The Tabula Rasa and Comparative Advantage paradigms stand out as exemplary models of speech tournament judging due to their respective virtues and strengths, which converge to uphold the highest standards of fairness, rigor, and intellectual engagement in adjudication.

With its commitment to impartiality and intellectual objectivity, the Tabula Rasa paradigm serves as a bulwark against bias, favoritism, and undue influence in speech tournament judging. By approaching each round with a pristine intellectual slate, judges ensure that debaters are evaluated solely on the merits of their arguments, evidence, and performance, free from the distorting effects of personal preferences or preconceived notions. This paradigm fosters a fairness, equity, and transparency culture, instilling confidence in participants that their efforts will be judged with the utmost integrity and impartiality. Moreover, the Tabula Rasa paradigm promotes intellectual humility and open-mindedness among judges, encouraging them to embrace diverse perspectives, styles, and debate approaches, enriching the academic discourse, and fostering a culture of intellectual curiosity and exploration.

Similarly, the Comparative Advantage paradigm embodies the pragmatic ethos of speech tournament judging, empowering judges to discern the relative strengths and weaknesses of competing arguments and performances systematically and rigorously. By employing a comparative framework, judges can adjudicate the dynamic interplay between opposing viewpoints, identifying strategic advantages, rhetorical flourishes, and tactical maneuvers that distinguish one side from the other. This paradigm fosters a culture of excellence and accountability, incentivizing debaters to strive for mastery of their craft and to engage in rigorous preparation and strategic planning. Moreover, the Comparative Advantage paradigm promotes intellectual rigor and critical thinking skills among participants, as debaters are encouraged to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate competing arguments in light of their relative merits and weaknesses.

The Tabula Rasa and Comparative Advantage paradigms constitute a formidable framework for speech tournament judging, embodying the ideals of fairness, rigor, and intellectual engagement at the heart of the debate community. By embracing these paradigms, judges uphold the highest standards of integrity and professionalism, fostering a culture of excellence, accountability, and intellectual curiosity that enriches the educational experience for all participants.

Experience: Competed in LD, Congress & Policy in MS & HS; LD for two years in college. On the IE side, competed in pretty much the entire range of interp and original events, both prepared & extemporaneous, in HS and college. Have judged in middle school, high school, and college circuits off and on over the past 20 years.

For all formats of debate: Remember that at its core, debate is the art of convincing your audience, through civil discourse, that your position on the resolution (aff/neg) should be upheld. Don't be condescending (to your opponent or your audience), but don't expect the audience (and the judge) to do the analysis work for you. Clear arguments in support of your position, with appropriately connected and explained supporting material, will win over simply bombarding me (and your opponents) with a mountain of potential arguments and piles of evidence. Quality can be more important than quantity; you may extend if your opponent drops an argument, but don't necessarily assume a dropped thread or two wins you the round. Speed is fine, but clarity is more important. I need to be able to understand, follow, and flow; I can't give you credit for points I don't catch as you go along, and the art of debate, as a speech activity, is in the oral delivery of your speeches and arguments--not me reading the text [technical issues that may occur in online rounds excepted]. I don't enter any round looking for specific arguments or issues to be addressed; it is up to you to convince me that your argument/proposal/approach/perspective is superior, within the general expectations and framework of the event format.

LD: I'm a flow judge when it comes to LD. The arguments made in round, the clash between those arguments, and how well you support your position and connect your arguments typically weigh heavily in my decision--value clash is an area I find can be key to the overall debate. Ks and CP arguments are fine by me, though I find it is most effective if you can make very clear links when doing so. I will consider theory arguments, but be sure they do in fact specifically connect to what is going on in the round. I'm not a fan of spreading in LD; I won't drop or mark down a debater if they can do it effectively, but I defer to the quality can be more important than quantity idea in this respect. Bear in mind that, at its core, LD debate should be framed through the lens of values and what ought to be. The side that can most effectively argue for their position as a general principle through a compelling value framework is likely to get my vote.

Policy: I take essentially a tabula rasa approach when judging policy/CX debates. While stock issues, disads, etc., can (and very often do) all play a role in making my decision, I am open to hearing from both sides what issues should be weighed most heavily in determining the outcome of the round--as I recognize the importance of each can change not only based on the resolution but also based on the issues that are raised in the course of the round itself. I will entertain theory arguments, but be careful that they don't end up obscuring the arguments you are presenting in support of your side of the resolution or your plan/counterplan/advantages/disadvantages.

PF: I am open to considering any type of argument (progressive is fine), as long as you clearly link it to the resolution. PF is meant to focus on advocating for a position, so don't get bogged down in specific plans or counterplans for implementation. I generally find it hard to consider completely new arguments in summary or final focus. In my experience, I tend to decide rounds based on impacts, so be clear with those and be prepared to convince me that your impacts weigh more heavily than those on the other side. Clash is important. I will consider theory arguments (see first sentence of this section), but I find they can muddle the overall debate if not executed well--just sharing that so you're aware of my perspective.

Hi! My name is Joe, I'm a political consultant and former high school debater (Public Forum, Congress, LD; c/o 2017). I have a professional background in health policy, democracy, and congressional oversight, and I studied public policy and human rights in college and grad school.

Judging priorities: Strong and topical arguments, clear and cogent speaking, constructive debate, respectful exchange, critical thinking.

Preferences: Moderate speaking tempo, clear roadmaps. I keep a detailed flow and appreciate well-structured speeches/rebuttals, but I'm open-minded and generally defer to students on voting issues, framework/value criterion, etc. Technical language or jargon is fine but be careful with acronyms.

• Public Forum: No plans or counterplans, no new evidence in final speeches; cards are essential and subject to judge review if a dispute arises.
• Policy/LD: If used, Kritiks should be carefully integrated with the topic. Students should name and directly challenge relevant aspects of the systems or structures in question.
• Congress: Participation and engagement is my top priority, but I usually prioritize quality over quantity when it comes to speeches.

BACKGROUND:

• HS (4 years) Speech/Congress/Parli/PF. College (1 year). Speech coach (5+ years). Worked with multiple flow debate programs. Debate is fun! 

• DEBATE PHILOSOPHY:

• Debate provides students an opportunity to be passionate advocates on any given topic by means of using clear communication. Utilize unforgettable rhetoric, teach me something new, and always play by the rules. Most importantly, make sure to be extremely respectful of one another!

MY JUDGING CRITERIA:

I am heavy on flow. I love responsiveness and crystalization. Make it easy for me to follow you.

• Jargon: I’d prefer students not use it for purposes of clarity. I’m sure audience members, your judge, and your opponents would appreciate this as well. One of the main ways to receive good speaker points from me is to always treat each other with respect.

• Value: You should always link your arguments to value. Otherwise, your arguments don’t have as much weight from my view. If you can also demonstrate how your arguments work under your opponent's value, that’s a bonus.

• I appreciate off-time roadmaps. I don’t mind “spreading” (fast speaking), but make sure to slow down and enunciate tags and citations. Also, if I find the entirety of your speech to be filled with unnecessary diction, I will frown. Why? Word economy. Lastly, you will note that I stop flowing as soon as the following occurs: information previously stated is being brought up once more, I cannot understand the speaker or your argument is not making sense to me.

• Theory: Not a huge fan of T. If you decide to run theory in your case, do know that I will always make my decision based off of what I feel is most important in debate; the educational experience. I avoid making a decision based off of my own personal beliefs or experiences.

• If you decide to run a Kritik (should the tournament allow it) I would appreciate your case most if it still acknowledges the round. Stressing a K without continuing to be a part of the entire debate is too dull. Not only should you be clear as towards why the other team is diminishing the value of the debate by means of what they are communicating, but you should also demonstrate that you care about the entirety of the debate.

• Throughout the debate, you should aim for pinpointing weak arguments and fallacies. Make it easy for me to flow arguments and be specific. Refer to the flow when covering your opponent's case in rebuttals. More specifically, you should cover all sub-points mentioned in each contention.

• Often times, competitors do not cover an entire contention and generally cover an argument - no. Simplify the process of me disregarding an argument entirely. In rebuttal speeches, cover something that has not been covered before. Do not present old news to the table.

I participated in debate and speech in high school and have 7+ years of experience in judging debate, including several national qualifier tournaments. I appreciate a fast talker, but only if you can still speak clearly. I flow the rounds and tend make decisions after re-reading my notes after the round (likely flowing stock issues as the round goes). Showing respect to your teammate and opposing team is paramount to me, but I appreciate a strongly made/passionate argument. I am looking for the most logical argument overall (what team made the most sense), but ability to explain yourself in your own words and confidence in knowledge are close seconds. If I can tell you know what you are talking about, it will go far. Secondly I appreciate a powerful public speaker who holds my attention and has ability to explain abstract topics with ease and efficiency. I will always vote for the team that made the most sense - even if I don't think that team was "right". I don't love topicality arguments but if it is going to be claimed, claim it early and back it up quickly. I appreciate creativity and confidence.

I am a parent judge, so please refrain from spreading too much. Thank you!