Name: Jeff Geers

School Affiliation: University of Dayton

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: ~18

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: ~18

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 0

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? Public Forum, Extemporaneous Debate, Policy

What is your current occupation? Instructor, Debate Coach

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery - I like to hear a dynamic, energetic speaking style, but this isn't an auctioneer tryout; take your time and clearly present your points

Flowing/Note-Taking - While I might be flowing your argument in my notes, I'm listening for the clash of opposing 'big ideas' - My final decision in the round is based more on who convinced me overall, not whether any one specific point was addressed or not.

Do you value Argument over Style, Style over Argument or Argument and Style equally? Both are important, but in the end a clear, cogent argument will win out over charismatic but superficial debating.

I value creativity in critical thinking, and like to see new and different approaches to issues. However, squirrel-y attempts to trap opponents with non-topical distractions put me in a bad mood...

My name is Goodluck Obiora, I come to judge the debate with a clean slate and imagine I have no prior knowledge on the topic, I expect debaters to be able to allow me to understand the topic by the end of the debate to make a clear choice.

In my opinion, the debate is used to look at both sides of the argument and perspectives of a topic

I expect debaters to provide logical arguments and back them up with evidence.

I want debaters to explain why topics are important and a step-by-step process in their argument leading to a conclusion.

Debaters should not leave gaps in logic that need to be filled to be able to understand how they have arrived at their conclusion

It is also important for debaters to explain why their argument matters and how the implied results of their argument will affect society.

good debater speaks clearly, and uses logical argumentation well, without becoming combative. True and accurate statements are highly valued. Rebuttal phases are used well and good points by the opposing team are all addressed. I prefer speakers to be clear and have a few excellent arguments to those speed speaking and trying to fit in as many mediocre arguments as possible.

For speech rounds, I'm looking for clear, enunciated speech with well-used pauses and intonation to help support the speaker's purpose.

Getting my PhD at Wayne State University in communication studies. Competed at Wayne State, qualified to the NDT twice. Assistant coach for West Bloomfield High School’s public forum and IE team.

Include me on emails chains please: DouglasAHusic@gmail.com

I flow on paper, please give me pen time. Start slower and settle into top speed instead of missing parts early on. I care about clarity more than who reads a few more cards. CX is a speech, I flow it in every debate format. I rarely follow along with docs.

Non-important old man yelling at cloud moment: The 1ac is an opportunity for free speaker points and sets the tone for the debate, a lot of people sound like they don't practice reading it.

----

Whoever controls the framing of how to evaluate offense in a debate generally wins my ballot. This is universally true for all argument styles and debate formats. I am very flow dependent. Specifics listed below, but absolute defense is a hard sell absent drops, strategic concessions, or the argument was poorly constructed to begin with.

Debate is a persuasive and communicative activity first and foremost driven by student research. As a debater research was my favorite part of the activity so I certainly appreciate quality evidence production on unique and different arguments. Communication surrounding the importance of evidence is most relevant to how I evaluate it at the end of the debate. A great card that is undersold and not explained and applied may get my appreciation when you bring it to my attention in the post-round, but absent you directing me to the significance of that evidence or why I need to read it won't be important to my ballot. If it’s not on my flow, it doesn’t register for my decision, and, if the warrant is on my flow and uncontested, it won’t matter if the evidence supporting it is weak. I'm extremely uncomfortable with the lengths many of my peers turn to the docs to verify claims that in my mind are just not being debated. If your arguing on the line by line in no way questions the other team's characterization of evidence, I will never go on a fact finding mission.

I expect debater's to make relevant issues on evidence known in the debate.

Debater's should answer arguments.

You don't get to walk-back win conditions you establish that are conceded.

Thoughts on framework:

Full transparency I went for this argument for the majority of my career as a debater as a one-off position, and can be compelled that there should be some limit on the topic for the purpose of predictable negative ground. So take that for what you will.

However, I am also highly sympathetic given my personal pedagogical and research interests as a scholar of alternative interpretations of the resolution for the purposes of interdisciplinary/undisciplined debates. Teams that have a well thought out counter interpretation and vision for what their model of debate looks like are often in a strategically good place for my ballot. In my mind a counter interpretation provides a useful avenue for resolving both sides offense and is often a place where I wish the negative invested more time in the block and 2nr.

That being said, I have been persuaded by affirmative teams who impact turn framework without a counter interpretation. Iterations of this argument which have been persuasive to me in the past include critiques of predictability as a means to actualize clash, critiques of fiats epistemic centrality to clash/fairness/education, arguments which emphasize styles of play over notions of fairness for the game, as well as impact turning the rhetorical performance of framework.

A frequent line in decisions I vote aff on framework, "I think the negative is winning a link on limits explosion, but has underdeveloped the internal link between limits to clash/fairness/epistemic skills as an impact, and furthermore that impact's relationship to the way the aff has framed insert X DA or X impact from the 2ac overview on case is never once articulated". I'm a big believer in if you want to say T/framework is engagement you should actually engage the language and impacts the aff has presented, I will not fill in these connections for you because you say "praxis or debate is key to activism".

Teams over-emphasize the TVA without fully developing the argument. A core dilemma for the negative in round's I judge is the TVA's interaction with affirmative themes, performances, and theories remain superficial and surface level at best. Even when a great piece of evidence is read by the negative, it is an error in execution for the negative to rely on the judge to resolve these connections. My threshold for the TVA being "sufficient" is often higher then my peers. Given the value of the TVA as a way to resolve affirmative offense it is a spot where I think the negative must dig deep(ala Jeff Probst from Survivor) to put themselves ahead in a debate. There are many ways the negative can do this effectively, but all require a more thorough incorporation of the TVA from the onset of your strategy. It's bad form and a missed opportunity when the negative refuses to give an example/or doesn't know of a TVA in C-X of the 1nc. I'm a believer that there is a benefit in the negative block introducing other TVAs in the negative block, The 2nc should tie TVA's to performances, impact arguments, and theories of the 1ac. Saying you could have talked about X thing as a performance instead often falls flat. Do research pre-round or pre-tournament into the artefacts of the 1ac, be creative, you can incorporate them I believe in you.

I am also not a particularly good judge for negative impact explanations which rely on the assumption that the values of research/clash/fairness/iteration are inherent/exclusive benefits of a limited model. The negative often debates in front of me operating from the assumption the aff will win none of their offense or has abandoned these values in their entirety, this is both a bad move and often just a blatant mischaracterization of aff debating. An example with iterative testing. A premise which is hard to dislodge me from: all research is iterative, full-stop. Even when the aff has no counter interpretation, their research practices and argumentative styles are iterative because they build upon previously written research and arguments. This means arguments like iterative testing require more specificity in their explanation. The framing of "Only the negative model allows room for teams to refine arguments to third and fourth level" often rings hollow because it is more descriptive of the strategic incentives to develop arguments over the course of a season (which likely exist in any research activity), and not describe the actual benefit of the style of iteration of your model. A more persuasive iteration impact to me focuses on the question of quality and utility of each models style of iteration, tending more to questions like: is there an insurgent/epistemic benefit to maximizing iteration of state based politics vs negative critique? Instead of saying "the aff always goes for the perm in K v K debates," delve into questions of how affirmative models might distort the capaciousness of K v K debate? Or shutdown debates that are meaningful in the literature through standards and practices of debate's offense/defense paradigm? Are there moments where the aff contradicts their model or counter interp performatively? What is the significance of these contradictions? Are there potentially negative effects of the aff model for subjectivity? All of this is really my way of pleading with you burn the blocks of your predecessor, make some new arguments, read a book, do something.

Creativity and negative argument development on framework has plateaued.

You all sound the same.

I will be extremely frustrated if you opt to go for framework over any argument that is clearly well-developed and clashes with the aff that they blow off. There are many rounds where the 2nr decision to go for framework shocks me given 1ar coverage. Don't include A+ material if you are not prepared to go for it.

K’s vs Policy teams:

I’m a fan. I like when there is a lot of interaction with the case. I'm an ok judge for specific philosophical criticisms of the plan. I'm a substantially worse judge for "you defend [use] the state." The alternative tends to be the focus of my decision (is it competitive, what does it do to resolve the links, etc). I'm a pragmatist at heart, I believe in real-world solutions to problems and I'm often persuaded that we ought to make the world a better place. How your alternative deals with affirmative attacks of this genre matters a lot to me. I've voted for more pessimistic or alt-less Ks, but, again, mostly due to technical errors by the affirmative. I find myself caring less about alternative solvency when the negative team has spent time proving to me that the aff doesn’t solve their impacts either.

Aff teams are most successful when they have a clear approach to the theme of the negatives K from the 1ac. Either be the impact turn alt doesn’t solve team --- or be the link turn plus perm team --- wishy washiness just gets the aff into more trouble then its worth often allowing the negative a lot of narrative control on what the aff is or isn’t about.

Unless told specifically otherwise I assume that life is preferable to death. The onus is on you to prove that a world with no value to life/social death is worse than being biologically dead.

I am skeptical of the pedagogical value of frameworks/roles of the ballot/roles of the judge that don’t allow the affirmative to weigh the benefits of hypothetical enactment of the plan against the K. You're better served making arguments which elevate the importance of the impacts you've described and undercutting the ability of the aff to resolve their own. I'm totally open to disproving the affirmative's model of predictions - I just think you have to do the work to have my skepticism outweigh their narrative. I don't think its a particularly hard sell for me when the work is done. But I rarely see teams engage the case enough to decrease risk.

I tend to give the aff A LOT of leeway in answering floating PIKs, In my experience, these debates work out much better for the negative when they are transparent about what the alternative is and just justify their alternative doing part of the plan from the get go

DAs:

Links control the direction of the DA in my mind absent some explanation to the counter in the debate

You should invest neg block time into the link story (unless it's impact turned). A compelling link argument is very powerful, and can cover holes in your evidence. "Impact turns the case" is a bit overrated, because it normally lacks uniqueness. Not making the arg is a mistake, but banking on it can also be a mistake.

I miss straight impact turning and link turning strategies from aff teams.

Theory:

theory arguments that aren't some variation of “conditionality bad” aren't reasons to reject the team. That being said, I don't understand why teams don't press harder against obviously abusive CPs/alternatives (uniform 50 state fiat, consult cps, utopian alts, floating piks). Performative contradictions matter less to me in the 1nc especially if they’re like a reps K (stuff like the Econ DA and Cap is more suspect). Performative contradictions carried through as a position in the block grinds my gears and should be talked about more. Theory might not be a reason to reject the team, but it's not a tough sell to win that these arguments shouldn't be allowed. If the 2NR advocates a K or CP I will not default to comparing the plan to the status quo absent an argument telling me to.

New affs bad as a policy argument is definitely not a reason to reject the team and is also not a justification for the neg to get unlimited conditionality (something I've been hearing people say).

Topicality/Procedurals:

By default, I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could certainly be persuaded to do something else. Specification arguments that are not based in the resolution or that don't have strong literature proving their relevance are rarely a reason to vote neg. I will say though lack of specification often annoys me on both sides have a debate, cut some offense, defend something please. It is very unlikely that I could be persuaded that theory outweighs topicality. Policy teams don’t get a pass on T just because K teams choose not to be topical. Plan texts should be somewhat well thought out. If the aff tries to play grammar magic and accidentally makes their plan text "not a thing" I'm not going to lose any sleep after voting on presumption/very low solvency.

Points - My average point scale is consistently 28.2-29.5. Points below 27.5 are reserved for "epic fails" in argumentation or extreme offensiveness (I'm talking racial slurs, not light trash talking/mocking - I love that) and points above 29.5 are reserved for absolutely awesome speeches. I cannot see myself going below 26.5 absent some extraordinary circumstances that I cannot imagine. All that being said, they are completely arbitrary and entirely contextual. Things that influence my points: 30% strategy, 60% execution, 10% style.

Cheating - I won't usually initiate clipping/ethics challenges, mostly because I don't usually follow along with speech docs. but if i notice it i reserve the right to call you out when especially egregious If you decide to initiate one, you have to stake the round on it. Unless the tournament publishes specific rules on what kind of points I should award in this situation, I will assign the lowest speaks possible to the loser of the ethics challenge and ask the tournament to assign points to the winner based on their average speaks.

Ethics challenges brought up pertaining to fabrication or out of context evidence submitted into a round end the debate for me. If it is determined that the ev is fabricated or meaningfully out of context then the team who introduced the evidence receives a loss and the low end of my point scale.

General Expectations of Me (Considerations for Your Attention)

I typically operate at a "flay" level on average and "flow" level on good days. Here are things you shouldn't expect from me:

1. Assumptions About My Knowledge: Always explain things fully as I may not be familiar with what you know.

2. Post-round Feedback: You're welcome to post-round me, and I'm open to feedback, but it won't necessarily change my decision. All influencing factors must occur during the debate.

3. Regarding Disclosures/Decisions:I'll disclose in elimination rounds unless instructed otherwise. In prelims, disclosure is not expected unless explicitly stated.

4. Clarity Over Speed: I flow on paper, so speaking too quickly may cause me to miss points. Remember, defense isn't sticky in PF; coverage and clarity matter.

5. Debate Philosophy: I prioritize technical arguments over truth by a narrow margin. I aim to identify the debate's winner based on the participants' performance.

Public Forum / Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

Speaker Points:

- I judge on the standard tabroom scale. Clarity, fluidity, confidence, and decorum are crucial.

- Avoid yelling at opponents during cross and maintain proper decorum throughout the round.

Structure/Organization:

- Signposting is essential for clarity and coherence. Lack of signposting can lead to confusion.

Framework (FW):

- In PF, I default to Cost-Benefit Analysis unless specified otherwise. In LD, a clear Value and Value Criterion are necessary.

Regarding the Decision (RFD):

- I judge tabula rasa, relying only on what I hear in the round. Dropped points and extensions are crucial but must be clearly articulated.

SPEED:

- I'm a paper flow judge and don't flow on a computer. Avoid spreading or speed reading; clarity in communication is vital.

---

Should other considerations arise, I'll update this list accordingly

Let me start with the two most important words: be civil!

As a competitor, my experiences were entirely in evidence-based debating. I started as a policy debater, who practiced speed and spreading, in the CEDA circuits and some occasional public debate.

As a coach, I was first introduced to NEDA, where debaters have to be more audience-friendly and consider quality delivery in both public forum (crossfire) and policy debates. That circuit later added limited prep in the form of rapidfire. I ended up with several years of experience coaching and strategizing in all three of those forms of debate, coming to appreciate the balance between reasonable speeds of delivery and rational argumentation.

My debate experience later came to include significant stints coaching and judging in LD and CEDA-style policy, with some very limited time with Parli and IPDA. Because of that unbalanced experience, I have high expectations for evidence, no matter what sort of debate or resolution is at hand.

Regardless of the debate format, I personally approach judging from a tabula rasa mentality-- that is, a blank slate. I won't make an argument or a connection for you, even if it seems painfully obvious to me. I will entertain any kind of argument (from technical arguments to K's), but I appreciate debaters who can directly weigh the sides against one another and value impact calculus. Never assume the impact or the application of your arguments to be so obvious it doesn't need to be said. I definitely lean more traditionalist in terms of argumentation, especially on policy-based resolutions, so while I think more esoteric arguments like K's and such can be valuable, I expect them to have a reasonable link to the round and an impact that outweighs the opponents'-- and those should be made clear to the judge.

I also am pretty non-interventionist in the way I read the flow of the debate-- don't assume I will make connections on your behalf.

I appreciate good delivery, but I believe it is always less important than argumentation, logic, and evidence. You should not expect a bombastic tone to overcome a well-reasoned, well-supported argument. While I have experience with speed debating in my past, it is no longer my forte; I can keep up, but it's helpful if you very clearly and deliberately read your tags as audible cues.

As I already alluded to, I am a major proponent of civility in debate which I feel is too often ignored. I expect students to maintain civil discourse with one another in spite of their passion. Aggression and condescension, especially during cross-examinations, will be detrimental to your cause.

Email: Drefitnessbiz@gmail.com

- Speaking Style: Emphasizes clarity and flow in speeches. Encourages structured line-by-line, clear plan/counterplan texts, and highlighting important evidence.

- Argumentation: Values logical analytic arguments, even without cards. Prefers clear plan/counterplan texts.

- Disadvantages: Focuses on comparing risk between disadvantage and advantage chains. Advocates for traditional uniqueness and link claims over brink + link uniqueness. Supports agenda politics.

- Counterplans: Recommends avoiding consecutive permutation arguments. Open to process counterplans but believes conditionality benefits outweigh costs.

- Topicality vs. Policy Affirmatives: Inclusion of resolutional language doesn't guarantee topicality. Caselists are helpful for interpreting limits.

- Kritiks: Values strong alt debating. Framework arguments should address weight of impacts.

- Planless Affirmatives: Affirmatives should provide a counter-interpretation and discuss their model of debate.

- Speaker Points: Relative and reflective of technical skill and style.

Closing Thoughts:

"I value clarity, logical arguments, and clear plan/counterplan texts. In debates, risk comparison matters, and I support traditional uniqueness and link claims. I appreciate strong alt debating and believe in procedural fairness. Speaker points reflect technical skill and style.

Thank you, debaters and coaches, for your dedication."

Hi, my name is Oloruntoyin Muhammadbaqir Akorede. I am a debater, public speaker, adjudicator and a seasoned coach.

Within a large time frame, i have gathered experience in different styles and formats of debating, which includes; British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), Australs, Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), World School Debate Championship(WSDC), Public Forum(PF), amongst others.

As a judge, I enjoy it when speakers are aware of the rules of the specific competition they are participating in, which typically dictates that they engage the opponent's arguments while making their own. While I do take equity seriously, I anticipate the same of speakers. Speaking roles and making strong arguments are made simple when speakers are aware of the tournament's structure. This enables them to act appropriately and, in turn, gain insight into how the judge adjudicate the debate.

I guess speakers need to be aware of the many motion types, the kinds of arguments that should be made in them, how to carry their burdens, and other debating strategies.

When a summary or whip speaker recognizes that their job is not to provide commentary, I enjoy it when they stick to their assigned tasks.

I suppose that speakers are to understand the types of arguments that should run in the different types of motion, their burden fulfillment, and other techniques used in debate.

I appreciate when speakers keep to their roles, i.e. when a summary or whip speaker knows one’s job is not to bring new arguments but to rebut, build a partner’s case, and explain why they won.

I value when speakers keep to time, as arguments made after the stipulated time wouldn’t be acknowledged.

Hey there

My name is Olowookere Ganiyat (she/her).Ihave experience in speaking and adjudicating at national, regional, and international levels in British Parliamentary, World Schools, Public Forum, LD, Asian Parliamentary, NSDA speech and debates, amongst other formats. I also have some experiences as a trainer and coach. So I very much understand the need to create a very empowering learning experience for participants and provide them with useful feedback. I am confident that I will be a good and impactful addition to your team of judges and educators.

Email address: ooganiya12@gmail.com

Conflicts: I don't have any

As a judge and educator, I prioritize creating an empowering learning environment for participants while providing valuable feedback. I value fairness, equity, and respectful engagement during discussions, and I encourage debaters to present their arguments thoughtfully and engage with opposing viewpoints respectfully.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATION FOR ONLINE SETTINGS

In virtual debate settings, I emphasize clear and audible communication, I urge participants to ensure their microphone works well and to maintain an appropriate speaking pace.I understand that speakers often times have a lot of ideas to share during their speeches in a short stipulated time but please, don't speak excessively fast. Just as much as I would pay very close attention to speakers, I am most comfortable with audible and medium paced speeches.

Best wishes

DR. SYDNEY PASQUINELLI

• Director of Debate @ Wayne State University
• Program Director of the Detroit Urban Debate League
• BA- Wayne State University
• MA - Wake Forest University
• PHD - University of Pittsburgh
• she/her
• email chains: wayneCXdocs@gmail.com

Stylistics:

- I like debates with a lot of direct clash and impact calculus.

- I am very flow-oriented, and I often vote on based on "tech over truth." In other words, I like debates where teams debate LBL, and exploit the other team's errors and use technical concessions to get ahead strategically.

- I really dislike tag-teaming in CX, especially when the result is that one person dominates all the CXs.

- I don't usually read along in the speech docs during your speeches, because I like to stay true to the flow.

- I would appreciate if you sent me compiled card docs at the end of the round.

Default Voting Paradigm:

- If the aff is net beneficial to the status quo, I default to voting aff unless the negative wins another framework.

- If the neg wins a substantial risk of a DA, which has an external impact that outweighs and turns the case, the affirmative is probably going to lose my ballot. The 1AR can't drop "turns the case" arguments and expect the 2AR to get new answers.

- If the neg wins a substantial risk of the K, which has an external impact and turns the case, the negative still has to win an alternative or a framework argument (to take care of uniqueness), and beat back the perm.

- The perm which includes all the aff and all or part of the CP/Alt is a legitimate test of competition. If the neg proposes a framework to exclude perms, it has to be very well-justified, because I see the role of the neg is to win a DA to the aff as it was presented.

- Severance perms are not a reason to vote aff - if the aff is abandoning ship, this signals to me a neg ballot.

Topicality / Theory:

- I do not default to competing interpretations on framework or topicality. Winning that AFF could've started the round debating within a net-better "competing model" does not fulfill the role of the negative, which is to disprove the desirability of the aff.

- I think topicality is a question of in-round debatability. If you win that the aff was so unpredictable, vast, conditional and/or a moving target, and thus made it implausible for you to win the debate, then I will vote for T as a procedural issue. (A TVA or a net beneficial model is not a substitute for doing the work to prove their model is undebatable).

- Theory is also a question of in-round debatability. If you win that your opponent did something theoretically objectionable, that made it impossible for you to win this debate, I can see myself voting against your opponent. This includes excessive conditional worlds. I want to reiterate here that competing interpretations don't help in theory debates - procedurals are a yes/no question of in-round abuse.

I graduated from Wayne State University with a BFA in Communication Studies. I have three years' experience in public forum debate. I am currently working on my master's degree in communication studies. While doing so, I am coaching Wayne’s PF team. Also, I have debated in Policy and judged Policy.

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.

Best of luck!

John

I have the following preferences, but I will vote counter to these biases if a team wins 
their arguments in the debate. 
1. I view debates from a policy perspective as clash of competing advocacies. For me 
this means that minus a counterplan, the affirmative must prove that their plan is better 
than the current system. Fiat operates only to bypass the question of whether something 
could pass to focus the debate about whether something should pass. I do believe that 
fiat is binding so rollback arguments can be difficult to win. 
2. I will vote on topicality if the negative can clearly articulate how the affirmative is 
non-topical and why their interpretation is superior for debate. In this regard I see 
topicality debates as a synthesis between a good definition and a clear explanation of the 
standards. Critical affirmatives must be topical if the negative is to be prepared to debate 
them. I won’t vote on topicality as a reverse voting issue under any circumstance. 
3. I don’t find most theory debates to be very compelling, but I have voted for these 
arguments. These debates are often filled with jargon at the 
expense of explanation. If you do want me vote on these arguments then don’t spew your 
theory blocks at me (I’ve tried – but I just can’t flow them). Have just a couple of 
reasons to justify your theoretical objection and develop them. Pointing out in-round 
abuse is helpful, but if their position justifies a practice that is harmful for debate that is 
just as good. Identifying the impact to your theory arguments in the constructive is a 
must. 
4. I am a big fan of all types of counterplans (pics, agent, consult etc.). The only 
prerequisite is that they be competitive. I am not a big fan of textual competition and tend 
to view competition from a functional perspective. When evaluating counterplans I believe that the negative has the burden to prove that it is a reason to reject the plan. This 
means that the counterplan must be net beneficial compared to the plan or the 
permutation. Affirmatives can prove that some of these counterplans are theoretically 
illegitimate, but be aware of my theory bias (see above). 
5. Kritiks are fine as long as it is clear what the argument is and that there is a clearly 
defined impact. Statements that the kritik takes out the solvency and turns the case need 
a clear justification. Hypothetical examples are extremely useful in this regard, and the more specific the example the better. I prefer frameworks discussions occur on a separate page from the K – from a judging perspective I’ve noticed that when it’s all done on one piece of paper things tend to get convoluted and debate gets extremely messy. Having an alternative is helpful, but I can be persuaded that you don’t need to have one. 
7. The most important thing for you to know to get my ballot is that my decision is highly 
influenced on how arguments are explained and justified during the course of the debate 
rather than thru evidence. While I do think that at certain levels you must have evidence 
to substantiate your claims, good cross-examinations and well developed explanations and comparisons are often the key to persuading me to vote for one side over the other. Other than that just be polite but competitive, intelligent, and enjoy the debate. 

Judging is a critical aspect of ensuring fairness, accuracy, and quality in competitive events across various disciplines. The following paradigm aims to provide a comprehensive framework on how I assess the participants fairly and effectively.

1. Clarity of Evaluation Criteria:

Define clear and specific evaluation criteria tailored to the nature of the tournament.
I ensure to understand the criteria thoroughly to maintain consistency and fairness in evaluations.

2. Fairness and Impartiality:

I emphasize the importance of impartial judgment irrespective of personal biases or affiliations.
I encourage to focus solely on the performance or presentation without prejudice.

3. Transparency:

I maintain transparency throughout the judging process by explaining the criteria to participants and providing feedback when possible.
I disclose any potential conflicts of interest and ensure they do not influence judgments.

4. Feedback Mechanism:

I provide a constructive feedback to participants to facilitate their growth and improvement.
I also offer specific feedback based on the evaluation criteria.

5. Ethical Considerations:

I Emphasize ethical behavior among participants, including confidentiality, honesty, and integrity.
I Prohibit any form of discrimination or unfair treatment based on personal characteristics.

6. Continuous Improvement:

Solicit feedback to all participants to identify areas for improvement in the judging process.
Regularly review and update the judging paradigm to adapt to changing needs and emerging best practices.

Thank You for going through this Paradigm. ALL THE VERY BEST.