I am a lay judge. I prefer traditional arguments. Please try not to run theory, Ks, or any other circuit arguments. I will have a hard time understanding them. However, if you do choose to run circuit arguments, spend a little more time explaining them.

These are my preferences:

Speed: I can not judge speed. It is still a challenge for me. Slowing down makes it much easier to follow your arguments.

Signpost: Signposting is important.

Links: The links between each contention and its value must be clear.

Extensions: Try just not to extend the tag and the date, explain how the card is important and relevant in this round.

Crystallization: A very crucial technique. You should be able to sum up your debate by addressing the most important arguments in a simple and clear manner.

Final notes: Be polite, courteous and follow the rules.

Good Luck!

I am a parent judge who has two years of experience judging primarily traditional debate in the Coastal Forensic League. I have judged some circuit debate in the past, but my experience and knowledge of it is very limited.

On spreading, I discourage it, but if you choose to do so anyway you must disclose with both me and your opponent. If I say "clear" more than 3 times I will stop flowing you.

I have no experience on theory/T, so if you decide to run it signpost everything and please speak slowly.

K's are similar to my experience on theory/T, so be sure to go slowly and signpost.

I have limited experience on meta-ethics and those types of frameworks, so if you want to be creative with framing be sure to explain it clearly enough for me to understand, otherwise I will not know how to evaluate your arguments and will default on your opponent's framework.

Plans and counterplans are fine, just be clear with your text and net benefits.

What I want to see you do in the round is clearly link your impacts back to your framework.

I've been coaching and judging for 15+ years. So there isn't much I haven't seen or heard. I'm most persuaded by good debating. Please do not be rude or condescending. Please be clear enough to understand. Use your evidence wisely and whereas big impacts are good, realistic impacts are better. The point of debate, for me, is education and communication. Show me you learned something and that you can communicate in an intelligent, well thought out, cohesive manner. People can write out a hundred paragraphs about what they want but at the end of the day I've coached enough champions to tell you that's what it all boils down to. Most importantly, have fun! Love to see students progress and become the natural born leaders we know you all are! And to give some unsolicited advice from a seasoned coach, don't give up. It's may be cliche but somethings are said over and over for a reason. Keep trying, be consistent and you'll be successful! Good luck everyone!

1.) Be professional (Passion is good but passion uncontrolled is not good)

2.) Be clear in your communication (no need to talk fast)

3.) Hopefully you all learn from not just the research on your own debate, however also from your opponent.  

I have judged Policy/Congress/LD/Parli debates before. Here are my preferences:

1. No spreading please.

2. All evidences should be logical and valid. I might ask you to share your evidences.

3. When you run Kritiks/Framework/K Affs, I expect you to explain the arguments clearly. I want to see that you understand the arguments enough to explain it to me. In fact, it is good to explain all of your arguments and provide explanations for any cards you use.

4. ONLY for Policy Debaters: If you are in Policy Rounds, at the end of the debate, I want to see you boil it down to the stock issues.

Good luck with debating.

I am a parent judge. If I am judging your round, here are some things to keep in mind:

• Talk at a reasonable pace. I do not like spreading.
• Clarity is really important for speaker points
• Make sure your contentions are well backed up with evidence to convince me that your side is what I should vote for
• Be respectful to your opponent

Overall, have fun and enjoy the debate

Sarah Botsch-McGuinn

email: sbotschmcguinn@gmail.com

Director of Speech & Debate-Cypress Bay HS (2022-present)

Director of Speech and Debate-Cooper City HS (2018-2022)

Director of Speech and Debate-American Heritage Palm Beach (2017-2018)

Director of Forensics-Notre Dame San Jose (2009-2017)
Head Debate Coach-Notre Dame San Jose (2008-2009)



General:
I’ve been a debate coach for the past 16 years, and Director of Forensics for 9 at NDSJ, one year as Director at American Heritage, 4 years at Cooper City HS and now at Cypress Bay High School. I primarily coached Parliamentary Debate from 2008-2017, including circuit Parli debate. I've been involved in National Circuit LD pretty extensively over the last 8 years, but have judged all forms of debate at all levels from local south Florida and northern CA to national circuit.

First and foremost, I only ever judge what is presented to me in rounds. I do not extend arguments for you and I do not bring in my own bias. I am a flow judge, and I will flow the entire debate, no matter the speed, though I do appreciate being able to clearly understand all your points. I consider myself to be a gamemaker in my general philosophy, so I see debate as game. That doesn't mean that there aren't real world impacts off debate (and I tend to be convinced by 'this will impact outside the round' type of arguments). **I don't vote on defense. It's important but you won't win on a defensive answer.**

While I do appreciate fresh approaches to resolution analysis, I’m not an “anything goes” judge. I believe there should be an element of fair ground in debate-debates without clash, debates with extra topicality, etc will almost certainly see me voting against whoever tries to do so if the other side even makes an attempt at arguing it (that said, if you can’t adequately defend your right to a fair debate, I’m not going to do it for you. Don’t let a team walk all over you!). Basically, I love theoretical arguments, and feel free to run them, just make sure they have a proper shell+. *Note: when I see clear abuse in round I have a very low threshold for voting on theory. Keep that in mind-if you try to skew your opponent out of the round, I WILL vote you down if they bring it up.*

I also want to emphasize that I'm an educator first and foremost. I believe in the educational value of debate and it's ability to create critical thinkers.

+Theory shell should at minimum have: Interpretation, Violation, Standards and Voters.

Speaks:
Since quality of argument wins for me 100% of the time, I’m not afraid of the low point win. I don’t expect this to enter into the rounds much at an elite tournament where everyone is at the highest level of speaking style, but just as an emphasis that I will absolutely not vote for a team just because they SOUND better. I tend to stick to 26-29+ point range on a 30 scale, with average/low speakers getting 26s, decent speakers getting 27s, good 28s, excellent 29s, and 30 being reserved for best I’ve seen all day. I will punish rudeness/lying in speaks though, so if you’re rude or lie a lot, expect to see a 25 or less. Additionally, shouting louder doesn’t make your point any better, I can usually hear just fine.

If I gave you less than 25, you probably really made me angry. If you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, ableist etc I will punish you in speaks. You have been warned. I will kill your speaks if you deliberately misgender or are otherwise harmful in round. I am not going to perpetuate hate culture in debate spaces.

Speed:
I have no problem with speed, but please email me your case if you are spreading. I will call 'clear' once if you are going too fast, and put down my pen/stop typing if I can't follow. It's only happened a couple times, so you must be REALLY fast for me to give up.

PLEASE SIGN POST AND TAG, ESPECIALLY IF I'M FLOWING ON MY LAPTOP. IF I MISS WHERE AN ARGUMENT GOES BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T TAG IT, THAT'S YOUR FAULT NOT MINE.

A prioris:
Please explain why your argument is a-priori before I will consent to consider it as such. Generally I am only willing to entertain framework arguments as a-priori, but who knows, I've been surprised before.


Theory:
Theory is great, as I mentioned above, run theory all day long with me, though I am going to need to see rule violations and make sure you have a well structured shell. I should not see theory arguments after the 1AR in LD or after the MG speech in Parli. I also don't want to see theory arguments given a ten second speed/cursory explanation, when it's clear you're just trying to suck up time. My threshold is high for RVIs, but if you can show how your opponent is just sucking time, I'm open to this. Also open to condo-bad arguments on CPs/Ks, though that doesn't mean you'll automatically win on this.

Disclosure theory: I'm unlikely to vote on this if your opponent isn't reading something very strange. I think education and disclosure is good but that doesn't mean I think someone should automatically lose for not. Keep this in mind. PLEASE I DONT WANT TO HEAR DISCLOSURE LITERALLY READ ANYTHING ELSE IM BEGGING YOU.

Most other theory I evaluate in round. I don't tend to go for blippy theory arguments though!

Critical arguments:
I love the K, give me the K, again, just be structured. I don't need the whole history of the philosopher, but I haven't read everything ever, so please be very clear and give me a decent background to the argument before you start throwing impacts off it. Also, here's where I mention that impacts are VITAL to me, and I want to see terminal impacts.

I prefer to see clash of ROB/ROJ/Frameworks in K rounds. If you are going to run a K aff either make it topical or disclose so we can have a productive round. Please.

Presumption:
In general I default to competing interp. If for some reason we have gotten to the point of terribad debate, I presume Neg (Aff has burden to prove the resolution/affirm. Failure to do so is Neg win. God please don't make me do this :( )

Weighing:
I like very clear weighing in rebuttals. Give me voting issues and compare worlds, tell me why I should prefer or how you outweigh, etc. Please. I go into how I evaluate particular impacts below.


I like clear voting issues! Just because I’m flowing doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate you crystallizing and honing in on your main points of offense.

I prefer voter speeches follow a: Main points of offense-->impact calc--->world comp model. If you just do impact calc I'll be happy with it, but I like looking on my voter sheet for what you feel you're winning on. It helps me more quickly organize my ideas.

Impacts:
I put a lot of emphasis on impacts in my decisions. The team with bigger/more terminal, etc impacts generally walks away with my vote, so go to town. This goes doubly true for framework or critical arguments. Why is this destroying debate as we know it? Why is this ___ and that's horrible? Translation: I tend to weigh magnitude heaviest in round, but if you can prove pretty big probable impacts over very low probability extinction impacts I'll likely go that direction.

You should be able to articulate how your contentions support your position/value/whatever. That should go without saying, but you would be very surprised. I don't vote on blips, even if we all know what you're saying is true. So please warrant your claims and have a clear link story. This goes doubly true for critical positions or theory.

Preferences for arguments:

If you want to know what I like to see in round, here are my preferences in order:

K debate

LARP

Theory

Phil

Traditional

Tricks

This doesn't mean I won't vote for a tricks case but I will be much sadder doing it.

I am a parent judge with approximately two years of judging experience in both novice and varsity LD. I prefer concise speaking, and want clear signposting when refuting arguments. Don’t spread. Flush out your impacts and show me why everything you say matters in the larger scheme of the debate. You won’t get the vote if you only read pieces of evidence but don’t show me how they matter. Most importantly, be courteous to each other.

1. I am totally and completely find with any type of off cases that you would like to run, along with spreading. However, if I am judging, you MUST ask your opponent first if they are okay with off cases and/or spreading prior to doing that. If your opponent is not okay with off cases and/or spreading, YOU CANNOT DO IT.
2. A strong Value Criterion debate. If I don't see any clash on the VC, it makes it hard for me to pick a winner. When you continually bring up the Criterions presented in the round and how they link into the various arguments, you're only making your arguments stronger and better in every way possible.
3. If you are going to extend a drop that was made, it's not enough to simply say "my opponent dropped this card/argument, extend it please judge." You're going to have to reiterate what the card/argument was dropped and, most importantly, what the impact of that drop was. Otherwise, you're just telling me to extend something without explaining to me what the importance of the extension was, and that's not something that I can clearly vote off of.
4. Have fun. The only reason that I do this is to make sure that y'all can improve and do better in every round after, and that's where the fun comes from. If you're not having fun, trust me, you won't do as well as you could.

I am a LD judge and have been judged for 4 years. I weigh the round of value and value criterion. Please link back to framework. Also make sure all arguements are topical.

Yes I want to be on the email chain mattconraddebate@gmail.com. Pronouns are he/him.

My judging philosophy should ultimately be considered a statement of biases, any of which can be overcome by good debating. The round is yours.

I’m a USC debate alum and have had kids in policy finals of the TOC, a number of nationally ranked LDers, and state champions in LD, Original Oratory, and Original Prose & Poetry while judging about a dozen California state championship final rounds across a variety of events and the Informative final at NIETOC. Outside of speech and debate, I write in Hollywood and have worked on the business side of show business, which is a nice way of saying that I care more about concrete impacts than I do about esoteric notions of “reframing our discourse.” No matter what you’re arguing, tell me what it is and why it matters in terms of dollars and lives.

Politically, I’m a moderate Clinton Democrat and try to be tabula rasa but I don’t really believe that such a thing is possible.

Mariel Cruz - Updated 1/3/2024

Schools I've coached/judged for: Santa Clara University, Cal Lutheran University, Gunn High School, Polytechnic School, Saratoga High School, and Notre Dame High School

I've judged most debate events pretty frequently, except for Policy and Congress. However, I was a policy debater in college, so I'm still familiar with that event. I mostly judge PF and traditional LD, occasionally circuit LD. I judge all events pretty similarly, but I do have a few specific notes about Parli debate listed below.

Background: I was a policy debater for Santa Clara University for 5 years. I also helped run/coach the SCU parliamentary team, so I know a lot about both styles of debate. I've been coaching and judging on the high school and college circuit since 2012, so I have seen a lot of rounds. I teach/coach pretty much every event, including LD and PF.

Policy topic: I haven’t done much research on either the college or high school policy topic, so be sure to explain everything pretty clearly.

Speed: I’m good with speed, but be clear. I don't love speed, but I tolerate it. If you are going to be fast, I need a speech doc for every speech with every argument, including analytics or non-carded arguments. If I'm not actively flowing, ie typing or writing notes, you're probably too fast.

As I've started coaching events that don't utilize speed, I've come to appreciate rounds that are a bit slower. I used to judge and debate in fast rounds in policy, but fast rounds in other debate events are very different, so fast debaters should be careful, especially when running theory and reading plan/cp texts. If you’re running theory, try to slow down a bit so I can flow everything really well. Or give me a copy of your alt text/Cp text. Also, be sure to sign-post, especially if you're going fast, otherwise it gets too hard to flow. I actually think parli (and all events other than policy) is better when it's not super fast. Without the evidence and length of speeches of policy, speed is not always useful or productive for other debate formats. If I'm judging you, it's ok be fast, but I'd prefer if you took it down a notch, and just didn't go at your highest or fastest speed.

K: I like all types of arguments, disads, kritiks, theory, whatever you like. I like Ks but I’m not an avid reader of literature, so you’ll have to make clear explanations, especially when it comes to the alt. Even though the politics DA was my favorite, I did run quite a few Ks when I was a debater. However, I don't work with Ks as much as I used to (I coach many students who debate at local tournaments only, where Ks are not as common), so I'm not super familiar with every K, but I've seen enough Ks that I have probably seen something similar to what you're running. Just make sure everything is explained well enough. If you run a K I haven't seen before, I'll compare it to something I have seen. I am not a huge fan of Ks like Nietzche, and I'm skeptical of alternatives that only reject the aff. I don't like voting for Ks that have shakey alt solvency or unclear frameworks or roles of the ballot.

Framework and Theory: I tend to think that the aff should defend a plan and the resolution and affirm something (since they are called the affirmative team), but if you think otherwise, be sure to explain why you it’s necessary not to. I’ll side with you if necessary. I usually side with reasonability for T, and condo good, but there are many exceptions to this (especially for parli - see below). I'll vote on theory and T if I have to. However, I'm very skeptical of theory arguments that seem frivolous and unhelpful (ie Funding spec, aspec, etc). Also, I'm not a fan of disclosure theory. Many of my students compete in circuits where disclosure is not a common practice, so it's hard for me to evaluate disclosure theory.

Basically, I prefer theory arguments that can point to actual in round abuse, versus theory args that just try to establish community norms. Since all tournaments are different regionally and by circuit, using theory args to establish norms feels too punitive to me. However, I know some theory is important, so if you can point to in round abuse, I'll still consider your argument.

Parli specific: Since the structure for parli is a little different, I don't have as a high of a threshold for theory and T as I do when I judge policy or LD, which means I am more likely to vote on theory and T in parli rounds than in other debate rounds. This doesn't mean I'll vote on it every time, but I think these types of arguments are a little more important in parli, especially for topics that are kinda vague and open to interpretation. I also think Condo is more abusive in parli than other events, so I'm more sympathetic to Condo bad args in parli than in other events I judge.

Policy/LD/PF prep:I don’t time exchanging evidence, but don’t abuse that time. Please be courteous and as timely as possible.

General debate stuff: I was a bigger fan of CPs and disads, but my debate partner loved theory and Ks, so I'm familiar with pretty much everything. I like looking at the big picture as much as the line by line. Frankly, I think the big picture is more important, so things like impact analysis and comparative analysis are important.

Assistant Debate coach at Grapevine HS, TX
Coaching since 2010 - primarily LD, Congress, Public Forum
Competed in LD as a high school student

Speed: You can speak at the pace that you prefer, but I will yell clear if you're going too fast.

Evidence: Full citations, with a clear explanation of your evidence. Please signpost.

Flex prep: I don't like it.

Theory: Not my favorite, but I have voted on it and at times it was quite relevant to the round.

Philosophy: If it is really esoteric, make sure you explain the importance of it. Personally, I like hearing Philosophy in LD rounds.

Crystallization: The last speech should be purely crystallization (no line by line). Make sure you're weighing and tell me why you won the round.

Value: I weigh value and criterion clash HEAVILY in the debate round.

Hello,

To start off with, I am mainly a flay judge. First off, if you want to start an email chain, then feel free to at anil_dixit@yahoo.com. I would appreciate it if you don't spread in round. Please speak in a clear speed and tone with enunciation. Also try not to run theory. Ks, or any types of tricks or other circuit positions. I will have a hard time understanding them and it may result in me interpreting your positions in the wrong way. However, if you do choose to run circuit positions, spend a little more time explaining them. For example, in theory, clearly explain your opponent's violations in round and explain the voters thoroughly. In general, I am fine with you running circuit positions and I will not vote you down for it solely, but you should spend some more time explaining them.

Try to go with your traditional lay positions and cases that you have (Framework + Contentions). The only circuit positions that I am comfortable with are advantages and disadvantages.

I vote based on framework, impact calculus/weighing, speaking style/speed, and argumentation/articulation. Prove to me how your impacts outweigh your opponents and how they follow with the framework debate. Connect your voting issues with the framework, as it is the criterion towards which the judge evaluates the round.

Finally, please don't go about personally insulting your opponents or swearing in round. This will result in an automatic loss if done.

Thank you and good luck with your rounds. Have fun!

I am a first year LD parent judge. However, I have participated in speech & debate tournaments myself in high school.

As a new judge, I prefer standard speech/moderate speed, and will follow critical arguments. Also, I like well constructed arguments, that are to the point and not repetitive. No heavy LD/debate jargon please. I am learning flow techniques, and will track value points, evidences and rebuttal arguments.

Cards: I prefer quality over quantity in general. Therefore, lesser number of cards but with more powerful, precise and relevant information/data is preferred over a multitude of loosely connected evidences.

Be courteous and enjoy the debate.

SPEAKING: I'm fine with speaking fast as long as you tagline your arguments - if you speak fast and I can't easily flow the argument, I'll drop it. I don't care much about 'stylistic' speaker points - if you give a clear argument that is easy to understand, I'll give you high speaks.

GENERAL: Topicality and impact weighing are massively important for me - don't make me connect the dots between your argument and the resolution, and the final focus should tell me why your contentions matter and deliberately weigh the impacts. That being said, don't get too definitional about the resolution - I prefer if most of the debate is focused on substance.

ARGUMENTS: I'm willing to accept any argument as long as it is based off of solid evidence. I'm not a huge fan of metadebates (i.e., I don't care if your opponent dropped an argument - I prefer instead if you indicate a counterargument of your own that they never addressed and why it matters).

EVIDENCE: I am not a fan of arguments that are based off of 'famous person said x' cards - I want you to explain the 'why' and do your own analysis. No sketchy sources. If you can't defend the reasoning behind your evidence when your opponent gives counterarguments/questions methodology, I'll drop the argument.

CROSSFIRE: I won't judge off of crossfire, but I will take notes. If one side dominates crossfire without giving the opponents a chance to ask questions, I will take it into account.

If you have any further questions about how I judge, feel free to ask.

I am a LAY JUDGE. I have been judging Public Forum and Lincoln - Douglas for the past two years. You will need to speak slowly for me to understand your arguments. Signpost and weigh your arguments clearly. I expect you to know your speech times and keep track of them yourself. Please do not use unnecessary jargon, this means no Kritiks, Theory, or Topicality. If you believe there has been a rule violation, please bring it up after the round while your opponent is still present. Do not be aggressive or rude, otherwise it will hurt your speaks. No shouting or raising your voice, emphasizing words and phrases is fine. Please be civil.

For an email chain, my email is tgilbert@alumni.stanford.edu

Background:

University of Iowa MD '26
Stanford University BS '21
Valley HS '17
Conflicts: Valley HS

I debated LD for 5 years and coached for 2 years at West Des Moines Valley High School. During my time as a debater, I attended the TOC my sophomore, junior and senior years and attended Nationals my freshman, sophomore, junior and senior years. I cleared at the TOC and got ninth at Nationals during my senior year. I've also worked at NSD, TDC, and VBI as an instructor.

Overview:

I will evaluate any arguments you make in the round so long as they are not blatantly offensive. I have found that I am often more compelled to vote on line-by-line comparison in rounds rather than overviews that are not directly implicated as responses to arguments on the flow. That said, an overview clarifying the way line-by-line argumentation functions in the context of the round as a whole generally makes it a lot more clear for me on how to evaluate certain arguments.

It was really maddening to me when a judge didn't seem to care about making the correct decision, so please know I'll make my best attempt to fairly and accurately judge your round. I'm okay with you asking me questions after the round about my decision so long as they don't hold up the tournament and your questions don't become insulting to me or your opponent.

UPDATE: I guess I will also add here that I've decided I will no longer intervene against any theory (yes, this does mean I will vote on disclosure theory, an update from my initial paradigm)— this is not to say I'd like to hear either disclosure theory or brackets theory though, and you'll be quite displeased by the speaks you receive if you go for disclosure or brackets bad and didn't contextualize the abuse story to what specifically happened in the context of the debate round.

Theory:

I will try to default on paradigmatic issues to what's assumed by the debaters (for example, if no one reads a fairness voter, but both debaters talk about fairness like its an end goal, I'll evaluate the round with the assumption that fairness is a voter. To clarify, though, I won't assume fairness is a voter if one debater contests whether or not it is and points out that no fairness voter was read). I also will evaluate internal links on standards if they are embedded implicitly (within reason) to the standard.

If no one seems to take a stance on any issue, here are my defaults:
1) I default to fairness and education are voters.
2) I default to drop the argument.
3) I default to no RVIs (and that you need to win a counterinterp to win with an RVI)
4) I default to competing interpretations. With that said, I will assume the counterinterp is the converse of the interpretation even if no counterinterp is explicitly read. I think this avoids the regressive theory trick about needing a counterinterp to win under competing interps and also makes the round possible to resolve in a muddled theory debate.
5) I default to metatheory comes before other theory.
6) I default to T and theory being on the same layer.

Trust me, though; you should address paradigmatic questions if they're of even vague relevance. If I'm in a situation where I have to default, I'll be pretty frustrated.

A few more things you should be cognizant of:

1) I am not the best at flowing- I catch the majority of arguments made but usually not all of them. if you are reading a dense position filled with analytics and particularly theory, I recommend slowing down. Also, for very technical debates it is best to signpost clearly (it's maddening when I'm trying to flow a speech and I realize the debater suddenly started talking about another layer of the flow without telling me). If you don't do this, there is a decent chance I will miss a few of your arguments.
2) While I read mostly framework-heavy positions as a debater, this does not mean I will automatically understand your position- I expect you to make your framework clear enough to me in rebuttals that I feel comfortable explaining the ballot story after the round.
3) When reading Kritiks, it's best to have a well-explained ballot story. I think Kritiks that are well executed are often very compelling, but often Kritiks go poorly explained. Also keep in mind that I probably will not be up to date about the latest norms tied to critical debate and most definitely won't extrapolate implications from your Kritik that weren't explicitly stated in the round, and I've found this particularly applies in reference to pre-fiat implications of a K that are either not explained or barely explained (consistent with my general interpretation of arguments).
4) I rarely took the more than 3-off approach when negating as a debater, but that isn't to say I don't appreciate general LARPy tendencies. I think disads that are pretty specific to the topic with unique impacting that isn't strictly utilitarian are pretty strategic and of course T is a great strategy as well.
5) This is tied in with the don't be offensive part of my paradigm, but I won't vote on anything advocating the exclusion of a certain member of the community (this includes your opponent, your opponent's coach, Dave McGinnis, and anyone else in the community). It will make me particularly unlikely to vote for you as well.

Beyond this, feel free to ask me questions before the round.

I am a first time judge. I competed in both Congress and Policy during high-school. I value clear, well delivered and well-warranted arguments. 

Hello debate enthusiasts,

I am a parent judge who enjoys watching public forum debate. For the benefit of the community, I would like to use this passion and turn it into service as a debate judge.

Regarding speaking preferences, clarity is very important to me. I dislike spreading and prefer a more moderate pace.

Also, I value thoughtful and insightful debates with emphasis on impacts and command over topic literature. Make sure you effectively extend your claims in summary and crystalize your impacts in final focus.

In my book of judging, logic is as important as evidence.

Wishing good luck to all the competitors at the tournament!

I am a parent judge with one year of PF and one year of LD judging experience. Do not talk fast or spread. I prefer policy style arguments (Advantages and Disads), but I can vote off of theory if the abuse seems truthful to me. I prefer truth over tech, so make sure your arguments are reasonable and make sense.

I am a parent of an LD debater. This is my third year judging LD debate. I judged varsity LD on several invitational tournaments and NCFL/NSDA nationals.

If you're a progressive LD debate, I will be better for me if you can run you case in traditional LD way.

I consider myself a tabula rasa judge, and will vote on anything if given a proper rationale and justification. However, please do not make sexist, racist, or ablest arguments I will drop you.

I take judging seriously and most time showing a poker face so don’t try to get feedback from me during the round. You can expect that I will have a solid understanding of the subject(s) being debated.

What I won't have is a pre-determined way of thinking based on my individual beliefs on any topic.

Preferences:

Speed: It is ok to go faster than normal, but please no spreading. If you aren't clear, then I can't understand your arguments. And if I can't understand your arguments, I can't vote for you. Vary speed, tone, volume, or something else to differentiate between tags and cards. Emphasize transitions, present important analysis, signposts, etc.

Plans: I am ok with plans, just have solvency.

Counterplans: I am ok with counterplans, but please don't run abusive counterplans, I won't vote on them. Pics are okay, but not word pics.

Kritiks: I will not vote off a Kritik.

Philosophy: I like value/value criterion debates.

Theory: No theory.

Topicality: Only argue about topicality if your opponent is being blatantly non-topical.

Decorum: Please be polite and respectful towards your opponent. Do not be overly aggressive.

I'm a parent judge with two year experience. I'm a generally a lay judge, and if you are going to spread, please spread slower than usual. Not very experienced at judging theories and kritiks, I prefer debating about the given resolution.

Austin Johnson

Trinity Valley School

Head Coach/Program Director

Debating experience

Debate coach for four years. Took kids to TOC and NSDA Nats.

Role of the Judge

I’m willing to evaluate any and all roles-of-the-judge you put forward. It’s the judge’s job to weigh the round under the criteria you give. That is, the judge is a referee who makes decisions about a game whose rules are determined by its players over the course of each round.

Email Chain

If you're going to spread, I want to be on it. I'll give my e-mail at the time of the round.

CX

I do not flow CX.

Logistics

Track your own prep. I’m okay with flex prep. Flashing is not prep.

Speed

Speak as quickly as you are comfortable. However, if you’re going to spread, please be sure to include me on the e-mail chain.

Theory

The primary thing, in my opinion, that leads to worse debate is spending a lot of time explaining your opponent's model leads to worse debate. I've tried to be gentle about this. It is apparently time to be clear: I do not want to hear a theory argument. I hate them.

I’ll weigh theory if I must. But I would prefer to vote on literally anything else. If something genuinely abusive (not even in the direction of the topic, undisclosed, etc.) happens in the round, then you should call it out. Otherwise, don’t waste time on. If the only reason you’re winning a debate is because you’re manipulating the rules of debate, you’re not winning a debate.

Additionally, don't run Theory just to suck up time. The only thing worse than winning a round because you're just manipulating the rules is winning a round because you're wasting time talking about manipulating the rules and then not manipulating the rules, because that means I had to listen to your crappy theory non-argument which you then did nothing with!

Plans

I’m cool with plans. Just remember that reading a plan in LD means taking on a heavier burden of proof than defending the resolution as-written.

DA/CP

If I’m letting Aff run plans, I should probably let Neg run DAs and CPs. So I do.

Performance Ks

Performance is cool. I buy in-round solvency and pre-fiat alts.

Kritiks

The K is the reason I’m a debate coach. I’m a Ph.D. in English lit who got his degree after 2000, which means I had to be conversant in a loooooot of critical literature. I like materialist or semiotic approaches; psychoanalysis Ks are very slippery and I don’t generally enjoy them.

K Affs

K Affs are fine, but you need to be prepared for a protracted debate about framing that you can actually win.

4 minute prep time, off time roadmap allowed

Off cases and spreading completely allowed, just with the permission of the opponent

Do not drop contentions and arguments, if opponent makes drops please explain why I should extend it. I am not going to extend it for you.

Link everything from impact to framework, please

Traditional judge - Ask me in round.

Phone - 5108283268

Email - paul.lee@gmail.com

I am a traditional judge and have judged primarily LD for 4 years. I will award speaker points based on your speed, clarity, and overall presentation of your arguments. I like off time road maps and a moderate-to-slow speaking speed, and I make decisions based on your impacts, links, and the offense provided on your opponents cases. Make sure you weigh impacts throughout the debate and extend all your arguments clearly. Make sure warrants are clearly explained, don't just read your cards and expect me to do the analysis for you. In your rebuttals, you should clearly explain why I should give you the ballot. I will be flowing as well as taking notes throughout the debate and will do my best to make fair and reasonable decisions.

As to my weighting of certain aspects of debate:

Use of evidence-7, evidence is always preferred, but some arguments that are fairly obvious are ok to have analytics as support. Don’t just read out cards without any explanation or analysis though.

Real World Impacts-9, It is very important to have substantial and important impacts. This doesn’t mean that only war and extinction are the only important ones; just make sure you explain the importance of each impact in respect to timeframe, probability, or magnitude.

Cross examination-6, be clear, concise, and confident. However do not be rude or demeaning or I will dock speaks. Be strategic and bring up important points during your speech since I won’t flow cross.

Debate Skill over truthful arguments-5, you must have poise and confidence while debating, however your arguments must be well warranted. There must be a balance between the two skills.

Overall Notes- Do not read any theory, Ks, or T during round. Plans or value debate are good. Be kind and respectful during your debate, this is something people do to have fun and learn and I will not vote you up if you endanger this environment with rudeness.

I only have judged novice round and lay rounds before so I prefer you to talk slower and construct and explain your arguments well. 

Please don't run any extremely complicated arguments or any arguments that are too "out there"

During your last speech, give clear reasons why you won and why I should vote for you.

Background: WEST SLC LD, graduated 2017

Strikes: West

I debated for West LD for 4 years, dabbled on the national circuit, and am familiar with policy arguments. That being said, have been out of debate for a few years, so PLEASE slow down for tag lines and analytics.

I will not vote for anything I do not understand, and I will not do work for you on the flow. Clearly tell me what I should vote on and why.

K lit is not my area of expertise, but if done well and explained clearly it can be persuasive.

Non-topical affs have their place, but you will have to explain them well.

Theory is not my thing, and I will not vote on friv theory. Default reasonability

Will evaluate T if it is not stupid.

Feel free to ask questions: kathy.liu781@gmail.com

** & be nice to everyone pls!!**

See these paradigms as references for me that are much more thorough & well-written:

Catherine Shackelford

Mike Shackelford

Kenzo Okazaki

I am a parent judge. I have judged LD and PF in the past years and like both formats.

Please email me your cases so that I can better understand what you are speaking in a virtual round: manumishra@yahoo.com

I appreciate well constructed arguments and clear speaking. There is no need to show over aggression in your speeches. Please don't spread but if you do that there is a chance I may not hear you and flow. Yes, I do flow a little though if it is in the context. I consider cross-X sessions also in my evaluation, so be clear when you answer and respectful when you question. Do not interrupt your opponent excessively and let them speak. If I am unable to hear clearly I will not be able to give any credits.

Please respond to all of your opponents arguments with proper justifications. Have proper evidences in support. Be truthful. If I find any indication of falsifying any evidence, that's a disqualification.

Off-time roadmaps are OK. Please stay within the time limits for your speeches.

Be well behaved and respectful to your opponent(s) and enjoy the debate rounds, good luck!

Bakersfield High School 17' | UC Berkeley 21'

THE OVERVIEW: Throughout my debate career, I have had extensive experience with a wide variety of debate styles, ranging from local to circuit, as well as decent exposure to many popular arguments, so I am comfortable with just about anything you want to read, as long as it's not explicitly racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. in nature. I have no tolerance for racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. arguments and actions in the debate space, and I will automatically vote you down if that occurs.

THOUGHTS ON SPREADING AND SPEAKS: I haven't debated/judged in over 6 months, so I am out of practice in regards to flowing. That being said, I can keep up with speed quite well, as long as you are being clear in your arguments, pausing for each tagline and author, and breathing in between sentences and NOT in the middle of a sentence/word. If I cannot understand you, I cannot evaluate the arguments you make. I assign speaks based on your clarity, persuasion, and strategy. I will dock speaks if you are unnecessarily aggressive/rude towards your opponent.

THOUGHTS ON ARGUMENTS: I really enjoy seeing K debate but only when it's done incredibly well; Meaning, you should be extremely familiar with your body of literature and have a solid, defensible alt. Regardless of your debate style, I champion (and will be easily compelled to vote for) solid clash with creative arguments/responses.

SUMMARY: I am an easy judge to persuade, but I highly value articulate speeches, direct clash, and creative arguments. Debate is supposed to be a fun, educational activity, so have fun and learn a lot from both your research and your opponents.

P.S. I really like Žižek, expect a speaker point increase for running his arguments.

Creative Construction (Start / End )

Stay within Context even while Cross Ex.

Exhibit Confidence

Logical Flow

Right Intentions

Content over Speed

Quality over Quantity

Erik Pielstick – Los Osos High School

(Former LD debater, long-time debate judge, Long-time high school debate coach)

Parliamentary Debate Paradigm

Parli is intended to be a limited preparation debate on topics of current events and/or common knowledge. Therefore I would view it as unfair for a team to present a case on either the Government or Opposition side which cannot be refuted by arguments drawn from common knowledge or arguments that one would have been expected to have done at least a minimal amount of research on during prep time if the topic is very specific.

The Government team has the responsibility of presenting a debatable case.

The opposition team needs to respond to the Government case. In most cases I would not accept kritik of the resolution as a response. DEBATE THE RESOLUTION THAT YOU WERE PRESENTED WITH!

Parli should not involve spreading because it is not a prepared event. You can speak quickly (180 - 220 wpm) but you should be clear. Speed should never be used as a strategy in the round. I will not tell you if you are going too fast. If I didn't understand an argument I can't vote on it. It doesn't matter if my inability to understand you is because you are going too fast or just making incoherent arguments at a leisurely pace. It is never my responsibility to tell you during the round that I can't understand your arguments.

Parli is not policy debate and it is not LD. Don't try to make it about reading evidence. I will vote based on the arguments presented in the round, and how effectively those arguments were upheld or refuted. Good refutation can be based on logic and reasoning. Out-think, out-argue, out-debate your opponent. So, yeah, I'm old-school.

Lincoln Douglas Debate Paradigm

I value cleverness, wit, and humor.

That said, your case can be unique and clever, but there is a fine line between clever and ridiculous, and between unique and abusive. I can’t say where that line is, but I know it when I see it.

Affirmative debater should establish a framework that makes sense. Most debaters go with the “value”/“value criterion” format, but it could probably be a cost-benefit debate, or some other standard for me to judge the debate. I want to see clash. The negative debater could establish the debate as a clash of competing values, a clash of criteria for the same value, or a clash over whether affirming or negating best upholds aff value with the neg offering no value of their own.

The affirmative wins by upholding the resolution. The negative wins by proving the resolution to be untrue in a general sense, or by attacking the affirmative's arguments point by point. I generally look to the value or framework first, then to contentions. Arguments must be warranted, but in LD good philosophy can provide a warrant. Respond to everything. I will accept sound logic and reasoning as a response.

I listen well and can keep up aurally with a fast delivery (200wpm), but I have trouble flowing when someone is spreading. If you want me to keep track of your arguments don’t spread. I won’t penalize excessive speed with my ballot unless it is used as a strategy in the round against someone who is not able to keep up. Debate is a communicative activity - both debaters need to be able to understand each other, and I need to be able to understand the debate. No, I will not tell you if you're going too fast. If I didn't understand an argument I can't vote on it. It doesn't matter if my inability to understand you is because you are going too fast or just making incoherent arguments at a leisurely pace. It is never my responsibility to tell you during the round that I can't understand your arguments. Ultimately, I’m old-school. I debated LD in the 80s and I prefer debaters who can win without spreading.

A good cross examination really impresses me. I tend to award high speaks to great cross examinations, cross examination responses may be part of my flow.

I generally don’t like theory arguments, but in rare cases I would vote for a well-reasoned theory or abuse argument. Fairness is a voting issue.

I generally dislike kritiks in LD. A committee of very smart people spent a lot of time and energy writing the resolution. You should debate the resolution.

Also, I HATE policy arguments in LD. LD was created as a value-based alternative to policy debate. The NSDA and CHSSA, still to this day, describe LD as a debate of values and/or questions of justice and morality. CHSSA actually went so far as to make it a violation of the rules to run a plan or counterplan in a CHSSA event. If someone wants to run a plan they should learn to get along better with others, find a partner, and do Policy Debate.

Finish with clear, concise voting issues. Talk me through the flow. Tell me why you win.

Finally, debate is intellectual/verbal combat. Go for the kill. Leave your opponent’s case a smoldering pile of rubble, but be NICE about it. I don’t want any rude, disrespectful behavior, or bad language. Keep me interested, I want to be entertained.

If you want a circuit judge, you should probably strike me. I'm a very traditional LD judge.

Talking Speed:

- I do not like spreading; please keep speeches at a traditional pace.

- If you spread, I probably won't flow your arguments.

Arguments and Cards:

- I will call for evidence if I am asked to.

- All arguments should have a clear claim, warrant, and impact.

- All cards should be tagged.

Theory/T:

- I do not like theory debates.

- I will absolutely not vote on theory/T.

Plans:

- I generally do not like to weigh offense from plans, but I will if I have to...

- Try and keep the resolution as broad as possible.

Framework:

- I am not well-versed in philosophy so keep it simple for me.

- Tell me why you win framework, and how your arguments link into it.

- I try to be tabula rasa with framework, but I do generally vote util.

A. I hate spreading.

A Case against Spreading in LD

B. I appreciate good turns.

What Exactly Is a Good Turn?

C. I judge you on 5 things.

5 Keys to Success

Analytics with logical reasoning - flow of links

Behavioral - opposing reasoning with decent representation

Uniqueness - comparison to others

Coach since 1996 - started team at Clover Park High School (3 years) (Coach at Puyallup High School since 2000)
Competed in high school and college - Policy, LD, platforms, and interp.
Charter Board member of The Women's Debate Institute

General - (scale of 1-10) 1=low, 10 high
Speed - 6ish -7 ish, if you are ridiculously clear
Topicality - 3 - I have little regard for T, if you are going for it, it better be your only card on the table and the violation should be crystal clear and beyond egregious.
Kritical Arguments - depends - I'm very interested in language kritiques, but generally speaking I have little tolerance for po-mo philosophy - I think the vast majority of these authors are read by debaters only in the context of debate, without knowledge or consideration for their overall work. This makes for lopsided and, frankly, ridiculous debates with debaters arguing so far outside of the rational context or the philosopher, as to make it clear as mud and a laughable interpretation of the original work. It's not that I am a super expert in philosophy, but rather a lit teacher and feel like there's something that goes against my teaching practice to buy into a shallow or faulty interpretation (all of those dreary hours of teacher torture working on close reading practices - sigh). Outside of that, I'm interested on a 7ish level.
Framework - 9 - I'm all in favor of depth v. breadth and to evaluate the framework of a round or the arguments, I believe, can create a really interesting level of comparison. What drives me crazy is, what appears to be, the assumption that framework is a done-deal. That there is only one way to view framework, is faulty and counter-intuitive. It is the job of both teams to advocate, not just their framework, but the logic behind their framework.
Theory - 8ish. While I'm generally fascinated, I can, very quickly be frustrated. I frequently feel that theory arguments are just "words on the page to debaters" - something that was bought on-line, a coach created for you, or one of the top teams at your school put together at camp. It quickly falls into the same category as po-mo K's for me.

Just a me thing - not sure what else to label this, but I think that I should mention this. I struggle a lot with the multiple world's advocacy. I think that the negative team has the obligation to put together a cohesive strategy. I've had this explained to me, multiple times, it's not that I don't get it - I just disagree with it. So, if at some point this becomes part of your advocacy, know that you have a little extra work to do with me. It's easiest for my teams to explain my general philosophy, by simply saying that I am a teacher and I am involved with this activity bc of its educational value, not simply as a game. So go ahead and lump perf con in with the whole multiple worlds advocacy

Ok, so my general paradigm is 1.) play nice. I hate when: debater are rude to their own partner, me, the other team. Yes, it is a competition - but there's nothing less compelling than someone whose bravado has pushed passed their ability (or pushed over their partner). Swagger is one thing, obnoxiousness is another. Be aware of your language (sexist, racist, or homophobic language will not be tolerated. In my mind, this is not just as issue that will affect speaker points but potentially the round.) 2.) Debate is a flexible game; the rules are ever changing. The way that I debated is dramatically, different then the way that is debated today, versus the way that people will debate 20 years from now. I believe this requires me to be flexible in my paradigm/philosophy. However, I, also, believe that it is your game. I hate it when teams tell me over and over again what they believe that they are winning, but without any reference to their opponent’s positions or analysis as to why. Debate is more of a Venn diagram in my mind, than a "T-chart".

I don't actually believe that anyone is "tabula rasa". I believe that when a judge says that, they are indicating that they will try to listen to any argument and judge it solely on the merits of the round. However, I believe that we all come to rounds with pre-conceived notions in our heads - thus we are never "tabula rasa". I will try my best to be a blank slate, but I believe that the above philosophy should shed light on my pre-conceived notions. It is your job as debaters, and not mine, to weigh out the round and leave me with a comparison and a framework for evaluation.

I am a lay/parent judge. I will flow your arguments to the best of my ability. I am not comfortable with spreading. I prefer you speak at a moderate speed and clearly so that I can understand your argument. Please do not run any K's, theories, or topicalities. Structure your arguments practically and logically. I judge rounds based on the logic of the argument and the evidence used to support it. I focus mostly on the cross ex between the two debaters when it comes to judging, so make sure to ask good questions and clash well.

Good Luck!

I am a parent judge and I love LD format of debate. I do flow during the round.

Framework: Please try to reinforce throughout your debate

Spreading: I prefer "conversational" speed - feel free to go a little faster on the evidence in the constructives though.

Evaluation: I evaluate all arguments except ones that are offensive (ie. racist/derogatory). However, I strongly prefer policy-based cases and disads/counter plans. Running theory and Kritiks in front of me isn't too great of an idea; nonetheless, telling me where to vote and why while doing strong comparative analysis will win you speaks and the round. 

Flashing: I prefer you to add me to the email chain; my email is: zimingsun@gmail.com.

Background

In high school, I competed in Original Oratory, Humorous and Dramatic Interpretation. Since my son has been in high school I have judged Lincoln-Douglas and Impromptu Speaking. At work, I have a role where persuasive speaking and presentations to senior executives are very commonly exercised.

What I Value

I like the use of emotion and charisma when it complements logical organization and rationale and explanation of example-sharing. Originality, humor and creativity in interpretation is appreciated. Fast speaking is okay if it is accompanied by the appropriates pauses for emphasis and/or demonstrating the relationship between concepts.

Speaker Points

High points go to people who provide a 1) good introduction to the topic; 2) clear outline of argument points/examples to be referenced; 3) logical argumentation/linkage back to the topic/theme; 4) persuasive close; 5) accessible/personable style of presenting themselves.

I want debaters to present their case clearly. I don't like it when debaters spread. I do not give points to others who say things that don't make sense, every single sentence of your case need to prove a point.

I am a lay parent judge and have judged at multiple local tournaments. I prefer understandable argumentation, with clear crystallization, weighing, and connected logic. I also prefer clear speaking over spreading, as I do not have much experience in judging circuit debate. Please be polite to your opponent during your round, and don't forget that debate is a learning experience!

I competed in both Lincoln Douglas and policy debate, and had some success in Lincoln Douglas at the circuit level. It has been a awhile since I’ve been in a fast round so although I’m comfortable with some speed, I would not go your fastest with me. I’m okay with whatever arguments you want to run, but do tend to like a traditional Lincoln Douglas debate.

Have fun!

tab judge; will vote on what is presented.

spreading is accepted

will vote on quality of arguments vs. quantity of arguments

I debated LD for Harker. I mostly debated policy and critique arguments.

I know nothing about the topic rn, so please explain acronyms and start slow

Almost all of my debate views are in agreement with Srivatsav Pyda and Ryan Fink.

General Stuff:
-Comparing worlds
-Speaks based on strategy not speaking ability
-Tricks won't work
-Leeway on 1ar extensions
-Presume to the side with less change from squo
-Shorter rounds with little hiccups get higher speaker points
-I will default to my intuitions if forced to by a lack of clarity/comparison on the part of the competitors
-Include me in flashing or email chains: raymond.xu.888 @ gmail
+1.5 speaks for a quality plan vs. CP or case + disad debate

Theory:
-will not vote for frivolous theory
-Neutral on RVIs
-Default competing interps and drop debater
-Fairness & education are voters

Framework/Philosophy:
-Policy-making good, philosophy bad
-Will judge phil at your own risk
-Comparing worlds over truth testing; skep is defense

Critical Arguments:
-Role of the Ballots are just weighing args; don't exclusively go for preclusion arguments and engage
-please don't defend planless, non-resolutional action

2024- 2/4/2024

I'm not just any judge; I'm a ”cool” judge with a journey dating back to 2000. So, when you step into this arena, know that you're dealing with someone who's witnessed the ebb and flow of the debate currents over the last 2 decades. I am old.

General:
Yes you can go fast if you want to, just be clear, and loud enough for me to hear. I will be flowing along and won’t look at doc’s or cards unless warranted by y’all. I will do my best to time with you.

World Crafting:

Your task is to construct a compelling narrative, competing worlds, both sides have a world to offer, you sell it.

Argument Framing:

Frame your arguments as pillars that support the world you've built. Your job is to make me see the strategic significance of your narrative. Don't just present; show me why your world outweighs the others.

The K:

I have a soft spot, but only if done well. Critical acumen is your secret weapon. Integrate it seamlessly into your world, making it a key component of your narrative. I also am not a fan of non black POC running afropress, or similar k's, so please don’t. Other than that, no issues with K’s.

Theory:

Preemptive theory is unnecessary imo unless the topic warrants it, but most debates do not need a theory most of the time, but it is your round, so do you.

Tech vs. Truth:

Truth sometimes trumps tech, and in other rounds, tech might take the lead. But what matters most is how well your crafted world stands.

Rudeness is a No-Go:

Discourteous vibes won't elevate your speaks. For real

Impact Calculus and Critical Thinking:

Impact calculus is the key to your world's strategic significance. Dive into critical thinking, showing why your crafted universe is not just valid but important.

Authentic Knowledge Over Blocks:

Don't just parrot blocks; show genuine understanding. Bring knowledge to the forefront, not just rehearsed lines.

Voting Issues:

Present me with clean voting issues – make it glaringly apparent why your world is the one I should endorse. THERE IS NO 3NR. So please make it definitive in the last rebuttal

TL;DR

Be clear

Weigh

Impact calculus

liberal.cynic.yo@gmail.com

>If you want to add me to the chain or send hate mail.<

2023
i will flow to the best of my ability i have the carpal tunnel but can still keep up
spreading is only chill if you are clear
I don't need to be on the email chain but here it is if you feel like adding me anyway
liberal.cynic.yo@gmail.com
I am indifferent to the kind of argument you are choosing to use, i care if you understand it

ask questions

My paradigm was lost to the void, who knows what it said...

for long beach 2018
i'll make this, and fix it later

1. yes, i flow

2. yes, speed is fine

3. flashing isn't prep (unless it takes wayy to long )

4. i look at the round as competing narratives, i do not care what you run as long as you know what it is you are running

5. ask questions

This is my second year judging. Though I have dabbled in speech/debate (Congress) in high school, I have had limited exposure when it comes to judging.

I appreciate clarity and logical flow. Signposts and crystallizing aren't absolute musts, but they are absolutely appreciated!

Though I will base my decision primarily on the strength of your argument, I strongly prefer if you don't spread. (I'd rather not do mental gymnastics just to keep up with the literal pace of your speaking!) There is a very high chance I am new to the topic you are debating, so please keep that in mind! I should be able to follow/understand your argument.

And please have fun and be respectful!

I am a Debate coach at Loyola High School. I primarily coach LD debate.

I see debate as a game of strategy. The debaters are responsible to define the rules of the game during the debate.

This means that debaters can run any argument (i.e. frameworks, theory, kritiks, disadvantages). I will assess how well the debaters frame the arguments, weigh the impacts, and compare the worlds of the Aff and Neg.

However, I am not a blank slate judge. I do come into the round with the assumption of weighing the offense and defense and determining which world had the more comparatively better way of looking at the round.

As for Speakers' points, I assess those issues based upon:

1. How well the speakers spoke to the room including vocal intonation, eye contact, posture.

2. I also look for the creativity of the argument and strategy.

High Speaker Points will be awarded to students who excel in both of these areas.

Debaters are always welcome to ask me more questions about my paradigm before a round begins. The purpose of debate is educational as well as competition. So, debaters should feel comfortable to interact with me before and after the round about how to do well in the round and after.