I am a History and Geography teacher at Lied STEM Academy in Las Vegas, Nevada.

I have been judging as a favor for a former student and have really come to love seeing young people speak! Congress is the event that I am most familiar with. I have no problem judging 3 or 4 rounds at a tournament...I know, I'm crazy, right??!!

As someone who has no previous experience with Speech and Debate events, I have developed my own way of judging events through the eyes of the uninitiated.

Since Congress is what I do best, this is what I like to see:

-Please try not to just read off your pad or computer. Anyone can read well, but reading well is not the same as speaking well. Give your speech to the chamber and not to your screen/paper. Competitors who just read their speeches will lose points with me.

-Be conscious of your volume and your enunciation. I need to be able to understand what your saying in order to judge your fairly. Don't yell! That will make me not want to listen. Study the pronunciation of words before giving your speech. Nothing says you don't understand a topic more than when you mispronounce things!

-Make your speech more conversational, rather than technical. Explain things in ways that are easy to understand. Don't assume that I am going to understand your acronyms.

-Make your speech unique. Don't rehash the same things that other speakers have said. The whole point of a debate is to argue the legislation, not to just hit copy and paste.

-Don't be afraid to put your personality into your speech. It's OK sometimes to smile!

-Don't be insulting and rude. That will lose you points. I have no problem with aggressive questioning, but don't let it get personal.

-Good cross-x questions get my attention. Don't ask fluff questions. Ask something relevant.

-Be active. Don't just sit and practice your speech to yourself. Pay attention to what is going on in the chamber. Participate in the experience!

Feel free to ask me questions!

If arguing a position, TALK to me and SELL me. While I realize notes must be sometimes referenced or even read, doing so 90 mph straight-reading thinking you will score highly by the number of words you manage to blurt out will not serve you well.

If arguing a position, TALK to me and SELL me. While I realize notes must be sometimes referenced or even read, doing so 90 mph straight-reading thinking you will score highly by the number of words you manage to blurt out will not serve you well.

If arguing a position, TALK to me and SELL me. While I realize notes must be sometimes referenced or even read, doing so 90 mph straight-reading thinking you will score highly by the number of words you manage to blurt out will not serve you well.

Lay judge. I don't want to hear the debaters spewing at 300 words per minute, I prefer a slightly faster than conversational pace. No, I do not want to be part of an email chain. No, I do not like the recent trend in LD of kritiks and theory and other policy jargon. I like a strong value and criterion debate with both debaters using persuasive speaking skills.

I am a former debater who competed in PF for two years in high school. While I can keep up with a relatively fast speaking pace, I would prefer if debaters did not spread so I am able to understand the arguments. I do flow the round and keep an eye out for arguments dropped. I prefer debaters who are professional and civil, rude debaters will not receive high speaker points. I expect debaters to keep track of their speaking and prep times.

I'd like to start out by stating that I used to have a paradigm and now it appears to have fled. Please know that that paradigm was much better and more comprehensive than this paradigm, but this will have to do for now. Don't let this paradigm be a reflection on me as a person.

PF

Rate- As long as you enunciate and I can understand you, have at it.

Content- Some philosophy and broad application is fine, but your arguments should be grounded in real life context and specifics.

I'm a teacher-coach, in that order. Your content and the flow matters but so does your clarity, organization, tone, and decorum. If both teams have sensational arguments and it's close I have no problem giving the win to who I think are the better speakers.

Consider myself a flay judge. The RFD is going to read more like a narrative and less like you won at argument Tetris.

Please have fun. I promise I will or, at the very least, if it's late and we're worn out, I'm still going to look like I'm having fun, and I'm going to do the best I can to give you something to work with and a clear reason for my decision.

General:

Cite all sources with proper citations (this includes last name and date). Never sacrifice speed for clarity. If you are speaking at more than 100 wpm, you better have supreme enunciation. All debates require flows, but if you don't tell me where to put them, I'll put them where I think they should go or I don't write them down at all. Speech and Debate is supposed to be a fun, inclusive, educational activity. The round should never become malicious, rude, or make anyone feel discluded or uncomfortable.

Congress:

As a parent of a congress debater I have strong opinion about what congressional debate should be. Let me tell you what it isn't. It isn't rants, it isn't default constitutionality arguments, empty rhetoric, or ad hominem attacks. Substance > speaking. You need to tell me why the legislation shifts the status quo. If you don't have a warrant don't bother speaking. I don't care if you give constructives, rebuttals, or crystals- but if you are not progressing with the debate then I might as well have judged a speech round. If you are negative, please give AT LEAST one harmful impact of failing the legislation. I don't care if you roleplay, let your personality shine in whatever way you see fit. Congress is unique because of its mobility and adaptability, please don't let that go to waste. Don't mock it.

PF:

Tell me the resolution before you began. If you want me to call for a card, tell me. If you don't give me voters than I'll vote off the other team's or my own, don't make me do that.

LD:

Explain philosophy to me. No kritiks or theory.

Speech: Fluency is appreciate. If your topic is disrespectful, you will be dropped automatically.

General:

Cite all sources with proper citations (this includes last name and date). Never sacrifice speed for clarity. If you are speaking at more than 100 wpm, you better have supreme enunciation. All debates require flows, but if you don't tell me where to put them, I'll put them where I think they should go or I don't write them down at all. Speech and Debate is supposed to be a fun, inclusive, educational activity. The round should never become malicious, rude, or make anyone feel discluded or uncomfortable.

Congress:

As a parent of a congress debater I have strong opinion about what congressional debate should be. Let me tell you what it isn't. It isn't rants, it isn't default constitutionality arguments, empty rhetoric, or ad hominem attacks. Substance > speaking. You need to tell me why the legislation shifts the status quo. If you don't have a warrant don't bother speaking. I don't care if you give constructives, rebuttals, or crystals- but if you are not progressing with the debate then I might as well have judged a speech round. If you are negative, please give AT LEAST one harmful impact of failing the legislation. I don't care if you roleplay, let your personality shine in whatever way you see fit. Congress is unique because of its mobility and adaptability, please don't let that go to waste. Don't mock it.

PF:

Tell me the resolution before you began. If you want me to call for a card, tell me. If you don't give me voters than I'll vote off the other team's or my own, don't make me do that.

LD:

Explain philosophy to me. No kritiks or theory.

Speech: Fluency is appreciate. If your topic is disrespectful, you will be dropped automatically.

I'd like to start out by stating that I used to have a paradigm and now it appears to have fled. Please know that that paradigm was much better and more comprehensive than this paradigm, but this will have to do for now. Don't let this paradigm be a reflection on me as a person.

PF

Rate- As long as you enunciate and I can understand you, have at it.

Content- Some philosophy and broad application is fine, but your arguments should be grounded in real life context and specifics.

I'm a teacher-coach, in that order. Your content and the flow matters but so does your clarity, organization, tone, and decorum. If both teams have sensational arguments and it's close I have no problem giving the win to who I think are the better speakers.

Consider myself a flay judge. The RFD is going to read more like a narrative and less like you won at argument Tetris.

Please have fun. I promise I will or, at the very least, if it's late and we're worn out, I'm still going to look like I'm having fun, and I'm going to do the best I can to give you something to work with and a clear reason for my decision.

Hi, di duo

I am a United States history teacher and Speech & Debate teacher. I have judged at NIETOC, TOC, and NSDA Nationals.

LD: I believe all debaters should discuss and argue the chosen resolution. I will listen to Ks but will not give them much regard. As a judge my role is to establish how well competitors can effectively argue an unbiased resolution that was selected by vote. I feel K's are written for and by debaters who choose to ignore the rules of debate. I can accommodate spreading. I rarely request evidence and consider myself truth over technique.

PF: Debaters should have a good balance and knowledge of their research. I expect debaters to argue either in favor of the change suggested by the resolution or defense of the status quo. I typically ignore policy suggestions made in public forum as I feel public forum is not a debate meant to argue for the development of a policy. I will support arguments for solvency as long as those arguments establish a clear likelihood. I can accommodate spreading. I value evidence in PF rounds.