Please add me to the email chain dciocca@columbushs.com

I am a debate coach with experience judging at national tournaments at the novice and varsity levels. I prefer arguments to be well structured, articulated clearly (please no spreading but I can understand a considerably faster than conversational pace) and supported by convincing evidence. Please slow down on the tags so I can accurately flow. I don't mind listening to a unique or interesting argument but somehow you MUST link it back to the resolution if you are going to get my ballot.

Plans: All good, just make it relatable to the topic

Counter-plans: All good.

Theory: If there is significant violation or abuse in a round that warrants running theory, I will vote on it but generally not a fan of debating about debate.

Ks: Willing to listen to a good K as long there is a really strong and convincing link back. Not a fan of generic links or links of omission as an excuse to run the K you want to run.

DA: I'm fine with them, we are all good here

T: I think aff has an obligation to be somewhat topical and neg has the right to question whether aff is in fact being topical. That being said, while I generally will not vote on a straight RVI, running T for the sole purpose of creating a time suck for aff and then kicking it in the NR is not a strat that is going to sit well with me.

Conditional Arguments: Anything more than 2 conditional arguments is abusive and puts aff in an impossible situation in the 1AR. I will vote off “Condo bad” in these situations.

Disclosure: Seems like it gets run a lot for no purpose other than trying to get a cheap win. However, If the affirmative is reading a case that is so unique, such as a specific plan text, that the negative would have difficulty engaging with then disclosure is the fair thing to do.

Feel free to ask me if clarification is needed

My name is Christine DeStefano, and I am a lay judge. Although I do not have much experience with LD & PF debate, I will do my best to judge debates based on the evidence presented.

I request that you do not spread. Also, I prefer fact over technical, so please be able to support your contentions with references. Looking forward to a great debate!

Please be respectful to your opponent. Eye contact is important and try not to use filler words such as “uh and umm.” Please have fun.  Please also email your cards to me before round-  manders8302@gmail.com

Eye contact as much as possible, I understand you have long cases but look up once in a while.  Please be respectful of your opponent, no filler words (like, uhh, um, etc). Send copy of cards to email j_gold@comcast.net

To all competitors

About me: I have an engineering background with a bachelor's degree from FIU and a master's degree in Engineering Management from FIU. I pay attention to flow and supporting data behind each contention and rebuttals

Please speak clearly. I prefer not to have off the clock road mapping.  I am not trained in spreading. If you choose to use this technique and I cannot understand you, I will not be able to judge appropriately.  Do your best, maintain good eye contact and be respectful throughout the debate.  Most importantly, enjoy the debate

Most important is to follow decorum (no ad hominem fallacies) and follow the simple flow of argumentation.  We are here to debate so debate and convince me that your position is the stronger argument.  Your personal opinions do not matter once you enter the room.  

1.  Key arguments of quality with sufficient and ideal sources of evidence that provide relevant support.
2. Clarity and organization with proper flow from one argument to another.  If I cannot follow you or you do not counter an argument presented, you have conceded your position.
3. Decorum!  You are here to debate on the argument, NOT the debater.
4. Please do not introduce a new argument, however tempting, in the final rebuttal! 
   
   

Let’s have fun debating!

4th Year Business-Management Student

Hi, My name is Joshua Lederberger. I am currently a junior at the University of Florida. I am pursuing a dual degree in Business Administration and Media & Film Production. I have multiple years of experience in theater and performing arts. I am quite new to judging, so please be sure to speak clearly and slowly.

For debate events, you should treat me as a traditional judge. I will be able to follow your arguments from a logical perspective, but I do not understand complex technical jargon or spreading.

Updated: Fall 2023

About myself:

I have debated LD for 3 years. And I have Judged Variety LD prior to Covid-19 and during the pandemic. I graduated from the University of Florida in Business administration with specialization in Agriculture and currently Im in graduate school studying Health Administration.

I'm ok with any argument. If you found another Omar Lopera on the judge wiki that sounds like a parent. That's my father(yes we have same named). I'm completely different from my father to judging.

Spreading

I'm ok with spreading just as long if your opponent is ok with spreading. Personally, I think debates get boring if one debater is spreading, while the other debater doesn't understand what's happening. It's not productive nor educational for any parties involved. So please ask the opponent if there good with spreading prior to the round.

Secondly, I prefer if your spreading, please tell where you are on the flow and pinpoint to what argument are extending across the flow so I can clearly understand where the argument is. Please sign post with taglines and make sure you tell the warrant and impact of the extension as well. This just help with clarity on the flow.

Role of The Ballot

I Like the role of ballot, it just makes thing easier on my end to focus on what evaluation Im looking during the debate. If the ROB is just the resolution restated, I dont evaluate it because thats just the debate itself nothing new. ROB should be weighing analysis or something along those lines, or how I should think differently when evaluating the meaning of the resolution.

Larp debate

I'm ok with any plan text argument the consistent with the topic at hand. Give me IMPACTS and Warrants. I seen and alot of plan text arguments only talk about inherency of the problem but provide very little impacts, which makes the case not fulfill its purpose of providing benefits to voting aff

Phil debate

I personally love the idea of the Phil debate. However if its super deep philosophy, please explain in 1AR or 1NC what it means before you start laying the groundworks for your arguments. I want to make sure I clearly understanding your argument and not misinterpret it. Also, make sure you give me impacts and weighing especially if its ideal vs. policy debate. Also I need impact coming from phill debate, it makes thing much easier to evaluate if I can link a impact extending from phill framework. If the debate comes to two differentPhil perspectives a weighing analysis or comparative world analysis makes thing clear to evaluate.

Theory

I'm ok with theory. If it is a wordy interp, just simply explains what it means. I believe the theory is the highest level of debate. In my opinion theory debate gets muddled so I wouldn't focus all your time on it. Also please extend the voters it makes judging theory a lot easier. One last thing, do not try frivolous theory, I think its annoying and waste of time.

Kritks

I love Ks. Personally, I think the reject alt is boring, but I won't hold it against you. If you want my vote on the K debate. Really go in for Alt. Without the alt I tend to default aff since most K impacts are that aff continuing a system that bad, and if I don't see an alt then how I see it is why should I care about any of negative impacts if you yourself don't have a solution. So I see the first link, alt then impacts for Ks

DA's

I consider DA as an off so in my view it's above the aff. I see a DA's argument that doing the aff is worst than doing nothing. So aff has the burden to disprove the DA's.

Spikes

I'm not used evaluating theory spikes, honestly try avoiding them if you can. Im not going hold it against you its just that I'm used applying spikes on the flow. This more of your benefit since I don't misinterpret a good argument or burden you put on your opponent's just because I'm not used to evaluating them.

Speaker points

You shouldn't expect anything lower than 27. Unless you straight up punch the other debater.Other than that explain your arguments and you should be fine.

Lastly

Keep grudges at the door.

If their prefer pronouns that debater would like to use. Please address the debater by their pronoun.

Please ask any questions about the round.

I am a LD judge.This is my second year of judging LD events. After watching few rounds of debaters here is what I will expect from the competitors, I'll summarize:

1. I appreciate off time road maps.

2. Speak slowly and clearly, finish your sentences and complete your thoughts.

3. I prefer a balance of fully developed and efficient warrants over voluminous recitation of facts and a litany of citations that are presented without a clearly woven argument.

4. Don't raise your voice or shout - decibels do not win debates.

5. Please narrow the debate and WEIGH arguments in Summary and Final Focus. If you want the argument in Final Focus, be sure it was in the summary.

SCORING:

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

I am a lay/parent judge. I enjoy a spirited, yet civil, debate. I dislike over-reliance on technology. Avoid spreading. Keep your time. Integrity matters. I have particular distaste for instances where a debater will conclude by misquoting an opponent at the end of a round. Help me help you by articulating your arguments and telling me why you should win.

I am in my Junior year at UF, and an majoring in Finance.  I’m looking forward to seeing passionate arguments that are made in the style you are most comfortable with, such as by standing or sitting.  Genuineness and belief in your own words is what I want to see.  Feel free to go on the offense during cross ex. and to look for weaknesses in your opponent's argument.  

Hello competitors and judges!

About me: I have a background in linguistics, with a bachelor's degree from UF and a master's degree in Applied Linguistics from the University of Glasgow. Therefore, I pay special attention to wording, phrasing, and speech during rounds. Semantics matter!

I was an LD and PF debater for three years during high school, so I have some experience with the techniques and formats, although slightly dated. That being said, I am not a full-time judge or debate coach - I likely do not have the background on the topics, so make sure to explain this thoroughly. 

I have no preference between offense or defense as long as your overall case is well-supported and these arguments are maintained until the end of the round. This is another important point for me - your arguments should be reiterated during rebuttals and summaries and I do consider contentions dropped if they are not carried through. 

Please speak clearly. I am not trained in spreading, although I can follow speed reading. If you choose to use this technique and I cannot understand you, I will not be able to judge the round appropriately. Other than that, be respectful and do your best!

Experience:

1. Debated primarily Oxford/LD in High School. My style of debate is more traditional and less progressive.

2. Have been judging PF/LD/Extemp Debate since 2018.

Judging Preferences:

1. I am a flow judge. Help me, help you. Slow down, use signposting, make sure I hear (therefore, flow) your arguments, evidence and rebuttals. Please don't spread. Remind me which of your contentions flow through, which have never been refuted, which of your opponent's contentions you are refuting, etc.

2. I have a slight hearing deficit, so please speak loudly and clearly.

3. Avoid progressive arguments.

4. During rebuttal/final focus, tell me how and why you have affirmed or negated the resolution. Tell me why you think you have won and why your opponent(s) lost. Be specific. Walk me through it. I've probably already flowed it, but help bring it into focus with a solid, well-organized summary.

I debated LD and Policy all throughout high school. In college I judged tournaments in Utah, Arizona and California.

While judging, I like debaters to tell me why they should win. By this I mean clearly state which of your arguments (contentions) I should flow through. The ones your opponent hasn't addressed are easy. With the contentions they have addressed, tell me why your argument is better (you have better sources, better stats, etc.). Many judges will circle the contentions they think you have won and draw an arrow across the flow sheet. Think of these as points for your side. But, I prefer you to tell me which of these you have won and why. I don’t mind spreading, just make sure you don’t transition to jibberish. Learn to read your judges. If I put my pen down, I probably can’t understand you.

The best advice I have is to relax and have fun! Debate shouldn't be torture--tournaments should be fun. Let’s face it, most people are terrified of public speaking. Debate tournaments give you the chance to practice critical skills you’ll use the rest of your life, both personally and professionally.

Good Luck!