I am an experienced parent judge (3+ years) and most familiar with traditional debate but if it is within the rules I will do my best to judge it fairly. I am interested in hearing what debaters have to say so please be mindful of your speed. If one debater’s argument goes unchallenged then I will assume it is valid. You'll get dropped and the appropriate tournament officials will be notified if you say anything racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc. Good luck and have fun!

I am a traditional judge, who prefer for quality of arguments over quantity.

Please do not speak too fast.

I am a fairly traditional judge with three years of experience (mainly LD, but also Congress and some PF). I do not like overly aggressive spreading. I can handle any debate jargon you throw at me, but I don't appreciate it when people speak lightning fast to try and jam up their opponents.

I am a historian by training, so I expect the contentions to be based in some degree of reality. I can accept that open borders will cause a nation's sovereignty to erode somewhat, for example, but I cannot accept that open borders will lead to a nuclear conflict between two countries. Make sure your contentions are plausible.

TLDR: I'm old and I have experience competing in, judging, and/or coaching LD, PF, Parli, Congress, and Speech. Read the above as, I'm OLD SCHOOL!

Paradigm (for certain events, look for it in BOLD CAPS):

Former Speech competitor (high school & college), well used debate judge and coach. Formerly, Speech Coach & Co-director at Delbarton (you could probably find my earlier paradigm with a search on here) and now working at The Haverford School. The 23/24 school year is my 24th? year involved in this activity in some fashion. I've been doing this too long, give me a reason to keep doing it (partially a joke--what percentage, I'll leave up to you).

SPEECH
In Interp, I am pro-argument, especially after competing at the college level for a couple years. This can really separate you from the opposition. Sometimes, I can break a ranking tie just by which one I liked better. When that happens, I always say something like "I just liked [the 1] better" or "I connected with [those other two] more". If I constantly harp about an issue and you get a 4 or something like that, you should be able to infer why. Also, see the last sentence of my Extemp & IMP expectations section below.

For PA Events, I give you a list of grievances: Phony/Robotic/Overly Practiced or rehearsed gestures, rushed through points, and not letting your jokes/serious moments hit. Sometimes, you have to take your time and let your stories and jokes connect with your audience.

In Extemp & IMP, tie everything back to your thesis. I am not a fan of personal stories/references in the body of a speech unless as witty on-tops in extemp (feel free to use them in AGDs). I quasi-flow speeches, so don't be surprised if a decent chunk of your ballot is just me writing down what you said or what you said with comments (like "Huh?", "What are you doing?" or "Ooooooh! Nice!").

PF
Number of PF Rounds judged in career: Can safely say in the hundreds
Number of PF Rounds judged 23/24 year: 10

I've been judging PF since it began, so I've heard the infamous NBA dress code topic & remember the cancelled mosque topic. I say this because I am very traditional in my approach (i.e., the event was originally created to get folks to debate topics so that a random person from the street should be able to follow), leave LD (even though I have experience there) and Policy (NEVER! NEVER! NEVER!) out of the round.

I am a 50/50 judge in terms of content/argument and delivery. I am big on clash, but don't use that to say that you should win the round because your opponents did not counter Con. 5, Sub 8 or junk like that. If the foundation of your argument is, for example, Utilitarianism and the opposition never talks about it in their rebuttals, then you're more likely to get my ballot. I also like to use standard logic. Also, I hear your misspeaks very easily--maybe even more often than when you say things correctly (according to some). Be careful with word choice. I do like to flow if I have my legal pad with me, it may look more like a Parli flow, but you shouldn't really be looking at my flow anyway.

Cards are starting to get REALLY ANNOYING. Don't just ask for cards all willy nilly. There better be a darn good reason.

I don't mind off-time road maps.

Don't expect disclosures.

See below about speaks.

LD
I heard what I believe is circuit LD at Columbia 2019 while waiting for the PF semis to end. I was extremely disappointed in the speed and the decision to exchange cases before the round because of said speed. So I guess I'm even more traditional here than I am in PF. Debating evidence is fine, but I care just as much (if not more) about the philosophical aspects of the round (give me the Value/Criterion debates). I don't mind off-time road maps. I am a no disclosure judge. See below about speaks.

PF & LD Speaker Points: I don't automatically give 30s to the winners. You really have to earn 28+ scores. So I guess, just like my student's GPA (supposedly), I guess I'm a Speaks Killer. However, I do go along with the crowd as I try to avoid giving sub 25 (I think it's 25) unless you say/do something completely idiotic.

CONGRESS
If you speak later on a bill, I would love it if you referred to others' speeches. I know I am only judging, but you should be trying to convince me to vote on your side of the bill. Seriously treat me as if I am another Congressperson.

Good luck!

I am a fourth year parent volunteer judge. Most of my experience is judging LD. I would appreciate a slower paced delivery. I will be looking for clear points that are maintained throughout the initial presentation, rebuttal and summary.

When I participated in the event, I was generally “traditional” in my approach, emphasizing a few contentions to promote a value with minimal card usage or spreading. That being said, as a judge, I am comfortable with circuit debating as long as the argument(s) being made are still logical in nature and applicable to the resolution. I’m happy to answer any further questions you may have in round.

As personal context, I'm a college student in Philadelphia. In high school, I was involved in forensics for three years, the first of which I spent in PF and the latter two of which I committed to trad LD. I have a good understanding of framework and contention level argumentation, and I do flow rounds. I consider myself tabula rasa and my voting is framed by the framework you give me. I accept any arguments, so long as they are neither offensive nor discriminatory. I'm fine with speed but keep it comprehensible.

Keep the round civil and limit the snarky comments.

elliehan1004@gmail.com

Hi! I'm Matt (He/Him). I did LD for 3 years as my main event but I also did PA Parliamentary and World Schools. I am familiar with PF, but I am admittedly bad at it. I have been the LD Coach at Pgh Central Catholic HS since 2021. I've judged 162 rounds of LD, PF, Parli, and congress over the past 3 years on both the Pittsburgh-circuit level as well as State and National level break rounds.

Upper St. Clair '20 / Pitt '24

email: Matthew.hornak@gmail.com

TLDR: play nice, have fun, run whatever you want. I hate drops, think theory is usually unnecessary, want a strong framework debate, and won't buy impacts in LD that belong in PF/Policy.

NOTES ON DEBATE / CASES:

1. Framework. I understand dropping your frameworks when they are similar and debating them would just waste time. HOWEVER, framework is the heart of LD and what sets it apart from the other debates. Maintain that.

2. I like APPLICABLE philosophy.By all means run out of the ordinary things like Anarchy, AfroPess, Buddhist ethics, whatever you can think of. Just give me convincing reason to care about you bringing it up. Creativity in the framework is only gonna help you if you use it to weigh your impacts and extend it through the round. As for progressive stuff, run a K / theory if you think it'll actually lead to a substantive debate (don't steamroll some poor novice).

3.Evidence Ethics. Use scholarly and reputable sources. Don't expect a singular dropped card to win you a round. That being said, try and directly rebut line-by-line as much as possible. I prefer line-by-line to thematic, overarching arguments. If your opponent calls for evidence, you've got one minute to produce it -- I will heavily consider dropping you full stop for not being able to do so. I don't need you guys to do email chains but I also don't mind them, so do what you want.

4. Extinction/unweighted Impacts. I do not buy extinction impacts. they are inherently unweighable: how will causing or preventing infinite deaths ever be comparable to issues of inequality, justice, and morality? those arguments, if you chose to make them, need to be so excruciatingly clear and logical. After all, LD is rarely talking about the extreme ends of slippery slopes, but the grey area between both sides.

5. Cross-Apply. If you are going to say cross-apply a contention, you need to say more about why I prefer your contention over your opponent. I simply won't flow it and treat it as a drop if you just say "cross-apply" and leave it at that.

NOTES ON SPEECHES / SPEAKING:

1. Speed. I prefer slower, traditional style debate. If you need need need to spread, I can make it work for you, but I'd prefer you avoided it.

2. Speak respectfully. Debate is a space to explore and test ideas. Respect that ability for your competitor as well. Police your speech a little and try and avoid tropes that are easily misconstrued toward offensiveness. Before you come to a tournament, genuinely consider what positions you advocating; even if you are running "main arguments" of the topic, consider how your rhetoric may be implicitly xenophobic, racist, sexist, etc. ((in 2023, I heard "migrants will bring disease and copious amounts of crime" more times than I can count)). If your opponent is being rude and offensive, handle it professionally and if it is a genuine cause of concern for you, let me know privately post round / let tab know.

3. Drops are the necessary evil of debate, but they do not decide my rounds. If your final speech consists entirely of drops, I'm 90% sure I will not pick you up; your arguments are all why your opponent is bad, not why their arguments are bad or yours are any better. I still respect drops because those are the rules, but please don't hinge my decision on that.

OVERALL:

Have fun. not just as in "be happy when you win and remember its all learning Kiddos!!11!" I mean, crack some jokes, make me and your opponent smile! this isn't life or death it's 3 to 5 people sitting in a room way to early on a weekend. make this more bearable pleaseeeeee.

I look for fluency and structure in arguments and speaking. I do enjoy some solid jokes from time to time. And don't forget to live a little. Please also enjoy the competition!

LD: No spread is preferable, I am not Ben Shapiro and neither are you, you can slow down your speaking speed, just a bit. If I cannot understand you, I cannot judge you appropriately.

Not a fan of spreading during LD, even more especially at the JV and Novice levels. Convince me how your case links to the framework. You could win on framework but if the opponent upholds it better than it was for nothing and I will vote for them.

Hi, my name is Neale Misquitta and I am a senior at The Pennsylvania State University studying Energy Engineering with a minor in Environmental Engineering. I have not competed in collegiate debate but in high school, I competed in Lincoln-Douglas and Parliamentary debate primarily. I also competed in Congress, Extemp, and Worlds. I have experience judging all of these as well as Public Forum and Policy.

I like clarity of thought over borrowed argument,

I like cross examination and prompt and accurate reply

I don't mind to give few seconds extra even it goes beyond a minute as long point is being made

I have been coaching and judging for 4 years. I am used to traditional debate in a small circuit. I am able to follow spread within reason, but am more concerned with the effort of your argument. I am not impressed by gimmicks or minutiae. I want to see a strong value in LD and good, logical, well-supported contentions in both LD and PF. I expect debaters to rebut contentions of their competitors and prove to me that they should win because their contentions hold.

Any cases built on any xenophobia will be disregarded and brought up in tab. I expect you to be respectful and understanding, especially during online debates.

I can’t follow you/hear everything if you don't speak succinctly & enunciate. I prefer evidence for your stance & logical counters to your opponent’s views. I’m mostly conservative BUT I am not afraid to live outside the box!! Find an example of your substantive points and show me it is in use in the real world. I am not in need of 'off time roadmaps' I will listen to what you say.

Judging Style: Stock Issues

A stock issues judge believes that the affirmative plan must fulfill all their burdens. If the negative proves that the affirmative is lacking in any one of the issues, it is grounds for the plan to be rejected. Stock issue judges generally prefer a clear, eloquent presentation of issues in round, and dislike arguments that seem to not relate to the topic on the surface.

Decision Making: Based on coherence of evidence, addressing of opponents argument in rebuttal/cross examination.

*Any/all criterion/values that are not addressed will flow through the round and influence decision.

Speaking Style Preference: None, can follow any pace/diction.

This is my second year judging. In order to judge you fairly, I must be able to hear and understand you. Please don't speak too fast and be sure to enunciate. More is not necessarily better when it is redundant. I want to give you full credit for the work that you've prepared so being able to follow your arguments is key. Any arguments that depend on justification of discriminatory ideas will impact my assessment of your performance. I take more of a traditionalist approach, expecting to see the format followed as faithfully as possible.

All debate styles - I do not read shared files until the end if I need to refer to a piece of evidence. Debate is supposed to be understood not read. I do not mind speed but make sure it is enunciated and intelligible. Watch my body language, if you have any questions if I am understanding you....Head down and flowing your speech...I understand you. Watching you without a pen in my hand....you are not making any sense to me and I can not follow your arguments.

Policy (CX) - I am a stock issue judge. Focus on the stock issues and why the AFF does or does not satisfy them. Spreading is okay but make sure your arguments make sense. Do not start a bunch of arguments in the 1 NC just to drop most of them by 2 NC or the 1NR. There are very few times an extinction argument truly works. Do not run one just to run it. Most of the time, it makes the NEG look desperate.

Lincoln - Douglas (LD) - Focus on your value and value criterion. Be clear on why your value criterion is better than your opponent's or why you satisfy your opponent's value criterion better than they do.

Public Forum (PF) - While it is easy to have most everything prepared and ready before the round, do not forget to address your opponents' argument and point out where you are different and why your side is the better choice.

If you have further questions please ask me before the round starts.

sunthar.tharma@gmail.com

Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I welcome clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals

• Be polite to teammate, opponent and judge.
• Speak at a moderate pace; I can only understand what I hear.
• Connect the dots clearly and be organized; don't go down a rabbit hole with your link chain.
• Signpost throughout the speech, slow down when reading taglines, and provide an off-time roadmap.
• Emphasis on stock issues; I will vote for the most persuasive and concise team.
• Interact with opponents' arguments, don't simply extend your case.
• Comparatively weigh; make it clear why your argument is more important.
• Illustrate the big picture in the final rebuttals.
• Narrow down the key issues I should be voting on.
• This will allow me to make a straightforward decision.

Wish you the very best.

email: tyler.wood973@gmail.com

prefs:

I feel comfortable judging: Policy, Trad, T, neolib/cap, MM, Sec, set col, theory

I feel not comfortable judging: PoMo, pess, phil, most non-t affs, 

I hate judging: trix, friv theory

also, I am no longer involved in argument formation or prepping debaters, I have very little background info on the current topic

you must send: interps / plan texts / standards (in a theory shell) / alt text / etc...

it would be nice for everyone if you sent: prewritten analytics / summary of standards (or the whole text) / overviews

I think it's also worth mentioning that I do not like disclosure arguments. I do not think the judge should have jurisdiction to vote on things that happen outside the round, as this is an infinite burden. Of course I can be persuaded otherwise

Bronx: I've started to realize that despite me indicating I'm not involved in prep, debaters continue to read 1ac arguments that require extensive background knowledge and research on contemporary global events, without explanation in the 1ac. I will no longer go on a wikipedia binge to attempt to understand the arguments you are making, I'll simply not evaluate them if the 1ac evidence is insufficient to explain the concept.

If you only have 30 seconds

Policy----X----------------------------------------K

Tech---------X------------------------------------Truth

Read no cards------------------X-----------------Read all the cards

Conditionality good--------------X----------------Conditionality bad

States CP good---------------------------X-------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing----------------------X-------Politics DA not a thing

Always VTL-X--------------------------------------Sometimes NVTL

UQ matters most-----X---------------------------Link matters most

Fairness is a thing-X------------------------------Fairness isn’t an impact

Try or die---------------X--------------------------No risk

Clarity-X--------------------------------------------I’ll just read the docs

Limits--------------------X--------------------------Aff ground

Presumption------X--------------------------------Never votes on presumption

Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev

"Insert this rehighlighting"----------------------X-I only read what you read

Judge kick good-------X----------------Judge kick bad

3 minutes of theory preempts-----------------------X-a short U/V seems fine

Quick thoughts

Hi, I'm Tyler, I debated for La Salle College in PA for 3 years and am a second year out. When I debated I was mostly a disclosure/T/Plan debater. I ran some Kritiks, like cap, neolib, and a brief stint in MM and security, but not much else. My favorite 1a was 1-2 advantages, plan, framing, short UV. My favorite 1n was t/theory, 2 da, 1-2 cp, case. 

For online tournaments:

please don't go top speed. I haven't judged circuit tournaments recently, and I have a really difficult time understanding things over zoom. It's much easier if you start slower and work up to 200-250 (please nothing over that). I'll say clear 2-3 times but after that I'll flow what I can hear and won't look at the doc.