Rean's Judging Paradigm

Overview:

The things you are probably looking for:

1. Speed: I’m fine with whatever you are comfortable with--no need to try to impress me.
2. Performance: I do not want to see a performance (deal-breaker). I took debate extremely seriously, and I only want to see your creativity showcased through your strategy and your arguments; however, a relevant and cutesy pun here and there will be well-appreciated.
3. Pre-dispositions: Please do not make arguments that you do not understand/cannot explain in order to fill the time or to confuse the opponent—I will definitely take notice and probably will not vote for you. Keep things well researched and logical and everything should be fine.
4. Sportsmanship: Please always be respectful of your opponents. Mean-spiritedness is not a way to show me you’re winning. Even though I will always vote for the better arguments, if you display signs of cruelty towards your opponent, your speaker points will suffer.

Make sure you have great links…nothing worse than sitting through a round where no one understands how any of the arguments relate to the topic!

Specifics:

1. Disadvantages: Unless if your strategy is extremely sophisticated/well thought out/well-rehearsed (I have encountered quite a few when I competed), I think you should always run at least 1 DA.
2. The Counterplan: If done well, and the strategy around them is logical and thought-out, these are generally winners. If done poorly and you just inserted one to fill the time, I will be sad and bored.
3. Procedurals/Topicality: I love a good meta-debate, and I am open to these if you guys have a solid strategy around these arguments (for example: if your opponents are illogical/made mistakes, point that out to me). However, I usually see T’s used as generic fillers, and I will not vote for a generic filler.
4. The Kritik: Love Ks if done well and showcases your knowledge of the topic and argument. However, if I can sense that you don’t know what you’re talking about, running a K might hurt you.

Overall, have fun (I understand how stressful this event can be), show me you're prepared, and always try to learn something.

• My job as a judge is to be a blank slate; your job as a debater is to tell me how and why to vote and decide what the resolution/debate means to you. This includes not just topic analysis but also types of arguments and the rules of debate if you would like. If you do not provide me with voters and impacts, I will use my own reasoning. I'm open all arguments but they need to be well explained.

• My preference is for debates with a warranted, clearly explained analysis. I do not think tagline extensions or simply reading a card is an argument that will win you the debate. In the last speech, make it easy for me to vote for you by giving and clearly weighing voting issues- these are summaries of the debate, not simply repeating your contentions! You will have the most impact with me if you discuss magnitude, scope, etc. and also tell me why I look to your voting issues before your opponents. In terms of case debate, please consider how your two cases interact with each other to create more class; I find turns especially effective. I do listen closely during cross-examination (even if I don't flow), so that is a place to make attacks, but if you want them to be fully considered please include them during your speeches.

Engineer

I am a primary school teacher and l have been judging debates since 2019.

Judge type: independent

I have vast experience in BP, APD, WSDC, Canadian Parliament etc and recently public forum, policy and other formats.

I award speakers based on the quality of content of delivered and slight credit exceptional styles.

I make decision based on logical interactions of arguments where explicit engagements fall short.

I try to right as much as possible but for very pacey speakers l tend to be brief so us to capture as much as l can.

I prefer speakers demonstrate the relevance o evidence as opposed to stating when or where there were use. Contrived examples

I am persuaded alot by real impacts but not all the time, l do give credit to alot of principles arguments as well.

Quality of questions and responses ultimately carry me during cross examination.

I really don't appreciate speakers who lie just to win a debate round.