Hey all,

My name is Max Goldberg and I have been an extemper for 4 years at Park City High School. I have broken at tournaments such as Harvard, Longhorn and Blue Key and attended the Tournament of Champions. I have also dabbled in Congress a bit in which I finaled Utah State. My email is maxextemp@gmail.com

EXTEMPERS:

SUBSTRUCTURE>>>>>>>. I will value Substructure the most out of all factors. Then comes Content and finally delivery. I would much rather a bad speech without notes than a good speech with notes. Don't lie, I can tell when you lie. If you forget a source its understandable, forgetting all of them and then lying is ehhh. I prefer narrative AGDs and emotions than bad canned jokes. Just try to have fun with the event. ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION. 2 sources min per point. For IX questions I want a heavy background if needed (I wont dock you for not saying that Russia Invaded Ukraine) For stuff like that, give me info on why the question is relevant. MAKE SURE UR THESIS ANSWERES THE QUESTION AS WELL. No overlap between points; that will make me mad. I don't flow ur conclusion, don't worry too much about it. Second sig, repeat question and answer, tie back to AGD. Don't say something outrageous and I won't care.

Congress:

If we are in like our 4th cycle and Im hearing the same arguments I will tune out and refuse to flow. Bring up new arguments or evidence. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PLEASE REBUTE. Dont be a dick in questioning. Even if there is a key flaw in their argument, don't bring it up in questioning, ask about it but don't argue during questioning. Bring it up in your next speech. I will make note of who stands up when asked to give a speech, priority can be a pain so I will note if yall have a speech but cant give it. In speeches, try not to read word for word from your flow. It becomes much more passionate when its not read word for word. Idc for roleplaying so don't worry about it. FOR MY PO's: keep a strict priority, don't play favorites, make sure you understand the event.

Have fun with it, US Congress is hilarious so idk make this one funny as well.

Literally all other events:

Policy: I don't know crap about policy, treat me as lay judge except that I know basic content. No spreading please. K's can work if you make them very clear. Funny K's are the best AS LONG AS U MAKE THEM VERY CLEAR. This crpa is 2 hours long, make it interesting.

LD:
Uphold ur value and criterion. This is prob lay debate for me.

PF:

Refer to other events. I flow. PLS FOR THE LOVE OF GOD IMPACT WEIGH. Like I will flow but I might miss and if I miss or you do not weight clearly, it wont matter on my flow. Weigh

ALL: I DONT FLOW CROSS. BRING IT UP IN ACTUAL REBUTTALS IF U WANT ME TO FLOW.

Hey, I'm Aidan! I competed in Public Forum and Extemp at Benilde-St. Margaret's School from 2019-2023, primarily on the MN local circuit. I am studying Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Davidson College in NC.

Paradigm for Spring Break Special: NA :)

EXTEMPI don’t have any strong political affiliation, and I’m more than welcoming for political jokes (all in good spirit of course). I value good fluency, good rhetoric, and good tags. Extemp should be entertaining. Obviously, make sure your links are clear, and have good content and evidence. Anything over 7:20 will probably have you ranked down. 7 minutes is the limit and grace is to help you finish your last sentence or two. Please follow good structure, 99% of your extemp speeches should have 3 points. Anyways please be yourself, as a competitor I can easily tell when you try use canned jokes that don’t fit.

DEBATE (PF, LD, hopefully not CX)

My paradigm is 100% based on ms. kanza jafri's paradigm. she perfectly explains how i view debate:

I'm a Tabula Rasa judge so I rely on the debaters and the flow to set both the validity of arguments and the role of the ballot. That means that I'll accept any argument until the other side contests it with argumentation or theory and puts it into play. I really enjoying seeing the rebuttals is weighing of impacts and holistic evaluation that inform my ballot. Evidence is important, but every argument should also have analysis. It is important that you have a very clear link chain throughout the debate. It is also important that you clearly weigh and impact your arguments (the earlier in the debate the better). BE COMPARATIVE. Do not make me have to choose which impact I think might be more important than another. Don't just tell me what your impacts are. Weigh and tell me why they matter, and comparatively weigh against your opponents. I will evaluate whatever arguments you present in round.

Make it easy for me to vote, weigh the round at the end.

Style/Delivery Preference:

Spreading is fine

You must be clear and articulate.

Slow down/emphasize on your taglines.

Signpost!!

Be respectful and nice to your partner and opponents.

Have Fun :)

P.F.

• Speak slowly and with clarity. Clarity is key. If I do not understand your impacts, then I am unable to weigh them against the other team
• Be respectful above all.
• Adhere to time.
• Keep it simple

With a distinguished record spanning 7 years, I bring a wealth of experience and insight to the world of debating. Over the course of my journey, I've had the privilege of attending more than 100 tournaments, each one serving as a milestone in my growth and development as a judge.

My expertise encompasses a wide array of prestigious events, including the renowned World Universities Debating Championships (WUDC), EUDC, where I've not only participated but also adjudicated with precision and fairness. Furthermore, I've lent my adjudicative skills to the United Asian Debating Championships (UADC), PAUDC, navigating the complexities of argumentation.

In addition to my involvement in WUDC and UADC, I've honed my skills across various debate formats, including Lincoln-Douglas (LD) and Public Forum (PF) and speech formats including HI, Improv, OO among others. This versatility has equipped me with a comprehensive understanding of the diverse nuances and strategies inherent in different styles of debate.

I am also a big believer of feedback because that is how we all grow, so speakers can be rest assured of accurate and logical feedback.

Speed and signposting are crucial. Avoid card dumps and ensure clean docs. Distinguish between card reading and analysis. Ethics matter - no cheating or card clipping. No screaming, and repeated interrupting in CX is a voter.

Tech over truth. Read cards, but don't misconstrue evidence. I prefer speed but slow down on analytics not in the doc. Theory is great if well-done; collapse to theory in 2NR/2AR. Encourage disclosure; false disclosure is bad.

Disads: Prefer aff-specific links, overview on DA/Case collapse.

New in the 2: Not a fan unless justified. Counterplans: One condo CP/K is fine; more lowers threshold. Judge kick default, but can be persuaded otherwise. Won't vote solely on solvency.

Kritiks (Neg): Assume I'm unfamiliar; explain K and alt clearly. Well-versed in cap, militarism, security, and fem. Specific K links are more compelling. FW is essential.

Kritiks (Aff): Evolved on K affs; framework arguments important. Kritikal advantages are cool; explain what my ballot does.

Case: Love turns; vote if properly impacted and weighed. Quality evidentiary analysis rewarded.

Fun Speaks: Clever, appropriate humor gets higher speaker points. Rewriting this shows understanding and commitment to debate norms.