Paradigm

Randy Dexter
The Frazer School

Debate Judging Paradigm

I bring experience as a former collegiate debater and a coach with four years of experience. My focus is on clarity, logical argumentation, and strategy. Below are the key points that guide my judging:

Clarity over Speed: I value clear communication. While speed is acceptable, spreading that sacrifices clarity may hinder your ability to persuade me. If I can’t follow your arguments, I won’t be able to evaluate them. If you spread, ensure your tags, authors, and warrants are clear.

Tech > Truth: I default to technical debate; I will evaluate the round based on the flow and the arguments presented. However, arguments must still have warranted impacts—assertions without explanation won’t carry much weight.

Framework and Role of the Ballot: Clearly establish the framework and articulate how I should weigh the round. If no framework is provided, I’ll default to a utilitarian weighing mechanism unless the debate persuades me otherwise.

Evidence and Analysis: Evidence quality matters but so does how you use it. A well-explained analytical argument can outweigh poorly warranted card dumps. Highlight critical evidence and explain its impact in the round.

Weighing and Impact Calculus: I appreciate strong weighing mechanisms and comparative analysis in rebuttals. Explain why your impacts matter most and how they outweigh your opponent’s arguments.

Cross-Examination and Respect: Cross-examination is an opportunity to showcase strategic thinking, but it should remain professional. I value respect and decorum throughout the round.

Dropped Arguments: Dropped arguments are important but must still have an explanation of why they matter. I won’t evaluate an unwarranted point, even if it’s dropped.

Miscellaneous: Please slow down on theory or dense philosophical arguments. I appreciate creativity but explain how niche arguments function within the round.

Speech Events (Interp & Platform)

General Philosophy:
I approach speech events with an emphasis on performance, clarity, structure, and emotional impact. Regardless of the event, I reward speakers who are passionate, polished, and purposeful in their delivery.

What I’m Looking For:

Interp (HI, DI, Duo, POI, etc.):

Strong characterization and clear transitions.
Emotional depth (especially in DI and POI) and humor that lands appropriately (in HI and Duo).
Cohesive blocking that enhances the story without being distracting.
Clear thematic intent and purpose, especially in POI.

Platform (OO, INFO, etc.):

A clear, original thesis that’s well-supported.
Strong use of credible sources with proper citation.
Effective delivery with vocal variety, gestures, and eye contact.
Creative or unique perspectives that avoid generic topics.

Things I Value:

Memorization without sounding robotic—natural delivery is key.
Purposeful movement that complements, not distracts.
Strong intros and outros that frame the performance.

Pet Peeves:

Overly exaggerated acting or gestures in Interp.
Reading too much from visual aids in Info.
Relying on shock value without depth.

Limited Prep (Extemporaneous & Impromptu)

General Philosophy:
In Limited Prep events, I value organization, analysis, and confident delivery. Speakers should showcase their critical thinking and ability to construct clear arguments under time constraints.

What I’m Looking For:

Extemporaneous Speaking (USX/IX):

Direct answers to the prompt with a clear thesis.
Structured speech (typically 3 points) with logical flow.
Strong, credible evidence that supports your arguments.
Insightful analysis—don’t just state facts, explain significance.
Confident, engaging delivery without over-reliance on notes.

Impromptu:

Clear structure (commonly point 1, point 2, point 3) with a strong intro and conclusion.
Creative, insightful connections to the prompt.
Use of personal anecdotes, historical examples, or cultural references to support arguments.
Engaging, natural delivery that balances humor, reflection, or insight.

Things I Value:

Strong hooks and memorable conclusions.
Speakers who adapt to the audience and make the topic relatable.
Confident, fluid delivery that doesn’t feel rushed.

Pet Peeves:

Failing to directly answer the prompt in Extemp.
Rambling or disorganized thoughts in Impromptu.
Overly scripted delivery—Limited Prep should feel natural and adaptable.

Congressional Debate

General Philosophy:
In Congress, I reward eloquence, strategic thinking, and engagement. The best debaters balance strong arguments with active participation and respectful discourse.

What I’m Looking For:

Content:

Well-reasoned arguments backed by credible evidence.
Clear clash and direct refutation of opposing arguments.
Impact analysis—explain why your argument matters.

Delivery:

Persuasive and confident speaking with good pacing.
Vocal variety, eye contact, and clear articulation.
Professionalism and decorum in speech and conduct.

Strategy & Engagement:

Effective use of parliamentary procedure (motions, questioning).
Active and respectful participation in questioning.
Balance between speaking, questioning, and chamber engagement.

Things I Value:

Clear frameworks and roadmaps in speeches.
Questioners who ask probing, non-leading questions.
Strong analysis over evidence dumps.

Pet Peeves:

Grandstanding or dominating the floor.
Reading entire speeches word-for-word with no engagement.
Overly aggressive or hostile questioning.