Very stock parent judge. Believe that speaking is as important as debating, thus strong speaking skills will be rewarded with good speaker points. I try my best to take notes but I’m no expert at flowing. My son does debate and I try to listen in on the arguments he talks about. Truth > Tech.

Cross Ex is a really easy way to win my ballot. If you can poke holes in your opponents arguments whilst clearly and strategically explaining your own arguments I will appreciate it and it makes my job easier. I pay attention to all of the cross exes.

Please don’t spread or even speak too fast. It is important that you know how to speak in a organized but also realistic manner. Spreading means I can’t understand and thus I can’t take note of your arguments.

Impact calculus probably makes judging easier. Even if you’re losing an argument but you can prove why the ones you are winning are more important I will vote for you. These usually sound like “Even if you buy their arguments on economic policy, our climate change argument is more important because.......”

I used to have a joke paradigm

For reference see chris conrad's paradigm, mine is practically identical.

Defense must be in second summary

Everything in FF must be in summary

I debate for 4 years for the Nueva school in very fast PF debate and can handle and vote on any argument however fast you say it. 

I take evidence extremely seriously so don't lie about it.

Extensions require a card name and a warrant. This is extremely reasonable and easy to do.

Please weigh your impacts against your opponents it makes the round substantially easier.

TLDR: I flow, I vote off the flow, I will pick you up if you win the debate.

 Here are the things you can do to receive my ballot:

1. Talking slow and clearly but not too slow

2. Clarity in thoughts

3. Backing up your thoughts with data

4. Extend all of your arguments through summary... citations must be read aloud. If not, you will get DROPPED!

5 I WANT FRAMEWORK or I will adjudicate the round, since you didn't. 

and please be nice ;) 

Updated January, 2018

TL;DR Former PFer, flow judge. Consistency through summary and FF, don't misconstrue evidence, time yourselves, and weigh please.

Background

Four years of PF at Nueva (graduated 2017). As with any human being, I have ideological biases, but in round I will try my best to be tabula rasa and to evaluate the round fairly.

Evidence/Cards

I’m fine if you ask for some cards, flash cards, or whatever. However, there are four things I really don’t like when people do. First, do not prep when people are finding cards. This is rude. Second, find cards in a timely manner. You should be able to provide cards with proper citations and bolded/highlighted parts in a manner that does not hold up the debate. This makes the round run smoother and is a debater's responsibility. Third, use proper citations with author and date at least (I tag cards by the author's last name; not a rule in any way, just something you might find helpful). These first three things will not influence my decision but will have an effect on speaks (although I'm open to theory on improper citations). Fourth, DO NOT MISCONSTRUE EVIDENCE. In prelims I will not ask for cards after the round unless you ask me to call for cards, in which case I will call for all card you ask me to call for, or unless I strongly suspect a card is misconstrued. In outrounds, I will call for cards that are heavily contested or any cards that you ask me to call for or any cards I strongly suspect are misconstrued. If your evidence is misconstrued, it disappears from my flow. If it is misconstrued such that a reasonable person would believe it was intentionally manipulated to give a strategic advantage, I will drop you (although I've never had to do this before and hope I never will).

The implication of my prelim evidence policy is that when two teams throw contradictory stats at each other with no way to resolve the conflict, I don't know what to do (since I'm not going to call for prelim cards); this means that I won't feel comfortable enough to vote on the argument with unresolved evidence conflicts (unless the round is so messy that there is nowhere else to vote). Thus, if you want me to vote on such an argument, tell me to call for the cards.

I think paraphrasing is fine (I paraphrased when I debated), as long as you are not changing the meaning of the card.

Topicality and Framework

These are fine but most of the time in PF just winning that an argument is not topical does not mean that you win the round, it just takes out one (or multiple pieces) of their offense. Don't forget to extend offense too. Also, if you are going to run a framework, you have to tell me why your opponents arguments don't fit under that framework and why you do (in addition to why I should pref the framework over util, which is what I will default to).

Definitions

Honestly most definitions read in PF are unnecessary. I would advise only reading definitions if they're actually important. Also, I hate adjudicating definitional debates (you'll lose speaks if you make me do this).

Theory and Ks

I am open to these and will vote on them (if you use a shell, make sure you extend properly). However, I do think that PFers often read theory when the interp is invalid/the violation didn't really happen because they want to run "cool progressive" arguments. Also, running theory just because you know your opponents won't understand it technically and you can get an easy win is a really terrible thing to do (if you really think there's something unfair going on in the round, but your opponents don't understand how a shell works--just ask them in crossfire--then you can just run paragraph theory). If it is clear you are just running the theory for an easy win, you will get 0 speaks (but still the win as long as you actually win the round). That said, I love interesting rounds and progressive argumentation so as long as your not forcing it to pick up an easy ballot, go ahead!

Weighing

Please do this. The only way you can guarantee a win in round is to write my ballot for me in late speeches; tell me why you are winning the most important argument and argue why that argument is the most important and you will win. Weigh your impacts. If you don’t, I will just have to pick one and one team will probably disagree with my decision.

I think there's a tendency in the debate community to say things like "weigh lives over everything else"--this is unjustified and is not sufficient weighing. If there's no weighing in the round, I default to the weirdest impact in the round--you won't be happy with this so just weigh.

Speed

I’ve never heard a PF debate that I can’t follow, but I definitely cannot follow fast policy speed. Just do what you normally do and I’ll drop my pen if you’re going too fast. Do be clear on tags and signpost though.

Offtime Roadmap

Do this if you want, but is your rebuttal really so extraordinarily difficult to follow that it desperately needs a roadmap? Unless you're doing something really crazy, it's probably not necessary in PF, but I won't dock you points for doing it unnecessarily.

Cross

I pay very little attention to crossfire--if you find this to be a big issue, please let me know before the round, and we can discuss. Otherwise, this means that anything that you want in the round has to be in speech. Be polite, and do not yell. Also, if you're confused about something please just ask in crossfire.

Also, time your own cross.

Extensions

Extending through ink is bad. If you try to extend through ink, I will consider the defense cold dropped. The other team only need bring up in later speeches that the response was dropped. Extending through ink in the 2nd FF is not cool at all. It will come out of your speaks and will NOT be evaluated.

Also, an extension consists of link, warrant, and impact. When you extend, tag and summarize your cards.

FF and Summary

Anything that is in the FF has to be in summary (the only exception to this is that 1st summary does not have to extend defense). Do not try to sneak in arguments during grand cross and extend them in FF; I will not evaluate them. This is especially true if you are the second speaking FF. If you are 2nd speaking FF teams that makes up new arguments or misconstrues evidence in the FF I will disregard everything new and trash your speaker points.

Note: If you are the first speaking team, you may extend a turn from rebuttal to FF as long as you phrase it as a competitive link that exactly cancels out your opponent's link. It will be evaluated accordingly as defense.

Collapse

Please please pick arguments to go for. Unless you are so far ahead that you have time to go for everything, going for everything in a half-decent way is far worse than collapsing on a couple of key arguments.

Prep

Don't steal prep. It will come out of your speaks. I really don't think it should take more than 15 seconds to get your stuff together and speak--if this seems unfair or there is a reason you can't do this, then let me know before the round, and we can discuss.

Speaker Points

I'm pretty generous with speaks. For me speaking ability is completely separate from the arguments in the debate. You can make good points and be a terrible speaker and I’ll pick you up but probably give you terrible speaks. If you want good speaks be polite, don't misconstrue evidence, and speak pretty. Speaker points are also where I will penalize you for things like going new in the 2.

Kicking Out

Kicking out of an argument requires that you read a piece of defense on it. This must be in summary and final focus (even if it is first summary).

Clarity

I will nod my head when something makes sense to me, and I'll also make a weird face if I don't understand what you are talking about. Hopefully this is helpful for making sure I understand your arguments.

Miscellaneous/Semantics

I don't appreciate it when 1st speaking teams don't flow their opponent's FF. I think one of the main reasons we debate is because it helps us learn, and having a full flow of the round is certainly more conducive to learning. I realize this part of my paradigm may not actually achieve its end (b/c you may just flow the speech so I don't deck your speaks and then throw it away afterwards), but it's probably better than you not flowing at all. I will doc half a speaker point if you don't do this.

I think it makes the round interesting when people ask weird crossfire questions like "what are you going for in summary?" (more like LD).

Yes you can time yourselves--I would prefer that.

Please come with your cases preflowed--that saves everyone time.

Know what your impact cards mean. If your card says "a one standard deviation in x increases the gini coefficient by 0.02," you better be able to explain what that means. Also, I don't understand what that means so you should explain that to me and compare it to other impacts.

I love humor. If I laugh you can have a 30.

I'm certainly open to discussing the reasons for my paradigm and even changing them if the discussion convinces me.

I default to util. I will buy any framework, but give me a reason to prefer.

I really enjoy discussion of methodology/study flaws. Bonus speaks for cool, mathematically insightful evidence indicts.

Questions

Ask any questions you have. If something is unclear I would rather you ask a question than do something that I said not to do in my paradigm. This policy on questions also holds after the round. If you disagree or don't understand my decision, please ask me questions. I'm happy to explain or discuss!

This is a bunny. It's full of fluff.

_(\-/)

(='.'=)

(")-(")o

This is a whale. It weighs more.

><(((.______)

Be a whale.

人◕ ‿‿ ◕人

~~~art credits to wikihow.com, japaneseemoticons.me, and fastemoji.com

If you feel there's anything the above message didn't cover, feel free to read on.

~~~

Updated 4/25/18.

Will Cozadd—The Nueva School

Background: I debated public forum for four years while at Nueva, and judged public forum over the last two of those years. I’m currently a college student at Williams.

Overall: I'll look for the path of least resistance for my ballot - that means giving me proper extensions of arguments (i.e. warrant and impact extension in both the summary and final focus) as well as a framework under which I can evaluate them. If you want more specific information, see below.

Summary/FF consistency:

I will only vote off offense from case/turns from rebuttal that was in *both* final focus and summary. This means that the link, warrant, and impact were extended in both speeches. There are two exceptions to this rule. First, both teams may extend defensive responses from rebuttal to final focus, although I greatly prefer them to be in the summary and strongly prefer the second speaking team to have all defensive responses extended in summary. Second, the first final focus can make new responses to new arguments in second summary, but please be reasonable about it.

How I evaluate the round:

I start by crossing things out that didn't follow the aforementioned Summary/FF consistency guidelines. I then look at the remaining offense of each team. This is when weighing is important. Please weigh as much as possible. I flow the weighing of arguments and you should extend them as cleanly extended analysis if your opponents don't respond to your weighing in rebuttal/summary. When weighing, please fully explain why your arguments outweigh theirs and not just resort to quick buzzword-filled soundbytes like "we outweigh on timeframe." Good weighing will tell me why I should still affirm/negate the resolution even if your opponents win all of their points, and the team with better weighing will almost always win you the round. If you don't weigh, I'll have to intervene and pick which competing argument I vote on, which will make one of you unhappy.

Speed:

I can flow up to 200 words/minute comfortably, but after that I start to miss stuff—primarily due to corresponding lack of clarity and signposting. Please signpost. If you aren’t telling me what piece of analysis you’re extending/responding to I can miss things, and that could make me vote in a way you don't like.

Speaker Points:

I will give high speaks to debaters for clarity, skill, persuasion, knowledge, and humor. I will give low speaks for misconstruing evidence, being offensive, or being rude to your opponents.

Evidence:

Evidence ethics in PF are lacking. If your opponents are lying about evidence tell me to call for it, and they will lose the round because of it. If your opponents are misconstruing evidence tell me to call for it, and I'll likely disregard the evidence. During the round, I don't care how many times teams call for evidence, but if a team calls for a piece of your evidence, you should be able to provide it in a time-efficient manner. If a team can't provide a piece of evidence that was called for, I'll drop it. I will call for evidence if any of the following criteria are met:

A) A debater tells me to call for a specific piece of evidence in their speech,

B) I've personally read the evidence and believe that it is being blatantly misrepresented,

C) If the evidence is obviously false (e.g. if it says the sky is red), or

D) If there are two pieces of contradictory evidence that haven't been weighed and I cannot properly evaluate the round without seeing them.

While this makes it look as if I will always call for evidence, I'm actually outlining these so that I don't call for cards in seemingly erratic fashions. If when I call for evidence I see that it is doctored (meaning that you wrote your own evidence, deleted the word "not", added the word "not," etc...) I'll drop the team that read it. If the evidence is misconstrued (meaning that the article contradicts your statement in the next line or you're citing a line as saying something it doesn't), I'll simply ignore the evidence in the round (and give the offending team much lower speaks), which will likely make me less comfortable voting on the argument built around it.

As for my thoughts on Topicality/Framework/Theory/Kritiks, I completely agree with my former debate partner Alex and have thus copied+pasted his words below:

“Topicality/Framework:

These are fine but most of the time in PF just winning that an argument is not topical does not mean that you win the round, it just takes out one (or multiple pieces) of their offense. Don't forget to extend offense too. Also, if you are going to run a framework, you have to tell me why your opponents arguments don't fit under that framework and why you do (in addition to why I should pref the framework over util, which is what I will default to).

Theory and Ks:

I am open to these and will vote on them. However, I do think that PFers often read theory when the interp is invalid/the violation didn't really happen because they want to run "cool progressive" arguments. Also, running theory just because you know your opponents won't understand it technically and you can get an easy win is a really terrible thing to do. If it is clear this is the reason you are running the theory, you will get 0 speaks. That said, I love interesting rounds and progressive argumentation so as long as your not forcing it to pick up an easy ballot, go ahead!”

That’s it for me. If you have any further questions please feel free to ask before the round begins—if you’re truly unsure, it’s probably wise that you do.

I have more than 3 years judging experience.

I prefer speakers not speak too fast and use understandable talk speed.

Quality of arguments.

Communucation with Quality.

Professional decorum.

I am a parent judge. I have judged LD and PF in the past years and like both formats.

Please email me your cases so that I can better understand what you are speaking in a virtual round: manumishra@yahoo.com

I appreciate well constructed arguments and clear speaking. There is no need to show over aggression in your speeches. Please don't spread but if you do that there is a chance I may not hear you and flow. Yes, I do flow a little though if it is in the context. I consider cross-X sessions also in my evaluation, so be clear when you answer and respectful when you question. Do not interrupt your opponent excessively and let them speak. If I am unable to hear clearly I will not be able to give any credits.

Please respond to all of your opponents arguments with proper justifications. Have proper evidences in support. Be truthful. If I find any indication of falsifying any evidence, that's a disqualification.

Off-time roadmaps are OK. Please stay within the time limits for your speeches.

Be well behaved and respectful to your opponent(s) and enjoy the debate rounds, good luck!

Hello,

My name is Hugo and I’ve been a lay judge for hire for 3 years. I do not have any experience competing as a speaker/debater. Please do not spread or I won’t be able to keep up. Speaking quickly is alright though, but if I can't follow along then I might miss the main point of an argument. Assume I know nothing of the subject. Good luck young debaters.

Donny Peters

20 years coaching. I have coached at Damien High School, Cal State Fullerton, Illinois State University, Ball State University, Wayne State University and West Virginia University. Most of my experience is in policy but I have also coached successful LD and PF teams.

After reading over paradigms for my entire adult life, I am not sure how helpful they really are. They seem to be mostly a chance to rant, a coping mechanism, a way to get debaters not to pref them and some who generally try but usually fail to explain how they judge debates. Regardless, my preferences are below, but feel free to ask me before the round if you have any questions.

Short paradigm. I am familiar with most arguments in debate. I am willing to listen to your argument. If it an argument that challenges the parameters and scope of debate, I am open to the argument. Just be sure to justify it. Other than that, try to be friendly and don't cheat.

Policy

For Water Protection: I am no longer coaching policy full time so I haven't done the type of topic research that I have in the past. I have worked on a few files and have judges a few debates but I do not have the kind of topic knowledge something engaged in coaching typically does.

For CJR: New Trier is my first official tournament judging this season, but I have done a ton of work on the topic, judged practice debates etc.

Evidence: This is an evidence based activity. I put great effort to listening, reading and understanding your evidence. If you have poor evidence, under highlight or misrepresent your evidence (intentional or unintentional) it makes it difficult for me to evaluate your arguments. Those who have solid evidence, are able to explain their evidence in a persuasive matter tend to get higher speaker points, win more rounds etc.

Overall: Debate how you like (with some constraints below). I will work hard to make the best decision I am capable of. Make debates clear for me, put significant effort in the final 2 rebuttals on the arguments you want me to evaluate and give me an approach to how I should evaluate the round.

Nontraditional Affs : I tend to enjoy reading the literature base for most nontraditional affirmatives. I'm not completely sold on the pedagogical value of these arguments at the high school level. I do believe that aff should have a stable stasis point in the direction of the resolution. The more persuasive affs tend to have a personal relationship with the arguments in the round and have an ability to apply their method and theory to personal experience.

Framework: I do appreciate the necessity of this argument. I am more persuaded by topical version arguments than the aff has no place in the debate. If there is no TVA then the aff need to win a strong justification for why their aff is necessary for the debate community. The affirmative cannot simply say that the TVA doesn't solve. Rather there can be no debate to be had with the TVA. Fairness in the abstract is an impact but not a persuasive one. The neg need to win specific reasons how the aff is unfair and and how that impacts the competitiveness and pedagogical value of debate. Agonism, decision making and education may be persuasive impacts if correctly done.

Counter plans: I attempt to be as impartial as I can concerning counterplan theory. I don’t exclude any CP’s on face. I do understand the necessity for affirmatives to go for theory on abusive counterplans or strategically when they do not have any other offense. Don’t hesitate to go for consult cp’s bad, process cps bad, condo, etc. For theory, in particular conditionality, the aff should provide an interpretation that protects the aff without over limiting the neg.

DA's : who doesn't love a good DA? I do not automatically give the neg a risk of the DA. Not really sure there is much else to say.

Kritiks- Although I enjoy a good K debate, good K debates at the high school level are hard to come by. Make sure you know your argument and have specific applications to the affirmative. My academic interests involve studying Foucault Lacan, Derrida, Deleuze, , etc. So I am rather familiar with the literature. Just because I know the literature does not mean I am going to interpret your argument for you.

Overall, The key to get my ballot is to make sure its clear in the 2NR/2AR the arguments you want me to vote for and impact them out. That may seem simple, but many teams leave it up to the judge to determine how to prioritize and evaluate arguments.

For LD

Loyola: I have done significant research on the topic and I have judged a number of rounds for camps.

Debate how your choose. I have judged plenty of LD debates over the years and I am familiar with contemporary practices. I am open to the version of debate you choose to engage, but you should justify it, especially if your opponent provides a competing view of debate. For argument specifics please read the Policy info. anything else, I am happy to answer before your debate.

If you want a circuit judge, you should probably strike me. I'm a very traditional LD judge.

Talking Speed:

- I do not like spreading; please keep speeches at a traditional pace.

- If you spread, I probably won't flow your arguments.

Arguments and Cards:

- I will call for evidence if I am asked to.

- All arguments should have a clear claim, warrant, and impact.

- All cards should be tagged.

Theory/T:

- I do not like theory debates.

- I will absolutely not vote on theory/T.

Plans:

- I generally do not like to weigh offense from plans, but I will if I have to...

- Try and keep the resolution as broad as possible.

Framework:

- I am not well-versed in philosophy so keep it simple for me.

- Tell me why you win framework, and how your arguments link into it.

- I try to be tabula rasa with framework, but I do generally vote util.

I am a lay judge. I prefer clear and coherent arguments to 'quantity' of contentions and references.

However you want to debate in front of me is fine.

I won't require defense in first summary, unless second rebuttal frontlines.

Don't forget to have fun!

PF: please speak at a reasonable pace as I value breath over death. Everything said in Final focus must be in summary and make sure to weigh a lot.