I'm a high school debater that has participated in parli as both a judge and a debater for over seven years.

I think that the most important things in a debate are reasoning and impact - evidence can help supplement a point but only if you explain it well. In general, while both are important, I tend to focus more on logic and understanding of the motion than on the use of a lot of statistics. Impact is also really valuable, as I have no reason to believe that anything is important unless you tell me it is.

I go into every debate as if I know nothing - if there is a flaw in a case that isn't pointed out, I will accept it. This means that refutation and direct clash is very important.

I really like POIs, but I am also very critical of debaters who use them to distract or disrupt. POIs should help set up or supplement your point, not just take up other speakers' time. Quality over quantity.

Overall, I think the best debaters are the ones who genuinely love debate for the process and have fun doing it, so remember not to take anything too seriously :)

I'm a coach with experience in public forum debate, parliamentary debate, and extemporaneous debates. Some general notes:

ALL STYLES

- Arguments only matter if they extend across the flow. If you raise a contention in the first speech, then drop it for the bulk of the round, I won't count it.

- I'm generally quite literal with frameworks. You tell me something is important, it will show up on your ballot as part of your reason for decision. An extra speaker point to both debaters on any team who successfully uses frameworks OTHER than utilitarianism or net benefits.

- Impacting your contentions matter, but your links (i.e. how you connect steps of your contention together) matter more. Don't foresake one for the other.

- I'm not impressed by use of hyper-specific debate jargon. Use of jargon that I don't understand OR replacing actual refutation with jargon will result in deduction of speaker points. Assuming I'm a lay judge will serve you well.

- I do not find roadmaps useful. If you need to do it to keep yourself organized, that's fine, but I will probably disregard them.

- Definitional debaters are normally not useful or compelling unless they have a high impact outside of the debate itself. I have almost never awarded a round on the argument that a definition is "tight" or unfair to one side, but have rewarded rounds based on substantial definition debates that have practical or philosophical impacts. (E.g. debates over the nature of justice.)

- I rarely vote in favor of kritiks. I find it's rare that the issues raised in kritiks are impactful enough that they justify derailing the debate as traditionally presented. Their impacts often require judge intervention into the round that is independent of actual arguments being made, which I do not feel comfortable with. If you wish to make a kritik, you should make it with the assumption that you're likely to lose the round and that that is worth it for you.

- There are no silver bullets in debate. These are general guidelines, but following these will not guarantee you a win and should not be treated as such.

FOR PUBLIC FORUM

- Quoting cards will not win you debates; how you explain your cards matters.

- I'm more impressed by speakers who speak using their own words and paraphrasing of evidence rather than quoting from pre-written cases.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE

- POIs strongly encouraged. Debaters who refuse to take any POIs (especially if multiple are offered) will find their speaker points severely docked.

- It's hard to win on the OPP block. GOV teams who start weighing arguments in the MG and lay out a clear framework for why they're winning the round are more likely to win. In addition, GOV teams who call dropped args by their opponents will go far.

EXTEMPORANEOUS DEBATE

- BEWARE THE HALF AFF! A lot of CDA teams spend their round encouraging me that they are actually just like their opponents only without the bad stuff. This won't win you rounds with me. The debate has given you a side; stick to it!

I did high school pf and middle school parli.

Have fun and don't be a jerk

logic>evidence. I buy logical warrants rather than "this will happen because my evidence says so." Evidence, especially when I'm judging ms parli where you can't call cards, is less important to me. The most important thing is that you have a logical link chain that I can buy into and that makes sense.

Please weigh: take the other team at their best and explain why you are still winning. If there is no comparison between arguments in the debate and both teams have some offense, it becomes infinitely harder to make a good decision, so please make it easy for me!

No theory unless the other team is being actively offensive. I don't really care if the other team didn't disclose.

here's my email for post rounding: brynn.martin24@trinityschoolnyc.org

I listen carefully and try not to bring my own opinions on a topic to judging. The way you present your arguments should be structured and clear–for example, enumerating contentions and directly addressing the other side in rebuttal. I look for arguments are about the most direct and significant points related to your side,, the largest or most vulnerable groups, or have the most significant and relevant impacts. It would be better if you could respond/rebut your opponents' arguments. When both sides reach similar levels in argumentation, I expect you to compare and weigh your arguments for me.

Go slow. Be clear. Be nice.

If you would like more, I have written detailed paradigms for each style I judge:

PF paradigm

Parli paradigm

Middle school paradigm