Assigning speaker points is not a science.ģ) I have noticed that I tend to call for evidence a lot more than other PF judges. Effectiveness means whether you did what you needed to do in your speech to win the round. Charisma does not mean whether or not I find your voice aesthetically pleasing. For me, charisma means confidence, familiarity with arguments and evidence, politeness and good sportspersonship (if there's a better, non-gendered word for this, please let me know). I will decide who won the debate based on what's on my flow.Ģ) I decide speaker points based on a combination of charisma (as I define it) and effectiveness. Here are some things to think about if you get me as a judge:ġ) I flow. My background is in policy, but I'm also comfortable with PF and parli. I participated in policy debate for four years at Jesuit College Prep in Dallas, coached there for a little bit, volunteered with the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance and now work at the NYC Urban Debate League. I've been involved in competitive debate since 2001. This will automatically lose you the round. No racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, or generally hateful language. This should go without saying but please be respectful. I will follow an argument if it is explained well but you should do the heavy lifting for me. Don't just repeat your arguments in final focus, that's a waste of time.Īrguments: I am going into a round with a blank slate. If you are going to bring it up in final focus, set it up in summary (no extending through ink). Please please please extend your arguments through. Neg has to prove that there are serious disadvantages to voting aff. How I will evaluate your round: Aff needs to prove that their side is better than the status quo and they need to provide solvency. I currently mainly do PF but I have parli experience as well (World Schools and AP). This is my first year of judging, however I have been debating for the past six years. Bio/History: I am a junior at Bard Queens HS.

Shorts by H.S. Contino