School Affiliation: Carrollwood Day School

Judging Event: LD and Public Forum

When judging, I will award points on effectiveness of argument, consistency of logic, use of data, references, and clear communication.

I will take notes as a reference for myself when scoring.

In cross examination, I look for respect and thoughtful counter-arguments and data/references to the opponents arguments and that you demonstrate both listening and an understanding of the opponents argument.

Substance is an important element in the overall evaluation, as is the effectiveness of communication and argument.

Good luck to all, this is a great accomplishment and you should all be proud!

I am a lay judge. I typically look for classic argument.

Some tips for success:

1) Speak clearly. If I do not understand your argument, I cannot vote positively.

2) Be sure to support your position with facts. I will be looking for facts.

3) Use credible sources.

3) Be attentive and respectful to your colleagues and judges.

4) Remember to keep track your own time.

Follow the rules of competition

Respect the other side and all team members and their position on topic.

Track your time

Speak Clearly

Former LD debater with some experience in PF and Congress. Flow judge. I make a point of being as much of a blank slate as I can, but I'm only human. K's, theory, and everything else is fully on the table, but considering how long it's been you shouldn't assume I know Habermas's or Foucault's arguments by heart. Off-time roadmaps are perfectly acceptable.

I haven't been in the debate space for a few years, so my ability to understand spreads is a bit rusty. I'll try my best to keep up with y'all, but... speedrun your construction at your own risk.

I'll try to be in our room early, so feel free to ask me any questions about my paradigm before the round!

Email: quinn.foster@gmail.com

To all competitors

About me: I have an engineering background with a bachelor's degree from FIU and a master's degree in Engineering Management from FIU. I pay attention to flow and supporting data behind each contention and rebuttals

Please speak clearly. I prefer not to have off the clock road mapping.  I am not trained in spreading. If you choose to use this technique and I cannot understand you, I will not be able to judge appropriately.  Do your best, maintain good eye contact and be respectful throughout the debate.  Most importantly, enjoy the debate

I typically can't hear/follow full speed spreading. If I can't hear you I will yell clear.

I will listen to any arguments I understand. If you are running progressive arguments I expect clear explanations for every part of the case. You can read tricky arguments but if I can't hear them I will not vote on them.

Traditional approach is probably best.

I value tech over truth, once again as long as the argument is explained to me.

During rebuttals I expect clear, heavy impact work. Explain how your arguments interact with theirs and tell me why to vote for you.

Inexperienced lay judge.

• Please state your points with clarity and evidence.
• Have clear communication and go over your reason of why we should lean towards your position for this resolution.

As always, I expect that all competitors conduct themselves with the upmost respect to their opponent, the judges, and themselves. I would prefer if competitors would stand when speaking, whether it be for a speech or performing cross-examinations. Additionally, keeping the tone of your speeches and/or rebuttals more conversational with an appropriate cadence is always conducive to a deeper and more comprehensive debate or speech. Competitors are not permitted to ask me questions about the results or my opinion on the round after it has concluded.

School Affiliation: Carrollwood Day School

Judging Event Types: Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum

When I am judging, I will be awarding points based on effectiveness of argument, use of references/sources and clear communication. I look for respectful and thoughtful counter-arguments and sources/references to the opponents' arguments to demonstrate that real listening and understanding of the opponents' arguments occurred.

I welcome any roadmap or outlines to provide a clear walkthrough of what will be presented.

I also look for verbal communication - pitch, tone, and pace (no spreading) and non-verbal communication - eye contact, body language, use of space, hand gestures.

I vote off the flow. I don't mind debate jargon, but I may ask you to clarify some terms. Don't spread or talk too fast (200 wpm is the max where I can still catch everything you say). I will ask you to slow down if I'm missing arguments. I may ask you after the round for cards and evidence, so don't run out of the room until I've let you go. Be respectful in cross. I will not tolerate Ad Hominem attacks (attacks against your opponent and not their argument). I do not like theory arguments that are off topic and trying to be "clever" to win on technicalities. I will likely not vote on it, especially if you are abusing it.

LD: I have a background as a philosophy professor. Please make your value and value criterion clear and carry them throughout the round. Don't turn this into a 1 person policy round. I prefer more traditional LD arguments. If you are going to try to tell me that mass extinction is good, for example, it better have some hard evidence and strong logic backing it up.

PF: Make sure your arguments all make logical sense. I probably will not vote on Kritiks or weird theory. I prefer you have evidence to back up your claims but it is not always needed for logical arguments. Please present me with clear impacts and carry them throughout the round.

Feel free to ask me questions after round (if this is a tournament where judges disclose), but know that I have already submitted my ballot so please don't try to convince me why my decision was wrong. If you want to set up an email chain, my email is josephmpergola@gmail.com

I am a lay judge but have experience in law

I judge with an emphasis on you maintaining a speaking speed and pronunciation level which i can fully understand, i care about what you are saying so please make it clear.

I'm partial to crossfire and will make my decision accordingly

I'm also partial to statistics. For example, if both parties are making the same point but one gives numbers and the other doesn't, I will see that the one with statistics took that point.

Timing and Signals: For IEs (and upon request from debaters) I will provide standard time signals (2 minutes left = 2 fingers, 1 minute left = 1 index finger, 30 seconds = making a "C" shape with one hand, Time Up = Fist). If a competitor continues speaking for ~3-5 seconds after time is up, I will verbally instruct them to stop, as this is abusive to your opponents (this will also result in a .5 speaker-point infraction). I will not verbally stop competitors if I am part of a judge panel, but the speaker point infractions will continue to accumulate the longer a speaker extends their speech beyond the event category time limitations.

For Extemporaneous (EXT) speakers: I find substantive information related to your topic (facts, history, expert opinions, etc.) more compelling than personal experience or how the issue impacts you personally.

For Congressional (CON) speakers: I value presentation of new issues over new facts about the same issues and especially more than a repetition of previously raised points. Also, I am judging you not just on your public speaking prowess, but even moreso I am ranking you based on your ability to move legislation in your preferred direction.

I prohibit any "off-the-clock" rules explanations, road-mapping or argumentation. For example, if a debate competitor wants to clarify that no new arguments can be introduced in rebuttals, they must use their speech time to do this, and NOT the opponent's prep time or their own prep time. This includes any attempt to "clarify" something after the round has ended. I will prohibit this and politely ask the competitor to cease their "off-the-clock" communication. There are speaker point deductions associated with this behavior. The amount of the deduction depends on how egregious the off-the-clock communication is in the context of the round (example: disruptions of an opponent's prep time is seen as a serious violation of this paradigm).

Competitors will be penalized if they negligently cause other competitors to be disrupted (e.g. phone or laptop noises during opponent's speech). Competitors that purposefully disrupt another speaker will be automatically disqualified from winning the round, and will suffer penalization to their scores.

"Spreading" arguments will not result in material point gain if the arguments raised are not fully supported or are presented haphazardly. I can reasonably flow complex arguments at a 7/10 spread rate. Anything higher becomes increasingly incomprehensible.

Debate Argumentation Weight: I weigh evidence-based argumentation relative to the analytical point debaters are making. This means, neither evidence alone, nor analytical arguments are fully persuasive. For LD specifically, I give the most weight to argumentation that is expressly related to Value/Criterion frameworks (e.g. arguments that support your V/VC, undermine your opponent's V/VC or prove that you meet your opponent's V/VC better than they do).

For Policy (CX) and Lincoln Douglas (LD) events, I prefer the Affirmative to present to my left (Competitors' right) and the Negative to present to my right (Competitors' left). For Public Forum Debate (PFD), Pro to my left, Con to my right.

A note on "Cap K" arguments For Policy (CX): I have yet to find an anti-capitalism kritique ("cap K") argument compelling or persuasive. It is never an automatic loss to run a cap K, but debaters that run it have a steep hill to climb when I am their judge. The issue with cap K argumentation is that it these arguments reek of inauthenticity; and thus, the speakers presenting the argument lose credibility. The core of the "K" argument is that an issue is SO important, that it supersedes the more limited topic/resolution and so the judge should disregard the topic/resolution limitations and focus on the REAL issue - in this case Capitalism's shortcomings/unsustainability/immorality/etc. In essence, the debaters running K are using the Policy Debate medium to make an advocacy speech. A desperate real-world call-to-action. The issue for me, is that the cap K arguments ring extremely hollow. After all, it's hard to take a cap K seriously when it is being delivered by debaters wearing business suits (the unofficial uniform of Western Capitalism) and reciting their constructive argumentation from $1,500 laptops. Its also hard to be persuaded by an advocacy speech when we all know the same team running cap K is all too happy to defend the merits of Capitalism (or at the least recommend incremental policy changes to its current structure) when they draw the other side of the resolution. If the issue is indeed so important that it merits perverting the actual topic/resolution, then an authentic, credible advocate would forfeit the Affirmative and instead utilize their constructive speeches to present the same cap K advocacy they present on the Negative. If it is not so important, then debaters ought to respect the medium and debate the actual topic/resolution. TL;DR: run cap-K at your own risk.

Hello All,

I am a first year debate judge associated with Admiral Farragut. I have a Bachelors degree in Chemistry with a minor in Psychology. While I do not have a background in debate, I am familiar with speech and presentations from Student Government Associations. At the end of all final speeches please make sure to include a transparent voter/impact analysis. In general, I do not recommend spreading. If I cannot understand or hear you, I cannot judge you. Lastly, I prefer thorough definitions, references, and defined argumentative points. Good luck to all competitors, I look forward to hearing from you.