I have been involved with speech and debate since I was a participant myself in high school. I attribute my professional success as an attorney and a professor to the foundation build with experiences from speech and debate.

As a judge, I utilize my legal background in my approach. I value the strength of argument(s) first and foremost when it comes to decision-making. Beyond that, I also put stock into the strength of evidence and structure.

I expect all participants to be respectful of one another and professional during rounds.

I am a parent judge, but I will exclusively base my ballot on the flow. I place the greatest emphasis on rebuttals. You must be able to successfully take apart your opponent's case, while simultaneously responding to what they say about your case. I would like your arguments to be firm and clear, without being able to flow on both sides. Overall, I will choose my ballot based on whoever's argument holds the most weight and has held strong throughout the round. I don't like spreading. Make sure that your speaking is clear and easy to follow. Be sure to always be respectful to everyone in the round. Any disrespectful attitude or approach is an automatic loss and low speaks.

tl;dr - I will flow and want a slow speaking, substance-only round with collapsing, proper extensions, and comparative weighing. For evidence exchange please add my email - bvsln1216@gmail.com

You can be boring, or you can do these:

1) +1 Speaks:

• spin everytime you read a turn
• have Creative Contention Names
• read hyper-unique (not blippy) arguments

2) 30 Speaks:

• speak a different language fluently for 10 seconds in 2 speeches
• have a paper-only round with no laptops or evidence
• win by kicking case and going for a turn
• if both teams agree to a lay round, I’ll be a lay judge and evaluate based on who convinced me more (winner & loser get 30 speaks)

3) Call a TKO if you think you're winning everything. If I agree, the round ends early and you get W30. If I don't agree, it's an L15. Just make sure your opponents have no path to the ballot.

ppl don't read long paradigms - if u got to the bottom of this and care/are interested, here are more specifics -https://docs.google.com/document/d/1r8TZB2-osFuGzvSIyQKfT7k4cgiKeakduQij2YhOBgM/edit?usp=sharing

Nitin Chandran

Experience:
I did speech and debate in high school, with a background in extemporaneous speaking for four years, as well as participation in Public Forum (PF), Parliamentary Debate, and World Schools Debate.

Philosophy:
I approach judging with an emphasis on fair competition, effective communication, and the development of critical thinking skills. I believe that debate and speech events are not only about winning rounds but also about personal growth, effective expression, and the exchange of ideas.

Communication (Debate):
Clear and persuasive communication is crucial in all debate formats. I appreciate debaters who are articulate, organized, and able to adapt their communication style to different formats. Clarity of argumentation and effective use of evidence are essential components of a successful debate round.

Framework (Debate):
I am open to various debate frameworks and styles. In PF, I appreciate a focus on evidence-based arguments and the ability to weigh impacts effectively. In parliamentary debate, I value creativity, adaptability, and the ability to think on one's feet. In World Schools Debate, a balance between individual speaking skills and collaborative teamwork is essential.

Speech Events:
For speech events, I value well-researched and well-delivered speeches. Clarity, confidence, and effective use of rhetorical devices are important elements. In extemporaneous speaking, I appreciate speakers who can analyze complex issues on the spot, providing insightful and nuanced perspectives while communicating those ideas in an effective manner. In prepared speech events, I look for a clear structure, engaging delivery, and a genuine connection with the audience.

Evidence:
While evidence is important, I also value the ability of debaters and speakers to analyze and contextualize the information they present. Quality over quantity is key, and I am open to a mix of well-researched evidence and strategic analysis.

Etiquette:
I expect debaters and speakers to engage in respectful and professional behavior. Crossfire, questioning, and speeches should be challenging but remain courteous. I encourage a positive atmosphere in the round that fosters a healthy exchange of ideas.

Adaptability:
I appreciate debaters and speakers who can adapt their strategies based on the round, opponent, and format. Flexibility and the ability to switch between prepared and impromptu styles are valuable skills.

I look forward to judging your rounds and witnessing your passion for speech and debate!

LD paradigm:
Clash - I don't weigh contentions equally - if you establish why one contention is particularly important to the resolution I might weigh it more than another contention.

Flow - I follow flow pretty closely but its not necessary in my mind to match every piece of evidence with a counter piece of evidence, but each contention and subpoint should be countered.

Framework/Value Criterion (VC)- Any framework/VC is fine but if you don't explain why choosing your framework/VC means the contentions go your way or should push me towards/against the resolution winning the framework/VC might not be valuable to you.

Evidence - You have to read enough of the card to establish it says what you are claiming it says or summarize it. Saying the date of the card and a cursory conclusion is not sufficient.

Speed of Delivery - Speak as fast as you like but if you are so fast that I can't clearly hear/understand your points I won't be able to track them on the flow and you will likely get less credit for them. I used to debate, my hearing is fine and I don't care about delivery so you can go fairly fast but if you speak to the point where you start slurring/sounding like a machine gun you probably are going to end up with contentions that I am just not clear what you said and will give greater credence to your opponents' counters. Also see my comment on Flow - I won't give you a contention just because you have 4 pieces of evidence to their 3. If they provide better reasoning or have stronger/better cards I will award someone with fewer pieces of evidence the contention.

I am a traditional judge. Please don't spread or use debate jargon, or else I won't be able to understand your arguments.

I think of debate as an art of argument. The arguments that are formed by sound research, are well structured and conveyed clearly. I have judged congressional debate a few times in the last few years, big questions debate once but a lot of Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas debates. I have also judged almost all speech events. I enjoy all forms of speech and debate. I look for well researched, well structured arguments delivered clearly. I understand that students might need to go a little faster than the normal conversational pace but I hope it is not too fast. I also pay special attention to cross examination. This is a great opportunity to challenge your opponents arguments respectfully. I don't appreciate when a speaker does not give the other speaker a chance to question or launches into a big speech in response to a question. This results in monopolizing the time and talking over each other. Good luck to the teams!

michaeldepasquale21@gmail.com

Public Forum

Short version: collapse onto one contention in summary, weigh weigh weigh, extra speaker point for each team if you start an email chain before each round and send evidence that way. Include me on the email chain.

I did policy debate for 3 years and now am coaching public forum. With that being said, i am okay with some spreading but i need to be able to understand what your saying. Ill vote on anything, however, if your going to go for something it needs to be rebutted throughout the entire speech. You should try and write my ballot for me at the end of the round by giving me 2-3 of your best arguments and going for them. If I look confused its because I am confused, so try to not do that. I pay attention to cross x, but i dont flow it. If I feel like theres an important point being made ill for sure write it down. Cross x is the most entertaining part of the debate, so make it entertaining. Be confident but don't be rude, theres a big big difference. I prefer that you have more offensive (your flow) than defensive arguments (your opponents flow) but you need to have both in order to win the round.

If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.

Policy

Like i mentioned in my PF paradigm, i did policy debate for 3 years and am now coaching Public Forum. I am good with anything you do. That being said, I don't know a lot about this topic. I'm cool with speed, but you have to be clear. Bottom line, ill vote for anything, as long as you give me a clear reason to vote for you at the end of the round. I consider a dropped argument a true argument.

Im not okay with shadow extending. If something gets conceded, you need to explain to me the argument, and why its important to the round. If your going to do an email chain, which id prefer, id like to be on that. My email is at the top of the paradigm.

Topicality: love T debates, i need a clear limits story. I am more willing to vote for you if theres in round abuse, but you do not have to prove an abuse story to win.

Ks: I will listen to them, but i am not great with Ks. I am not up to speed with all the k jargon. I need a clear link and alt. If you can prove at the end of the round why you won, and i think its convincing, ill vote for you. I recommend slowing down in the 2nr, especially if your going for the K.

Das: I do not buy generic links. If your going to read a politics da, you need to give me case specific links. Ill also be more than likely to vote for you if you can provide me with good and comparative impact calc.

Case Negs: I love case specific debates. Ill vote on presumption, and honestly any type of solvency takeout. I give analytical case arguments, especially if they are good, a lot of weight. Love impact turns.

Affirmative: I tend to swing aff when it comes debating against ptix disads with a bad link story. Same goes for cp solvency, and k links.

If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.

I did public forum for 4 years in high school and have been coaching it for 3 years now. I am going to divide this into 3 parts because I usually judge PF, LD, and policy (occasionally). Also apologies if this is all very long and confusing! If you have any questions, please ask me before the round and I will answer! Or if you have questions about the round after it's over, ask me!

Public Forum

I am okay with speed. However, send me your case if you think you will be speaking fast. I need to understand what you are saying if you want me to vote for you. I like to see clear and clean extensions of your links, warrants, etc. I have been seeing a lot of shadow-extending recently and if it happens in round, I can't vote for you on those arguments, cards, warrants, or whatever it is. You don't need to weigh too much in your rebuttal, but you need to start weighing in summary for me to vote for you. In PF, I prefer a line-by-line debate that has a lot of warranting, making it clear what arguments you are winning, whatever it may be. And make sure to signpost too. For summary, I think that the round needs to be brought down to 1-3 key issues on your side and your opponent's side as to why you are winning and starting impact calc. Basically, summary should be treated as a longer version of final focus. For final, I like impact calc that does a good analysis on both sides, with good warranting with why you win and why you win the impact debate. And don't be rude in the round to your opponents, such as being mean during cross or during your opponents' speeches. I am more likely to vote you down solely based on that.

Lincoln Douglas

I have been judging LD for probably the last 2 years, so I have a lot of experience of the format and how the round works. And also with the background of PF that helps too. My big thing is that I love a framework debate. If you win framework, I am more than likely to vote for you. Because (unless your opponent accesses your framework too), you have the better explanation for why we must evaluate the round based on that interpretation. If both debaters agree on framework, then it becomes a round based on who accesses framework better, becoming more of a standard "line-by-line" debate. If both sides don't discuss framework enough or just drop it, then I will resort to judging it similar to a PF round.

Policy

For the national circuit - I apologize if I am your judge. I will do my very best but please do not spread. I hate spreading and most people doing it aren't amazing at it. I would rather you speak clearly and focus on good arguments.

For the local circuit - I know most of you don't spread, but don't do it regardless.

email - johnevans201413@gmail.com

Here are the things that I value most in a debate tournament:

1) Be respectful!

2) Be clear on your reasoning!

3) I am particularly interested in how you can elaborate the impacts.

I am a traditional judge.

Please refrain from excessive use of debate jargon.

Please don't spread or talk unreasonable fast.

I have been judging Speech and Debate for 4 years. I have judged almost every event. For congressional debate, I let the presiding officer and Parliamentarian do everything and just judge the speeches. I weigh speech and questioning section equally when considering your rankings. You need to be able to question, defend, or attack your's or other's points effectively.

I don't particularly mind jargon, such as um-ms or aah, but I prefer a slower speech compared to speeches that are padded by nothing. I keep a running note on what is said and who said it. I try to get the most important points down on the flow. I value argument over style, but will consider style if needed.

I'm a traditional judge. I prefer a more conversational style, so “spread” at your own risk. If I miss points because you read too fast, that's on you. I would decide the winner based on who persuaded me more of their position overall and who won the key arguments of the round. I am here to listen to the best arguments you've brought to defend your side. I tend not to rate highly teams that get lost in debate jargon or who try to score technical points in lieu of making a strong argument. I like it when teams clearly tell me what issues they believe defined the round and why I should vote for them.

Name: Jennifer Mazzocco

School Affiliation: Taylor Allderdice High School, Pittsburgh, PA

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 13 years

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0 years

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: some speech judging experience throughout the last 10 years

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 0 years

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? Public Forum debate, Lincoln Douglas debate, Parliamentary debate, Congress

What is your current occupation? 9th grade English teacher

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery – I prefer a traditional, or slower delivery with a focus on robustness of fewer arguments rather than superficial treatment of a higher number of arguments.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) I prefer a big picture review of arguments in the summary speeches.

Role of the Final Focus – I prefer the final focus to highlight voting issues and review where the debate “landed” on those issues.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches – I am in favor of extending arguments into later speeches. I prefer thorough clash on arguments and if there is more new arguments or evidence to be presented, I value that debate.

Topicality - no

Plans - no

Kritiks – no

Flowing/note-taking – I support teams pre-flowing or flowing during the round, and taking notes. I typically take notes while listening on major points.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? I think style is important, but ultimately I value argument over style. I think the substance of the arguments and the quality of rebuttals and clash is the most important thing in deciding a winner.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes, I think if they intend to win on it, it should be extended.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Yes, they should do both.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Yes for grand crossfire, no for final focus.

I have completed the PHSSL Cultural Competency Course.

I am a parent judge, but I do flow and track arguments. I prefer a medium speech pace, please.

Hi, my name is Naga, and I'll be your judge today!

As a judge, I will be impartial and be objective in my decision. Please note that I am a parent judge and therefore do not know most debate or topic terminologies. You can use certain obvious debate jargon like turn, probability, or non-unique, but do not use terms that non-debaters will not be able understand. Please explain the points you are making, such as why it is a non-unique or why it is a turn, so I can understand the point you are trying to make. If I don't understand what you are saying, I will not be able to take it into account for my final decision.

The way I will judge will be thoughtful and analytical. I value tech over truth and follow the sky is red theory, meaning if an argument may be inherently flawed, but it is warranted and front-lined well and has a clear and quantifiable impact, I will buy it. The way I judge a round is first looking at who won the main arguments or clashes of the round, and I "award" these contentions or arguments to each of the teams based on who wins them. Then, I vote the contentions based on the quantified impacts and the relevance towards the round (aka the weighing debate). I expect you to do the heavy lifting for me, meaning you need to weigh these impacts and explain why you win the clashes of the round yourself.

In summary, to win my ballot, speak slowly, clearly, concisely, and confidently, and support your arguments with evidence and thoughtful analysis. Most likely, I will not vote for a contention that does not quantify the impact because I need to see the impact put into perspective.There are exceptions, but majority of the time, I expect clear link chains, evidence, and a quantifiable impact.

In crossfire, I expect to see that you allow your opponents air time to express their points and answer your questions. I will penalize you for being abusive towards your opponents, so remember to be respectful towards your opponents and towards me as a judge. I will not tolerate any statement that is extremely racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, etc.

In this debate, I hope not only to be a fair judge, but also learn a lot about these topics. Good luck!

I competed in Lincoln Douglas, Policy and, Public Forum Debate in High School on the Ohio circuit. I have been coaching debate since 2020 on the Ohio circuit as well. I'm pretty much open to everything as long as you are respectful to your opponents.

As a Lincoln Douglas Judge I am a very traditional judge from a very traditional area of the country. I am not able to flow spreading very effectively at all.

In any round of debate, I want the competitors to be comfortable and do their best. It is important to me that all competitors treat each other respectfully. A professional decorum must be maintained from the moment you enter the room until you leave the room.

Please feel free to provide an off time road map prior to your speeches.

If you are speaking too fast or not enunciating your words, I may not be able to flow your points. I have no issues with speed but if I cannot understand what you are saying, I will not be able to effectively flow your arguments or other key parts of your debate. If this is the case, these items will not carry through the round.

You may keep your own time, but I will be keeping the official time. If I feel you are wrapping up when time is expiring, I will let you finish. If you are not wrapping up, I will give you a signal telling you its time and you will need to wrap up. I will not flow and arguments or points made after time has expired.

Unless you are the person speaking, please do not use a timer that makes noise.

When judging Lincoln Douglas Debate, it is important for the flow to be maintained so that your value and value criterion are clearly articulated to me. For philosophical arguments, your value and value criterion must clearly connect to your contentions.

For cross examination, I expect all debaters to ask clear and concise questions. If I feel the person answering the questions is deliberately taking a longer time to answer than needed, or anything else that is a tactic to limit the amount of questions asked may impact the final decision.

Calling cards can take significant time away from the debate and can cause our debate to run behind others in the round. This can cause cascading issues for the tournament organizers. I ask that you limit the number of times you call for cards and only seek to verify information that has a significant impact on the debate. Once a card is called, the opposing team will have one (1) minute to produce the information and once presented, the prep time for the team that called for the card will start running. If the opposing team is not able to produce the card in the given time, they will need to drop that card from their case.

I am a parent judge from Ohio with experience on local circuit; however, this is my first national tournament.

-Be respectful of the opposing team and each other

-Signposting encouraged

-Talk slowly and clearly

- I flow

-

I am a traditional parent judge

• Do not spread or speak too fast, if I do not understand what you are saying I will not factor it into my decision
• Explain your arguments thoroughly because if I don't understand what you're saying it is harder for me to vote on it
• I will vote for side the that persuades me more of their position
• Be respectful towards your opponents
• Speak loud and clear

Good luck and have fun!

Please speak clearly and maintain an easy pace.

Please avoid interrupting unnecessarily and keep the debate civil.

Enjoy and Happy Debating!!

I am a parent judge, first year judging.

Tech over Truth

Speak slowly and clearly. If I can't understand what you are saying, I wont be able to flow your points.

Keep your own time and your opponents time.

Don't use debate terminology as I probably wont understand.

Use both statistics and logic in your arguments.

Clearly state in your last speech why you should win the round.

Debaters must prioritize effective delivery to engage the audience and convey their ideas clearly. Simultaneously, they should provide strong reasoning, supported by evidence and logical analysis, to strengthen their arguments. I will assess both aspects to determine the most persuasive debaters. Good luck to all participants!

Hello! I'm a parent judge, and this is my first year judging, so bear with me. I'm primarily experienced in PF, although I've done a bit of speech. I'm a lay judge.

In terms of speaking tips:

1) Stay below 270 WPM- the closer you get to this number, the more you're losing me!

2) Signpost, Signpost, Signpost- I need to know what your arguments are.

3) Be polite. I judge on argumentation, not speaking quality, but if you're overtly rude to your opponents I'll take that into account in a close round. Same for any bigoted argumentation.

On debate:

1) I follow "sky is red" theory. I.e if you tell me something outlandish and your opponent doesn't engage with it, I'll buy it. Don't abuse this though, and if you don't clearly impact and extend it, then I won't vote off of it.

2) Do the heavily lifting for me. Tell me why I should vote for you in your speech. Do the weighing for me- the more I have to decide who to beleive, the less likely it is to be you.

3) Evidence- I'm not really familiar with setting up evidence chains and sharing. I'll buy that your evidence is credible unless your opponent tells me it isn't, at which point I'll be pretty upset. Don't lie or abuse your cards. As in, I'm okay with questionable link chains, but don't straight up lie.

4) I'm very unfamiliar with K, Tech, etc. I don't judge much circuit. You'll have to make it make sense to me.

Lastly- Great work! I'm excited to listen to every round. Good luck!

I am a traditional judge. Please note the following:

1. Speak clearly. If I cannot comprehend your arguments, you will lose.
2. I prefer using empirical evidence over emotional arguments to win debates.
3. Please use discretion when calling for cards and have them ready upon request. Excessive card calling without a clear purpose will be noted negatively.
4. I prefer well-constructed arguments that connect the dots logically.
5. Assertiveness is acceptable, but screaming and belittling opponents is not.

Be courteous. Be respectful. Be kind.

I am a traditional judge who prefers clear analysis, well-cited arguments and clearly outlined voting issues in summary and final focus. I prefer a more conversational style, so “spread” at your own risk. If I miss points because you read too fast, that's on you. I look unfavorably upon theory arguments in public forum. I am here to listen to the best arguments you've brought to defend your side. I tend not to rate highly teams that get lost in debate jargon or who try to score technical points in lieu of making a strong argument.

spalagani007@gmail.com

debated PF all of high school. tech > truth, tabula rasa

do whatever you want and I'll adapt to it. if I can't then I'll let you know

please call a TKO if you think you're winning everything. if I agree, the round automatically ends and you get a win with 30 speaks. if you're wrong, you'll lose with 15 speaks.

for personal entertainment:

+1 Speaks:

• spin when you read a turn

30 Speaks:

• speak a different language fluently for 10 seconds in any speech
• have a paper-only round with no laptops or evidence
• win with friv theory

Thank you for taking the time to participate in speech and debate. This summary should be succinct and to the point in order provide a guide or framework on how I typically judge participants.

  My experience: I’ve participated in congress and policy debate. My judging history has been congress, Lincoln-Douglas, PF, and Policy.   Speaking: Please ensure you speak clearly even if you are spreading or speed reading. If it’s not spoken, I will not be able to understand or weigh the item into the decision making process.   Decision process: It is the burden of the affirmative to carry without a reasonable doubt as to why your the winner. However, this does not mean that the negative can simply use one simple or anecdotal hole to throw out the entire case. I like to weigh the options presuming the burdens have been met.   Etiquette: Please ensure you are professional and respectful of your opponents and those in attendance. Rudeness and arrogance is not appreciated, and will be reflected particularly in the speaker points.   Thank you and best of luck!

I am a traditional judge. I judge on the strength of your argument not my view of the topic. Logic and clarity of thought in your contention is important to me. Please speak clearly and at a pace so I can understand you and make eye contact.

Have fun!

I am a traditional judge. Speak loudly, clearly, and please do not spread unless you are experienced enough that you can do it successfully.

PF Paradigm: I am an experienced PF judge and PF coach on the national circuit. I judge primarily on impacts. You need to give a clear link story backed up with logic and evidence. Framework is important. Weighing is very important. It is better to acknowledge that your opponent may be winning a certain argument and explain how the impacts you are winning outweigh than it is to ignore that argument made by your opponent. Don't extend through ink. If your opponent attacks your argument you need to respond to that attack and not just repeat your original argument. I don't mind rapid conversational speed - especially while reading evidence, but no spreading. I will keep a good flow and judge primarily off the flow, but let's keep PF as an event where persuasive speaking style, logic, evidence, and refutation are all important. Also let's keep PF distinct from national circuit LD and national circuit policy -although I will listen to any arguments that you present, in public forum, I find arguments that are directly related to the impacts of the resolution to be the most persuasive. Theory arguments as far as arguing about reasonable burdens for upholding or refuting the resolution are fine, but I don't see any reason for formal theory shells in public forum and the debate should be primarily centered around the resolution.

LD Paradigm: I am an experienced LD judge. I do prefer traditional style LD. I am, however, OK with plans and counter-plans and I am OK with theory arguments concerning analysis of burdens. I am not a fan of Kritiks. I will try to be open to evaluate arguments presented in the round, but I do prefer that the debate be largely about the resolution instead of largely centered on theory. I am OK with fast conversational speed and I am OK with evidence being read a little faster than fast conversational as long as tag lines and analysis are not faster than fast conversational. I do believe that V / VC are required, but I don't believe that the V / VC are voting issues in and of themselves. That is, even if you convince me that your V / VC is superior (more important, better linked to the resolution) than your opponent's V / VC that is not enough for me to vote for you. You still need to prove that your case better upholds your V / VC than your opponent's case does. To win, you may do one of three things: (1) Prove that your V / VC is superior to your opponent's AND that your case better upholds that V / VC than your opponent's case does, OR (2) Accept your opponent's V / VC and prove that your case better upholds their V/VC than their case does. OR (3) Win an "even-if" combination of (1) and (2).

CX Paradigm: I am an experienced LD and PF judge (nationally and locally). I have judged policy debate at a number of tournaments over the years - including the final round of the NSDA national tournament in 2015. However, I am more experienced in PF and LD than I am in policy. I can handle speed significantly faster than the final round of NSDA nationals, but not at super-fast speed. (Evidence can be read fast if you slow down for tag lines and for analysis.) Topicality arguments are fine. I am not a fan of kritiks or critical affs.

General Debate including PF, LD: I am a Theatre and Speech Professor, hence I emphasize all the elements of a good speech round: good diction, NOT speed, a delivery that is fluid and emphasizes words and concepts of importance. Additionally, eye contact is also appreciated as well as proper decorum when cross examining.

Speech: I value eye contact for Oral Interpretation events. All other aspects of Speech are equally weighted. I do allow a fair amount of movement in all performance events. Because of the disparity of rules over many leagues, I ask that only your feet touch the floor. Please do not kneel, sit, lay down, or place your hand on the floor. Additionally, I do not mind if you occasionally/ glance at/look at your partner, to establish continuity, for important timing, or to establish a point of emphasis that is logical for your performance. For Oratory, a well-organized speech using a specific organizational pattern (Examples. Monroe's Motivated Sequence, Three Point Army Method of Communication, et.al) is greatly appreciated. Lastly, please competitors, vocalize and test the acoustics of the room in which you will perform. Make certain that your volume fits the space. As a rule, better to be a bit too loud than a bit too soft. Additionally, when you go to the front of the room, please do not ask if the judge or everyone is ready. Use your presence and your eyes to take command, and communicate nonverbally with the judge to know when to start. Lastly, no need to thank the judge when the round is over. It is the judge who should be thanking you.

For PF, I am very much a traditional judge. Extreme speed, overuse of jargon, and trickery are not appreciated. I give more weightage to arguments over style. Win the round on the strength of your argument, backed up with evidence, and the clarity of your presentation. I will disclose ONLY if required by the tournament host. I will offer no oral critiques. Both of those are the purpose of the ballot.

This is my second year judging speech (all events), and first for PF debate. I will not judge based on my opinion and I do not get offended by the topic or any language in the content. However, I do expect everyone to be respectful to one another.

DEBATE

For PF, please note that I am a traditional judge and need you to speak slowly with very clear sign posts. The slower the better for me, but I also realize you have a lot of ground to cover.

I prefer PRO to sit to my left and CON to my right. Whether you face each other or forward to the judge is your collective preference.

If you keep your time, politely share with me and your opponent (for both the cumulative prep time as well as the timing for crossfire, rebuttal, etc.)

The better you are with roadmaps, signposts, and clearly pointing out drops and turns, the better I will flow your debate. In the summary convince me why you won and please be clear on your weighting and reasoning.

SPEECH

For speech, I tend to take a lot of notes, which helps me remember and distinguish you from the several competitors and go back through them all before final rankings are entered by me into the system. This also allows me to provide you more feedback if you are looking to improve your speech event, or know what portions were most successful.

Please let me know whatever timing queues you prefer and I will do my best to accommodate. This includes hand signals. I do not mind if you use your own timer, as long as your phone is otherwise off and it's just for the timer. I will keep track of time, and can provide that to you when you finish if you request it.

If you are double entered and need to leave after your event with me, just kindly excuse yourself before the next competitor begins their delivery.

I like to follow the scoring guidance on the ballots as best as possible and will consider all those criteria when doing the rankings.

PF Debate

I am a parent judge, but I have been a judge previously and understand how a debate round works. Do not use complicated jargon. Please be clear and explain everything. I won't flow what is unclear. I will only weigh off what I understand. Please speak at an acceptable pace. In summary, please make your case on why you should win the round.. In final focus, do not bring up new info or arguments. I will disregard it.

Please be respectful during crossfire

Please keep your time.

Speech

I am a parent judge. Do not use complicated jargon. Speak clearly and confidently and at a reasonable pace. I will look for demonstration of enunciation, voice modulation, and ease of understanding

I did PF for 4 years on the local Ohio circuit

I'll leave comments on presentation/style but I'll only vote based on the arguments

• please frontline in second rebuttal, if you don't then I'll assume you're conceding your opponent's attacks
• weigh. weighing makes my job a lot easier and I'll give you good speaks for doing a good job with it
• collapsing also makes my job a lot easier; If you don't then it will take me forever to evaluate the mess on my flow
• I'll be tabula rasa to a reasonable point; what I mean is that if you say something and your opponent doesn't respond then I'll accept it as true; however, if it's something egregious like you're telling me the sky is purple then sorry but I'm not going to vote off of it even if your opponent concedes it
• good evidence comparison is SOOOO underrated. I hate when there's two pieces of opposing evidence from each team but no one explains why their evidence is better so it just becomes a wash; if you do deep analysis for why your evidence is better than I will like that a lot
• be nice to each other and have fun; if you are mean then I will drop you!

If you have any questions please let me know

General:
ESL - DO NOT SPREAD
NO PROG
Truth > Tech
Keep Calm
Speak Loud And Clear
Maintain Proper Body Language
Keep The Topic On Track
Respect your Opponents

I am a lay judge and will vote based on who explains their argument most clearly and weighs the best. DO NOT SPREAD, I cannot judge what I cannot understand. Being respectful and clear are my main priorities. Below is more event-specific information written for more experienced debaters, but if you follow my general preferences, you will not need the information below.

PF -

Second Speakers: If you give an off-time roadmap, you have to follow it. Do not give the roadmap if you do not follow it. Start weighing as early as possible, preferably during rebuttals. This is not needed but much appreciated so I can know what your main points are. I only know trad debate, so please do not venture into the depths of prog. If you do begin making Ks or T shells, make sure the explanation is impeccable, similar to explaining to a child. Do not bring up new responses in FF unless it is pointing out that your opponent had some type of rule infraction, like bringing up new responses.

First Speakers:
NO NEW RESPONSES IN THE SECOND SUMMARY. I will drop your team for new responses in the second summary. If you do not weigh in summary, then I have nothing to vote off of in your FF, so this is a necessity. If you give an off-time roadmap, you have to follow it. Do not give the roadmap if you do not follow it. Once again, do not make prog arguments because I am only a trad lay judge. No spreading, and keep yourself organized.

Policy -

Do not spread, and make sure to disclose your cases at least 10 minutes before the round begins to give me ample time to read and understand your case. No trix, and don’t use any overly complex K or T arguments. If you make the argument, make sure you explain it like you are explaining it to a baby because I have no experience in judging policy.

LD -

I have no experience with LD judging and will need every argument to be very clearly explained. Do not use niche or hard-to-understand frameworks because I will not be able to follow their complexities. I will not be able to follow the circuit LD spreading even if their arguments are disclosed. If this tournament allows, STRIKE ME FOR LD

I am a new judge so please speak clearly so I can follow your argument. If you speak too fast, I may not be able to catch everything you say. It is helpful to me if you enumerate your contentions pro or con for your argument, as well as your rebuttals. If you spread and I cannot flow all of your arguments then they will not carry through the round.

I am fine with all competitors keeping track of their time but I will keep the official time. If you continue speaking after time has elapsed, I will not flow your arguments. Please be mindful of time when calling for cards so you don’t use up all of your prep time. I will keep track of your prep time (especially when card calling). I will tell you when I start and end the timer. Please check with me before you start a new round to make sure everyone is ready.

Decorum is important to me as well. While I won't give you a loss for poor decorum, I will give you lower speaker points. Good Luck.