General Overview

As a lay judge, my primary focus is on clarity and comprehension. I come to the debate with an open mind but limited familiarity with debate jargon and speed.

Speed

• Speed Limit: I have a strict speed limit of 150 words per minute. If you exceed this speed, I will drop you. Clear and articulate speech is crucial for me to understand and evaluate your arguments effectively. Please speak slowly and clearly to ensure I can follow your points.

Clarity and Explanation

• Clear Explanations: Please explain your arguments thoroughly and in a way that is easy to follow. Avoid technical jargon or, if you must use it, ensure you define and explain it clearly.
• Structure: A well-organized speech with a clear roadmap is highly appreciated. Signposting your arguments helps me follow along and understand the flow of your case.

Argumentation

• Impact Calculus: Rather than a barrage of impacts and blocks, I prefer fewer, well-explained impacts with clear weighing. Explain why your impacts matter more than your opponent's.
• Sources: Use credible sources and explain their relevance. Good sources that are well-integrated into your arguments will weigh heavily in my decision.

Weighing and Evaluation

• Weighing: Effective weighing is key. Tell me why your arguments are more significant in the context of the debate. Comparisons between impacts (magnitude, probability, timeframe) are very helpful.
• Relevance: Make sure your arguments are directly relevant to the resolution and the round. Avoid tangential points that do not contribute to the core of the debate.

Conduct

• Respect: Maintain a respectful and professional demeanor towards your opponents and me as the judge. Courtesy goes a long way.
• Engagement: Show that you are engaged and listening to your opponent's arguments. Refute them directly and provide counter-analysis where necessary.

By adhering to these guidelines, you'll help me make a fair and informed decision. Clear, well-explained arguments with a focus on weighing and credible sources will be most persuasive in my evaluation.

I am looking for debaters to engage in constructive dialogue, present well-reasoned arguments, and address the key issues of the resolution. I expect both teams to adhere to the rules of Public Forum debate, including maintaining respectful conduct, avoiding spreading, and staying within the time limits.

I will be evaluating the quality of arguments based on their clarity, relevance, and strength of evidence. I expect debaters to provide clear definitions of key terms, establish logical frameworks for their arguments, and support their claims with credible sources. I will pay close attention to how debaters engage with their opponents' arguments, including the ability to rebut and refute effectively. Key point for me is WEIGHING, don't forget to weigh your arguments.

Debaters should strive for clear and organized speeches, with well-structured content that is easy to follow. I value effective use of signposting, transitions, and summaries to ensure that arguments are presented coherently and comprehensively. Additionally, debaters should maintain good speaking demeanor, including strong vocal delivery, eye contact, and appropriate gestures.

In the final focus speeches, I expect debaters to crystallize the key issues of the round and explain why their team has won the debate. I will base my decision on which team has provided the most compelling arguments, effectively refuted their opponents, and best upheld their burden of proof. I will strive to provide constructive feedback to both teams, highlighting strengths and areas for improvement.

I encourage all debaters to approach this round with professionalism, respect, and a willingness to engage in meaningful discourse. Remember to focus on the substance of the arguments rather than personal attacks or rhetoric. Good luck to both teams, and let's have a productive debate!

In my debate space, it's crucial to value fair and thorough engagements, involving logical concessions and fair comparisons. Respect is paramount – steer clear of rudeness and discriminatory language. Avoid excessive speed in presenting arguments, speak clearly for effective communication. Remember to justify claims and be mindful of your debate burdens.

Ensure you incorporate a clear roadmap and strategically place signposts throughout your speeches. Effective organization is crucial, particularly for my ability to assess efficiently.

In my judging philosophy:

- Cross-Examination (CX): I don't flow CX. Use it for clarification and identifying clash. If something arises, bring it up in your or your team’s next speech.

- Progressive DebateWhile not an expert, I've picked up some progressive tech over time. On Ks, if well-structured and clear why it's prioritized over the case, I'm open. If not, I'll judge on the case. Avoid CPs in PF and minimize in LD. Theory is beyond my judging capacity; don't run it.

RFD in Public Forum: I vote based on well-defined, linked impacts. All must be extended across the flow. If your Summary drops an impact, I won't consider it in Final Focus. Framework and weighing can influence impact importance, but I don’t vote off Framework.

- RFD in Lincoln-Douglas**: Framework is crucial for impact weighting. I evaluate how each side fulfills the FW and its impacts, similar to PF but with more emphasis on competing FWs.

- Speed: I'm a paper flow judge. Speaking too quickly increases the chance of missing points. No spreading; it's disrespectful and lacks value in communication.

Engaging in acts that go against equity, such as homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, etc., are NOT condoned and may lead to a deduction in speaker scores. Please don't hesitate to reach out via email if you have any concerns or issues related to such behavior.

Email : royalrhetoricsrr@gmail.com

Best of luck!

John