Please speak clearly and maintain an easy pace.

Please avoid interrupting unnecessarily and keep the debate civil.

Enjoy and Happy Debating!!

EXPERIENCE:

I am currently a civil rights trial attorney practicing in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and the Federal Courts. Throughout my career, I have sat as an arbitrator in hundreds of cases.

I am a traditional speech and debate judge.

GENERAL PREFERENCES:

-Quality is more important than quantity.

-Substance over style.

-Be organized—provide road maps.

-I prefer clear, eloquent presentations of the issues in a round.

-Speed is acceptable, but only if clear and concise.

-Direct simple language instead of jargon.

FOR DI/HI:

I like a meaningful teaser that sets the world you are creating and tries to introduce as many characters as necessary to effectively tell the story.

I think introductions should be short and sweet and be more personal.

I like blocking and movement that is used to enhance the story.

I really look for fully developed characters that really listen and react to each other.

For author's intent, I think it is okay to re-interpret a piece if it is within the rules.

I don't have any issue with a curse word if it is used purposefully.

FOR LD/PF/PolicyD/ParliD:

Theory has its place in the right argument, but I prefer you go for substance over theory.

I would rather hear a few cogent arguments, than many quick snippets.

I am fine with speed. I am not fine with spreading by reading paragraph after paragraph at a top speed with zero regard for clarity. Slow down, be clear, and enunciate.

I love cross-examination. I pay special attention to it and think it is strategically valuable.

Make sure to clash with your adversary's arguments and point out dropped arguments. Be specific with your extensions, and remind me why I should care.

Sum up with voting issues, persuasion at the end can secure a win.

FOR CONGRESS:

I look for a healthy combination of entertaining and professional.

Entertaining can look like a lot of different things- from good humor to presenting statistics in a way that keeps me engaged. I really like it when a speech is well organized and gives proper time to each point that is being made. I value clash a lot in congress because that is what makes it interesting past the third speech on a topic. It is very impressive to me if you can prove that you have been paying attention the whole round and have done the research to prove others wrong. Please make sure your clash is professional and doesn't seem aggressive or turn it into a personal attack.

Good luck and have fun!

As a judge, my role is to impartially evaluate the debate and determine the most persuasive argumentation based on the merits presented by each team. Here are the key aspects of my judging paradigm:

1. Fairness and Impartiality: I strive to be fair and impartial in evaluating the debate. I will assess arguments solely based on their quality, without bias or preference for any particular team or argumentative style.

2. Clarity and Organization: I value clear and well-organized arguments that are easy to follow. Debaters should present their points in a logical manner, with clear signposting and transitions between arguments.

3. Evidence and Analysis: I place a high importance on the use of evidence and analysis to support arguments. Debaters should provide relevant and credible evidence to substantiate their claims, and demonstrate critical thinking through thoughtful analysis.

4. Rebuttal and Refutation: Effective rebuttal is key to winning debates. I expect debaters to actively engage with their opponents' arguments, identifying weaknesses and providing counterarguments supported by evidence.

5. Cross-Examination: I encourage debaters to use cross-examination strategically to clarify their opponents' arguments, challenge assumptions, and highlight inconsistencies. I will consider the effectiveness of cross-examination in my evaluation.

6. Respectful Conduct: Respectful conduct towards opponents, judges, and audience members is essential. I will penalize debaters for any instances of disrespectful behavior, including personal attacks or rudeness.

7. Adherence to Rules and Time Limits: Debaters should adhere to the rules and time limits set for the debate. I will deduct points for any violations of rules or exceeding time limits, as these can impact the fairness of the competition.

8. Decision Criteria: In making my decision, I will consider the persuasiveness of the arguments presented, the quality of evidence and analysis, the effectiveness of rebuttal, and overall presentation style. I will strive to provide constructive feedback to help debaters improve their skills.

Overall, I approach judging with a commitment to fairness, integrity, and the promotion of excellence in debate. I aim to provide a constructive evaluation that recognizes and rewards the strengths of each team while encouraging continuous improvement.

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.

I am a traditional judge. I do not prefer Spreading.

UPDATED slightly on 3/2/24:

PLEASE EMAIL ME CASES BEFORE THE ROUND SO IT IS EASIER FOR ME TO FOLLOW THEM: ppaikone@gmail.com. THANK YOU!

Personal Background:

Since 2023, I am the speech and debate coach of George School in Pennsylvania. From 2000-2023, I was a coach of the speech and debate team of University School in Ohio. I have coached and judged virtually all high school speech and debate events over the years, but I’ve devoted the most time and energy to Public Forum debate and Lincoln-Douglas debate. I have experience at all levels: national, state, and local. Probably my biggest claim to fame as a coach is that my PF team (DiMino and Rahmani) won the NSDA national championship in 2010. If any of the points below are unclear or if you want my view on something else, feel free to ask me questions before the round begins.

LD Judging Preferences:

1. VALUE AND VALUE CRITERION: I think that the value and the value criterion are essential components of Lincoln-Douglas debate. They are what most distinguish LD from policy and public forum. If your advocacy is NOT explicitly directed toward upholding/promoting/achieving a fundamental value and your opponent does present a value and a case that shows how affirming/negating will fulfill that value, your opponent will win the round – because in my view your opponent is properly playing the game of LD debate while you are not.

2. QUALITY OVER QUANTITY: I think that speed ruins the vast majority of debaters, both in terms of their ability to think at a high level and in terms of their effective public speaking, which are two things that are supposed to be developed by your participation in high school forensics and two things I very much hope to see in every debate round I judge.

Most debaters cannot think as fast as they can talk, so going fast in an attempt to win by a numerical advantage in arguments or by “spreading” and causing your opponent to miss something, usually just leads to (a) poor strategic choices of what to focus on, (b) lots of superficial, insignificant, and ultimately unpersuasive points, and (c) inefficiency as debaters who speak too fast often end up stumbling, being less clear, and having to repeat themselves.

I would encourage debaters to speak at a normal, conversational pace, which would force them to make strategic decisions about what’s really important in the round. I think it is better to present clearly a few, significant points than to race rapidly through many unsubstantial points. Try to win by the superior quality of your thinking, not by the greater quantity of your ideas.

While I will do my best to “flow” everything that each debater presents, if you go too fast and as a result I miss something that you say, I don’t apologize for that. It’s your job as a debater not just to say stuff, but to speak in the manner necessary for your judge to receive and thoughtfully consider what you are saying. If your judge doesn’t actually take in something that you say, you might as well not have said it to begin with.

Because I prioritize quality over quantity in evaluating the arguments that are presented, I am not overly concerned about “drops.” If a debater “drops” an argument, that doesn’t necessarily mean he/she loses. It depends on how significant the point is and on how well the opponent explains why the dropped point matters, i.e., how it reveals that his/her side is the superior one.

As a round progresses, I really hope to hear deeper and clearer thinking, not just restating of your contentions. If you have to sacrifice covering every point on the flow in order to take an important issue to a higher level and present a truly insightful point, then so be it. That’s a sacrifice well worth making. On the other hand, if you sacrifice insightful thinking in order to cover the flow, that’s not a wise decision in my view.

3. WARRANTS OVER EVIDENCE: If you read the above carefully, you probably realized that I usually give more weight to logical reasoning than to expert testimony or statistics. I’m more interested in seeing how well you think on your feet than seeing how good of a researcher you are. (I’ve been coaching long enough to know that people can find evidence to support virtually any position on any issue….)

If you present a ton of evidence for a contention, but you don’t explain in your own words why the contention is true and how it links back to your value, I am not likely to be persuaded by it. On the other hand, if you present some brilliant, original analysis in support of a contention, but don’t present any expert testimony or statistical evidence for it, I will probably still find your contention compelling.

4. KRITIKS: While I may appreciate their cleverness, I am very suspicious of kritik arguments. If there is something fundamentally flawed with the resolution such that it shouldn’t be debated at all, it seems to me that that criticism applies equally to both sides, the negative as well as the affirmative. So even if you convince me that the kritik is valid, you’re unlikely to convince me then that you should be given credit for winning the round.

If you really believe the kritik argument, isn’t it hypocritical or self-contradictory for you to participate in the debate round? It seems to me that you can’t consistently present both a kritik and arguments on the substantive issues raised by the resolution, including rebuttals to your opponent’s case. If you go all in on the kritik, I’m likely to view that as complete avoidance of the issues.

In short, running a kritik in front of me as your judge is a good way to forfeit the round to your opponent.

5. JARGON: Please try to avoid using debate jargon as much as possible.

6. PROFESSIONALISM: Please be polite and respectful as you debate your opponent. A moderate amount of passion and emphasis as you speak is good. However, a hostile, angry tone of voice is not good. Be confident and assertive, but not arrogant and aggressive. Your job is to attack your opponent’s ideas, not to attack your opponent on a personal level.

PF Judging Preferences:

I am among the most traditional, perhaps old-fashioned PF judges you are likely to encounter. I believe that PF should remain true to its original purpose which was to be a debate event that is accessible to everyone, including the ordinary person off the street. So I am opposed to everything that substantively or symbolically makes PF a more exclusive and inaccessible event.

Here are 3 specific preferences related to PF:

1. SPEED (i.e., SELECTIVITY): The slower, the better. What most debaters consider to be slow is still much too fast for the ordinary lay person. Also, speed is often a crutch for debaters. I much prefer to hear fewer, well-chosen arguments developed fully and presented persuasively than many superficial points. One insightful rebuttal is better than three or four mediocre ones. In short, be selective. Go for quality over quantity. Use a scalpel, not a machine gun.

2. CROSSFIRES: Ask questions and give answers. Don't make speeches. Try not to interrupt, talk over, and steam-roll your opponent. Let your opponent speak. But certainly, if they are trying to steam-roll you, you can politely interject and make crossfire more balanced. Crossfire should go back and forth fairly evenly and totally civilly. I want to see engagement and thoughtfulness. Avoid anger and aggressiveness.

3. THEME OVER TECHNIQUE: It is very important to me that a debater presents and supports a clear and powerful narrative about the topic. Don't lost sight of the bigger picture. Keep going back to it in every speech. Only deal with the essential facts that are critical to proving and selling your narrative. If you persuade me of your narrative and make your narrative more significant than your opponent's, you will win my ballot - regardless of how many minor points you drop. On the other hand, if you debate with perfect technique and don't drop anything, but you don't present and sell a clear narrative, it's highly unlikely that you will win my ballot.

For online debate:

(1) GO SLOWLY. I cannot emphasize this enough. Going more slowly will greatly improve the thoughtfulness of your arguments and the quality of your delivery, and doing so will make it much easier for me to comprehend and be persuaded by your arguments. No matter how many pieces of evidence or blocks or turns or rebuilds you present, if your opponent just clearly presents ONE intelligent point that strikes me as pertinent and insightful, I am likely to side with him/her at least on the particular issue, and perhaps vote for him/her altogether.

(1a) In terms of your case, to be as specific as possible, in the hopes that you will actually heed my words about speed, the ideal PF case should be no longer than 600 words total. If your case is much longer than that, and you go faster in order to squeeze it into 4 minutes, it's highly likely that I will simply not catch and process many of your words - so you may as well not have said them in the first place.

(1b) In terms of the later speeches in a round, be selective, be strategic, and sell me the goods. In rebuttals, give me your ONE best response to your opponent's argument - maybe two responses, at the very most three. In the second half of the round, collapse to your ONE best voting issue and give your ONE strongest reason why it is true and your ONE strongest reason why it should be considered significant. I'm not going to count all your points just because you said them - You just have to make ONE good point count. (But don't try to do that just be repeating it again and again. You have to explain why your opponent's attack on it should be considered insufficient.) And point out the ONE most critical flaw in your opponent's argument.

(2) More advice on presentation: because we are doing debate through Zoom, it is MORE important that you pay attention to your delivery, not less. It's much harder to hold people's attention when you are speaking to them online than when you speak to them in person. (I'm sure you know this to be true as a listener.) So if you just give up on presenting well, you're making the obstacle practically insurmountable. On the other hand, if you put some real effort into speaking as well as you can in this new online format, you'll likely stand out from many of your opponents and your points will likely be understood and appreciated more than theirs.

(2a) Be clear: Do everything you can to be as clear and easy to understand as possible, both in your writing and your speaking.

(2b) Vary your delivery: Indicate what are the most important points in your speeches by changing up your voice. You should emphasize what is really important by changing the pace, the pitch, the volume, and the tone and also by using pauses. Your speech should not be one, long unbroken stream of words that all sound the same.

(2c) Eye contact: I know it's very hard but try to look up at your camera as much as possible. At least try to show me your face as much as you can.

(3) I don't believe that theory or kritiks should be a part of Public Forum debate. If you run either, you will almost certainly lose my ballot. I don't have time now to give all the reasons why I'm opposed to these kinds of arguments in PF. But I want you to have fair warning of my view on this point. If your opponent has not read this paradigm (or is blatantly disregarding it) and runs a kritik or theory in a round and i am your judge, all you need to say for me to dismiss that argument is that PF debate is intended to be accessible to all people and should directly address the topic of the resolution, and then continue to debate the resolution.

Hi, I am a parent. I have judged speech & debate tournaments for the last 3 years with a heavy focus on PF, Parli and Lincoln Douglas debates, but I am not a debater.

PF/PA:

Voting:

I will vote off what you say not how you say it. Please have credible arguments with tangible explanations, essentially, follow common sense. To me, arguments need to be coherent, organized and well articulated. Vague generalities and sweeping generalizations are signs of sloppy thinking.

Off-Time Road Maps:

I am okay with off time road maps, but if you give one, please follow through in the speech.

Speed:

Please speak slowly, clearly, and loudly, if I cannot understand what you're saying, you did not say it.

Timing:

I will keep my own time and will raise a fist in the air to indicate that your speech time is up. I will not flow anything said over time.

Crossfire (PF only):

BE RESPECTFUL IN CROSS FIRE! While I will not vote off of cross-fire I will listen to what you and your opponents say and give feedback based on that.

Evidence:

If you are calling for evidence/cards in PF the card should be readily available for me to review as well should I ask at any point in the round. Prep time should be taken when a card is being read by a team and not while the card is being opened by the other.

Speech

Judged relatively less rounds compared to debates, but love the spontaneity that speech brings !

Debates are won on sound arguments, not technicalities. Focus your time on developing your arguments and refuting your opponent's. Point out inconsistencies with data but do not dwell on them. Maintain professionalism and mutual respect at all times.

I am a civil litigation attorney who appeared in state and federal courts for over 20 years, and have sat as an arbitrator, judge pro tempore or settlement master for Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. I did not participate in debate when I was in school but believe I can be a fair and impartial judge. I have judged a few rounds of parliamentary debate since 2021.