UPDATED 2/21/20: I do not judge as often as I may once have. At most local events, I find myself on the operations side of a tournament.

That should not terrify you – I am a career public servant, who happens to coach debate because I appreciate everything that it taught me as a student. You should assume that I approach debate rounds this way: what is the best decision I can make given the information presented to me?

It may sound old-fashioned, but I do not wish to be on any email chains. I have sadly witnessed teams answering entire disadvantages not read by their opponents simply because they were included in said distribution. Not to be outdone, I have read ballots where judges voted on evidence that nobody read. I pledge to keep the best flow I can. If I need to see a piece of evidence, and the particular league or tournament's rules allow for that, I will call for it.

If you are short on time reading this, my paradigm can be expressed in six (6) words: do your thing and be nice. If you are really short on time, we can go with four (4): old guy, still flows.

Policy:

1. Speed is fine, but clarity is necessary. I cannot vote on what I do not have typed/written down. I try hard to listen to the text of the evidence presented;
2. Open cross-examination is acceptable, but if it is clear than one member of the team is not able to participate at the same level, speaker points will suffer;
3. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I look first to any potential violation(s) of stock issues and then default to a policymaking perspective.

Lincoln Douglas:

1. I do not mind an LD round that gets on down the flow;
2. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I will default to a whole resolution lens looking first to the value/value criterion debate.

Public Forum/Speech:

1. Nothing earth-shattering here. I am less speed tolerant in public forum and I will simply apply the ballot criteria to whatever speech event is at hand.

Regardless of event, we enter the debate knowing the resolution and some basic rules of the road (e.g., speech times, likely printed on the ballot). By tabula rasa I mean that the debaters establish the framework for evaluating debates. You should do what you do best and do it well. Arguments should have three parts – a claim, a warrant, and some sort of greater implication regardless of your style.

I still believe that good decisions should flow like water. Great rebuttals frame debates and clash wins rounds. My ballots will provide a succinct RFD, possibly pointing out either strengths or opportunities for improvement as we progress through the speeches. 3AR/3NR oral critiques nauseate me: what I say out loud (if disclosure is permitted) will almost certainly match what I am placing on your ballot. Your coach should see comments too. You did not go to the dentist; my RFD is never going to read “oral.”

Finally, be respectful of your partners, opponents, and judges. I have zero tolerance for poor behavior in debate rounds.

As personal context, I'm a college student in Philadelphia. In high school, I was involved in forensics for three years, the first of which I spent in PF and the latter two of which I committed to trad LD. I have a good understanding of framework and contention level argumentation, and I do flow rounds. I consider myself tabula rasa and my voting is framed by the framework you give me. I accept any arguments, so long as they are neither offensive nor discriminatory. I'm fine with speed but keep it comprehensible.

Keep the round civil and limit the snarky comments.

elliehan1004@gmail.com

LD and PF: Although I list myself as "Traditional," I am open to different arguments as long as they are explained well and related to the resolution. I believe that we are debating the resolution, not fixing society's ills. Yes debate will enable us to fix society's ills but a competition round is not where that will occur. Debate theory can be interesting to judge, but again, needs to still be connected to the resolution. Also, be sure that the theory you're arguing is correct and logical. In terms of speed, to me it's not speed it's clarity. If you are going 97 miles per hour and have to constantly repeat yourself because you trip over words, maybe going 60 is better.

Congress: As a scorer or Parli, I look for good speeches with good evidence and analysis, but also continuous participation. I believe Congress is an overall package, including activity with questioning, motions and amendments. PO's should be able to move the chamber along smoothly, and fairly. However, they must also recognize that sometimes this may be a new experience for someone in the chamber, and be sure that everyone understands how the PO is maneuvering the chambers, not just assume that it's just standard operating procedure for everyone. Be good to each other and you will often stand out from the competition.

I am a parent judge and am doing the best I can to get better as a judge for a variety of events. I value Speech and Debate for my own son and want to make judging worthwhile for all participants. I am a high school mathematics teacher with a Master's degree in teaching Math and undergraduate degrees in Political Science and History.

I judge all types of debate using a standard point system. I do my best to keep personal feelings on a topic out of any assessment I make. I value good, clean, easy to follow arguments and I am not a fan of spending too much time on definitions and minutiae. I also value a good listener. So if your opponent makes a point, make sure that you address it and counter it as best you can.

In events with extended monologues (or speech events) I value eye contact, clarity, and body language. I want to feel that you are passionate and genuine about what you are speaking about.

I'd like if the debaters would speak loud and clearly so that I'm able to follow along. Please present a strong case in your debate with reliable resources and a reason why you should win. I want everyone to respect each other through out, regardless of the differences or beliefs. There are so many topics that can be debated so I'm open to hearing what you present. Good luck to everyone participating and thank you for allowing me to judge.

As a competitor in Lincoln Douglas Debate and Congress in the late 1990s, I have returned recently as a coach/judge. Some things have changed; some things are the same. I remain most interested in adjudicating rounds where clash between AFF and NEG is clearly articulated and engaged. I favor debaters who take a tabula rasa approach and do not assume that the judge is comfortable with voting on a particular theory, but rather effectively use evidence, signpost contentions, and conclude with voting issues that expose the debates' clash. I am comfortable with speed, as long the speaker does not sacrifice clarity or a compelling tone. I can be convinced by counter-plans, disadvantages, and kritiks as long as they stay close to the resolution, affirm a value, and speak (once again) to clash. I like the debaters to keep a formality/professionalism about debate, and treat each other and the judge respectfully. This includes attention to presentation (standing over sitting), eye contact with the judge, and good beginnings and endings to all speeches and CX.

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.