***IMPORTANT***LD is not policy, so don't act like it is. Framework comes first and arguments only matter if they are impacted out under the framework. I will not vote on anything that's not clearly tied to the framework.

I participated in LD throughout Middle and High School and am now a coach, so I have a good amount of experience with all traditional rounds. I'm comfortable with any speed as long as it's coherent. Evidence is important, but I greatly prefer reasoning and thoughtful explanations to card-reading in rebuttals. Please feel free to email me at sedabu01@gmail.com with any questions regarding the round, I’m happy to give more thorough feedback.

Your average lay judge

Talk slow and clearly

Don't talk over one another in cross ex too much (I know it gets heated)

I don't understand theory, so please keep it to the resolution

Be respectful

I have 7 years of experience judging traditional LD and PF debate. I appreciate clearly identified and well-supported contentions and speaking at an understandable pace, but do NOT spread! Debaters should be respectful to their opponent(s) and to the judge(s). I flow while I'm judging a round, and when making extensions, don't just tell me that the opponent dropped the argument - Tell me why it's important.

I prefer arguments that have an impact, which is logical and weighable. In your final speech, specify voting issues by WEIGHING impacts to make my life a little bit easier.

If you and your opponent are creating an email chain of sorts, I'd like to be added - gnangowda@gmail.com (AFF should share the 1AC right before they give it and the NEG should share the 1NC right before they give theirs)

Hey, I'm Ms. Granchi I am an executive in medical devices. I have judged for 2 years now. I'd prefer it if you addressed me in rounds treating me as as a generally informed person that you are trying to persuade.

I know people have lots of questions, so here are some things about how I judge rounds.

1) Do your best to write my ballot for me in your last couple of speeches. If you do not tell me how I should evaluate the round; you do not tell me how to weigh (please do this) your arguments; and you do not tell me how you win the round; I will decide for myself purely based on substance if you do not do these things. It will also reflect poorly on speaker points.

2) If you want me to evaluate something, please warrant it thoroughly (for example, don't rely on the existence of a card or a tagline as a sufficient explanation for your argument).

3) Please respect each other in the debate round, I do not tolerate any misconduct/harassing.

4) I allow progressive debates if there is an actual substantial abuse and the theory is not an excuse for not debating and I'm explicitly told how to evaluate it, I'll evaluate it.

5) I'll only call for cards if both sides are saying opposite things about the same piece of evidence and/or I'm explicitly told to call for the card.

6) I can flow any level of speed, but spreading will reflect poorly in speaker points.

7) Please signpost. You really don't need give me off time road maps like "I'm going to respond to my opponents' arguments and return to my own," I can follow you if you tell me in the speech where you're going.

8) If you postround me, your speaker points will decrease monotonically with the amount of time you spend postrounding me. I welcome questions, but my decision is what it is.

P.S.: I have a dog named popcorn and if you relate the argument at the end with my dog popcorn, I will give you an extra speaker point! ????

-Ms. Granchi

.

Judging Philosophy: I do not judge based on my personal position on a matter before me. I judge on whether the arguments are supported and defended between the teams or individuals.

Background: I am experienced Circuit and Classic judge having judged local, regional, and national tournaments for the past twenty years. Recently judged all preliminary 2023 NCFL Grand National Policy Rounds and the Octo, Quarters, and Semi-Final Rounds. I was the 2022 NCFL Grand Nationals Parliamentarian for Student Congress (Semi-Finals) in Washington, DC; 2022 NSDA Parliamentarian for Student Congress; 2022 NSDA National Tournament Supplemental Congress Parliamentarian (Finals); 2022 WACFL Student Congress Metrofinals; 2021 NSDA Policy Finals; 2021 Parliamentarian for Student Congress; 2020, 2019 NSDA Policy Finals (including qualifying rounds); 2018 NSDA Policy Rounds; 2017 National Qualifiers for NSDA Speech; 2016 NSDA Nationals for Congress (Parliamentarian); 2016 NCFL Grand Nationals (Policy Debate); 2016 Congress WACFL Metrofinals (Parliamentarian); 2015 NSDA CX Policy Semi-Finals; the 2015 NCFL CX Quarterfinals; 2014 NCFL LD Finals.

For Policy and Public Forum: I judge as a policy maker and not truly on a line by line (but will evaluate all arguments in the context of a policy making decision). Better debaters analyze the opponents' case/points and prove why their opponents' case is either without foundation or weak and the policy position should not be adopted.

Able to judge Circuit style policy arguments. However, to prevail with Circuit style arguments, the debaters must still ensure they meet their prima facie obligations. See Unusual Points No. 1 below as an example.

Speed is an issue if the speaker is unintelligible and the speaker points will reflect that problem. What I don't understand, I can't flow, and if it is not on my flow, I cannot evaluate. Clarity is the name of the game. Teams should properly provide clear "taglines" for their arguments in order for me to follow (I will not accept flash drives or links to arguments).

For LD: I judge on the basis of cogent and clear arguments without reaching the value and value criterion debate. The better debaters, however, will incorporate the philosophical rationale in their arguments. Unless both cases are weighted equally in terms of argumentation, do I then go to the value criterion debate. The better debater demonstrates that his value is met using his/her value criterion. If the debater does not have a value criterion, I will weigh that debater's value against his/her opponent's value criterion.

For Congress Debate: (1) As a Parliamentarian, I rank and judge the PO based on his/her effective control of the Chamber, fairness to the Representatives or Senators on recency, and understanding and implementing the Tournament Rules and Roberts Rules of Order when necessary. (2) As a Judge, I rank and judge a speaker on clarity of his/her argument for or against a Bill or Resolution along with appropriate evidence following Tournament evidentiary rules; the better speaker is one who does not read a speech and who rebuts another Representative's or Senator's points. I do not appreciate form (sounding good) over substance. I give less points and ranking for consistent "rehash" throughout the Session. The effective Congressor is one who blends persuasive speaking with substance and debates the other speakers.

For Speech: Speech is not "acting", it is interpretation of an event, a person's situation, or a story-line that is impactful. The use of one's voice, body, and facial expression all play into the scoring of an individual's performance. I am not a fan of "popping" to delineate characters, but do not take any points off for using that method.

Each event has particular rules that must be followed. For example, in prose and poetry, the individual uses a binder and must appear to be reading it to the audience. In duo, the partners must not look at each other nor touch. In dramatic interp, if you have multiple characters, your characters must be distinct by voice characterization or body language.

Now with Extemporaneous Speaking, I look to the speaker's ability to explain and answer a domestic or international question with poise and understanding of the topic question. I am not a true fan of the "Unified Analysis" ("UA") approach, but it is the standard in HS Speech. I coach a hybrid UA approach that stresses persuasive argumentation and analysis. I do not appreciate the "extemp walk", which is very stilted and not natural.

Impromptu Speaking, the ability to tell a story with an impactful meaning is what I look for between the competitors. Using the UA approach is fine, but any way of telling an impactful story or narrative will do.

Unusual points.

1. Burden of proof for all forms of debate. Because the AFF has the burden of proof of presenting a prima facie case, so too the NEG has the burden of proof when presenting its case. For example, if the NEG argues a Kritik without providing an alternative, it has failed, in the classic sense, to meet its burden of proof and I have the ability as a judge to mark down the argument as carrying little weight. A NEG Kritik without an alternative is nothing more than a non-unique disadvantage. To that end, the same goes with the AFF in terms of its failure to provide a Plan Text and Inherency if it is running an AFF K.

2. Kritik for all forms of debate. A Kritik as an AFF case in Policy can be run. However, be warned that as a classic judge, you must present the Kritik as an AFF by presenting a prima facie case and solvency through a detailed Plan. Failure to do that most likely will result, as in any case not meeting the burden of proof, a loss. The team must provide a Plan or Solution that solves the underlying Kritik whether it be Capitalism, Racism, Sexism, or any other "ism".

Although not favored by some, a Kritik can be argued in LD as a "classic" counterargument to realism or rationalism. To get around the prohibition, a creative student will argue that if the Affirmative fails to address the underlying "ism", the Affirmative Case in support of the Resolution cannot be accomplished because there will be more harm than good.

3. Cross-Ex for all forms of debate. Cross-examination information will be used in the decision making process. As in real life, cross and direct examination are oftentimes the key to resolving issues and the answers can and will be held for and against a team. In "Open CX", if one debater is answering all the questions, the one who should be answering will have a lower speaker point.

4. Topicality for Policy. If the Case and Plan directly link to the Resolution and appropriate definitions are provided to clearly establish that link, topicality is generally not a voter. However, this does not mean that I will not entertain all T arguments. As previously stated, the NEG has the burden of proof of demonstrating a violation.

5. Counterplans. If the Negative runs a counterplan, it must not be topical (i.e., using a federal government agency). Otherwise the Negative concedes that the Resolution should be upheld. In order to win a counterplan you must show that it is better than the Affirmative Plan and that it is net-beneficial to do only the counterplan as compared to the Affirmative Plan.

6. Document Share. I do not partake in document sharing. This is a communications event, not reading event, which requires the debaters to inform the judge of their arguments. However, when required, I do ask for evidence that has been challenged as incorrect or improperly cited for the position it advanced.

Qualifications.

1. Assistant Coach for Dominion HS, Sterling VA, for all Debate and Speech Events since its opening in 2003. Total time as a judge commenced in 2002.

2. Former HS policy debater at the Championship Level (dating myself) and Forensics (Dramatic Interp and Declamation).

3. Former HS Model United Nations Third Place North American Invitational Model United Nations winner (representing Belarus).

4. Former Judicial Clerk to the Honorable Roger J. Miner, US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, former Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, former USAF JAG Civilian Attorney, and former Assistant General Counsel for a Global IT Company. Current Legal Counsel to R&D IT Engineering Firm specializing in AI, AIOPS, ML, Cybersecurity, and Secured Cloud Operations.

This is my first season as a judge, and I have judged roughly 12 rounds so far, mostly LD, across multiple tournaments. I take notes while judging (sometimes handwritten and sometimes typed), and I have found that I am best able to take clear, comprehensive notes when participants endeavor to speak at a conversational rate, since it can be more difficult to keep track of relevant details when speakers adopt a quicker rate. I tend to focus on key arguments, and consider the overall coherence of the argument, to include its reasoning as well as the evidence offered in support of it. Although specific details offered as evidence in support of an argument can be important, I tend to concentrate on the strength of the underlying logic. I strive to approach each round with open-mindedness, fairness and impartiality, regardless of whatever personal perspectives I may have on a given topic, and on multiple occasions have voted in favor of debaters whose arguments ran counter to my own perspectives but were nonetheless well-reasoned and compelling. I consider style, especially when awarding points, and have found that calm, smooth, carefully crafted delivery often makes an argument easier to understand and consider, as opposed to more charged, forceful or otherwise emotionally animated delivery. I expect that all debaters will be respectful and maintain a calm, objective demeanor, especially while directly challenging specific aspects of their opponent's argument, and that each debater will keep the focus of their interactions squarely on the topic at hand and the merits of their opponent's argument.

I am fairly new to LD debate. I would prefer that you don't speak too fast and don't spread. I value evidence over framework.

When you finish your constructive speeches, please summarize your main arguments.

Hi, I'm Ms. Kudukoli. I work in the IT Industry. I have been a parent/lay judge for 4 years now. Here are a few things that I expect during the rounds.

• I prefer that the debaters clearly state their value, criterion, and contentions.

• I try to follow rules whenever applicable, for example if debaters forget to mention a contention in their rebuttal, I will consider the argument to be dropped and it should not be brought up in the following rebuttals.

• I expect debaters to respect each other.

• My preference for the speech delivery is to be clear and moderate level speed.

• As a parent judge, I am most convinced by a good balance of value clash and contention debate. I am not well-versed in Progressive LD so please keep such topics to a minimum.

• Post round if I have any conversations, it will be casual and will not talk about the debate topic or encourage any talks to influence my decision

Overall, I have loved my judging experience so far and expect to see young debaters with a positive attitude and energy in the round. Good luck!

• Revathi

I have been the Heights debate coach for the last 10 years. The way I judge a round is to first figure out what framework I'm working under and then decide whose contentions best achieve this framework. I will never decide a case on style - that's what speak points are for. The best debaters show a fundamental and honest understanding of their opponent's case and how these cases interact.

Framework: Although I'm up for judging "cookie-cutter" cases, I definitely prefer unique lines of argument, especially with regards to the framework. I will and have decided a winner of a debate solely on the framework. You can lose the framework debate and still win the round if you can show me how you win under your opponent's framework. If there's not a big difference between the frameworks presented, then just say that and don't spend half your rebuttal talking about framework, just tell me they're basically the same and move on to your contentions. I don't really care how absurd your framework is; if your opponent can't clearly explain how it's wrong, then that's fine. I'm not going to use my own personal views on what's "abusive" or "out of context"; it it up to the debaters to demonstrate those things not me.

Contentions: I am not swayed by your cards. I'm not going to read some paper or assess it. Tell me what the person said and how it makes sense. I am going to be completely unconvinced by a bunch of statistics forecasting GDP growth 20 years from now. Just stick to basic logical argument and what makes sense rather than "some other smart people said that these things would happen". I am also unconvinced by emotional pleas or quotes from famous people in history or laundry lists of "bad things". Here, again, I am going to be delighted to hear clever and interesting arguments rather the tired white papers from think tanks and NGOs.

Speaker Points:
Speak in a humane and respectful tone in order to make your points. Speaking insanely fast is not humane or respectful towards others unless they've all agreed before hand that this is what we're going to do, and neither your competitor nor I have signed up for that. Modulate your speaking tone and speed -even repeat things that are important. Signposting and chunking during the speech is great.

I'm a pretty traditional judge with an extensive background in LD, PF, and Extemp, on both the National Circuit and the local level. I've competed at both NCFL Grand-Nationals and at the NSDA National tournament, and reached late out-rounds in LD and Extemp, so just know that I'll be familiar with most things you throw at me, but that doesn't give you an excuse to breeze past clear explanations of your contentions, counterplans, kritiks, or theory. No tricks or blips.

Honestly prefer that you not spread, but I can generally follow if you email me the docs: my email's tristanmay44@gmail.com

If you say you're not going to spread, I won't ask for the doc, but I also won't yell clear for you; speak as quickly as you think a reasonable person will be able to flow.

Make sure to focus on matching your warranting with your evidence convincingly; I don't care if you have a card stating something unless you can actually explain why it's true and the reasoning behind it.

I am a relatively experienced parent judge. For LD debate, I appreciate debaters who speak clearly, not too quickly (no spreading), and follow the proper flow for an LD round, without letting any threads of the arguments go unaddressed. I will be flowing the round. I prefer well reasoned responses rather than stock replies. And I very much appreciate when debaters clearly lay out voters issues.

1. Speaking Style: Please speak clearly especially when you spread if you want to be understood. If I can't clearly hear your points, I won't be able to flow them.
2. Clarity: Make sure you tie your contentions and refutes to the resolution. Please signpost in your refutes.
3. Structure your final rebuttals in a format that is easy for the judge to organize. Off-time roadmaps are very helpful.
4. Engage the totality of your opponents' arguments. Use time for cross-ex wisely.
5. Cite LD rules where you can.
6. Good luck and have fun!

Be courteous

No speed talking

No off-clock explanations

well-structured argument

use all of your time

address strengths and weaknesses of opponent’s case

dynamic final rebuttal

Especially in this technological time of tweets and social media, effective communication becomes so much more vital. Events in public speaking are a valuable tool for developing a critical mind and a well-expressed person. I have never seen a person who did not need to be able to express themselves coherently in some fashion; now is the best time to develop those skills.

More experience equals more confidence. I would encourage all of you to attend as many tournaments as you can; get that experience level up. There no worthless experiences; if one event doesn't pan out, try another, we have plenty from which to choose. And never feel embarrassed to reach out for assistance. Quite often the greatest mistake people suffer are right after they decided not to ask for help.

To quote Thomas Edison: “Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is to try just one more time.”

Speech:

Speech is not "acting", it is interpretation of an event, a person's situation, or a story-line that is impactful. The use of one's voice, body, and facial expression all play into the scoring of an individual's performance.

In interpretive events, make sure your characters, narration, and transitions are crisp and clear. I shouldn't have to interpret your technique to discern the success of your interpretation of the literature. If you introduce physicality by moving across the floor, make sure it is within the rules and is not distracting. Physicality should not get in the way of delivery. There are some who use noises to signify a transition, we shouldn't need a sound cue to do so. In the end, I should be able to at least discern the gist of the piece as a whole, either your particular cutting or the work in toto.

Oratorical events, such as Original Oratory or Extemporaneous Speaking, must first and foremost have a central concept or theme. In extemp, that is not difficult as there is but one topic; the ability to explain and answer a domestic or international question addresses the speaker's poise and understanding of the topic question. For OO, your topic is yours to determine, but the end is still the same: clear communication. I want to know what you plan to talk about, how you are going to explain it, then tell me what we did, basic speech structure, at minimum. Fluency and ease of delivery are key; those are traits that will only flourish with time and practice. If you're going to do "the walk", make it fluid and not scripted. A good speaker flows from point to point, both verbally and physically.

Impromptu Speaking, the ability to tell a story with an impactful meaning is what I look to rank the competitors. Being able to make an in-depth analysis of a topic in a short time is impressive when done at all, extra points!

Student Congress:

In general, this is my favorite event in competitive forensics. This combines so many different elements and requires a well-rounded speaker with personality and charisma. I truly believe this is one of the more difficult and rewarding events offered.

As a Parliamentarian:

I am looking for any and all actions that promote the business of the house. Not allowing dilatory motions is not only the job of the Presiding Officer, but also the house, as well. Every member of the house should make an effort to observe the business in the house and be ready to make a Point of Order if needed. I also wish to promote and reinforce courtesy and decorum in the house. Proper address is rewarded. The business of the house is to advance debate and legislation, not just to make sure someone gets a speech in. Being aware of the business of the house will inform the members that it may be time to end debate on a bill, so make sure the proper motion is used.

For the coaches, the speeches are tracked by speech number: Bill number/topic-side in my comments. This is to ensure that they are aware of the place and time of the speeches by the students.

As a Judge:

I will be looking for clarity in argumentation and a clear reason for or against the motion on the floor. Delivery is rewarded more than reading; speak up and out to the house. After an authorship speech, these become debate rebuttals; speeches should refer to the bill, the author’s speech, or previous speakers, all in the goal of advancing the business of the house and debate. As debate advances, we should see new points or aspects for or against the legislation; rehash means that the topic is done. An effective member of Congress combines persuasive speaking and evidentiary substance.

Lincoln-Douglas debate:

I am at first, a flow judge, meaning that I want to see a debate run from beginning to end. Leaving large holes on the flow makes judging the round much easier. After that, I look to the actual caseloads. Core Values and Value Criteria must not only be presented, but supported by the contentions. Strategic use of an opponent's value, criterion, or contentions to uphold their own is risky, but a winner when done correctly. In the end, I wish to be convinced.

I do not tolerate the infiltration of policy-style debate into L-D. This is a philosophical event "we should", not a policy debate "here are all of the solutions". Solvency is not an issue. Spreading (the tactic of speaking very quickly to cover as many points as possible) is not a disqualifying habit, but I will dock the debater points. Also, if a debater is speaking so fast that I cannot keep up and miss recording it, it never happened. Evidence is to be cited properly, not card-style "Lucas, 1977". Policy jargon, like counterplan, card, K, etc are also not supposed to be in L-D. Do not waste our time with off-time road-mapping; we know what you want to do in the first affirmative rebuttal, just do it.

Be courteous to your opponent. Allow them to answer questions, do not cut them off. Turn off all noisemakers, including your timers. Please do not make unnecessary noise and distractions during the opponent's speeches. If you require 14 different pens to flow speeches, change pens silently.

You might feel that my list is a lot of negatives for a few positives when that is not the case. Each round is unique and it is difficult to make a case (!) that would fit every resolution and pair of debaters. I will always comment on good speaking tone, volume, and pacing. These are not voting points, but could add a point or two to a winner. Convincing me against my own opinion will also garner an extra point or two. My opinion does not matter when I start the timer, but I am human and I know which side I would be arguing, so convincing me is key.

Policy Debate:

Nope.

Public Forum:

Public Forum Debate is a team event that advocates or rejects the assigned resolution. The focus of the debate is a clash of ideas in a persuasive manner that can be understood by a “lay” judge. Good debaters should display logic and analysis. They should use evidence when needed. They should win their case and refute that of their opponents. They should communicate effectively, using the fundamentals of good speaking. The format keeps a team on its toes. This is an event that should be able to be judged by a lay person, making a convincing case is critical. Therefore, abstract concepts and debate-specific jargon doesn't make a strong case per se.

I judge the quality of a debate first on maintaining a consistent debate. If, for some reason, both teams decided that there is one major voting topic, that is fine; sometimes the round evolves into more argumentation on fewer points. Next is on the quality of the debate. While I look to evaluating caseloads as a policy or conceptual level, a weak caseload is more difficult to defend from a good opponent. Next is the quality of the crossfire periods. While minor, if I hear a good question, there's an extra point right there. Last is speaking quality. I do like to hear a well-spoken case.

I do not tolerate the infiltration of policy-style debate into PF. Solvency is not an issue. Spreading (the tactic of speaking very quickly to cover as many points as possible) is not a disqualifying habit, but I will dock the team points. If a debater is speaking so fast that I cannot keep up and miss recording it, it never happened. Evidence is to be cited properly, not card-style "Lucas, 1977" Give us a source that is relevant to the topic and topical (recent). Policy jargon, like counterplan, card, K, etc are also not supposed to be in PF. Debate the topic, not the debaters. Do not waste our time with off-time road-mapping; we know what you want to do in the first affirmative rebuttal, just do it.

You might feel that my list is a lot of negatives for a few positives when that is not the case. Each round is unique and it is difficult to make a case (!) that would fit every resolution and pair of teams. I will always comment on good speaking tone, volume, and pacing. These are not voting points, but could add a point or two to a winner. Convincing me against my own opinion will also garner an extra point or two. My opinion does not matter when I start the timer, but I am human and I know which side I would be arguing, so convincing me is key.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I competed for four years in high school (James Wood and Sherando High Schools, VA 1992-6), three in college (Laurel Ridge Community College, 1996-9). I did almost every speech event offered at the time (Duo Interpretation, Prose/Poetry, Humorous/Dramatic Interpretation, Extemporaneous Speaking, Impromptu); placed at Virginia High School League in Extemporaneous for three years at state, regional, and district levels, qualified to NCFL Nationals in Duo, Phi Rho Pi member, Eastern Seaboard champion in Impromptu and Duo. Also competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate and Student Congress. A 2023 graduate of the University of Virginia with a Bachelor's Degree in History & Politics, my intent for the near future is to teach high school history and government.

If you have any post-round questions or future judging opportunities, you may contact me at solo_falcon@hotmail.com

My own background is parliamentary style debate: seven minute speeches, extemporaneous, no notes or props. Consequentially, I dislike spreading, especially in the constructives. Six minutes is long enough to talk at a human pace. Also, I'm flowing during the debate, so if I can't keep up with you, I'm missing your cards and links. On the flip side of that, good rhetoric stands out to me and will earn you higher speaker points.

Off time road maps are fine, but I think signposting during rebuttals is much more helpful.

Debate manners matter to me. Both competitors, when possible, should stand when it is their turn to speak and during CX. Check to see if your judge and opponent are ready before the round begins. Don't refuse to answer questions in CX (a little dodging is fine). Be confident but polite even when there's strong clash in the round. No new evidence in AR2.

It is important to use your prep time to plan your rebuttals. I'll count significant unused prep against your speaker points unless you give a great speech in NR or AR2, and really prove you didn't need to prep.

Framework is key to Lincoln-Douglas debate. Make sure the link between your V/VC is strong and you tell me why it matters for the debate. At the same time, dragging out the framework clash all the way to AR2 is only justifiable if you have a point. Just reiterating "my value is broader and more essential" over and over again doesn't help. I'd rather you recognize that you have the same value as your opponent in different words than waste time splitting hairs. Your contentions need to be linked to your V/VC.

Evidence matters, but just having a card alone is not enough. Make sure you explain your links clearly, especially on impacts. A card from one expert telling me that the Aff world will result in economic growth is easily countered by a card on the Neg side saying the opposite. Make sure you can explain the link to the card if this is a crucial point. Impacts matter, but more so when they are topically relevant. Sure economic growth is good, but if it is not topically related and you can't explain the link, it's not that helpful.

Point out drops and tell me why they matter. I will double check drops in my own flow. If it is there and you can extend the impact of that drop, it will really count for you in the round.

I follow voter issues, so make sure you choose them well and devote adequate time to them in NR and AR2.

Finally, because Lincoln-Douglas is values based debate, argumentation matters more to me than sparring on evidence. Good solid links with sound logic tied to your V/VC count heavily in your favor. Pointing out the inconsistencies in your opponent's case will also count in your favor, and I'll usually reward it with high speaker points.

I am an experienced lay judge. I am averse to spreading, but will not dock you if you spread. I can only judge on what I can understand and flow. Simple, succinct and deliberate is the winning formula for me.

Experience: I have coached PF and LD for 3 years.

Delivery: Quality is better than quantity. This is not a race. Judges need to be able to hear you and understand everything you are saying.

Note taking: Argument is primarily judged, however, I do a mix of flow, arguments, and technical thoughts/recommendations.

Persuasion: Those who properly and appropriately use their research and cards will receive higher scores. Your notes must back up your main points.

Conduct: Please be respectful. Do not attack the other team. Do not talk while the other team is giving their speeches.