For Lincoln-Douglas:

I am a traditional judge and since this is the local circuit, I frown upon any form of progressive arguments.

A few preferences;

1. First and foremost, do not spread. I will miss things that you are saying if you speak too fast and this will not be in your favor.
2. Please number and letter your contentions so that I can follow you.
3. Do the same for your final speeches - outline your voting issues clearly and convince me why you should win.
4. Finally, be respectful to your opponent and enjoy the round!

I did LD for 2 years and coached for another two at Pittsburgh Central Catholic. I am now coaching debate at Oakland Catholic High School, and this is my first year back in a few years.

I'll vote on anything. However, if you're going to go for something, it must be extended in each speech. You should try and write my ballot for me at the end of the round by giving me 2-3 of your best arguments and going for them. If I look confused it is because I am confused, so try to not do that. I pay attention to cross x, but I don't flow it.

Be confident but don't be rude, there's a big big difference. I prefer that you have more offensive (your flow) than defensive arguments (your opponents flow), but you need to have both in order to win the round.

I will let you know if you are going too fast.

If you have any specific questions let me know and I'll be sure to answer them before the round.

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

Please do not speak too fast.

pelder@vt.edu

Public Forum

I debated at Central Catholic for 4 years all in PF. I wasn't that good but I have enough experience that you can consider me a good judge. Im gonna flow the round so cover your bases. Try to write your ballot for me. Basically to win you need to give me clean link extensions and weighing in summary and ff. For summary and ff pick 1-2 of your best arguments and go for them to win the round. Im much more likely to pick you up if your speeches at the end are well organized and keep it simple. The rest of this is things I don't like but do whatever you want and ill judge it.

PLEASE DO NOT MAKE THE DEBATE ABOUT QUANTIFICATION OF NUMBERS. My philosophy is probability and scope >magnitude, so make of that what you will. If you give me a number, the number has to be two things. A.) It needs a link to not only the event causing the number, but a link to the number via the event. Basically tell me how the event in question causes your number. B.) It has to be weighed against your opponents impact.

Evidence Drops- It does not matter if the other team drops a piece of evidence you read if you don't tell me why it matters. I.e. what does dropping that specific piece of evidence do to your opponents case/argument.

Im not listening to cross, if you bring up something important bring it up in your speech or literally tell me to listen during cross. That goes for your speeches too. If I look bored its because I am. Literally tell me to listen or tell me hey you're gonna want to write this down before you say something really important if I look bored.

With that being said, please make the round entertaining. Be interesting, make jokes, have fun with it. If you make me laugh I guarantee ill give you 30 speaks.

Lastly, be nice to your opponents. I don't want to listen to a screaming match. If you're being rude to your opponents promise you Ill find a way to drop you.

After the round, please feel free you or your coaches to email me about the round pelder@vt.edu

If you have any questions please let me know!

LD

Spend less time on framework / value criterion. I don't understand it so go more off of case.

POLICY

If you have the opportunity to, please strike me. The only level of policy experience I have is watching teammates of mine compete. Please if we’re online do not spread, it’s gonna be hard enough for me to understand what’s going on so don’t make it harder. At the end of the day just make it clear why you think you won. No theory, etc I’ll probably drop you. If you guys do an email chain add me pelder@vt.edu

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.

Email chain, please! jkk34@pitt.edu

he/him

Pittsburgh Central Catholic '21 (currently coaching)

If I am judging you in debate, please keep in mind that I am not trained in any style of debate. Please go slow, please warrant your arguments, and please refrain from using jargon.

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 was my school's debate coach for five years and have been judging both public forum and Lincoln Douglas debates during that time period.  I am now retired but continue to judge for my former team. 

While I am ok with speed, please do not spread and be careful that you enunciate clearly.  If I can't understand what you are saying, I won't be able to flow your speech and I will be frustrated at the end of the round. 

I do work my way down the flow and prefer that debaters argue in the order of the flow.  I do pay attention to dropped points but only if there is additional commentary on why the drop is important. Organizational skills matter so please go in the order that items were mentioned and try not to bounce around. If a round is close, I do consider voting issues to be a good way to break ties so please leave yourself enough time to include them.

I also expect all competitors to be respectful of each other. I will dock points for outwardly rude or arrogant behavior.

I am a member of Duquesne University's debate team. I mainly do Parliamentary debate, but I also participate in speech events. I often like to flow during rounds, and I am a blank slate regarding preferences. I chose the winner based on the logic and evidence provided in the round. I just ask that competitors be respectful to one another, especially during crosses.