress but partly in PF, Policy, and Extemp.

Most important part of both paradigms: Respect your opponents

Congress Paradigm:

POs - I was a PO in almost every tournament I have competed in since I began. As a result, I have a solid understanding of procedure and how POs should act. I will track questioning and recency to ensure you are following the rules you establish. Questioning recency like speeches is preferred but just using the number of questions to pick is fine too. Therefore, while I am perhaps harsher to PO mistakes, I very much reward good POs in my ranks. I am not afraid to give the PO the 1 if I believe they are deserving of it.

Speeches - After the authorship, you should have clash and/or extensions of previous debaters. I am among the school of thought that congress is constructives then rebuttals then crystals. If you are on the last cycle of debate and introducing new arguments, it will probably not bode well. Each type of speech is equally as important. I get that people don’t want to give authors because good clash raises your rank generally. However, a well made authorship is just as good as a well made crystal. While argumentation is very important and holds a weight of around 80% of my decision making for ranks, speaking is also very important. You should have meaningful rhetoric and flow smoothly while speaking. If you speak quickly I am 100% okay with that. However, make sure you can still convey the quality of your argument.

Questioning - Very important! If you give the author and don’t ask any questions you will most likely be forgotten in the round and it will hurt your ranks. If I am conflicted between who to rank higher because speech quality was similar, questioning will make or break your rank. On that note, I do not want to see you ask 20 questions that don’t further the depth of the debate your rank will be hurt. If you only ask 5 questions and they are all very good and change the scope of the debate or set-up your arguments, that is much more preferable.

Politics - I did the event for 4 years. I know what goes on in Facebook chats etc. It is pretty easy to tell if someone is being biased as a PO or otherwise. If you actively try to hurt other competitors you will be dropped.

Other - Jokes are always a nice way to break up the flow of the debate and will be rewarded

Public Forum:

TLDR - Flow judge - will vote on frameworks presented - summaries and FF very important in decision

Speaking - Spreading is fine. Just let me know beforehand and give me a roadmap to make my flow easier.

Cases and Rebuttals - Keep them organized and flowing smoothly. Sign post. Not much to say otherwise.

Summary/FF - In my opinion, these can make or break your round. Both as a competitor and a judge I have seen tons of teams ahead after Cases and Rebuttals and give poor Summaries and FF and lose the round. It does not matter if you proved something to be true if you do not weigh it in the scope of the round and why it matters.

Evidence - I will only look at evidence if I am asked to do so or if I believe something said is blatantly untrue. If you fake evidence, chances are you will not win the round. Do not fake evidence.

Theory - Not too well-versed in it but I can understand it. Only do it if there’s a real abuse.

Speaker Points - Varies by tournament strength, but I try to be consistent. Not afraid to give a perfect score if it is deserved but will rarely do so. I try to not give speaks under 25. You either have to do very poorly or have a real abuse in the round to fall below.

Other - Jokes are always a nice way to break up the flow of the debate and will be rewarded

Johann Lee Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sam Leoniuk Paradigm

My preferred pronouns are he/them, either is fine.

My first rule is to have fun! Don't be too tense. Debate to the best of your ability and enjoy it.

I vote off the flow, but also on how persuasive you are. Sell me a narrative - tell me very clearly why you win and why your "world" is better. Don't make grand cross into a screaming match, but some speaker points may come your way if you can politely fit in some puns or light sarcasm in your speeches.

If you have any questions on how I judge, ask before the round!! I disclose. Good luck!!!

Maria Mayo Paradigm

Not Submitted

Mitchell Mullen Paradigm

i do deb8

Yash Patel Paradigm

Not Submitted

Arun Raj Paradigm

Not Submitted

Louis Savoia Paradigm

Not Submitted

Eric Warholak Paradigm

Not Submitted

Joseph Wisidagama Paradigm

Not Submitted