Hi! I'm a former Forensicator from Dallastown High School, and I'm currently studying for a Master's in Rhetoric and Composition at UCF. I've competed in nearly every speech and debate event at some point, with the exception of Lincoln-Douglas. It has been quite a few years since I've been involved, though, so please don't assume I'm an expert.

Some considerations for debate:

Please don't spread. I have auditory processing issues, and being online makes it harder to hear. I can't evaluate you if I can't understand you.

I prefer a well-reasoned argument to an overload of information. You can throw facts at me all day long, but what I want to know is why I should care - or why any reasonable person should care. You'll impress me if you can make me think about something in a new way.

I consider myself mostly tabula rasa, and I'm pretty open to new approaches as long as they're done well.

Time yourself! I will do my best to keep track but I only have so many hands.

Lastly, just don't be rude. I love watching an intense crossfire as much as the next guy, but anything getting close to a personal attack is gonna get you low speaks. Focus on strengthening your own argument, not on destroying your opponent.

I have been judging and coaching debate for the last 14 years and competed for a year before that. I have judged LD, policy, and public forum (primarily policy and LD) during this time. While in college, I judged extensively on the national circuit. For the last 10 years, I have judged on and off at tournaments around Pennsylvania. I am currently an attorney working in private practice.

I believe that debate is a fun, educational event, and to that end, rounds should be educational and fun. As for the style of debate, I am opening to anything and will hear any argument.

Regarding spreading, I can almost guarantee that you can not speak faster than I can flow. However, I need to clearly hear your value, value criterion, and contentions (signposting is nice). If you reach that unimaginable speed where your lips are not moving but sounds are coming out of your mouth, I will ask you to slow down a bit (if you do, I will not reduce speaker points). Also, remember this a virtual event; speed and the internet may not mix well.

There is much more to my judging paradigm. Feel free to ask any questions you may have. However, please ask when both competitors are present, so both get to hear my answers.

The Aff must present and defend some type of topical plan. How the Neg wants to argue against that is really up to them, but it has to relate to the resolution for the year and the aff plan. I will not reject the resolution.

Speed is fine as long as I can actually hear and comprehend what you are saying. I have not had to let someone know that I cannot understand them, but will if need be.

Please have fun.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me before the round.

I'm a tab judge, I'm never going to intervene or complete arguments for the debaters in front of me. What's made important in the round is what I'll make important on my ballot. I'm fine with speed, as long as the debaters articulate. I understand K and rhetorical arguments, and am willing to vote for whatever makes the most logical sense in the round, regardless of morals (i.e., I'll vote for an argument that kills more people if the debater can tell me why that makes the most sense).

I know debate theory and will always point out an error in link chain, though I won't vote there unless opponent also points it out.

I like voters, clash points, and world comparison.

I have been our school's coach/administrator of our speech and debate team for many years. I am also an English teacher.

When judging debate, I would like to hear every word, to follow every argument. I do not like fast-talking because it leaves me guessing what I heard. I would like the two teams/two sides to listen to each other and ask questions and rebut in ways that show good listening. I enjoy clash. I enjoy when clash brings a debate round to greater levels of thinking and crisper points being made on each side. I like when the teams/sides help me, the judge, better see my way to an RFD. (Of course, I have to agree, but I enjoy when sides/teams state in logical and intelligent ways why they should win and show when doing so that they have a solid grasp on what just happened in the round.)

When judging speech, I appreciate the commitment that students show in constructing a well-organized speech and preparing to perform it. I appreciate the energy, pathos, honesty, charm, intelligence, drive to connect with an audience, and all-around skills of a well-delivered speech.

Regarding literary interpretation, I am an English teacher; I love it all.

Hey, my name is Justin Thomashefsky and I'm a coach at Truman High School. I competed in LD/PF from 2008 - 2010 and Policy during the 2010-2011 season. I've been judging / coaching debate since 2012 and have circuit Policy/LD experience

General debate things

I'm good with speed.

I'm good with K's (see policy for more info)

Disclosure theory is pretty meh to me. But if you make good arguments on it I guess ill vote for it.

Please analyze warrants in your evidence! This should go without saying.

Policy

I'm much more comfortable judging a policy round but I have a decent amount of experience judging critical rounds.

T - I default to reasonability but you can definetly convince me to evaluate competing interps if you win it on the flow. You need to win in round abuse to get my ballot. This goes extra for theory

K - I'm familiar and comfortable with standard K's (security, capitalism etc.) but you may lose me with high theory literature.

Please frame my ballot in your last speech. It should be clear what I'm voting for at the end of the round.

Open cross is fine but let your partner speak!

LD

For lay rounds: Debate warrants! Don't waste time on the Value/VC (Meta-ethic/standard) debate if you're both functionally the same framework. All the framework debate should come down to is what lens I should evaluate the round through

For circuit rounds: I'm not huge on the squirrel theory stuff that's been going on in circuit LD. I'll try to evaluate whatever you put in front of me but just like with T you really need to win in round abuse to get my ballot. For the rest just read policy stuff

I prefer to see lay rounds in LD. So if you're at a tournament with me that has a weird mix of lay and circuit you might want to default to lay. BUT I'll weigh whatever arguments you put in front of me in any style.