I competed in Lincoln-Douglas for three years in high school, and Public Forum for one. I've been coaching and judging LD and PF since then.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Disclosure

I don't want to be on the email chain/speech drop/whatever. Debate is a speaking activity, not an essay writing contest. I will judge what you say, not what's written in your case. The only exception is if there is an in-round dispute over what was actually said in a case/card.

Timing

You are welcome to time yourself but I will be timing you as well. Once my timer starts, it will not stop until the time for a given speech has elapsed. You may do whatever you like with that time, but I will not pause the round for tech issues. Tech issues happen and you need to be prepared for them.

Speed

I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Flex Prep

No. There is designated CX time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep, but not clarification.

LARP - Please don't. Discussion of policy implications is necessary for some topics, but if your case is 15 seconds of "util is truetil" and 5:45 of a hyperspecific plan with a chain of 5 vague links ending in two different extinction impacts, I'm not going to be a fan. Realistically speaking, your links are speculative, your impacts won't happen, and despite debaters telling me that extinction is inevitable for 15+ years, it still hasn't happened. Please debate the topic rather than making up your own (unless you warrant why you can do that, in which case, see pre-fiat kritiks). If there is no action in the resolution, you can't run a plan. If there is no actor, don't a-spec. If you want to debate policy, do policy debate.

Evidence Ethics

I will intervene on evidence ethics if I determine that a card is cut in such a way as to contradict or blatantly misrepresent what an author says, even if not argument is made about this in the round. I have no patience for debaters who lie about evidence. Good evidence is not hard to find, there's no need to make it up and doing so simply makes debate worse for everyone.

Arguments

Role of the Ballot: A role of the ballot argument will only influence how I vote on pre-fiat, not post-fiat argumentation. It is not, therefore, a replacement for a framework, unless your entire case is pre-fiat, in which case see "pre-fiat kritiks". A role of the ballot must have a warrant. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression" is a statement not an argument. You will need to explain why that is the role of the ballot and why it is preferable to "better debater". Please make the warrant specific to debate. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression because oppression is bad" doesn't tell me why it is specifically the role of this ballot to fight oppression. I have a low threshold for voting against roles of the ballot with no warrants. I will default to a "better debater" role of the ballot.

Theory: Please reserve theory for genuinely abusive arguments or positions which leave one side no ground. I am willing to vote on RVIs if they are made, but I will not vote on theory unless it is specifically impacted to "Vote against my opponent for this violation". I will always use a reasonability standard. Running theory is asking me as the judge in intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.

Pre-fiat Kritiks: I am very slow to pull the trigger on most pre-fiat Ks. I generally consider them attempts to exclude the aff from the round or else shut down discourse by focusing the debate on issues of identity or discourse rather than ideas, especially because most pre-fiat Ks are performative but not performed. Ensure you have a role of the ballot which warrants why my vote will have any impact on the world. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the affirmative", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Post-fiat Kritiks: Run anything you want. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the resolution", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Topicality: Fine. Just make sure you specify what the impact of topicality on the round is.

Politics Disadvantages: Please don't. If you absolutely must, you need to prove A: The resolution will occur now. B: The affirmative must defend a specific implementation of the topic. C:The affirmative must defend a specific actor for the topic. Without those three interps, I will not vote on a politics DA.

Narratives: Fine, as long as you preface with a framework which explains why and how narratives impact the round and tell me how to evaluate it.

Conditionality: I'm permissive but skeptical of conditional argumentation. A conditional argument cannot be kicked if there are turns on it, and I will not vote on contradictory arguments, even if they are conditional. So don't run a cap K and an econ disad. You can't kick out of discourse impacts. Performance is important here.

Word PICs: I don't like word PICs. I'll vote on them if they aren't effectively responded to, but I don't like them. I believe that they drastically decrease clash and cut affirmative ground by taking away unique affirmative offense.

Presumption - I do not presume neg. I'm willing to vote on presumption if the aff or neg gives me arguments for why aff or neg should be presumed, but neither side has presumption inherently. Both aff and neg need offense - in the absence of offense, I revert to possibility of offense.

Pessimistic Ks - Generally not a fan. I find it difficult to understand why they should motivate me to vote for one side over another, even if the argument is true. I have a fairly low threshold to vote on "psychoanalysis is unscientific nonsense" arguments because....well, they're kinda true.

Ideal Theory - If you want to run an argument about "ideal theory" (eg Curry 14) please understand what ideal theory is in the context of philosophy. It has nothing to do with theory in debate terms, nor is it just a philosophy which is idealistic. If you do not specify I will assume that you mean that ideal theory is full-compliance theory.

Disclosure - I will not vote on disclosure arguments.

Framework - Please have an actual warrant for your framework. If your case reads "My standard is util, contention 1" I will evaluate it, but have a very low threshold to vote against it, like any claim without a warrant. I will not evaluate pre-fiat framework warrants; eg, "Util is preferable because it gives equal ground to both sides". Read the philosophy and make an actual argument. See the section on theory - there are no theory-based framework warrants I consider reasonable.

Speaker Points

Since I've gotten some questions about this..

I judge on a 5 point scale, from 25-30.

25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.

27.5 is average. Speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.

28.5 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices well.

30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.

Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.

While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.

Please please please cut cards with complete, grammatically correct sentences. If I have to try to assemble a bunch of disconnected sentence fragments into a coherent idea, your speaker points will not be good.

Judging style

If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.

Public Forum Paradigm

Frameworks

I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.

Topicality

I will evaluate topicality arguments, though only with the impact "ignore the argument", never "drop the team".

Theory

Yes, I understand theory. No, I don't want to hear theory in a PF round. No, I will not vote on a theory argument.

Counterplans

No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.

Kritiks

No. Kritiks only function under a truth-testing interpretation of the con burden, I only use comparative worlds in Public Forum.

Burden Interpretations

The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof. Because of limited time and largely non-technical nature of Public Forum, I consider myself more empowered to intervene against arguments I perceive as unfair or contrary to the rules or spirit of Public Forum debate than I might be while judging LD or Policy.

I based my decisions on the overall effectiveness of the debater. I usually determine effectiveness by the quality of the arguments made. Quality arguments are those that state a coherent claim that is clearly linked to the resolution at hand. Further, the claim is supported by quality evidence and quality warrants with analysis and commentary. In a very close debate, I will also consider backing, response to rebuttal, and other aspects of good argument. I find the Toulmin model of argumentation to be a persuasive model of argumentation. I favor logical appeals over appeals of ethos and pathos. However, in PF and LD, I will give weight to appeals of ethos and pathos when the argument is well-made. I will consider appeals of ethos when determining the credibility of evidence used to support a claim. I will discount the importance of a claim in which the evidence supporting the claim is shown by the opponent to be faulty because of the qualifications of the author, the context of the evidence, or other qualitative factors in the evidence. I like for contestants in debate to clash with the other contestant and explain to me when they choose not to clash for strategic reasons so that I can understand their reasoning and prioritization of their arguments. I try really hard to let the contestants tell me what is important in the round, and I try not to let my personal reflections on logic or political views influence my decisions unless the debaters provide little more than superlatives for me to base my decision on. I do not enjoy spreading and find that I loose track of the depth of arguments being made. If my flow is shallow for one side but deep for another, I may give a decision to the side with the deeper argument is the impact of that argument is sufficient when compared with any arguments on the flow that were dropped by that team. In other words, I prefer quality over quantity. When both teams give high quality arguments with clash and have similar impacts, I may base a decision on the overall clarity and effectiveness of the speaker. But, I generally reward quality of argument much more than quality of speaking. I will punish a speaker who does not conduct themselves professionally during a round, as I feel this is detrimental to the educational quality and purpose of the contest. 

With respect to topicality and other issues outside of debate on the resolution, I will give weight to those issues when supported. I will decide them much like I would any other claim. I will not grant a round based on topicality or a like voting issue if stated without warrants backing them, as I feel this would be making a decision based upon my own opinion. I feel the debaters should be rewarded for explaining their reasoning for arguments, and I look harder at arguments that are more than just  the statement of a claim without more. 

Typically when I judge (usually PF), I look for:

-How students argue evidence in a proper and effective manner.

-The evidence must be coherent and viable for the situation and deliver evidence in a distinguishable manner.

-Delivery of the evidence must fit the argument properly for the side argued.

-Philosophy argued must be known to the student and not used simply for popular reason or preference.

-Crossfire and cross-analysis of the opponent need to uphold your position and impact your reasoning to further the cause.

-Respect among students no matter what side is argued. When asked a question, give your opponent proper time to argue/defend themselves.

I am a traditional judge.

Do not spread.

Civility is essential.

I value clear communication. Sign posts and voters are excellent tools.

I value clash. So listen to your opponent and tell me why they are wrong and your side is better.

Give weight to the most important arguments and tell me why they are the most important.

Write the reason for decision for me.

I believe excellence in debating is the sum of three factors; 1) an organized presentation of compelling research, 2) refuting your opponent’s research, and 3) your presentation style. The rounds I judge will be decided on these factors.

To be successful in Factor #3, consider the following:

a) Do not talk fast (spreading). If you were to do so in a professional debate, your audience will likely get lost and you may lose any leverage over your opponent because your research was not understood by your audience;

b) Tell me what you are about to tell me.  For example, if you are about to tell me your Value, say, "my value is..."  for your Criterion, say, "my criterion is..." and for your contentions, say, "my first contention is...." "my second contention is..." etc.  If you don't do this, I may not recognize what you are saying as any of these things and then I can't give you credit for these aspects of debate.  Likewise, when you are refuting an opponent's contention, it would be beneficial to start by saying something like, "Regarding my opponent's first contention..." so that it is clear to me that you have addressed that contention.

c) Manage your time.  If you are speaking when a timer expires, you may finish your sentence but not start a new one.  Recall that my first factor for excellence in debating is being "organized."  Having rehearsed your talk will ensure that you can complete it in the allocated time.  To go over your time suggests a lack of preparation.  Note that my first factor also states "compelling research."  If you find that any section of your talk slightly exceeds your time allotment, you might consider eliminating parts of the talk that are not "compelling."

d) Engage your audience.  This doesn't mean you should talk loud. Talk at a volume appropriate for your audience to hear you.  Don't yell at your audience.  Consider videotaping yourself giving your talk and look for anything you see yourself doing that you think may be annoying to your audience, suggest that you don't know your material or that you aren't confident about what you are saying.  For example, these things could be considered annoying; if you play with your hair, say "um" a lot, rock back and forth or never look at your audience.  Consider making modifications to your presentation style that will help engage your audience and sell your message.

I have no preference for whether you sit or stand. 

I would like the AFF seated to my left and the NEG seated to my right.

I'm a third-year parent judge with lots of experience judging LD, though I'm still a traditional judge who will not evaluate the extremely technical side of LD debate.

The framework debate is most important, and you should have a value and value criterion. These things should be clearly stated along with your contentions, and I would prefer if you avoided policy jargon (e.g., "fiat," "perm," "pic," etc.) and didn't spread, because I will not be able to follow it.

That all being said, I've become more open to progressive arguments like kritiks and counterplans. There is a caveat to this: your arguments should be clearly explained and presented in a format that is understandable - you should still have a framework even if running a counterplan or other similar argument. Err on the side of extreme caution when reading progressive arguments in front of me.

I always try my best to check my biases at the door, and I will try to evaluate the round using only arguments presented in round.

I've had experience with both policy and LD debate. This is my first time judging. I value debates with clarity, clash, and organization.

I'm not very familiar with this topic. Slow down to explain if I signal I don't know what you are talking about.

My email is: pasamv@gmail.com put me on the email chain if you are flashing filess.

I'll quote the best debater I know: Hemanth Sanjeev for the rest of this paradigm.

From his judge philosophy:

"Argument content is less important to me than form. I value clarity, organization, and clash across all styles of argument. I will vote on an argument only if I can explain it to the other team.

I judge debates by resolving what I think the essential questions of the debate were. This means it helps you to identify what those essential questions are so that I can decide them in your favor. Is the link or uniqueness more important? Do existential risks supersede structural violence impacts? What is the educational value of debate? This requires you to assess what your opponents are winning as well as what you’re ahead on, and write a ballot that takes that into account. Usually only one team does this, and usually that team wins.

The neg should disagree with the aff. The aff should talk about the aff, especially when the neg tries to distract you from doing so.

Debate arguments are usually neither sufficient nor necessary, just contributing. I am most compelled by debaters who read fewer cards and find the logical holes in their opponents’ arguments.

Two notes on evidence:

1 - I read very little of it after the debate, but I do listen to and flow the evidence as I hear it in your speech. If I can't understand the text of the cards in your speech you will not get credit for their arguments, because the bare minimum you must do to win is present an argument clearly enough that I can explain it to the other team based on your speech. Giving me an excellent bibliography after a round will not matter if you didn't communicate those arguments to me effectively in the first place.

In case I'm giving the wrong impression - I do care about evidence and am happy to decide key questions based on evidence comparison but doing it for you by calling for everything and interpreting it myself is no fun for anybody. Take pride in your evidence by delivering it persuasively and explaining why it's much better than your opponents'.

2 - Evidence comes in sets, not just individual cards. Establish agreements and disagreements among evidence sets. Debates where everyone disagrees on everything are shallow and often demonstrate lack of perspective."

My last paradigm was way overdue for a rehaul. Here are some things:

1. I'm an Emory student majoring in philosophy and biology. I love transhumanism.

2. I hate theory and will almost never vote on it unless it is actual abuse. I have seen rounds where someone runs theory because the aff didn't say resolved, but when asked in cross fire clarified. Don't run theory in front of my unless necessary.

3. Have a value structure.

4. On balance, I prefer traditional debate + speed. However, I understand for the most part this isn't always the case.

5. Impact yourself.

6. If I say clear more than once, I will probably dock speaker points. Also, if something isn't on my flow, I won't vote for it even if you said it.

7. Don't argue with me about my decision. Ask questions, clarifications, but know that my decision is final and can't be changed.

Finally, I understand this isn't really a paradigm, moreso a preference list. Ask me questions if you can intuit the answer from this. :)

I look for rational, linear argumentation. Please do not advance contentions/make arguments without providing adequate warrant/evidence. Please avoid negating your own argument(s) with circular or incomplete warrants/reasoning. Please do not abuse your opponent. Civility will gain much more than overly agressive pursuit. Spreading is perhaps fine, but it had better consist of completed arguments (claim AND warrant) rather than scatter gun approaches designed as insurmountable "gotcha" gimmicks to merely trap your opponents into "dropping" arguments. If your claims and warrants don't actually WORK, then I'm highly unlikely to count them as actual arguments, and your opponent cannot drop arguments that weren't completed on your part. Also, if your speed is so rapid that I cannot flow it, then those are arguments you didn't successfully make, and which your opponent cannot actually "drop." Please do not present me with "theater of the absurd" contentions that are off topic or so bizzarely twisted that they are abusive to your opponent. Such tactics will not be rewarded as voters. Off time road mapping is, to me, highly suspect, as it can quickly appear to be an attempt to abuse the time constraints and thus abuse one's opponent, and leaves an overall bad taste in my mouth (not to mention in the mouth/mouths of your opponent/opponents). If you just MUST off time road map, then, of course, you will want to keep it to a minimum, .... but be aware that really ANY of it appears to me to be suspect/abusive. Please contain your claims and warrants to terms and phrases whose definitions you FULLY understand, and with which you are comfortable and fluent in pronouncing. Just because it is on the card doesn't mean it can't seriously break up your flow if you mis pronounce it or wholly or partially misunderstand all the implications it has. DO flow your opponents' arguments carefully, and feel free to turn claims that aren't warranted, or that are poorly warranted. Being able to so do with terms used by an opponent who clearly doesn't understand ALL implications, without being a wiseacre about it are often rewarded in voting.

I am an old school traditionalist but appreciate and have adapted to the evolution of modern debate.  

A strong argument unchallenged pays big dividends. A strong argument, weakly challenged, pays dividends as does a weak yet unchallenged argument. 

The presentation of the argument is nearly as important as the quality of the argument. a well developed argument is understandable. I prefer debate to be intelligent, articulate, and persuasive and not a speed-talking amass of statistical evidence. I have to be able to comprehend and flow the internal logic of your arguments. If you are clear, enunciate well, with good diction and voice inflection it helps me understand the key parts of what you are saying. 

Evidence is important, but spend time talking about the implications of evidence and making analytical comparisons between arguments. Description of arguments through analogy, examples, testimony, or hypothetical situations is a more persuasive style of debate than just presenting statistics. Commissions of logic fallicies, especially those challenged by the opposition carry weight.

Debaters should take the time to create good cross-examinations. Use them to reveal the fallacies of your opponents' arguments and how their claims appear to run counter to probable impacts or how their silence or ambiguities are cause to vote against their conditional claims.  Concluding arguments demonstrate an understanding of what was most important in the debate to that point.

Everyone in the debate should be courteous through-out the debate. Winning arguments are quality arguments, not necessarily plentiful ones.

Show that you are having fun while making clear how your arguments matter and why you should win!  

CAREER EXPERIENCE

Extensive instructional  experience in the military and as a civilian-as adjunct faculty at Columbus State University and Georgia State University as a professor of Political Science.  A former full time SROTC instructor at the University of Tennessee at Martin. Five years service as Senior Army Instructor at Centennial High School, Roswell GA, Hephzibah HS, Augusta, GA and Monarch HS Coconut Creek, FL.   Served as a US Army officer 1983-2006 retiring as a lieutenant colonel with two Iraq combat deployments.

EDUCATION

University of Louisville (01/01/1997 - 1 May 2007 Graduate) Louisville, Kentucky Degree: MA - Major: Political Science

United States Military Academy (07/02/1979 - 05/25/1983) West Point, New York Degree: BS - Major: BS  International Affairs

Training - Near East and North Africa Regional Seminar (05/26/1995) US State Department Foreign Service Institute intensive seminar to prepare government employees for foreign service in the Middle East.

RELEVANT DEBATE & DRAMA EXPERIENCE

Baldwin City HS, KS  1975-1979 Debate Team.  1978 Kansas State Debate Champion. 1979  4th Place Kansas State Debate Championship

Forensics:  Improvisational Duo, Extemporaneous Speaking

Drama:   Supporting actor roles 4 years HS theater productions-character actor, impersonations, voices