I have 35 years of public forum, policy, and LD debate experience as a participant in high school and college and coaching at the college and high school level. My judging paradigm leans towards a stringent emphasis on logical coherence, depth, and respectful communication. My approach encourages debaters to prioritize quality over quantity and engage effectively with their opponents' arguments. Generally, I am not a fan of debate theory arguments. I also believe debate is an oral activity, so no need to exchange evidence and cases before the round.

Key Principles:

1. Note-Based Judging:

• Objective Evaluation: My evaluations are based solely on the flow/notes taken during the round, ensuring impartiality.
• No Knowledge Injection: I refrain from interjecting my own knowledge or opinions into the debate, maintaining a neutral stance.

2. Engagement and Clash:

• Direct Engagement: Debaters must address and refute opponents' arguments directly.
• Effective Clash: Construct your rebuttals with a clear and direct clash, ensuring that counter-arguments are tailored to challenge the initial claims.

3. Well-Developed Arguments:

• Depth Over Width: I prioritize one to three deeply developed, logical, and well-warranted arguments over numerous superficial points.
• Valid Warrants: Your arguments should be underpinned by credible, well-explained warrants.
• Impactful Arguments: Clearly articulate the real-world implications of your arguments to demonstrate their significance.

4. Category-Relevance:

• Format-Appropriate Arguments: Ensure your arguments, including critical frameworks like Kritiks, align with the debate format (e.g., Policy, Public Forum). I am not a proponent of non-topical arguments.
• Maintaining Relevance: Steer clear of diversions and ensure that your arguments are pertinent to the topic and category of debate.

5. Humanistic and Respectful Communication:

• Respect: Maintain a respectful demeanor towards all participants, including opponents and judges.
• Clarity and Pace: Be mindful of your speaking speed to ensure your arguments are fully understood and noted.
• Avoid Excessive Jargon: Use accessible language to explain any technical terms or jargon.

Additional Notes:

A. Quality of Evidence:

• Credibility: Only utilize credible, verified sources and evidence in your arguments.
• Application: Apply your evidence accurately and ensure it directly supports your claims.

B. Strategic Argumentation:

• Consistency: Maintain consistent argumentation throughout the debate, avoiding contradictory claims.
• Strategic Choices: Make tactical decisions regarding which arguments to pursue further based on their strength and impact.

C. Constructive Criticisms and RFD (Reason For Decision):

• Feedback: My feedback will be constructive, aiming to highlight areas for improvement alongside positive aspects.
• RFD Transparency: My decisions will be accompanied by clear, coherent reasons rooted in the arguments presented during the debate.

D. Timing

• Requesting Evidence: Debate is an oral activity. I do not need to see the evidence or cases. We should be able to look up sources. If you request cards, the requestor will have this time deducted from prep unless tournament rules prohibit this. I see this often abused during rounds to gain more prep time, and I am not a fan of this practice.
• Roadmaps: If you provide these, they will be timed. I do not need them and will follow where you go.

Conclusion:

Debaters are encouraged to view the debate not merely as a competitive arena but as a platform for developing and refining skills pertinent to effective leadership and communication. Focusing on depth, clarity, and respectful interaction, my judging paradigm fosters a conducive environment for meaningful, impactful debates beyond mere point-scoring.

Reminder:

While it's pivotal to be strategic and competitive, remember that the skills you hone here – articulation, critical thinking, and respectful discourse – are the real victories, equipping you for constructive engagement beyond the debate floor.

I look forward to witnessing thought-provoking, well-argued, and respectfully conducted debates!

I judge based on the quality of arguments that you advance on behalf of the resolution. That means you clearly state your claims, provide reputable evidence in support of those claims, and drive home the implications of your claims. Your arguments should be well-developed and category-relevant. Rarely do I find Kritiks persuasive.

Keep in mind that in public forum, the goal is for you to make arguments that are persuasive to a “citizen judge” or lay person. Thus, you should speak deliberately (at a reasonable pace) and clearly, avoid jargon, and demonstrate the logical connections between your evidence and claims, and the resolution. Style/delivery are important considerations but I am most interested in and persuaded by the quality of your arguments and evidence.

Please engage one another respectfully and respond directly to your opponents’ claims and evidence. Ad hominem attacks, grandstanding, and condescending remarks are not appropriate. Good debates, grounded in classical rhetoric, explore relevant claims and evidence, and empower the audience to make an informed decision.

My Background: More than 25 years of teaching argumentation, persuasion, and public speaking at the undergraduate level, a Ph.D. in communication and rhetoric, and a research focus on the implications of argumentation on public policy. I have been actively judging on local and national circuits since 2021.

—James Madison HH—

—JMHS '24; VT '28—

Hi! My name is Maya and I’m a graduated varsity debater from James Madison High School. I started debate (PF) my Junior year of high school and competed on the national & local circuit for 2 years. Currently, I am freshman at Virginia Tech studying applied economics concentrated in life sciences. My record from HS is linked above, but for some highlights, I was the 2024 PF Debate Virginia State Champion, I was a 2024 competitor at NSDA Nationals, and I competed at a lot of NatCirc tournaments (with a few local ones mixed in there). With that in mind, I feel I can evaluate any style because at this point I've pretty much seen it all. I’m not too picky with judging, but you can find my prefs below. I do have some judging experience (most of it doesn't show up on my judging record for whatever reason) and have learned that I tend to prefer tech over truth. Have clear warrants and understand your own argument. I never want to hear someone ask you a question and your only response is "well my evidence says that it's going to happen", but you don't actually know why it's going to happen. That just tells me that you don't know the topic and will make it difficult to vote for you. I really love unique arguments, they are a great way to change what the judge is hearing all day and also surprise opponents, so please don't hold back! I will disclose my decision and give ample oral feedback unless I am forbidden to do so.

My absolute biggest pet peeve in PF is progressive debate & wiki disclosure. I think they are becoming extremely harmful norms, and as someone who lost in semi-finals to frivolous theory and at Nationals to a K, I will not condemn anyone to the same fate. Any progressive arguments will not be on my flow and speaks could also be affected if you attempt them. If you do choose to run it, at least have some substance so I have something to evaluate on your side. Same goes for disclosure, sending speech docs or posting them on the wiki is just harmful for everyone. Come into the debate prepared instead of relying on someone disclosing their case, this should never be an expectation as you enter a round.

TLDR: I will evaluate any argument as long as it's not progressive.

—Novice & JV—

I won’t be too picky with teams at this level, I just have a few hard prefs. No spreading, I will not read a speech doc, say it or it's not going to be on my flow. Finally, make sure you are signposting, you are a lot more likely to have your arguments evaluated properly if it is extended cleanly across my flow. Feel free to ask questions if I’m allowed to disclose my decision.

—Varsity/ Nat Circ—

Feel free to run what you believe in. Other prefs: No spreading, I will not read a speech doc, say it clearly or it's not going to be on my flow. Please signpost and don’t give me a roadmap. Nothing should be new in the second half of the debate, but I will accept new evidence in summary, just no new arguments (second rebuttal must frontline). Treat me like a flay and explain your warranting and link-chains to me. Extending author names is fine as long as you give me a quick reminder of what that author said, it really doesn’t need to be much. Use cross for gotchas and actual substance, not clarifying questions. I do not flow cross, so if something happens that you want evaluated please be sure to bring it up in a speech. Finally, be respectful. Attitude is one thing, but being straight up rude is another. I don’t really care about attitude, it can be pretty funny sometimes (feel free to be creative, funny, & witty in speeches), but be kind to your opponents or your speaks will take a hit. Also, feel free to post round or ask me questions after I disclose my decision. Obviously, my decision will not change, but it helps me learn to be better and it helps you take out some frustrations and understand why I made the decision that I made. Finally, do not lie about evidence, do not misrepresent it, and avoid making assertions without it.

—Speaks—

(Adapted by level)

18-24: You were unethical or extremely disrespectful

25-26: Average

26-27: Good

27-28: Great

29-29.9: Excellent

30: Perfect

Making the round fun will always score extra points with me :)

—Conclusion—

Try your best, and good luck! I can't wait to judge your round!

Background:

I did PF debate at James Madison High School for three years (2+ on the national circuit). Now, I’m a freshman at Northwestern University majoring in journalism.

General Info:

I am a flow judge who enjoys traditional PF rounds with effective clash, nuanced and unique arguments, analytical debate, and quality, non-power-cut evidence.

I place a premium on good, consistent warranting and logic throughout the round. Don’t exclusively tell me “our card says so” as a way to win arguments or break clash; you should be explaining the reasoning behind your arguments and why they apply to the resolution.

Other Preferences:

- Some speed is fine with me, but please don’t spread (I won’t flow off a doc).
- Don’t misrepresent evidence.
- I enjoy when teams don’t exclusively read off a speech doc for rebuttal. If, outside of reading new evidence, you can deliver an organized rebuttal with unscripted analysis based solely on the flow, then by all means go for it.
- Weighing impacts in the back half of the debate is crucial to winning the round.
- You absolutely can and should attack poor evidence.
- I won't evaluate theory or K's; please debate the resolution at hand.
- Please exchange cards efficiently.
- If both teams agree to make an email chain, please add me at cakaplan28@gmail.com.

Most importantly, have fun!

I am an attorney who values clear persuasive arguments. Judges in real courts do not typically value fast talking, and likewise, talking fast will not score points with me but instead will likely be less persuasive. It also is important that you respond to the other side's arguments, particularly their best points.

My approach to judging is simple: I listen, I flow, I make my decision. I’m young, white, male, and consider myself center-left (politically speaking) — appeal to me. Quality, warrant-level argumentation will win you rounds. Be clear. Be confident. Be respectful. Tell me concretely, in a line-by-line fashion, why I should vote for you (weighing impact scenarios, accordingly) and make me want to do so. And please use the English language. I don’t know the esoteric, internet-enabled, progressive Debate (w/ a capital D) dialect, and I don’t ever plan on learning it.

Also, feel free to send me evidence after the round that you think might affect my final verdict.

James Madison GW

Novice/General PF

• don't spread or speak too quickly, keep a reasonable speaking pace
• be respectful in crossfire and in the round in general- I am not very picky about this but don't be straight up rude or yell
• every argument needs an impact
• signpost, especially when responding to the opponent's arguments (tell me what argument you are addressing)
• no prog

JV/Varsity PF

• an offtime roadmap is unnecessary
• try not to read off a doc for your entire speech (excluding constructive), be able to look up and give some analysis that isn't pre-written
• explain and reinforce the warranting of your argument throughout the round
• weigh your impact in the back half of the round- doesn't have to be in summary although that is preferable, but at least in final focus
• quantified impacts are always preferred