LD paradigm:
Clash - I don't weigh contentions equally - if you establish why one contention is particularly important to the resolution I might weigh it more than another contention.

Flow - I follow flow pretty closely but its not necessary in my mind to match every piece of evidence with a counter piece of evidence, but each contention and subpoint should be countered.

Framework/Value Criterion (VC)- Any framework/VC is fine but if you don't explain why choosing your framework/VC means the contentions go your way or should push me towards/against the resolution winning the framework/VC might not be valuable to you.

Evidence - You have to read enough of the card to establish it says what you are claiming it says or summarize it. Saying the date of the card and a cursory conclusion is not sufficient.

Speed of Delivery - Speak as fast as you like but if you are so fast that I can't clearly hear/understand your points I won't be able to track them on the flow and you will likely get less credit for them. I used to debate, my hearing is fine and I don't care about delivery so you can go fairly fast but if you speak to the point where you start slurring/sounding like a machine gun you probably are going to end up with contentions that I am just not clear what you said and will give greater credence to your opponents' counters. Also see my comment on Flow - I won't give you a contention just because you have 4 pieces of evidence to their 3. If they provide better reasoning or have stronger/better cards I will award someone with fewer pieces of evidence the contention.

I did public forum for 4 years in high school and have been coaching it for 3 years now. I am going to divide this into 3 parts because I usually judge PF, LD, and policy (occasionally). Also apologies if this is all very long and confusing! If you have any questions, please ask me before the round and I will answer! Or if you have questions about the round after it's over, ask me!

Public Forum

I am okay with speed. However, send me your case if you think you will be speaking fast. I need to understand what you are saying if you want me to vote for you. I like to see clear and clean extensions of your links, warrants, etc. I have been seeing a lot of shadow-extending recently and if it happens in round, I can't vote for you on those arguments, cards, warrants, or whatever it is. You don't need to weigh too much in your rebuttal, but you need to start weighing in summary for me to vote for you. In PF, I prefer a line-by-line debate that has a lot of warranting, making it clear what arguments you are winning, whatever it may be. And make sure to signpost too. For summary, I think that the round needs to be brought down to 1-3 key issues on your side and your opponent's side as to why you are winning and starting impact calc. Basically, summary should be treated as a longer version of final focus. For final, I like impact calc that does a good analysis on both sides, with good warranting with why you win and why you win the impact debate. And don't be rude in the round to your opponents, such as being mean during cross or during your opponents' speeches. I am more likely to vote you down solely based on that.

Lincoln Douglas

I have been judging LD for probably the last 2 years, so I have a lot of experience of the format and how the round works. And also with the background of PF that helps too. My big thing is that I love a framework debate. If you win framework, I am more than likely to vote for you. Because (unless your opponent accesses your framework too), you have the better explanation for why we must evaluate the round based on that interpretation. If both debaters agree on framework, then it becomes a round based on who accesses framework better, becoming more of a standard "line-by-line" debate. If both sides don't discuss framework enough or just drop it, then I will resort to judging it similar to a PF round.

Policy

For the national circuit - I apologize if I am your judge. I will do my very best but please do not spread. I hate spreading and most people doing it aren't amazing at it. I would rather you speak clearly and focus on good arguments.

For the local circuit - I know most of you don't spread, but don't do it regardless.

email - johnevans201413@gmail.com

competitor 1986 - 1990

judge and coach 1995 - present

I am a traditional debate judge.

I do not like spreading in debate rounds. If your delivery is too fast or too unclear, I will not be able to flow vital information. If that information is not on my flow, I cannot make a decision based on it when you tell me that it is a voting issue.

I prefer clash, thoughtful logic, and clear weighing mechanisms in a round.

The primary thing that I will value is following important issues through the round and having meaningful clash on them. I really don't care for evidence battles, I care that you can make your point in a succinct manner and explain why your argument outweighs that of your opposition. Civility is a given, I will not tolerate excessive rudeness to your fellow competitors. As a former debater, I can handle some speed, but prioritize quality far more over quantity of information.

I am the President of the Duquesne debate team and am primarily a Parli debater, but compete in some speech events and LD when possible. For debate, essentially just be persuasive. Use logic and reasoning to back up any statistics and don’t be rude to each other during cross.