I am a traditional judge.

Please introduce yourself clearly.

I don't flow speed. Speaking clearly is a great way to earn my ballot. I like structured presentation with lesser words, well separated arguments that are punctuated with sufficient silent spacing rather than excessive content being squeezed into the allotted time to articulate your position.

I did public forum for 4 years in high school and have been coaching it for 2 years now. I am okay with speed. However, send me your case if you think you will be speaking too fast. I need to understand what you are saying if you want me to vote for you. I like to see clear and clean extensions of your links, warrants, etc. You need those to win the round. You don't need to weigh too much in your rebuttal, but you need to start weighing in summary for me to vote for you. And make sure to signpost too. It's also easier for me to vote for you if you write the ballot for me. And don't be rude in the round to me or your opponents. You can be good at debate, but don't be cocky. Don't be afraid to ask me questions about my paradigm or the round if you have them (or email me too)!

Also, if I am ever in the policy pool, please strike me! I am not a policy judge so I don't want to screw over your round because I am not totally sure how to judge policy.

email - johnevans201413@gmail.com

I lean towards the Game theorist profile. Rational or the absurd - Anything and everything is on the table and fair game as it relates to effective delivery of an argument. Just don’t speak too fast, please! Email: leriagee@hotmail.com

Public Forum -

I am a traditional flow judge and former extemper and public forum debater who prefers clear analysis, well-cited arguments and clearly outlined voting issues in summary and final focus.

I look extremely unfavorably upon theory arguments in public forum. I believe they undermine the educational value of the activity and are one of the core reasons why policy debate has little value as an educational activity, in my opinion. I still vote off the flow, but import the worst aspects of policy debate into public forum at your own risk. I have never heard a theory shell run in round that didn't make me feel like I had lost an hour of my life that I will never get back - but hey, there's a first time for everything, I suppose.

I try and balance my final decision between who had persuaded me more of their position overall and who won the key arguments of the round. I find that the winning team almost always is stronger in both regards, but if it is close I typically award the win to the team who has persuaded me more of their position overall.

Along those lines, I don't score the rounds based on a strict win-loss basis for each contention. For example, if the affirmative had the better argument on several contentions, but negative had the stronger argument on the main contention at issue in the round, I typically would award the win to negation.

Teams that clearly outline their reasons for decision/voting issues in the third and fourth speeches tend to do better than those that do not. I like it when teams clearly tell me what issues they believe defined the round and why I should vote for them.

I will not hold the speed of your delivery against you, but spread at your own risk. I can only judge based on the arguments I hear. I prefer a more conversational style but am fine with some faster reading - but if I miss points because you read too fast, that's on you.

I am here to listen to the best arguments you've brought to defend your side. I tend not to rate highly teams that get lost in PF-jargon or who try and score technical points in lieu of making a strong argument.

If you are asked to provide a source and you are unable to provide it, I follow PHSSL rules and consider that an automatic loss. Providing analytical and empirical evidence is always necessary. Citing sources is essential for you to formulate your argument, for your opponents to accept the statistics you provide, and to give me the judge a basis to judge the data both teams are using to convince me their argument is superior. Technology or wifi issues are not an excuse - you should be prepared and have downloaded your case and cards so they're accessible offline before the tournament - as we all know, wifi can be spotty at debate tournaments.

My background: I am a public forum coach. I have judged more public forum rounds than any other event combined over the last three school years. I have an educational background in international affairs and a professional background in public policy and education. I do my best to not allow my prior knowledge to influence my decision-making and strive to decide every round by the arguments brought to bear within the four walls of competition room.

Lincoln Douglas Debate -

I generally prefer a more conversational style. If I miss something because you're talking fast, that's on you.

I evaluate the importance of your value and value criterion depending on how its used in the round. Several times, I've found that the winner of the framework debate isn't necessarily the winner of the round.

I strongly prefer when students give explicit voting issues at the end of the round. Tell me how you want me to evaluate the round, and if you don't I'll evaluate it as I see it.

I don't love jargon but cross-apply, extend, turn, etc are fine

I generally decide the winner based on who won the key argument of the round

Evidence is great. I strongly prefer it, but if you have a strong logical argument a lack of evidence won't hurt you.

I'm a flow judge, and I prefer traditional debate and am not a fan of K or theory.

Policy -

No spreading. It's poor communication and a sign of an inability to deliver your argument competently, concisely and persuasively. Is it standard in policy? Yes. Do I care? No.

No K's or identity arguments. I love substantive debate - it's why we're here, right? To debate policy?

Limit theory only to topicality. Need to have proper warrants, links, and impacts. Proper use of impacts is essential to policy formation.

I debated 2 years of PF at Fox Chapel in Pittsburgh, PA; currently debating BPD and CPD at the University of Toronto.

Include me in email chains: Boomba.Nishi@gmail.com

I will vote off the flow and what gets extended the cleanest. Tech over truth to an extent just don't be stupid about it.

FOR USC SEASON SPARKLE:

I’m one of the most flow judge you'll get at locals (not to toot my own horn). I’m not as fast as I used to be for flowing probably cap out at 200ish but test my limits at your own risk. Its local so I doubt you can go too far for me. I know what I say about offs below but I don't think there's a reason not to run k/thoery at locals. Rather, I'd almost encourage it as I think a lot of the harms these try to correct go unnoticed in locals simply because parent judges don't know how to vote for/evaluate these arguments so teams are afraid to run them. But that's the whole point right – to make positive change in the debate space. READ WHAT I SAY ABOUT DISCLOSURE. If I’m feeling goofy and there's no offence at the end of the round I’ll probably just flip a coin.

Voting Issues: Only losers use them.

No: Tricks.

Speed: I’m okay with some speed just don't go nyooooom or I’ll stop flowing.

Theory/Ks: I think theory and Ks are on net good ie. they push for positive change and create positive norms. I don't really care if it's a local tournament if you genuinely want to read theory/Ks to make this change I will be more than happy. Please do not read progressive arguments as an easy way to roll inexperienced teams. I never ran theory/Ks so I’m willing to vote off of them just not the most experienced evaluating them.

2nd Rebuttal: Preferably putting down some defence

Cross: Don't care, Didn't ask

Don't Be: Rude

Timing: Please time yourself, I will also be timing and stop flowing after 4 minutes. Feel free to ask what impacts/responses I didn't flow but I’ll probably just tell you.

Disclosure: I will always disclose unless like tab tells me not to and is sitting in the room. Not disclosing is stupid and not conducive to actually learning. Just hang out and I’ll either disclose or just think out loud what my thoughts on the round are.

Make judging easy for me:

-Signpost

-Warrant

-Weigh

-Collapse

-Cleanly Extend: Not just card names. If it's dropped it's donezo.

I enjoy some banter in speeches (this doesn't mean be mean) and big fan of thought experiments

I'll give +.25 speaks for chess or footie references

written by Lara Scherer (he boldened everything he thinks is important)

My dad is a lay judge and not fully versed in the topic. Make sure you are using no jargon. Don't tell him you win because of a prereq weigh, tell him why your impacts are more important and logically sound. If the argument is logically reasoned and clearly extending and signposting throughout Summary and FF, he will be able to follow the flow of the round easily and make a decision based on your debating, not based on jargon he can't understand. He also will call for evidence if he thinks it's necessary, so make sure you are adding him to email chains and anything regarding evidence disputes.

Don't spread and make sure you are speaking clearly and coherently. Speak slowly, he should know what you're saying.

Make sure you time yourselves.

Good Luck Debating!!!

No spreading, this in online debate, and it is already hard enough to understand cases virtually. If you go faster, you need to give me a speech doc or I will probably miss anything blippy which is not good. I will shout "clear" if I don't understand what you are saying. If you don't slow down, I won't be able to flow your arguments and you will likely lose.

Going heavy for the line by line is fine, but you must signpost or I will literally have an empty flow and won't know what to do. A good example of not signposting is the 2018 NSDA PF final. With that being said, the final focus should spend at least 30 seconds on the narrative/big picture. 2 minutes of line by line is a bit hard for me to judge and find things to vote off of if done poorly. The reverse is also true- line by line is very important and should appear in every single speech. Losing the line by line probably makes it harder for me to vote for you. When going for the line by line, you must explain the implications for winning each part of the line by line. This comes from impacting your responses/evidence/analytics. I've seen some teams that aren't extending full arguments in summary and just front lining responses. Extensions in all speeches need to extend a full argument or I will feel really bad voting on it.

Summary should not be the first time I see responses to case arguments and summary should respond to rebuttal arguments.

I used to say I wanted to see a theory debate about whether 2nd rebuttal should frontline, but no one is willing to do it. If someone does it well, I will give both teams 30 speaks. Meanwhile, I currently default to 2nd rebuttal should frontline everything (yes, defense too. Don't be lazy).

Since summaries are longer now, I think defense should be extended in summary. Any defense you want me to vote off should be in final focus even if they never touch it. I'll significantly dock points if I have to vote on arguments where both sides dropped defense. Turns you want me to vote on must be in summary. NOTHING IS STICKY.

In order for me to vote on arguments, I need to understand them so you need to explain them to me instead of blipping something and complaining that I screwed you by not voting off it. If I don't understand an argument until the middle of my rfd, it's probably on you. If something is important enough for me to vote off, you should spend more than 10 seconds on it in summary and final focus (exceptions are obvious game over moments).

How to win my ballot:

Win a link and impact that can outweigh your opponents' impacts. Weighing is important to keep me from thinking that everything is a wash and vote off presumption. I used to think weighing was really important, but most debates I've judged have not been weighing debates. If you can recognize this and drop weighing, I'll prob reward you with extra speaks. It's very rare that I actually vote off weighing because the most important part of the round is usually the link level.

I will vote off any argument that is properly warranted and impacted. I am truth before tech in terms of evidence and arguments that cause offense to people, but I will evaluate tech first everywhere else. Other arguments I will be truth over tech about will be stated at the top of my paradigm every topic (those are arguments I hate with a passion and will likely never vote off of).

I will only vote off defense if you give me a reason to and I will presume a side if you give me a reason to (normally I presume neg). I will also adapt my paradigm if arguments are made in the round about it (I can and will be lay if you want).

I evaluate framework first, then impacts on the framework, then links to the impacts, then other impacts, then defense. Strength of link is a very important weighing mechanism for me. Teams should use this to differentiate their arguments from their opponents'. If there are no impacts left I will default to the status quo. I highly enjoy voting this way, so if you don't want to lose because of this, you need to not drop terminal defense or your case. I will reward high speaks for a strategy that takes advantage of that if it works.

I will be forced to intervene if the debaters don't give me a way to evaluate the round as stated above. In egregious circumstances, I will flip a coin. I reserve the right to vote off eye contact.

Things I like:

Debating the line by line well.

Good warranting on nonstock arguments. I enjoy hearing unique arguments.

Clash. Opposing arguments need to be responded to.

Good extensions (please don't drop warrants or impacts during extensions. Voting off a nonextended warrant or impact is intervention).

Smart strategies that save time and allow you to win easily will make me award high speaks. Debaters who already won by summary can do nothing for the rest of the round.