I am “old school” when it comes to parliamentary debate. I like to see very well-organized speeches, with numbered arguments, solid logic and a sprinkling of good evidence. A rapid fire delivery does not impress me; in fact, I prefer a slower delivery style where the speaker exhibits passion for their side of the topic. As the debate progresses, I do not want to see the same arguments repeated; instead, I want direct clash with the arguments and reasoning presented by previous speakers. I do not appreciate heated or sarcastic responses or rudeness — if a team needs to do this, they don’t deserve to win. When a speaker’s time is up, I expect that they will quickly finish up — I stop listening to arguments 15 seconds into overtime.

I’m a parent judge.

please keep your time and your opponent’s to make sure they are not going over

i will judge based off the quality of arguments and always explain the warrant for each one.

speaker points will be awarded based on the fluency of your speech

This is my third year of judging Novice and Varsity Public Forum.

I value speech with good clarity. Regarding speed, I prefer not going way too fast as I like to take notes.
I like to see well researched content with good evidences and statistics to support your arguments.

When assigning speaker points, I look for fluency, good eye contact and the confidence with which you argue.

Finally, I prefer giving my comments on the ballot rather than disclosing it orally.

I can flow, but I'm not great at it. I will write stuff down occasionally. I've  judged many times before.

Dont run wierd arguments. Make it sound logical.