I have been judging tournaments for the past 20 years in both L-D and PF. I am more of an old school judge. In L-D I like value clash, but I do place more emphasis on the contentions rather than the value clash. I generally do not like debates that center around the definitions...note the difference if it occurs and move on. Either I am buying one side or the other, but do not spend the round focusing on just the definitions. Not a fan of spreading or other aspects that have bled over into L-D and PF over the years. However, if the person can spread and do it well (I have judged only a few students capable of this over the years) then I can live with it.. I also have no problem with the negative running a balance case.

Hi, I’m Dylan (he/any). I competed in PF at James River(‘22) mainly on the VHSL circuit and a few online natcirc tournaments. I was a mediocre debater but I love this activity and my coach (Castelo) is awesome. My email is mcentyredylan89@gmail.com. Reach out if you have any questions or if there’s anything I can do to make the round more accessible.

General

- I evaluate rounds from an offense-defense paradigm and you only need one piece of offense to win. Rounds come down to either A) one piece of offense and who has the best link in or B) two pieces of offense and which outweighs. The difference between these rounds is that round A comes down to link weighing and round B comes down to impact weighing. Either way, all rounds come down to weighing. Saying “we outweigh on magnitude” is not real weighing. Please do the comparative analysis and tell me why your world is preferable over your opponents.

- Judge instruction is the best way to ensure a decent decision. I’ve made bad decisions before and don’t want to again. I will think my decision through and do my best not to intervene because y’all deserve it and I don’t want to think about this round for months.

- All arguments need to be warranted and implicated. A response may be good but it won't matter if you don't tell me what it means for the round and my decision.

Specifics

- Extensions don't need to be super in depth, but you should be extending each part of the argument you collapse on even if it’s functionally conceded.

- There shouldn’t be any brand new analysis in the final speeches.

- If you want an argument to be evaluated then you should say it in each speech with the obvious exception of restating case arguments in rebuttal

Speed?

- I flow by ear and you should not trust me to flow well off a doc. I can keep up with ~275 wpm but not with real spreading

Speaker points

- I give speaker points based on strategy and clarity and tend to be somewhat generous. I start around 28.5 and go up or down from there.

Kritiks

- If you read a K, I need to know who does the alt, what doing the alt actually entails in literal terms, and how the alternative solves the harms outlined in the K.

- Now, my opinion on whether or not Ks work well in PF does not matter at all but I’ll add this..if the rules of the event do not let you specify who does the alt and what doing the alt entails then I don’t think the K is the best strat. Speech times also make it difficult. I think framing and kritikal-esque arguments can work but the specifics of K debate become strange in PF. I think this is probably because the format was designed to not let K debate happen. Are kritikal arguments important? Yes, definitely, but I think they work better in LD and policy.

Theory

- Disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad but I really don’t care if you do either as long as you have cut cards and aren’t a douche.

- If the problem could’ve been solved by contacting tab or your opponents then it’s probably not worth our time. If you contact them and they still violate the interp then go for it but you should have screenshots. You should also be able to clearly explain the in-round implications of the violation.

~~~~~~~~~~~

I’ll disclose my decision and can disclose speaks if you ask. Postround respectfully if you want. I'm here to learn and improve just as much as y'all are.

On arguments. I appreciate arguments that acknowledge the complexity of the imperfect world we live in. There are no perfect solutions to the issues we debate, so I find it disingenuous to pretend otherwise. These issues are complicated; approach them with compassion and nuance. In LD, this means I really want you to lean into the lens of your value. Engage with your opponent's arguments authentically, don't twist their words or intentionally misconstrue what they are saying for a "technical gotcha."

On delivery. Slow down. I know it's not speech, but I'd like your delivery to add something. I don't want to feel like I would have been better off simply reading your argument. Consider variance in tone, tempo, and volume. Pauses separate ideas and can add emphasis.

On losing me. I will question your entire argument if you use logical fallacies, outdated research, or clearly unreliable sources. Do not use arguments that rely on racism, sexism, classism, etc. You will lose my respect if you attempt to intimidate your opponent.

About me. I'm an English teacher who loves cats, books, and learning new things. I value passion and creativity in others. Kindness and compassion are more important than the win.

I am a “lay” judge who prefers traditional debate. I expect clear arguments with specific evidence, delivered at a reasonable pace. If you speed through the arguments I will not be able to flow the cases and thus, not have any idea how to weigh your arguments. I will vote for the team that can provide the most logical evidence and clear links to the impact of their arguments. Please make it clear WHY I should vote for your side at the end of the round in those final speeches. Do not use debate jargon- I don’t know it, so it will not help your case. All debaters should track their time. I expect courtesy and kindness from everybody in the round. Let me know if you have questions.

I'm a former policy debater (1990-94) and competed on the national circuit, but I'm relatively new to LD. I'm also a law professor with a phd in political philosophy.

If there's an email chain, please include me. Email is: micah.schwartzman@gmail.com.

I'm open to pretty much anything in terms of philosophical/policy arguments. But other things equal, I prefer debates that are on topic for the resolution. If you're running philosophical arguments that you don't really understand, I will be open to commonsense refutations of them. I have limited patience for tricks/gimmicks.

Spreading is fine, but with two conditions: (1) your spread has to be intelligible, and (2) don't use it to abuse or embarrass a lay team. If your spread isn't clear, I will let you know. But if I can't understand you, then I won't flow the arguments. And I usually judge a debate based on my flow.

Dharini J. Trivedi, BA History 2020

George Mason University Honors College

First Colonial High School Legal Studies Academy

Hi, I'm Dharini! I'm a 25-year-old business intelligence analyst working in the supply chain industry. I was on the speech and debate team at First Colonial High School in Virginia Beach, VA from 2012-2016, and I love the sport with my whole heart. I've judged at my alma mater, GMU, invitationals in the Richmond area, and VHSL regional tournaments.