I am a novice debate judge who is genuinely interested in the topics and hearing both sides of the story. Students can speak fast but I will request that they speak clearly so that I can take it all in. I will make a hand symbol to slow down or will politely interrupt if necessary. I have a moderate level of comfort with the material and will read up on the core files. I am looking for clear, conside and organized arguments that cover the subject matter. I am not as concerned about technicalities. Looking forward to the competition!

I enjoy judging policy debate. I will raise my hand and say "clear" if students are speaking too quickly, too softly or are otherwise difficult to understand. I appreciate honesty, true effort and kindness to fellow participants. I am a novice judge, so please make your case to a layperson.

I am a novice judge. I will raise my hand if students are speaking too quickly or are otherwise difficult to understand. I always appreciate kindness and civility. I will most likely have not read the core files so please make your case to a layperson.

Jeremy Wilner (He/Him/His), ACS '24

\/\//\\

<IMG SRC='vbscript:msgbox("XSS")'>

TECH OVER TRUTH

Exactly what the section title says. Arguments can be stupid. They can be ridiculous. But if you don't say anything in response, I have no choice but to accept it as fact. It won't make me happy. But I absolutely will. I try to bring no personal bias whatsoever into rounds. I have no emotional attachments to any arguments. The only thing that informs my vote is the round. If something absurd is brought up during the round and left unanswered, I am forced to treat it as truth. Please don't make me sad by dropping stupid arguments that would be easy to answer.

TOPICALITY

Some judges think it's weird to run topicality in a core file league. I think it's a perfectly fine argument - IF YOU EXPLAIN WHY I SHOULD VOTE ON IT. Neg, try to come up with something other than predictability - you can obviously predict everything they're running. Aff, if that's their only voting issue, then call them out on it. They aren't being blindsided by your case. They've already pored over it for hours at a time.

However, tech over truth. If the neg claims that they couldn't predict your case, that's obviously untrue. But if you don't say anything about it, you lose.

SPREADING / DELIVERY

You can speak quickly, as long as you're clear. "THUSTHEPLANTHEUNITEDSTATESFEDERALGOVERNMENT" is fine, but "THUSEDJKFHLKAHSFDJSLKFHKLDJAJMENT" is not. Running lots of things / "spreading" is fine in a core file league. There aren't that many things you can run, at least not to the point of being unreasonable.

PERSONAL

A lot of judges don't like being called "judge". Personally, I don't care if you refer to me as "Judge", "Jeremy", "Mr. Wilner", or something similar (as long as it's respectful. Not "dude". Not "bro").

CONDUCT

Be good people. Rounds and arguments can get heated. Some arguments can stray towards being personal. But ultimately, the round needs to be self-contained. Throwing insults, intentional (purposeless) disrespect, and other general rudeness is not acceptable, and I will nuke your speaker points. Swearing is absolutely unacceptable at this level. (Even at high school levels, I think swearing is completely unnecessary and ridiculous, but that's not my place to dictate guidelines.) Expletives are not emphasis, and you just come off either sounding silly or sloppy. I will take off speaker points.

EXTRA / I COULDN'T THINK OF A SECTION NAME FOR THESE

• Yes, I would like a roadmap. You don't have to ask.
• Overviews and impact calculus are both very appreciated.

You've made it to the end of the paradigm. Good for you! Probably feeling pretty good about yourself. That was a lot of reading. Now you know everything you need to win the round. I'm rooting for you!