Recent Changes


  1. page Kahn, Jeff edited ... Jeff Kahn Strath Haven High School (PA) updated 3/16 1/17 What you want to know quickly:…
    Jeff Kahn
    Strath Haven High School (PA)
    updated 3/161/17
    What you want to know quickly:
    I debated in high school (Pennsbury '02) and have coached since. Currently at Strath Haven
    sometimes read critical affsKs and Ks,affs with critical influences, but mostly
    If you are aff without the state, or neg without a link to the 1AC, strike me. I will almost certainly vote for framework
    and full explanationsexpl7anations of arguments,
    Prep ends when you eject your flash drive
    Debate background:
    6. Also, I think debate is supposed to be both fun and educational. I am an educator and a coach; I'm happy to be at the tournament. But I also value sleep and my family, so make sure what you do in round is worth all the time we are putting into being there. Imagine that I brought some new novice debaters to watch the round with me. If you are bashing debate or advocating for suicide or other things I wouldn't want 9th graders new to my program to hear, you aren't going to have a happy judge. Don't take yourselves too seriously, but don't waste my time.
    I am more than happy to elaborate on this paradigm or answer any questions in round.
    Strath Haven High School (PA)-LDLD Paradigm
    LD Paradigm
    I don't believe
    program is young and so my LD judging experience is spread out over many years and mostly local. As I am asee it, there are three styles of LD.
    1) Traditional, value-centric LD. I'm
    good LD judge. The problem is, I really don't like abstract philosophy. But, I also think LD isn't Policy. I don't mind the speed, but talking about solvency and counterplans seems strange to me in awith this kind of debate that is supposed to be about values and upholdingso long as you are not assuming a sidelot of the resolution.
    Fundamentally, I think LD works best when the aff agrees
    philosophy background. See items 4-6 in my Policy philosophy above.
    2) Policy-lite LD,
    with the resolutionlots of talk of solvency and the neg disagreesharms. I'm good with this, too, as I have a Policy background. Be sure that you are actually addressing the resolution,resolution and each side presents a societal value that is best upheld by there side (and is most important). There shouldn't beyou aren't just throwing out a plan, which means counterplansbunch of Policy buzzwords, since I'll actually know what they mean and how to evaluate them. Honestly, I don't make sense. There shouldn't bereally want to attend an LD round and have a lot of talk of solvency, althoughPolicy debate break out, but some resolutionstopics lend themselves to it. If you want to run a "kritik", I still think you needthis style and that's fine. Attempting to defend a value on your sideonly some subset of the resolution. If that means kritiks don't make sense, I'm cool with that.
    So if you find yourself
    resolution (or a tiny counterplan) isn't going to go well in front of methis event. See items 3-6 in an LD round, first, know thatmy Policy philosophy above.
    3) High philosophy LD.
    I'm sorry. Second, know that I don't care about speed but I do want a value clash debate, and not a fan. Much as in my Policy debate (and especially notparadigm, you need to engage the resolution, and I've never been a Policy K debate). I love Policy, butbig critical literature student so if you do it, it should be with a partner.are speeding through abstract polysyllabic words, I'm not going to follow you.
    PF Paradigm
    I recently learned this is a thing! It seems unlikely that I'll be judging a PF round where you are looking at this, but just in case: I come from
    different event. In the first few years it existed, that wasThat used to not a good thing. Now that most PF teams take the fact that this is supposed to be a debate seriously, so do I.compliment, but now it is!
    I do flow like a policy debater,debater and will fall on the "tech" side of the spectrum of PF judges, but I
    (view changes)
    7:06 pm
  2. page Smith, Jason R edited ... You should slow down for (a) theory interps and plan texts to conversational pace (I will say …
    You should slow down for (a) theory interps and plan texts to conversational pace (I will say repeat), (b) particularly weird/complicated/dense arguments, (c) blippy spikes, and (d) tags. I will say clear/slow as many times as necessary, but I will lower speaks if it gets ridiculous. In these cases, assume I missed the last argument you made. I will not vote for an argument that I do not understand. On theory, I default to competing interps, reject the argument, and no RVI.
    Don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, mean, or rude. I will dock your speaks for reading a position that should have a trigger warning without one - I don't have an exact brightline, but use common sense and be a decent person. If something is important in CX, make sure I'm paying attention. Come to round pre-flowed.
    Things that will impress me: Good framework debate, line by line, uniqueI give speaks based on strategy and interesting positionsargument quality. I like judging arguments which combine cleverness and shells, NC-AC 1Ns, evidence comparisonoriginality, regardless of style. Bold strategies and methodology debate, bold strategies (kicking the aff, straight ref, etc.), technically superior K debate, weird args
    Things that
    smart, efficient refutation will irritate me: Bad K debate (including but not limited to generic Ks with links of omissions, the popular K+T strat, barely developed ROTBs and alts), impact turns to oppression, not being able to explain args in CX, poorly extended/explained tricks (see not voting on thingsimpress me. I generally don't understand), flashing drama (getenjoy debates that involve lots of reading off my lawn and learn to flow)paper, especially if the arguments are fairly generic.
    (view changes)
    5:40 pm
  3. page Choe, June edited tl;dr - i like good debates he/him/his Notre Dame 2012 - 2016 ... Put me on the email chain -…
    tl;dr - i like good debates
    Notre Dame 2012 - 2016
    Put me on the email chain -
    Alternatively, use pocketbox -
    topic: ~30 pre-ovalin 2016
    Time yourselves please~please
    My default paradigm is that topicality is a debate over differing normative visions of debate and their implications for debaters and debate as an activity, but I can be convinced otherwise. I think that topicality debates are very important and among my favorites to judge. Negatives should provide a caselist and impact out their standards (ground is not an impact it's an internal link to terminal, portable impacts like research skills). Likewise, the aff should impact out their offense i.e. overlimiting and reasonability. But I understand the late developing nature of topicality debates so I won't punish teams for not impacting stuff out in 1nc/2ac. I think that precision is an undervalued standard and should be used and impacted more often - where your definition comes from and the context of the evidence matter. I like card-heavy t debates. I tend to lean neg on big topics.
    I gave cross-x a header because it's like half a speech long and super important. I don't usually flow cross-x but if you bring up a good point it'll make me write that down to consider for the rest of the debate. For me, that's sometimes better than a good card.
    I just kinda went through different major tournaments and averaged out points. Damn points are so inflated now...
    29.5+ --- top speaker
    29.1-29.4 --- speaker award
    28.7 - 29 --- elim quality
    28.4 - 28.6 --- average
    28 - 28.3 --- below average
    27.5 - 27.9 --- novice level debating
    Below this --- you did something seriously wrong

    (view changes)
    5:34 pm
  4. page Martinson, Gregg edited ... Expect a double loss 0 speaker points and an RFD that says "given in round" on every…
    Expect a double loss 0 speaker points and an RFD that says "given in round" on every ballot.
    Also, in the Trump era my philosophy can be summed up best with "I will vote on what I feel is best. Don't bother with evidence, it's nonconvincing. The gut will give my RFD. "
    Also a better summary of my philosophy can be found here:

    Still reading? You must be desperate to pref a judge...
    I was a high school debater in the eighties. I have been working with forensics since the early nineties in both the speech world and then debate. I have judged LD and Policy in my time, and I feel that I have a pretty good handle on evaluating the arguments in a round. I can flow and will accept a variety of arguments from policy to critical.
    (view changes)
    4:41 pm
  5. page Prasad, Neeli edited My judging preference for Parli is old school. Speed: prefer debaters to avoid spreading and foc…
    My judging preference for Parli is old school.
    Speed: prefer debaters to avoid spreading and focus on articulation.
    Framework: essential to define the framework of the debate from the start and clearly address opponents’ and your own points as you move through the debate
    Respectful and professional demeanor is preferred.
    POIs: Be courteous.

    (view changes)
    4:04 pm
  6. page P edited (view changes)
    4:04 pm
  7. page P edited ... Pramanik, Abhik Pramono, Adam Prasad, Neeli Prasad, Rajeev Prasad, Ram
    Pramanik, Abhik
    Pramono, Adam
    Prasad, Neeli
    Prasad, Rajeev
    Prasad, Ram
    (view changes)
    4:03 pm
  8. page Balagopal, Brinda edited Here’s my philosophy on judging LD: Signpost: Being a novice, it would be easier if you could ple…
    Here’s my philosophy on judging LD:
    Signpost: Being a novice, it would be easier if you could please signpost your contentions, refutations and conclusions.
    Speed: While speed is important, I prefer clear diction ~ so please don’t rush, “swallow” your words or sentences and finish your sentences.
    Framework: While a framework is important, a values debate isn’t just about a framework. It needs supporting contentions and evidence.
    Contentions: Please present a fully formed argument, with an assertion supported by a warrant. I would prefer if you didn’t support your contentions with quotes only. Please use evidence, or analogies or even logical reasoning to justify your stance.
    Cross X:
    Be courteous to your opponent ~ while I enjoy a good clash, rudeness, name calling or yelling isn’t going to gain you any points. In fact it may lose you points.
    Be circumspect on how you choose to extend any important points from Cross X in your speeches.
    Criterion/Standards: If you are using esoteric criterion or standards, I would appreciate it if you could take a couple of seconds to explain it and reference this through your contentions. I am looking for the link between your contentions and your criteria.
    Finally, remember that you need to persuade me and that’s not the same as going after your opponent ☺
    Have FUN.

    (view changes)
    4:02 pm
  9. page B edited ... Baker, Justin Baker, Mary [Balagopal, Brinda] Balagopal, Brinda Bales, Jordana Balk, Jo…
    Baker, Justin
    Baker, Mary
    [Balagopal, Brinda]Balagopal, Brinda
    Bales, Jordana
    Balk, Jonathan
    (view changes)
    4:00 pm
  10. page B edited ... Baker, Justin Baker, Mary [Balagopal, Brinda] Bales, Jordana Balk, Jonathan
    Baker, Justin
    Baker, Mary
    [Balagopal, Brinda]
    Bales, Jordana
    Balk, Jonathan
    (view changes)
    4:00 pm