Hi! I am an experienced judge that loves speech and debate. I have a background in theater, so please speak up and enunciate. I like traditional debate, I like to flow your rounds and I want you to debate your points & your opponents case. Please be respectful and enjoy your round. After all, this should be fun. 

I was a debater in high school, and I have loved debating ever since I started in the 9th grade. As I judge I am looking for convincing evidence and confidence. As long as your evidence is convincing, and you are confident about your case, you will get my vote.

While I don't have a long history of being involved in debate, I can follow a good argument. My primary concerns are 1, your argument is topical and argue the resolve; 2, your contentions are based on evidence with sources; 3, you have claims, warrants, and impacts; 4, you attack the opposition case with logic and reasoning to expose vulnerabilities; and 5, you successfully defend against attacks on your own case using logic and evidence. I try to vote based on the best cases, speakers, and arguments of the round. I appreciate a traditional debate.

Also: Any sentences that begins with "Judge, you cannot vote for them," or "Judge, you must vote for our case," will make me not want to vote for you. Don't tell me what to do; I will do what I deem the best and most fair. However, saying things like "Judge, Their contention fails on this point," or "Judge, our case should win because of..." are acceptable, as are detailing the voters.

I appreciate a polite and civil debate. If you show disdain for your competitor, I will have a hard time wanting to vote for your position, however a solid case and sound logic will win over likeability. I just won't be happy about it.

I do not disclose, unless the tournament asks us to, nor do I give critiques. Giving critiques is basically the same as disclosing, since I have no poker face.

Experience

I am new judge, though I competed in Speech and Debate for four years of high school, including a trip to nationals in Congress. I also competed at the national level in the Center For Civic Education's "We the People" in high school and have done College research on a few political topics.

Overall Paradigm

I prefer arguments and speeches that fully utilize all three aspects of the rhetorical triangle (unless the specific event dictates otherwise, such as with Policy or DI): Pathos, Ethos, and Logos. Over-relying on one of these to the detriment of the others is a fast way to lose out to an opponent who provided more well-rounded arguments. Using too much pathos and it will sound like a sob-story. Overusing logic will make you sound impassionate and like a robot. Relying too much on ethos risks falling into the appeal to authority Fallacy. The best way to convince me is to utilize all three in tandem.

Outside of policy, where it is perfectly acceptable, please do not spread or spew. I can't really judge if your argument is worth anything if I'm having trouble understanding it.

Signposts/Roadmaps are preferred, especially in debate events, though if its presence would clearly detract from the speech rather than help it isn't essential.

Where it is applicable, I weigh good writing and contentions about equally with strong presentation. However, having both of these skills is essential and will always win out.

In debate/congress, good research is an essential aspect of victory. Though I will not dock points if you state research that I know to be incorrect (even the most ridiculous data), if your opponent brings it up and successfully counters it that will count against you. Conversely, that means knowing more about a topic than your opponent will benefit you. If your opponent says something that is ridiculous it won't factor much into the rankings unless you notice the logical error and provide an effective counterargument, but if you do counter it I'll take notice and make sure it's praised.

Nuance Matters. Except in very, very unique cases, most issues are not solely black and white. There are both legitimate and illegitimate reasons people would support either side of any given political issue. Therefore, it is important not to label entire political groups with blanket derogatory statements, especially saying they are all evil, crazy, stupid, etc. Calling all trump supporters, all Sanders supporters, all gun rights activists, or all feminists bad people is not even slightly persuasive and is likely to alienate portions of your audience. Fairly acknowledging a potential opponent's beliefs shows them that you understand their concerns and makes them more receptive to listening to why they may be wrong. It's also just plain easier to refute a position you fully understand.

Congress

POing/Chairing: I'll attempt to weigh POing and giving speeches as equally as I can, meaning that it will do nothing to hold you back (unless you do a bad job) or boost you more than a speech will. The most important job of the Chair is to ensure the chamber remains orderly and follows Robert's rules. Doing an efficient job at running a session and enforcing the rules as best as you know them will warrant a good score. Running things slowly or consistently missing rule violations will result in a bad score. Though subtle bias is uncatchable, if bias in how the session is run becomes obvious than it will result in penalties.

During questioning, please try to keep questions and answers concise (as I'm sure fellow congressmen-women will repeatedly remind you). I will be paying attention to the Q and A and providing effective answers can boost your rankings in round. Providing bad answers (unless they are particularly poor) probably will have no effect on your overall ranking, but evasion tactics are very annoying. Even if you don't have any idea what the question is talking about, giving a poor but honest answer or simply saying 'I don't know' will irk me much less than intentionally providing an off-topic response.

After the second or third speech on a piece of legislation, I would prefer to see as few canned speeches on a question as possible. Going after previous points or providing new information to the debate will benefit you: repeating someone else's point for the fifth time will not.

Debate events

In Debate, I prefer speeches that directly respond to your opponent's points and opponent's criticisms of your points. Simply repeating your points without providing rebuttals doesn't cut it.

Questioning the credibility of an opponent's source is often a perfectly valid argument (and will get noticed if its done well). However, be careful to recognize that bias alone doesn't make a source credible. For example, while Vox and the Daily Wire are extremely left and right-wing respectively, both usually get the underlying facts right even though they always spin it in favor of their party.

In your later speeches, it isn't enough of a rebuttal to simply claim that you've proven something is the case. You have to actually review, even for just 10-20 seconds, what proves that your point is true or that your opponent's point isn't true.

I have never judged or participated or formal debate before though in english classes I enjoyed being able to learn persuasive writings and judging two different sides of an argument. I am excited to get to know the structures and how the debates are formatted.

I judge the rounds based off of general who does it best. Speaker points as well as the flow, sources, and connection to personal beliefs. Professionalism is huge with me. I take speaker points due to rudeness and arrogance. Be cordial and kind and that will go a long way with me.

As I am new to formal debate I do not care for spreading. I want you to speak clearly and calmly so that I can understand and have an effective flow to judge from. I will tell you if I can not understand you twice and if you do not fix after that I will put my pen down and stop judging your speak as well as dock you speaker points.

Keep the cases so that I can understand and follow. Back up your arguments and keep things on topic.

Biggest thing is have a good professional debate and also have fun. Keep it light and understandable and Good Luck.

DEBATE EVENTS:

I am a practicing attorney who occasionally moonlights as a debate judge. Over the past 30 years I have watched competitive debate deteriorate from a program of teaching students effective communication to a program contrived to win rounds by any strategy, including so-called "progressive" tactics that are designed to confuse and overwhelm opponents with tangential and obscure minutia rather than inform and persuade judges with impactful, well-reasoned argumentation.

This is ironic because in real life, in a real courtroom, I will only win a trial if I win the hearts and minds of the jury---presenting artfully crafted arguments that accentuate my personal ethos, while balancing appropriate appeals to logic and passion. If I tried to "spew" or "spread" my arguments to a jury, I would lose the case. If I tried it in front of a judge, I would get kicked out of the courtroom! If I tried to win every case by overwhelming the judge, jury and counsel with every "card" I ever stumbled upon (even remotely related to the case), I would lose all my cases and my clients with them.

The same goes for nearly every other professional communicator. No teacher would teach that way. No news broadcaster would report that way. As far as I can tell, the only job opportunity available to a "progressively" trained debater is to deliver the annoying legal disclaimers at the end of radio commercials.

I realize that my views are hopelessly outdated. No one reading this paradigm statement will ever select me as "1" on a judge preference sheet. Nevertheless, if you have the bad luck of getting me in a round anyway, here are some tips on how to get my vote:

(1) Speak at a normal, conversational rate;

(2) Look me in the eye;

(3) Begin with a clear, real-life illustration of how the Affirmative or Negative case effects real people;

(4) Make me laugh;

(5) Make me cry;

(6) Make me care;

(7) Help me understand what the resolution means;

(8) Help me understand why your ideas are right;

(9) Help me understand why your opponent is wrong; and,

(10) Organize your ideas in a way that makes sense.

I realize that this rhetorical model is profoundly outdated (it is in fact about 2,500 years old). Nevertheless, in the spirit of learning something useful (rather than simply winning another piece of shiny plastic today for speed-reading), please give these ideas a try!

SPEECH EVENTS:

Many Debaters [and coaches] consider speech events to be "throw-away" events---something to do when debaters are not in a "real" debate round. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Speech events teach students about the power of pathos---of making human connections. They provide a wonderful balance to the logos-heavy debate events. To capture my vote [or the vote of most ordinary human beings], a student must be prepared to do the following:

(1) Begin with a clear, real-life illustration of how your topic effects real people;

(2) Make me laugh;

(3) Make me cry;

(4) Make me care;

(5) Help me understand what you mean;

(6) Help me understand why your ideas are right;

(7) Help me understand why any competing viewpoint is wrong [or "misinformed"]; and,

(8) Organize your ideas in a way that makes sense.

Don't be intimidated by all of this this [if you happen to be a hard-core, card-flipping, evidence-stacking debater]. Instead, embrace the opportunity to learn a new [and equally real] way of communicating in a way that focuses on building human connections [rather than squabbling over obscure, marginally-relevant minutia].

I am more traditional. I enjoy statistics from reputable sources that support your case. I judge based on who persuades me to their side. I prefer you not to spread. I can follow most of your case if you spread, but i have had people go to fast and they only way I understood their case was on cross ex. If i cannot understand you it will be hard for you to win. I have been judging speech and debate events for 7-8 years and have judged most events.

I am like a debate dinosaur. Maybe not a dinosaur, but a majestic unicorn that wants to be understood. I have been doing this activity since 1991 and I have literally done/coached every event. I believe that this is a community and we should all treat each other with respect.

I can flow. My skills are not what they used to be, but I can flow. Please be super clear in your organization and if I can't understand you, I will let you know. I am good with theory and enjoy it when done well. I was debating in college when critical arguments became widespread. I understand them and value them. I don't have argument preference...do what makes you happy and pick a strategy that you thing you can win with. Please be clear with your decision calculus.

I am a former high school/college debate participant in policy and extemporaneous speaking. I also coached debate at the high school level back when evidence and speeches were on paper and I am currently an assistant high school coach.

Policy

Arguments should be balanced with evidence and logic. Speak clearly and road map for me. I prefer impacts or benefits to be quantifiable but I’m flexible if strong enough arguments are made.

Individual Events

Speech competitors will see a higher ranking if they are articulate and tell me why their topic is important. A strong conclusion is a must for a top ranking. Higher rankings for memorized speeches.

LD

I will judge the round based on persuasiveness of arguments. Strong connection of value to criterion is a must.

PF

Persuasiveness and ability to demonstrate an understanding of arguments is key. Please clash. Clarify voters.

Traditional, no spreading.

My background is in policy debate, but I coach all forms of debate. For policy, I'm generally a stock issues judge, at the end of the round, I see who won on stock issues and/or who won on impact calculus. I tolerate spewing/spreading and progressive debate, but I want to see you impact your arguments (explain to me what your evidence means in the round). If you run Ks, DAs, I want to see more specific links, and generally view generic links as weak. I prefer more traditional debate with on-case arguments. I also look at good reasoning, good clash, and good presentation/persuasion delivery in the round.

I have been doing debate for a long time. I can handle most things that are thrown out in a round. I don't like incredible speed, but I can handle it. I like it when the argument is clear, concise and performed well. I do not like personal attacks in a round. Keep things civil! If things get too out of hand I will be very motivated to give the round to the most civilized team. Aside from these few things, I am not extremely worried about the content of the round. Whoever's argument is better will win!

Above all, I appreciate civility. Respect your opponents and maintain a positive attitude. I don't mind a little aggression, but if you start to get snarky or roll eyes, I will start deducting speaker points. I'm not a fan of spreading or spewing. I will flow as best as I can, but if I can't follow, don't expect to win. Please keep your case appropriate for today's practical application. Clash well, speak clearly and persuasively, and have fun and you should do well.

I am an Assistant coach for Alta High School. My Mother is a debate teacher so I grew up with it in my life always and so understand it very well and love it a lot.

First, debaters should know that I debated in high school and understand rules and purposes for each debate and use these for my main source of determining the outcome of a debate. If you are debating LD then I look for a case that sways me morally, for Policy I look for cases that focuses on creating solutions through concrete plans etc. I am also a 'news junky' and try to stay up to date on many current events, with this I am familiar with most topics brought up in debate. That being said I remain very impartial coming into a debate round and look for you to sway me to your case.

Specifics in judging:

Speaker points: To obtain high speaker points its not just about speaking clearly and persuasively. I am all about confidence both in yourself and your case. I stand by the traditional style of debate where you are standing when presenting. A lot is said in body language when speaking and I like to analyze this in the debate as a way to see how confident you are in what you are presenting to me. Tips to help you with this is to know not only your case but the topic inside-out. This allows you to focus on presentation instead of reading. Do not run anything that you do not understand.

Cross-X: I will also draw a lot of speaker points from the cross examination.  I judge Respect and Professionality throughout the entire round but this is the perfect ground to really see the depth of that when there is debater interaction. Make sure that questions are pertinent to either building your own case or clarification. Those who dont use all of the Cross-X time I have a problem with that. 

K's: I find Kritiks fasinating as long as you keep it topical and like I said above know how to run it. Explain yourself well I am not a philosophy major but it you slow down and make it make sense I'll keep up with you.

Theory: I am a very traditional judge and want you to debate the topic. If you keep a theory topical and explain yourself go for it! If you come to a round to debate about debate not the topic it will hurt your score.

 Speed: I can handle some speed but it has to be clear enough to where I can understand you. I will call out clear or slow down once maybe twice if I still can't understand you i put my pen down and stop judging. Just remember I can't judge on what I can't understand.

Final Speech: In your final speech I want specific voters on the main arguments. Debaters who can take an entire round and sum it up into a few surviving points on why their case stand out have my favor. Put the weight to it. I as a judge will not with the issue for you and having to do so will nock on your score. 

Pet Peeves: Extensions. Do not extend your case if you have not sufficiently rebutted your opponent's arguments against your case I don't want to hear the word extend at all. Blatant rudeness will knock speaker point's like none other for me. This is supposed to be friendly and fun stuff. Topicality if your opponent doesn't call you out on it, I will in your judging sheet. Debate the topic at hand not tangents.

Other FAQs: i don't care if you use computer or paper just make sure your opponent has access to your case. You can use your phone to time or whatever I will just make sure an internet is disconnected.

All in all be confident, be clear, and have fun!

I am a coach of over 15 years for policy, pf, ld and all speech events at North Sanpete HS, Mission San Jose, Alta and Summit Academy, at Westlake High School and currently an Assistant Coach for Salem Hills High School.

In HS I competed in Speech events, LD and coached policy teams (there was no pf then).

I am the Chair for the NSDA Sundance District and former president for the UDCA. I have judged IE and debate events at the Nationals Level and have served on the pf wording committee. In other words, I know what I'm doing and know speech and debate very well!

I believe that you should give a well organized logical argument in any debate or speech. Topicality is imperative to a debate, and supporting and explaining your position on that topic is vital to a clear argument construct. If you don't say it, I didn't hear it. Don't assume I will know what your evidence means the same as you...

Policy debate should be relevant, and well understood by the competitors otherwise it will not be understood by the judges. I do not mind speed, but if it is so fast that I can no longer understand your words, then I can no longer understand your argument to judge it. K's and theory are fine as long as they go toward the overall value of the debate and topic. They should in no way demonize or devalue any individual or group of people asa part of the K. Analysis and connection of evidence/cards to the plan and solvency is imperative in making a good argument and being a good debater. Cards do not a case make, the debater does. Know your cards, know your plan, and know how they work to support and solve the inherency of the issues involved.

Public Forum should be a thoughtful discussion and not overly repeat questions and answers. Don't just read evidence and think it will make your argument for you. PF IS NOT just policy light....it is its own event with no plans and merits. Treat it well. Weighing and analysis of the topic, evidence, and oppositions arguments are imperative.

Lincoln Douglas should have a clear value and criterion from which to work from, and stay focused on topic and argument. Don't just read evidence and think it will make your argument for you. CARDS and EVIDENCE DO NOT A CASE MAKE...the debater does. Analysis, rebuttal, and connections to the value criterion are paramount in an LD round Plans are ok, as long as they are relevant, on topic, and are shown how they connect to the value criterion like any other argument in the case.

IEs should be unique, appropriate, and follow all structures outlined in their respective events. I look for organization, relevance, creativity and thoughtfulness as well as the presentation being engaging, and suitable for piece and audience. Remember when trying to engage an audience, one should want to help them understand, be brought into the conversation, and allowed to learn another perspective while still maintaining their own in the end. Try not to preach, demean, or ostracize your judge in your piece or presentation---even when controversial topic---they can be great, if done right.

I’m looking for follow through in your speeches. Don’t drop important arguments. Organize your speeches. I’d rather vote on speech and argumentation than framework, but if there’s clear abuse I will vote on framework. Don’t be afraid to push the boundaries with you arguments, but make it relevant. Don’t argue K unless you really understand it because it makes it messy for everyone.

I have 8 years of competitive debate experience in pf, parli, impromptu, and extemp

I was a head coach for 11 years (6 in OR; 5 in UT).

Overall, I want to see true clash and I usually judge on the flow. Strong, crystallized voters can win me over though. I am fine with progressive cases (and sometimes prefer them if they are creative while maintaining logical appeal), as long as you are able to defend them aptly and you still truly attack your opponent's case and contentions. And don't lose enunciation.

LD:

I have judged LD at Nationals and have coached National competitors. I prefer traditional, but can roll with progressive.

I will judge on true clash, the least dropped arguments, and strong voters. I like civil sass and speaking styles that engage and entertain as long as it's not at the expense of argumentation and substance. I try to be tabula rasa. Don't just tell me you uphold your value criterion or that your opponent does not; explain why (links).

I prefer to not have card battles. If I want to see a card, I'll ask for it at the end. Don't waste too much of your time on it. Yes, specific and credible evidence is needed but I look more holistically at the logic.

PF:

I like true clash, but don't want a debate that turns into hyper-focus on a definition or card battle. Note the disagreement, concisely state why your side is better then move on.

My vote goes to whoever has the most sound logic holistically, with strong voters and impacts. I also like strong links between each contention and framework and being able to point out flaws in your opponent's logic. Consideration of and insight into your and your opponents' warrants will go far. Being respectful will go far. Being disrespectful will lose you speaker points and will make me less forgiving of smaller flaws in your case.

Congress:

I have judged Congress at Nationals and have coached National competitors. Do not deliver a pre-written Oratory (unless you are giving the author/sponsorship speech). Synthesize previous points made and refer to them. If you are not bringing anything new to the discourse, do not try to get a speech just for the sake of giving a speech. Vote to PQ and move on. I like an engaging speaker who can balance pathos, ethos, and logos. Volunteering for chair and presiding adequately or better will go far for my ballot.

Policy:

I am least experienced in this event but enjoy it. I will stick to traditional stock issues and true clash. Can roll with speed as long as you keep enunciation.

Tabula Rasa, for the most part. I will reject on my own truly absurd arguments, and I highly value analysis over just card-spewing.

Spread is fine; I did policy in high school and parliamentary debate in college. BUT if your tags are unclear and I don’t get them on the flow, they essentially don’t matter. I don’t share in the email chain of cards. It only matters what is delivered in the speech; I should not have to rely on an email chain to get some clarity about what you are talking about.

If you can’t spread clearly, don’t do it at all.

I am originally from South Africa and have been in the US for 10 years. I am trained as an Electrical Engineer and I work for Rio Tinto as a Manager.

When I am judging speeches or debates, I look for speakers that are well-paced, have a good grasp of their subjects, and are confident. I like it when speakers "own" the room and use the space available. Timing is critical. I also want to see that participants are enjoying themselves.

i doubt anybody will actually read this, but here it is

policy experience: 4 years of policy debate, three-time region champ, 3rd place in state, two time nat qual.

i can stick with anything but my rfd will definitely come down to stock issues and how well each team debates. a good entertaining round with clash on every point is ideal and even though that is hard in northern utah with all of the theory debate, it would be nice to see clash and head to head battles with stock issues.

all in all, spewing and spreading is okay, but i will not flow what i cannot understand

any other debate:

i am just looking for a clash worthy debate. a clash filled round are the best parts of rounds. it is not necessarily who has the best speaking ability, but also the amount of substance in your case. most of the times this goes hand in hand, but if your case is no bueno, you will hear about it.

Former coach at Copper Hills High School in West Jordan, Utah.

I want to do as little work for your argument as I have to. If you're going to go fast, I want to be on the email chain. Mac.walker24@gmail.com. There is no argument that I won't vote for as long as you explain it well. If you have any specific questions before the round about my preferences, please don't be afraid to reach out to me and ask.

I have judged Policy yearly for the past 15 years. I prefer LD and PF, but I am familiar with the ins and outs, but I don't know them intuitively as I have never competed in Policy. I am willing to try and follow whatever you present. However, I expect you to communicate with me. I am the judge, not your opponent. What that means is this, you need to tell me what you are doing and why. Slow down and communicate with me. When I say slow down, what I mean is this:

1. I don't follow speed. I try, but I won't get most of what you say if you are going a million miles an hour. However, I understand the strategy and need. If you spread, you need to slow down and tell why I should care about what you just said. Give me a quick, slowed down summary of what you said, and why I should care.

2. Make taglines very clear! Don't assume I heard your 'next DA' when you're going a million miles an hour. If you want it on my flow, make it clear what it is and where to put it. Spread the rest, but slow down for taglines and summarize what you just said! This is especially important for the 1AC and 1NC.

3. Email chains are helpful, but not. It is nice to have an email chain, but if I have to read the email to understand what you are saying, why give speeches? Also, trying to follow evidence because I can't understand you makes it difficult for me as a judge. I will refer to reference, but will not pour over it after a round to determine a winner. Doing that means I don't need to hear from you. I could sit at home and read your evidence to determine a winner. Don't rely on chains.

Lincoln Douglas

I prefer traditional LD Debate with a Value/Criterion. I have voted for flex-negs, and other more progressive type arguments, but I prefer debates that use Value/Criterion. Don't spread! If you spread in LD, I won't flow. You can go at a crisp pace. In fact, I prefer a crisp paces, but...spread and you will most likely lose.

I am a flow judge. I need signposting and don't drop arguments unless you explain why it is no longer relevant. Don't look at your opponent in round, specifically cx. Don't use gendered pronouns to refer to your opponents (use they/them or "my opponent/s"). Above all else, anything explicitly racist, sexist, xenophobic, transphobic, homophobic, ableist, etc. will not help your case--and depending on the severity I will stop the round.

Experience:

Speech and Debate Coach, 8 years

Teacher: History, Language Arts, Civics, and Constitution

Judged PF, LD, Policy, Congress, BQ, and most IE events.

Style:

Cases based solely on theory are often very flimsy but are not altogether invalid. If an opponent is running theory alone, that does not promise a win. You should adequately address their arguments as well as supporting your own topicality.

Spreading anywhere outside of policy debate seems inappropriate most of the time. In policy rounds it should be tempered. If it is in your case but not in your speech, you might not be able to use it and it may be difficult for your opponent to use it against you, but they won't have to.

Novel arguments that are well tied to topicality are always enjoyed, but don't promise a win.

Flow:

Most of my flow is primary contentions and how well they are supported vs attacked. Not significant detail but I can follow cards just fine. Contradictory cards from opponents are just as valid unless you can prove otherwise.

Presentation skill:

Unless something stands out as amazing: Logos>Ethos>Pathos>eye contact

Debate events aren't memorized speeches. If you want me to look up and make eye contact so you can guess what I am thinking, you will get less notes in the process and neither of us will enjoy the round nor the results.

Speech events of any kind maintain the opposite expectation. They should be memorized and make connections. Interps don't require eye contact but you get to decide the value of the 4th wall.

Flagrant violations will always negate your efforts.

Ad Hominem attacks against an opponent will be disciplined in your scores. If they are minimal, you might be warned. If they are excessive or major, they will be addressed through your coach, the tournament director, and possibly your admin or the NSDA.

Calling your opponent stupid in round or after the round in ear shot of the judge is a great way to forfeit a well won round.

I respect your coach and the tournament director but I am not afraid to debate with them either.