LD paradigm:
Clash - I don't weigh contentions equally - if you establish why one contention is particularly important to the resolution I might weigh it more than another contention.

Flow - I follow flow pretty closely but its not necessary in my mind to match every piece of evidence with a counter piece of evidence, but each contention and subpoint should be countered.

Framework/Value Criterion (VC)- Any framework/VC is fine but if you don't explain why choosing your framework/VC means the contentions go your way or should push me towards/against the resolution winning the framework/VC might not be valuable to you.

Evidence - You have to read enough of the card to establish it says what you are claiming it says or summarize it. Saying the date of the card and a cursory conclusion is not sufficient.

Speed of Delivery - Speak as fast as you like but if you are so fast that I can't clearly hear/understand your points I won't be able to track them on the flow and you will likely get less credit for them. I used to debate, my hearing is fine and I don't care about delivery so you can go fairly fast but if you speak to the point where you start slurring/sounding like a machine gun you probably are going to end up with contentions that I am just not clear what you said and will give greater credence to your opponents' counters. Also see my comment on Flow - I won't give you a contention just because you have 4 pieces of evidence to their 3. If they provide better reasoning or have stronger/better cards I will award someone with fewer pieces of evidence the contention.

Tldr: I competed in policy debate and public forum debate for all four years of high school. Go for whatever you want as long as it’s not offensive and it’s explained well. Make sure you’re respectful to everybody and have fun!

Pittsburgh Central Catholic ‘23

Pitt ’27 (not debating)

hudsonnoah0482@gmail.com (please include me on any email chain)

PF: Good impact calc/weighing will help you win the round. Especially love pre-req arguments. This goes beyond just having a large number and repeating it. Make sure you have a clear link story that’s explained well and you should be fine. Everything needs to extended properly for you to go for it in final focus. A good comparison of arguments will be valued highly. This means not just repeating your argument and your opponents’ arguments, but explaining why your argument is better and why it matters. I don’t flow cross-ex but I’ll definitely pay attention. Off time roadmaps are fine, just make sure your speeches are organized. As the debate comes to an end you should limit the amount of arguments you go for. You should not be going for 5 arguments on each contention in FF.

Policy: It’s been a while since I’ve done policy, so make sure you explain everything clearly. Tech>truth. If something is conceded you still have to explain it and why it matters. Make sure you extend all arguments you plan on going for later. To be honest, I’m not too great with Ks. I’ll still definitely vote on it, you just need to make sure you’re clearly explaining everything, that includes any jargon. Make sure you have strong and preferably specific links to everything. Good impact calc will help you win a da. Probably won’t vote off of T unless if the plan is super abusive. Still feel free to run it.

· Speak clear and slow.

· Be respectful and appreciative of others.

· Don't rush but rather emphasize on points that according to you are more important than others.

Thank you and looking forward to a great debate.

My strength is as a speech judge, so I prefer debate rounds where strong communication is utilized. I typically go into my first round not knowing background on the topic so I can be prepared to be convinced. All other things being equal, I am likely to vote on impacts. Don't expect to win me over by niggling about definitions. I value: roadmaps, clarity, evidence, and respectful argumentation. Dislikes: spreading, gish galloping (I admit I had to look that one up, I just knew I wasn't going to like it. Yup. Don't do that).

After wide experience as a speaker and debater during my elementary and secondary education, I have subsequently served as a volunteer coach and judge both during my university career and beyond. After completing my graduate degree, I embarked on an international career spanning several decades and five continents, during which I not only drafted and composed speeches for senior UN officials, but also represented the United Nations myself as a speaker in a variety of fora and media.

Although debating formats have changed dramatically since I participated in the event decades ago, I have attempted through both observation and coaching to keep abreast of developments in the newer forms that have emerged more recently. Obviously, I still tend to prefer the more traditional style of debate with which I am most comfortable, but I am always open to expanding my horizons.

As someone who has broad experience in both speech and debate, I tend to value argument and style equally. While the strength of an argument can be paramount, its eloquent delivery can ensure that it is communicated effectively. In addition, even though the vigorous presentation of an argument can be more convincing, civility in the adversarial process remains something to be cultivated and cherished.

Please speak loudly and clearly. A moderate pace is fine, but speed through it, and you'll lose me. I appreciate solid sources and statistics, especially in debate. Speech topics can hit an emotional chord, but don't be afraid to use humor.

Hi, I've been judging for around a year now.

I will judge you based on what I can understand; please please please NO spreading.

I enjoy well thought out questions which really make your opponent's wonder.

I will not tolerate any sort of disrespect, be it to the audience or any of your opponents.

When your opponent is speaking, please make sure you are actually listening to them and not mocking or interrupting them in any sort of way.

My topmost criteria, in judging is:

1. defending your argument during questioning.
2. Good delivery of your speech.

Remember to enjoy yourself and have fun! :)

Regardless of speech or debate, all competitors should emulate good sportsmanship and be respectful during the competition. Examples of what this means:

> Paying attention while your opponent/competitor is presenting. (NOT goofing off on your phone or talking with a friend in the room).

> Being respectful and courteous, whether after a presentation or during debate cross-fires.

Debate Event Specific: Clear articulated and respectful debates. The pace of speaking should not be so rapid that the judge cannot clearly discern arguments being made. Additionally, while debate clashing is key, debate is still an exercise of public speaking, so be mindful of presentation skills.

Hey, my name is Justin Thomashefsky and I'm a coach at Truman High School. I competed in LD/PF from 2008 - 2010 and Policy during the 2010-2011 season. I've been judging / coaching debate since 2012 and have circuit Policy/LD experience

General debate things

I'm good with speed.

I'm good with K's (see policy for more info)

Disclosure theory is pretty meh to me. But if you make good arguments on it I guess ill vote for it.

Please analyze warrants in your evidence! This should go without saying.

Policy

I'm much more comfortable judging a policy round but I have a decent amount of experience judging critical rounds.

T - I default to reasonability but you can definetly convince me to evaluate competing interps if you win it on the flow. You need to win in round abuse to get my ballot. This goes extra for theory

K - I'm familiar and comfortable with standard K's (security, capitalism etc.) but you may lose me with high theory literature.

Please frame my ballot in your last speech. It should be clear what I'm voting for at the end of the round.

Open cross is fine but let your partner speak!

LD

For lay rounds: Debate warrants! Don't waste time on the Value/VC (Meta-ethic/standard) debate if you're both functionally the same framework. All the framework debate should come down to is what lens I should evaluate the round through

For circuit rounds: I'm not huge on the squirrel theory stuff that's been going on in circuit LD. I'll try to evaluate whatever you put in front of me but just like with T you really need to win in round abuse to get my ballot. For the rest just read policy stuff

I prefer to see lay rounds in LD. So if you're at a tournament with me that has a weird mix of lay and circuit you might want to default to lay. BUT I'll weigh whatever arguments you put in front of me in any style.