Hello all. I am very excited to be judging. I am a very new parent judge of a daughter who does World Schools. I love watching debate and hearing such smart rhetoric but because I’m fairly new I would really like you to focus on a few things:

Speak clearly

This means making sure your linkages/ warrants and impacts are simple and explicit

Signposting (Telling me what you’re talking about before you talk about it)

DON’T speak fast because I need to flow your arguments in order to submit a good and cohesive ballot

This will help you further down your debate careers with word economy and making the most out of your eight minutes

On the point of the 8 minutes, I know, at first, it is difficult to use all of the eight minutes but having enough content to fill the eight minutes usually gives you an upper-hand in the debate both perceptually and on the flow.

Speaks

My preferences on arguments and Principle/ Practical.

I don’t have a preference on third substantives, but if you do introduce one, please do it before the 7 minute mark so the opposing team has time to POI if necessary.

On the principle/ practical arguments, I prefer the principle argument being given first because it helps me keep track, but if you do believe that your practical is more important and outweighs your principle then I don’t mind if you change up the order.

Usually in debates, BOTH sides have a principle they can run when principles are applicable to the round. I do subconsciously weigh the principle more UNLESS I am given good reason to weigh the practical over the principle; but warranting and the why behind which one is more important should be clearly articulated regardless.

Round Necessities

First on framework; I think this is a very important part of the debate and must be clearly articulated. I will try my best to be tabula rasa but common sense is common sense (so if you say lack of water and food is bad, you don’t really have to explain why, you just say that).

I take the definitions, world characterization, stakeholders, burdens that are given to me unless they are contested. If they are contested I would really like proper reasoning- if not it will be up to me to choose the most intuitive characterization and that’s probably not going to be favorable for one of the teams.

While I am a new judge, I think charitability is important so try not to be abusive during your characterization and framework because I might give your argument less weight if it is obviously abusive or uncharitable to the other side.

Second on arguments; I mentioned this earlier, but analysis that is the most intuitive is going to be the hardest to refute. Try to make your arguments distinct with different links and impacts and make sure you have a thesis so I know what you are arguing.

Refutation is key; debate is about who has the most intuitive world, and I think the best refutation is simple and to the point.

Example tennis; World Schools is not about example tennis. I don’t mind examples to help your case and strengthen your arguments and I think it’s very good, but don’t bounce back and rely on examples and expect me to pick which one is better/ worse because I will vote on analysis and intuition, not about historical precedent unless I am given a strong reason to do so.

POI; I think Point of Informations are very important and essential to a good debate. I feel it’s very telling to your ability to counter on the spot.

That being said, when asking POIs, please be respectful of protected time (the first and last minute of all the eight minute speeches) and do not barrack (wait 15 seconds at least before asking a POI after being shut down).

Additionally, when asking POIs please be respectful of the speaker's time and don’t take longer than 15 seconds when speaking.

When taking POIs during your speech, (and this will help you with your debate career further down the road) wave them down with your hand if you don't want to take them instead of saying the word “no”. I think it breaks your speech and especially when I’m flowing and I hear the word “no” constantly it’s probably not going to be the clearest speech for me, but then again- not a big deal.

I expect 1-2 POIs per speech. Not taking any is going to hurt your speaker score and while taking more than 2 won’t necessarily hurt it, I think it takes valuable time away from the content in your speech.

Round Development

Lastly, once the debate evolves, to make sure I understand clashes and rebuttals I need a couple of things:

• Signposting- I need to know what your talking about so I know what you’re arguing and can flow appropriately
• Tell me which arguments are directly clashing
• Tell me why specifically I should weigh specific arguments over others. This is done through:
• Magnitude- The extent to which someone is being affected
• Scope- The amount of people being affected
• Prerequisite- Something that needs to happen before the argument is accessed
• Timeframe- Long-term v. Short-term
• Reversibility- The ability if something can be reversed
• i.e. climate change is going to be hard to reverse and that’s important
• Probability- The probability of something occurring

If arguments are not weighed, I will do so with my own intuition and that will probably not be favorable for one of the two teams, so please WEIGH!!

If you’ve read this far, thank you and as a reward if you tell a joke or something funny, (that is appropriate) then I will increase your speaks!

With that, best of luck and I can’t wait to see you guys debate.

School affiliation/s - please indicate all (required):

The Hockaday School

Years Judging/Coaching (required)

24

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event (required)

22

Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year (required)

Check all that apply

__X___I judge WS regularly on the local level

__X___I judge WS at national level tournaments

_____I occasionally judge WS Debate

_____I have not judged WS Debate this year but have before

_____I have never judged WS Debate

Rounds judged in other events this year (required)

~50

Check all that apply

____ Congress

____ PF

____ LD

____ Policy

____ Extemp/OO/Info

____ DI/HI/Duo/POI

____ I have not judged this year

____ I have not judged before

Have you chaired a WS round before? (required)

Yes

What does chairing a round involve? (required)

Chairing means making sure everyone is present and ready, calling on individual speakers and announcing the decision. I usually announce the decision then ask the other judges to provide feedback before providing my own.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else? (required)

WSD is what debate would be if people stopped the tactics that exclude others from the debate and arguments. The delivery and required clash of WSD means that there is no hiding from bad arguments or from good arguments.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate? (required)

I flow on excel using techniques like other formats. I attempt to get as much of the details as I can.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain. (required)

It depends on the motion. On a motion that tends towards a problem-solution approach I will tend to prefer the practical, but on a motion that is rooted in a would or believes approach I tend towards the practical.

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? (required)

For me, strategy is how the speaker addresses the large clashes in the debate and compares those clashes for one another. For example, if the debate is about the efficacy of green patents I am looking for the speaker to address something that exists in the assumption that efficacy is good or bad.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast? (required)

I do that in the style section.

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read? (required)

I tend to grant both claims as being true and then look to see if the claims are mutually exclusive. If they aren’t then I look at whether the teams advanced a burden/principle that supports their side. Included in this is an evaluation of whether a side has compared their burden/principle to the other team’s.

How do you resolve model quibbles? (required)

I don’t like to resolve these issue because they often revolve around questions of fact, which I can’t resolve in a debate where there are no objectively verified facts. I tend to go through the same process as I do when it comes to evaluating competing claims.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels? (required)

First, I think both sides have the option to have a model or countermodel, but it is not required in the debate. Second, I think about the practical and the world each side creates. If a team is comparing their world to the world of the other team then I tend to follow that logic. Hopefully, both teams are doing this and then they are using their burden/principle to explain why their world is more important for me to vote for. One item that I tend to not enjoy is when teams treat models and countermodels as plans and counterplans and attack each other’s position without a comparison. Keep in mind that reasons the other team’s position fails are not reasons your position succeeds!

If I am judging you in an event other than WSD.

I am sorry, it has been several years since I have judged anything else but WSD. I do not subscribe to the technique over truth paradigm, nor do I want to listen to a mistakes driven debate. I want to see clash, not strategies geared towards avoiding/trapping the other side. Please do not spread, I will not flow that fast and I will not go back and reconstruct your speech using a speech document. Acts of exclusion will result in low points and possible loss of the ballot. I know this is a list of do not's rather than do's so I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.