Maier,+Mike

.

.
. ..
 * Michael J. Maier**
 * PFD, LD & Policy Debate (TP / CX) Judge,**
 * Pine View School,**
 * Osprey, Florida 34229**

**__Background:__**
My background information is provided based on the typical questions I have received over the years, especially in policy. Captain of my high-school debate team. Debated for six years in both Policy and Philosophy. I mentor and judge all three debate disciplines: PFD, LD and Policy/TP/CX, in four different leagues and at several National Invitational and Championship Tournaments, including Finals in all three disciplines. ..

**__Debate Judge Philosophy: PFD, LD, Policy:__**
This document is divided into two distinct parts. . This is best used during tournaments, when time is limited. . This second part is a teaching tool, ideal for tournament preparation for JV / novices, new coaches and new judges. Several experienced debaters and judges have reviewed it with me. . . ..
 * 1. __Judge's Preferences - During the Tournament__**
 * 2. __Judge’s Preferences - Expanded Version for Tournament Preparatio____n__**

**1.** __**Judge's Preferences - During the Tournament:**__
. __**a. AFF sits on the Judge's Left in LD and Policy.** **PFD: Sit on the same side that your names appear on the ballot.**__ This is not required, but it is for your benefit, as it will help prevent judges from mixing up the sides on their ballots. Always ask for judge's preferences, prior to the round, if you have any questions or need clarifications, including where to sit. . __**b. Clarity & Speed, i.e., "Speed with Clarity":**__ As a former policy debater, I'm fine at any speed, but **you must be absolutely clear, no exceptions.** I want to write them down verbatim for your benefit. If I can't, you don't get my ballot. The rest may be spread. If any judge calls "Clear", slow down. . __**c. Road Map & Sign Posts:**__ This helps me keep up with you on my flow. . __**d. Arguments:**__ Essentially, **you** must make **your** case and be **more** persuasive. Give me the "Claim, Warrant, and Impacts", and extend where appropriate**.** __**In LD:**__ I prefer for you to debate the Resolution and not go off on theory, as this is original intent of LD in the late 1970's. With these, give me the Links, Theory Justifications, and Impacts (DAs) or Implications (Ks) where needed. __**In Policy**__: Cover all of your Stock and Voting Issues. . __**e. Voting Issues:**__ In your last speech, remind me why I should vote for you. . __**f. Show Respect to your Opponent:**__ This should be obvious. Debate is a diplomatic exchange of ideas, not verbal warfare or "ad hominem" attacks. I will deduct speaker points if you are rude or disrespectful to your opponent in crossfires, as do most other judges. . __g**. Speaker Points:**__ My normal range is 25-29, but I have given rare 30s to truly deserving debaters. . __**h. Oral Critiques:**__ Judges are pressed for time and cannot write as extensively or as effectively on the ballot as we would like. . __**i. Formalities:**__ I only judge on what you actually said in the round. I do not judge you on your reputation, your school, your computers, your looks, your clothes, your shoes, etc. Just on what you actually said and how persuasive you were compared to your opponents in that round. I'm open to a relaxed, and respectful debate. I know that you work very hard to prepare for debate tournaments, and I want you to do well. I will give you my best as your judge. . . . ..
 * I value clarity over speed.**
 * If you choose to spread in Policy and LD:**
 * Slow down for emphasis and state the following items clearly and at normal speed, i.e., do not spread these:**
 * "Value, Value Criterion, Contentions, Authors & Tag Lines".**
 * I'm a Tab Judge**, (a "Tabula Rasa" or "Blank Slate" Judge) with no preconceived opinions on arguments or on the resolution.
 * __In Policy__:** (and in LD where appropriate): I'm fine with theory, T, Ks, DAs, CPs and all off-case arguments.
 * PFD: This is critical in all Crossfires.**
 * I prefer to give constructive oral critiques, when allowed, because you benefit the most from the real-time feedback.**

**2. __Judge’s Preferences - Expanded Version for Tournament Preparatio__****__n:__**
__**This part of the document is meant as a teaching tool.**__ By knowing what a typical experienced judge is looking for, you will be a more successful debater and improve faster. All of these comments are based on constructive feedback I have given debaters after judging their rounds. . __**Each debate discipline is in a completely self contained section:**__ 3. PFD 4. LD 5. Policy 6. Summary ( for those new to debate ) . __**Varsity debaters:**__ You already know this You are also responsible for teaching the next generation of debaters and leaders. . __**JV / Novice debaters:**__ Read and discuss the following sections with your varsity teammates and coaches. These are designed to help you become better debaters. . __**New coaches and new judges:**__ Many have found this document helpful. Most experienced judges use similar paradigms. . __**In debate, there are three basic things that you must focus on:**__ 1. Know the debate rules. 2. Be civil and respect the rules, your opponents and your judges. 3. Be more persuasive than your opponent. . __**Even if you have read your judge’s preferences on-line:**__ If you have any doubt about them, always ask the judge prior to the round. We will be glad to give you the short version of the following: . . ..
 * R**eview or reference these sections in order to teach and discuss them with your JV / novice teammates.

**3. __Public Forum Debate, PFD:__**
. Note: These excerpts from the bylaws are typical of most of the major forensic leagues and they are typical of how we judge PFD: 1) "Public Forum debate is a team event that advocates or rejects a position posed by the resolution. The focus of the debate is a clash of ideas in a persuasive manner that can be understood by a __“lay” judge__." 2) "Order and time limits … … … .etc." 3) "In making the decision, the judges should ask the following questions:" a. Which team is more persuasive?" b. Did the debaters back up their assertions with logical thinking and evidence when needed?" c. Were the debaters fair in their interpretation of the resolution and one another’s statements?" d. Were the arguments intelligent? Did the debaters try to use many weak arguments instead of a few solid ones?" e. "Did the debaters speak in such a way that their ideas were understandable?" f. "Were the debaters courteous and professional?" . . Note Bylaw Item 1: It important to note that PFD has a very specific philosophy. You are trying to persuade a __“Lay” Judge,__ (non-specialist or “Citizen Judge”)’. Speak clearly and in a manner that would convince a Citizen Judge/Audience. Even if your early rounds had very experienced judges, plan that in the out-rounds and finals, you may have to persuade a panel of __“Lay” Judges__, as that is the intent of PFD. . . Clearly tell me where you are and where you are going. Clearly state**:** Your contentions and which of your opponent’s contentions you are referring to: C1 … … C2 … … C3 ... ... etc. This helps me flow better. . . Note Bylaw Items 3.a, b, c, d and e: __The quality, not quantity, of your arguments is the most effective.__ Remember that every argument has three major components: __Claim, Warrant, and Impact, and must be extended__. . State this clearly. . Give Author’s Name Give Tag Lines clearly, so I can cross apply them with your arguments. Evidence must be Proper, Adequate and Recent. The more rigorous and the more credible the source the better. __Note__: Cards alone are not arguments, and by themselves, do not outweigh your opponent’s arguments. . This links your claim to your evidence and is crucial to being most persuasive. Your warrants provide me with believable reasons why your claim and evidence are true and more persuasive than your opponents. So persuade me. . Always give the Impacts that are relevant to your arguments. . Extend your best arguments to keep the pressure on your opponents. Don’t just say: “Therefore I extend.” Clearly state which argument you are extending and also which arguments your opponent dropped. Imagine you want to direct my pen on my flow to make the extension arrows, and dropped gaps. . When you do team research, make sure your teammates summarize the evidence in plain English so you can explain and debate it in the round. This seems obvious, yet I see this more often than you may expect, mostly with novices, who are not completely familiar with their own cards. . Source, cut and read your cards honestly. Dishonesty is not only unprofessional, it carries severe penalties both in debate and even more severe in the real world. If you want to challenge your opponents' evidence, or their veracity, do so in the debate round. Ask to see their card and study it. Draw the attention to the areas you disagree with. If they cannot produce evidence when asked for during the round, argue that it does not exist and should be disregarded. If dishonesty is involved, see your coach and the Tournament Ombudsman immediately after your round. . . Note Bylaw Item 3.f: Think of crossfire as a civil and diplomatic verbal exchange. Respect your opponent’s right to speak and debate you. All too often I see one debater trying to dominate or be rude or disrespectful to the other, i.e., “Ad Hominem”. No judge wants to penalize a debater, only you can do that to yourself. Like most judges, I will deduct from your speaker points if you use “Ad Hominem” attacks in Crossfire. Remember that you don’t win a PFD round in the crossfire; but if you turn off the judges, you can lose the round! . . No new arguments are allowed. Remind me of your most important points. This is your last chance to be persuasive and convince me why you should win. It also helps you focus your arguments and not forget anything critical. Try to organize your thoughts first, and then summarize logically, just like on __my__ flow. Remember that I am trying to keep up with you on my flow. The more organized you summarize for the judges, the better we will understand and follow your points. Don’t waste words by saying:” Therefore I won that point.” I get your point without that. Make your point and move on to your next one. You will save time, cover more ground, and if true, I will give you the credit. .. . Note Bylaw item 3.a. to f.: Bottom line: I will judge you on what you actually said in that round and on which team was the most persuasive. My ballot will include which arguments were most persuasive to me, and suggestions for improvement. . . ..
 * a. __NCFL Bylaws Excerpts:__**
 * b. __“Lay” Judge:__**
 * c. __Roadmap and Sign Posts:__**
 * d. __Arguments:__**
 * __Claim__:**
 * __Evidence / Cards:__**
 * __Warrant:__**
 * __Impact:__**
 * __Extensions:__**
 * __Important Note__**: Read your cards thoroughly prior to the round, so your opponents cannot turn the argument on your lack of preparation and precision.
 * __Challenging your opponents' cards:__**
 * e. __Crossfire:__**
 * f. __Final Focus:__**
 * g. __Judge’s Reason for decision (RFD):__**

**4. __Lincoln__ __Douglas, LD:__**
. Note: These excerpts from the bylaws are typical of most of the major forensic leagues and they are typical of how we judge LD: 1) "The resolution is a proposition of value, … … … etc. 2) "In making the decision, the judge should ask the following questions: a) "Which debater was more persuasive? b) "Did the debater support his or her position appropriately, using logical argumentation, throughout, and evidence when necessary? c) "Which debater communicated more effectively? "Speed, word choice, and delivery all count. 3) "Since this is debate, clash is necessary. … … etc. 4) "Good judges make decisions only on what was debated by the contestants. "If the judges consider an argument to be flawed, but the opponent does not refute it, the original argument must stand. "If, however, there is a clash, then the judges decide which argument is more persuasive. 5) "Judges … … … etc.." . . **The __Florida Speech & Debate Uniform Manual for Judges__ states:** **“… … … You are not expected to consider arguments that are presented at such a rapid pace that you cannot understand them.** **Ultimately, a balance between content and persuasive delivery is optimal. … … … “** . **.** **__As a judge, I value clarity over speed__:** **This is so important it bears repeating:** __**As a judge, I value clarity over speed in LD and Policy debates:**__. **Spreading is appropriate and important to Policy debate.** Although I philosophically disagree with spreading in a non-policy, philosophical debate like LD, I will allow it in LD. As a former policy debater, I clearly understand the tactical advantage of spreading and can and will keep up with you at any speed and will follow and flow your arguments. So, rock on! However, in LD and Policy, I have worked with and judged some debaters who spread brilliantly and clearly at over 400 wpm, while I have judged others, including varsity debaters, who were incomprehensible at less than 300 wpm. I have witnessed out-rounds where one debater spread and the other did not. Regardless, the more persuasive debater won, and this was not always the one who spread. . __**Great debaters maintain perfect diction, pronunciation, inflection, pacing and speed control for emphasis in order to be clear and effective debaters.**__ . **The 2012 Harvard LD Champion is a perfect example of a great spreading LD debater.** He won because he was the more persuasive debater against an equally brilliant spreading opponent. His arguments could be followed by everyone in the packed lecture hall, from novice debaters to experienced judges, due to his excellent delivery, clarity, pacing, speed control and his wisdom to slow down for emphasis on the most important points he wanted the judges to clearly understand. . **In judging a recent LD final, the non-spreading debater explained and argued the meaning of the U.S. Constitution** and how it applied to the resolution so effectively and so persuasively, that most observers would have given him the win. He was the more persuasive debater and did win 7-0. He is also one of the few debaters to whom I have given a well deserved 30 speaker points. His outstanding opponent spread, and although he got more many words out, he was not as persuasive. . __**Remember**:__ Judges want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but we cannot judge what we do not hear clearly. **So, if you spread too fast for __your__ abilities and __you__ lose your judges, __you__ lose the round.** It’s that simple. That is also fair to your opponent. . __**Here are my practice suggestions, based on my experience:**__ By all means, work on your **__speed with clarity,__** If you spread, you must be absolutely crystal clear: **no exceptions.**. __**Monotone speed reading is lame.**__ With enough bananas, we could even teach monkeys to do that. Debaters ought to function on a higher level. . __**Practice diligently**,__ Like other varsity LD and Policy debaters, and solicit __honest__ feedback on your spreading from both normal speakers and really good spreaders. A great technique is to practice spreading your AC & NC constructs to a non debater, e.g., parents, friends, etc., and ask them to write down verbatim only your **Value, Value Criterion, Contentions, Authors and Tag Lines.** If they cannot do so verbatim, then you went too fast on those critical items. You will probably lose your judges as well. Practice your speed control until you get it right. . __**During the round:**__ **Always ask the judges if you may spread.** Some judges disagree with spreading, so follow what they want. If spreading is permitted, go only 80% of your best speed, and plan your case accordingly. Also have a non spread construct ready as well. Do not be intimidated by your opponent’s perceived speed advantage. Stick to your speed plan, be clear, and debate more persuasively. Start your first sentence at normal speed and then gradually build up speed as you go until you are on spreading speed. This technique allows the judges to get used to your voice and spreading style the fastest. . __**Slow down for emphasis:**__ **Clearly state your Value, Value Criterion and all of your Contentions at normal speed to make sure the judges can write them down verbatim without errors.** **This also applies to Authors and Tag Lines.** **Also, go normal speed for anything else you believe should be emphasized, i.e., Impacts, etc.** **.** __**This "pause and go normal speed" technique will get the judge's attention that you are saying something important.**__ Note my comments on the 2012 Harvard LD Champion spreading style. If you do this, you will develop your speed with clarity faster as well as win more rounds over time. . __**For your benefit, if you lose me, I will call “Clear” (or "Louder").**__ That’s your signal to slow down (or be louder). **So: Slow down (or be louder)**. If I, or other judges on a multi-judge panel, call **“Clear”** a second time, **go normal speed**. If I, or other judges, put our pens down and stop flowing, you lost us, and you will probably lose. It’s that simple. That is only fair to your opponent. . . **c. __Roadmap and Sign Posts:__** Tell me clearly where you are and where you are going. This helps me flow better. Clearly state you our you opponent's Value: V Value Criterion: VC Contentions: C1, C2, ... etc. .. Note Bylaw Items 2, 3, & 4. Remember that every argument has three major components: **Claim, Warrant and Impact, and must be extended.** . State this clearly. . Give Author’s Name Give Tag Lines clearly, so I can cross apply them with your arguments. Evidence must be Proper, Adequate and Recent. The more rigorous and the more credible the source the better. __Note__: Cards alone are not arguments, and by themselves, do not outweigh your opponent’s arguments. . This links your claim to your evidence and is crucial to being most persuasive. Your warrants provide me with believable reasons why your claim and evidence are true and more persuasive than your opponents. So persuade me. . Always give the Impacts that are relevant to your arguments. . Extend your best arguments to keep the pressure on your opponents. Don’t just say: “Therefore I extend.” Clearly state which argument you are extending and also which arguments your opponent dropped. Imagine you want to direct my pen on my flow to make the extension arrows, and dropped gaps. . When you do team research, make sure your teammates summarize the evidence in plain English so you can explain and debate it in the round. This seems obvious, yet I see this more often than you may expect, mostly with novices, who are not completely familiar with their own cards. . Source, cut and read your cards honestly. Dishonesty is not only unprofessional, it carries severe penalties both in debate and even more severe in the real world. If you want to challenge your opponents' evidence, or their veracity, do so in the debate round. Ask to see their card and study it. Draw the attention to the areas you disagree with. If they cannot produce evidence when asked for during the round, argue that it does not exist and should be disregarded. If dishonesty is involved, see your coach and the Tournament Ombudsman immediately after your round. . . **e. __Off Case Arguments:__** **In LD, unlike in Policy, I prefer that you debate the resolution rather than get bogged down in a confusing theory debate.** Sadly, and all too often, I have seen these devolve into a coin toss by most judges, even experienced philosophy majors. I will, however, allow all off-case arguments that are well done: T / Topicality, Ks / Kritiks, DAs / Disadvantages, and CPs / Counter-Plans, as well as hypothesis testing, etc. These are very difficult to argue successfully in the limited time available, so make sure you have thought through them carefully. You don't automatically win just because made a good off-case argument. You still have to be the more persuasive debater. . . **f. __Argument Types:__** **Empirical:** Give me the numbers so I can better compare and weigh your arguments. (Apples to apples, etc.). In other words, some college professor’s philosophy or opinion does not outweigh your opposing debater’s philosophy or opinion in the round. Make sure you link it to your opponent’s argument. Without a link, it does not apply. I see this way too often. . . No new arguments are allowed. Remind me of your most important points. This is your last chance to be persuasive and convince me why you should win. It also helps you focus your arguments and not forget anything critical. Try to organize your thoughts first, and then summarize logically, just like on __my__ flow. Remember that I am trying to keep up with you on my flow. The more organized you summarize for the judges, the better we will understand and follow your points. Don’t waste words by saying:” Therefore I won that point.” I get your point without that. Make your point and move on to your next one. You will save time, cover more ground, and if true, I will give you the credit. . . Note Bylaw item 1. to 4.: Bottom line: I will judge you on what you actually said in the round and on who was the more persuasive debater in that round. My ballot will include which arguments were most persuasive to me, and suggestions for improvement. , . ..
 * a. __NCFL Bylaws Excerpts:__**
 * b. __Clarity and Speed:__**
 * d. __Arguments:__**
 * __The quality, not quantity, of your arguments is most effective.__**
 * __Claim__:**
 * __Evidence / Cards:__**
 * __Warrant:__**
 * __Impact:__**
 * __Extensions:__**
 * __Important Note__:** Read your cards thoroughly prior to the round, so your opponents cannot turn the argument on your lack of preparation and precision.
 * __Challenging your opponents' cards:__**
 * Philosophical:** I evaluate both your author and your debate opponent equally.
 * Framework:** Give me the impact on how it works with the framework.
 * Kritik / “K”:** Give me the Links, Theory Justification, and Implications.
 * Abuse:** Be cautious with Abuse arguments, as they themselves may be abusive.
 * g. __NR, 2AR & Voting Issues:__**
 * h. __Judge’s Decision (RFD):__**

**5. __Policy / TP / CX Debate:__**
. **a. __My Judging paradigm in Policy is "Tabula Rasa" or Tab:__**. . **b. __Clarity and Speed:__** . **The __Florida Speech & Debate Uniform Manual for Judges__ states:**   **“… … … You are not expected to consider arguments that are presented at such a rapid pace that you cannot understand them.** **Ultimately, a balance between content and persuasive delivery is optimal. … … … “.**  .   **__As a judge, I value clarity over speed__:**   **This is so important it bears repeating:** __**As a judge, I value clarity over speed in LD and Policy debates:**__   **Spreading is appropriate and important to Policy debate.**   Although I philosophically disagree with spreading in a non-policy, philosophical debate like LD, I will allow it in LD. As a former policy debater, I clearly understand the tactical advantage of spreading and can and will keep up with you at any speed and will follow and flow your arguments. So, rock on! However, in LD and Policy, I have worked with and judged some debaters who spread brilliantly and clearly at over 400 wpm, while I have judged others, including varsity debaters, who were incomprehensible at less than 300 wpm. I have witnessed out-rounds where one debater spread and the other did not. Regardless, the more persuasive debater won, and this was not always the one who spread. .  __**Great debaters maintain perfect diction, pronunciation, inflection, pacing and speed control for emphasis in order to be clear and effective debaters.**__. **The 2012 Harvard LD Champion is a perfect example of a great spreading LD debater.**  He won because he was the more persuasive debater against an equally brilliant spreading opponent. His arguments could be followed by everyone in the packed lecture hall, from novice debaters to experienced judges, due to his excellent delivery, clarity, pacing, speed control and his wisdom to slow down for emphasis on the most important points he wanted the judges to clearly understand. .  **In judging a recent LD final, the non-spreading debater explained and argued the meaning of the U.S. Constitution** and how it applied to the resolution so effectively and so persuasively, that most observers would have given him the win. He was the more persuasive debater and did win 7-0. He is also one of the few debaters to whom I have given a well deserved 30 speaker points. His outstanding opponent spread, and although he got more many words out, he was not as persuasive. .  __**Remember**__: Judges want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but we cannot judge what we do not hear clearly. **So, if you spread too fast for __your__ abilities and __you__ lose your judges, __you__ lose the round.**  It’s that simple. That is also fair to your opponent. .  __**Here are my practice suggestions, based on my experience:**__   By all means, work on your **__speed with clarity,__**   If you spread, you must be absolutely crystal clear: **no exceptions.**. __**Monotone speed reading is lame.**__  With enough bananas, we could even teach monkeys to do that. Debaters ought to function on a higher level. .  __**Practice diligently**,__   Like other varsity LD and Policy debaters, and solicit __honest__ feedback on your spreading from both normal speakers and really good spreaders. A great technique is to practice spreading your AC & NC constructs to a non debater, e.g., parents, friends, etc., and ask them to write down verbatim only your **Value, Value Criterion, Contentions, Authors and Tag Lines.**  If they cannot do so verbatim, then you went too fast on those critical items. You will probably lose your judges as well. Practice your speed control until you get it right. .  __**During the round:**__   **Always ask the judges if you may spread.**   Some judges disagree with spreading, so follow what they want. If spreading is permitted, go only 80% of your best speed, and plan your case accordingly. Also have a non spread construct ready as well. .  Do not be intimidated by your opponent’s perceived speed advantage. Stick to your speed plan, be clear, and debate more persuasively. Start your first sentence at normal speed and then gradually build up speed as you go until you are on spreading speed. This technique allows the judges to get used to your voice and spreading style the fastest. .  __**Slow down for emphasis:**__   **Clearly state your Value, Value Criterion and all of your Contentions at normal speed to make sure the judges can write them down verbatim without errors.**   **This also applies to Authors and Tag Lines.**   **Also, go normal speed for anything else you believe should be emphasized, i.e., Impacts, etc.**. __**This "pause and go normal speed" technique will get the judge's attention that you are saying something important.**__  Note my comments on the 2012 Harvard LD Champion spreading style. If you do this, you will develop your speed with clarity faster as well as win more rounds over time. .  __**For your benefit, if you lose me, I will call “Cl**____**ear” (or "Louder").**__   That’s your signal to slow down (or be louder). **S****o: Slow down (or be louder)**. If I, or other judges on a multi-judge panel, call **“Clear”** a second time, **go normal speed.**  If I, or other judges, put our pens down and stop flowing, you lost us, and you will probably lose. It’s that simple. That is only fair to your opponent. .  .   **c. __Roadmap and Sign Posts:__** Tell me clearly where you are and where you are going. This helps me flow better. Clearly state your or your opponent’s: Value, V: Value Criterion, VC: Contentions, C1, C2, … etc: . . Make sure you cover __all__ of the Stock / Voting Issues and clearly state them for the judges: 1. Topicality 2. Significance of Harms or Advantages 3. Inherency 4. Solvency 5. Advantage over Disadvantage 6. Rational Plan. . e. **__Off Case Arguments:__**   **In LD, unlike in Policy, I prefer that you debate the resolution rather than get bogged down in a confusing theory debate.**   Sadly, and all too often, I have seen these devolve into a coin toss by many judges including experienced philosophy majors. .  I will, however, allow all off-case arguments that are well done: T / Topicality, Ks / Kritiks, DAs / Disadvantages, and   CPs / Counter-Plans, as well as hypothesis testing, etc. These are very difficult to argue successfully in the limited time available, so make sure you have thought through them carefully. You don't automatically win just because made a good off-case argument. You still have to be the more persuasive debater. .  **__I will consider your arguments in the following order:__**   1. Topicality  2. Kritik  3. Stock Issues. . Remember that every argument has three major components: **Claim, Warrant and Impact, and must be extended.** . State this clearly. . Give Author’s Name Give Tag Lines clearly, so I can cross apply them with your arguments. Evidence must be Proper, Adequate and Recent. The more rigorous and the more credible the source the better. __Note__: Cards alone are not arguments, and by themselves, do not outweigh your opponent’s arguments. . This links your claim to your evidence and is crucial to being most persuasive. Your warrants provide me with believable reasons why your claim and evidence are true and more persuasive than your opponents. So persuade me. . Always give the Impacts that are relevant to your arguments. . When you do team research, make sure your teammates summarize the evidence in plain English so you can explain and debate it in the round. This seems obvious, yet I see this more often than you may expect, mostly with novices, who are not completely familiar with their own cards. . Extend your best arguments to keep the pressure on your opponents. Don’t just say: “Therefore I extend.” Clearly state which argument you are extending and also which arguments your opponent dropped. Imagine you want to direct my pen on my flow to make the extension arrows, and dropped gaps. . Source, cut and read your cards honestly. Dishonesty is not only unprofessional, it carries severe penalties both in debate and even more severe in the real world. If you want to challenge your opponents' evidence, or their veracity, do so in the debate round. Ask to see their card and study it. Draw the attention to the areas you disagree with. If they cannot produce evidence when asked for during the round, argue that it does not exist and should be disregarded. If dishonesty is involved, see your coach and the Tournament Ombudsman immediately after your round. . . (Apples to apples, etc.). In other words, some college professor’s philosophy or opinion does not outweigh your opposing debater’s philosophy or opinion in the round. Make sure you link it to your opponent’s argument. Without a link, it does not apply. I see this way too often. . . No new arguments are allowed. Remind me of your most important points. This is your last chance to be persuasive and convince me why you should win. It also helps you focus your arguments and not forget anything critical. Try to organize your thoughts first, and then summarize logically, just like on **my** flow. Remember that I am trying to keep up with you on my flow. The organized you summarize for the judges, the better we will understand and follow your points. Don’t waste words by saying:” Therefore I won that point.” I get your point without that. Make your point and move on to your next one. You will save time, cover more ground, and if true, I will give you the credit. . . Bottom line: I will judge you on what you actually said in the round and on who was the more persuasive debater in that round. My ballot will include which arguments were most persuasive to me, and suggestions for improvement. ,, . ..
 * d. __Stock / Voting Issues:__** Policy debate is a very technical debate. Remember, the AFF has the burden, unless the NEG relieves them of that burden.
 * f. __Arguments:__**
 * The quality, not quantity, of your arguments is the most effective.**
 * __Claim__:**
 * __Evidence / Cards:__**
 * __Warrant:__**
 * __Impact:__**
 * __Important Note__**: Read your cards thoroughly prior to the round, so your opponents cannot turn the argument on your lack of preparation and precision.
 * __Extensions:__**
 * __Challenging your opponents' cards:__**
 * g. __Argument Types:__**
 * Empirical:** Give me the numbers so I can better compare and weigh your arguments.
 * Philosophical:** I evaluate both your author and your debate opponent equally.
 * Framework**__:__ Give me the impact on how it works with the framework.
 * Kritik / “K”:** Give me the Link, Theory Justification, and Implications.
 * Abuse**__:__ Be cautious with Abuse arguments, as they themselves may be abusive.
 * h. __AR, NR & Voting Issues:__**
 * j. __Judge’s Decision (RFD):__**

**6. __Summary:__**
. Just know that when I enter the debate room, I leave the rest of the world behind and focus only on the two teams who are competing. This is not unlike my disciplined professional focus as a U.S. Air Force Fighter Pilot, when I had to focus solely on each mission and block out all distractions each time I strapped on a powerful and lethal combat jet fighter. In debate, you need that same disciplined focus. The high intellectual level, complexity and speed of debate demand your complete focus in order to do well. . __**Focus requires mental and emotional discipline.**__ This requires preparation, discipline, a positive attitude, as well as adequate sleep and nutrition, etc., including between rounds. Forget your last debate, won or lost, or your record. Forget who your opponents, or the judges, are. Focus only on this one debate. Focus only on what you need to say in this round. You will learn just as much from your failures as from your successes, especially when you are pushed to your limits. Skill will come with experience. . . In break rounds you both may have debated very well and the decisions are usually very close, even in a 3-0 or 5-0 win. Only one team will win It is not easy to lose. Actively learn from each loss. Be gracious in winning, and also actively learn from each win. . __**Your job is to convince the widest possible judging audience, not every single judge.**__ Sometimes you may be convinced that a judge must not have paid attention to you or doesn't like you and thus voted against you. Nothing could be further from the truth. We do this because we love debate and want to educate the next generation of leaders, i.e., **you**. While I and other judges, whom I have come to respect over the years, don’t always agree or vote with the majority on multi judge panels, I will always give you my undivided attention and my best as your debate judge. Even dissenting ("squirrel") judges often have valuable insights as to why they judged the round the way they did. All three NFL finals had dissenting ("squirrel") judges who have very distinguished backgrounds and equally valid reasons as to why they voted the way they did. Learn from each and every judge's comments. . . . __**You may not agree with everything the judge said, but still consider the following:**__ Is there something the judges saw that you may not have been aware of? Is there anything that your teammates see in your debate style that you may not be aware of? Is there anything, even if it is only one ballot or a teammate's or opponent's comments, that you can use to improve, or to be more persuasive, or to not turn off the next judge? Be honest with yourself and use it as constructive feedback. Judges are not perfect, and neither are you. . This happens occasionally, so ask yourself if there is something you could have done better to prevent it, e.g., be more organized in your speeches, speak more clearly, slow down for emphasis, reemphasize important points, be less aggressive in Crossfires, etc. If so, learn from it. If not, then shake it off and move on. . . As a rule, all novice debaters not debating should (must) attend the out-round debates. You not only support you teammates, you will also learn more from them, their opponents and the judges than you might imagine. Ask yourself: “How would I attack, defend or debate that point, or judge that round?” What techniques did the varsity debaters use effectively? Which could you learn and use effectively? What was weak or ineffective? How did the judges see the round? Even the dissenting ("squirrel") judges have valuable insights into debate. . . e. __**Bottom Line:**__ Work hard, learn from your teammates and from other competitors, compete fairly, and evaluate yourself honestly. Your debate experience will then prove invaluable in your life and in all of your future career fields and endeavors. As a former competitive debater, I have stood in your shoes and sat in your seat and faced the same challenges and emotions you face. My life is fuller and more successful, not for my win/loss record, but for the amazing and challenging journey of debate. . . . . **7. __Comments:__** Constructive criticism, corrections and comments are all welcome to make this a better and more effective teaching tool. You may contact me at: lmskywalker@hotmail.com. . Good luck on your journey. . . Michael J. Maier Debate Judge, Pine View School, Osprey, Florida. B.S. Engineering, Duke University, 1980 USAF Fighter Pilot, Retired. . ..
 * a. __Focus:__**
 * You and your opponents worked very hard to prepare for this debate tournament, and I want you both to do well.**
 * When you enter the debate room, you must focus only on the resolution and on your case.**
 * If you make a mistake, get lost, or otherwise get rattled by your opponent, __stop, take a deep breath, and focus__ on what you are trying to accomplish in this speech.**
 * Then compose yourself, focus clearly, and continue to do your best.**
 * b. __Learn from every win and loss:__**
 * c. __Listen to the oral critique and read each ballot carefully__**
 * Win or lose, the fastest way to improve as a debater, is to listen to the oral critique and read each ballot carefully.**
 * Honestly review your debate in this light.**
 * Your honest evaluation of your debate is your best learning tool, both in debate and in life.**
 * __If the judge is definitely way off base, ask yourself and other observers why.__**
 * Important Note: A great technique to help prevent judges from confusing the sides is to sit on the side of the judge’s ballot that you are debating, i.e., AFF sits on the judge’s left. In PFD, sit on your side of the judge's ballot.**
 * d. __Lastly, debate competition is a journey, not a destination.__**