I flow pretty intensively, but I prefer to vote off of voting issues (a larger analysis of multiple points) than just one card.

I'm open and appreciate well articulated philosophical positions (Ks included), and I'll listen to anything but obscene worldviews such as evolutionary justifications for racism and what not.

I can vote off of theory, but no one has fun when the violations are frivolous. As such, I'm very persuaded to make theory an RVI to deter bad theory. If you plan on running a shell, go all in and articulate every section with logical justifications. The violation should be very specific, and the standard or standards should be fleshed out. At the end fo the day, it's a value debate like everything else in LD, so you are unlikely to persuade anyone by just shouting one liners.

Having done events outside of LD, I appreciate great presentations skills. They mostly affect speaker points, not the outcome of the round. I will give a 30 to a strong presenter. This means that even though I'm fine with speaking quickly, clarity is really important.

Lastly on the subject of speed, I really encourage both debaters to weigh arguments as opposed to trying to out-spread each other. Deep thoughtful analysis of core issues is more important than underscoring concessions. To that end, framework debate plays a huge role in the round.

I am a citizen judge and a parent of a competitor. This is my 6th year as a judge for LD and PFD. I have judged local tournaments in South Carolina and a few National Circuit Tournaments.

The quality of your arguments is more important than the quantity of your arguments. I will reflect after the debate on who won the debate. Memorable examples relevant to your argument and insightful logic to explain the reasons behind your position can be decisive at this moment of reflection.

Explanation of your evidence and its relevance to your case is more important than the relative credibility of your sources versus the sources of your opponent’s evidence. I will ask myself if I “buy” your argument based on your explanation of the evidence and its relevance.

Enunciation is important so that I can understand your points. Brisk speaking is fine, but don’t sacrifice my ability to understand you, especially in a virtual environment.

Debate the actual resolution. Tell me why it matters and what the stakes are.

Overall, don’t make me work too hard. If you and your opponent were attorneys, which one of you would I hire to defend me in court?

General overview:

I was a high school and college debater and have been an active high school coach ever since. I am chair of my state league as well as an NSDA District Chair. Dating back to high school, I have over 35 years of experience in the activity. However, please don't consider me as "old school" or a strict traditionalist. Like any activity, speech and debate is constantly evolving and I am open to and embrace most changes. You'll clearly understand all of the rare exceptions to that as you read my paradigm.

It is very important to remember that debate is a communication activity. As such, I expect clear communication. Well articulated, supported and defended arguments, regardless of quantity, are far more important to me than who has the most cards that they can spout out in a speech. While I'm okay with a limited amount of speed, excessive speed beyond what you would use in the "real world" is not effective communication in my mind. Communicate to me effectively with well reasoned and fully supported arguments at a reasonable pace and you will win my ballot. I don't accept the "they dropped the argument so I automatically win the argument" claim. You must tell me why the dropped argument was critical in the first place and convince me that it mattered. I look at who had the most compelling arguments on balance and successfully defended them throughout the round while refuting the opponent's arguments on balance in making my decision.

Things to keep in mind about the various events I judge:

Policy debate is about policy. It has a plan. Plans have advantages and disadvantages as well as solvency or the lack thereof. Some plans also might warrant a counterplan from the negative if it is good, nontopical, and can gain solvency better than the affirmative plan. I am not a fan of "circuit style" policy debate and greatly prefer good and clear communication.

Lincoln Douglas Debate is about values. I am interested much more in values in this type of debate than any sort of policy. However, I'm not a strict traditionalist in that I don't require both a value premise and a value criterion that is explicitly stated. But I do want to hear a value debate. That said, I also want to hear some pragmatic examples of how your value structure plays out within the context of the resolution. All in all, I balance my decision between the philosophical and the pragmatic. Persuade me of your position. However, please don't present a plan or counterplan. Switch to policy debate if you want to do that. Bottom line: debate the resolution and don't stray from it.

Public Forum Debate is about current events and was intended for the lay judge. Don't give me policy or LD arguments. Clear communication is important in all forms of debate, but is the most important in this one. I am not open to rapid fire spreading. That's not communication. Please don't give me a formal plan or counterplan. Again, reserve that for policy debate. Communicate and persuade with arguments backed up by solid research and your own analysis and do this better than your opponents and you will win my PF ballot. It's that simple. Debate the resolution without straying from it in a good communicative style where you defend your arguments and attack your opponent's and do this better than they do it. Then you win. Persuade me. I am also not a fan of "circuit style" Public Forum that seems to be increasingly popular. Communicate as if I am a layperson (even though I'm not), as that is what PF was intended to be.

Congress Paradigm: (I'll be honest. It's my favorite event.)
Congressional Debate is designed to be like the real Congress when it functions as it was intended. Decorum is absolutely critical. While humor may have its place in this event, you should not do or say anything that a United States congressperson of integrity would not do or say. You should also follow Congressional decorum rules and address fellow competitors with their proper titles. When judging congress, I want to see clash/refutation of previous speakers (unless, of course, you are giving the first speech of the topic). Try to avoid "canned" speeches that are largely prewritten. This is not dueling oratories. It is still debate. I look for a combination of new arguments and clash/refutation of arguments already made. I do not like rehash. If it's been said already, don't say it unless you have a uniquely fresh perspective. I am not impressed by those who jump up to make the first obvious motion for previous question or for recess. Obvious motions score no points with me, as they are obvious and can be made by anyone. It's not a race to see who can be seen the most. I am, however, impressed by those who make great speeches, regularly ask strong cross examination questions and show true leadership in the chamber. Simply making great speeches alone is not enough. If you give three perfect speeches but never really ask good cross examination questions or rarely participate proceduraly in the chamber, you might not get the ranking you were hoping for. Although speeches are very important and a major factor in my decision, they are not the complete package that I expect from a competitor. I'm looking at your total constructive participation in the chamber (in a productive sense, not a "just to be seen" sense). Finally, to reiterate what I said at the beginning, I take decorum very seriously. You should too.

Congress Presiding Officers: Keep your wording as brief and concise as possible. Avoid the obvious. Please don't use phrases like "Seeing as how that was a negative speech, we are now in line for an affirmative speech." Here is a MUCH better option: "Affirmative speakers please rise" or "We are now in line for an affirmative speech." There is no need to tell anyone that the previous speech was negative. We should know that already. Just immediately call on the next side. It is acceptable and advisable to also very quickly give the time of the previous speech for the reference of the judges, but we do not need to be reminded of what side the previous speech was on. The phrase I dislike the most in Congress is "seeing as how . . ." So how do I judge you as a P.O. in relation to the speakers in the chamber? Most (but not all) presiding officers will make my top eight ballot if they are good with no major flaws. But how do you move up the ballot to get in "break" range? I place a great deal of weight on fairness and decorum, knowledge of parliamentary procedure and the efficiency in which the chamber is conducted. I reward presiding officers who are precise and have minimal downtime. And, as mentioned earlier, it does not require a great deal of language (especially jargon and phraseology) to be an excellent presiding officer. I'm not judging you on how much I hear you speak. I'm judging you on how efficient the chamber ran under your leadership. An excellent P.O. can run a highly efficient chamber without having to say much. Keep order, know and enforce the rules, and be respected by your peers. That said, you should also be prepared to step in and be assertive anytime the chamber or decorum gets out of hand. In fact, you should step in assertively at the first minute sign of it. Finally, while it is often difficult for a P.O. to be first on the ballot, it is also not impossible if your excellence is evident. And as a side note, while this is not a voting issue for me, it is worth noting. When giving your nomination speech, you don't need to tell me (or the rest of the chamber) that you will be "fast and efficient." That phrase is overused and heard from almost every candidate I've ever seen nominated. Everyone makes that claim, but a surprising number don't actually follow through on it. Come up with original (but relevant) reasons that you should be elected.

Things to avoid in any event I judge:

"Spreading" or rapid fire delivery. Just don't.

Ad Hominem attacks of any kind. Stick to the issues, not the person. This is the first thing that will alienate me regardless of your position.

Kritiks - You must be extremely persuasive if you run them. I'll consider them and vote for them if they are excellent, but I'd rather hear other arguments. Very few kritiks are in that "excellent" category I just mentioned. These are mainly only appropriate for Policy debate. I'll reluctantly consider them in LD, but never in PF.

Debate that strays outside the resolutional area. Stick to the topic.

Lack of respect for your opponent or anyone else in the room. Disagreement and debate over that disagreement is great. That's what this activity is about. But we must always do it respectfully.

Lack of respect for public figures. It's perfectly fine to disagree with the position of anyone you quote. However, negativity toward the person is not acceptable.

Condescending tone or delivery. Don't even try it with me. Trust me, I'll hear a condescending tone/delivery much louder than any argument you make, no matter how good the argument is. I'll make a condescending tone a voting issue that does not play in your favor. You don't want that.

General Thoughts

No matter what event I am judging, I look for some of the same basics. I try to be prepared and professional-you should be too. You will not be rewarded for being obviously unprepared, unprofessional, or for wasting my (or your competitor's) time. No matter what event, good presentation will be rewarded.

Public Forum Debate

In general, you should be clear both in what you are saying and how you are saying it. While I do flow the round, I decide the round primarily on which team more effectively convinced me they were correct. Your words, demeanor, and speaking all factor into this. Presentation is important to me. I prefer that you present your case to the room, not your laptop or paper. The more time you spend looking down, the less time you get to truly sell me your case.

PFD is meant to be accessible to the average person. Using a lot of debate jargon or odd argumentation theories will not win me over. I prefer a brisk, but conversational speed. If you speak so fast that I can't flow your arguments, how am I supposed to weigh them to decide the round.

Arguments should be well thought out and supported by evidence. They should be apparent and easy to hear. Use a variety of sources, don't just stick to one or two cards throughout the entire debate, especially if they are not the most current.

I decide the round based on what was presented in that round, and that round only. As long as you can clearly articulate your arguments with sound sources and argumentation, I will buy-in to them. My personal opinions do not matter when I am deciding a round-only what you as competitors say factors into my decision.

I do keep time in the round, but I am not a stickler. Time yourselves, time your partners, time your opponents. If you go over time by a few seconds to finish a thought, that's OK. Just don't abuse it. And keep off-time roadmaps to a minimum.

Congressional Debate

I know paradigms aren't as common in congressional debate as in other forms of debate, but for clarity and consistency's sake, here are some of my thoughts on congress.

Most of the same principles still apply-present your speech to the chamber, not your laptop or paper. Convincing me is all the more important since your only get three minutes per speech. I do tend to weigh presentation more heavily in a congress chamber than in PFD or LD. You should not speak so fast I have a difficult time following your case. It is paramount you are clear and effective in your speaking.

Specific to congress, I want you to take on the role of a representative (or senator). You will get points for being mindful of "your constituents" and generally acting as if you are representing the American populous. Congress is not really the event for jargon or odd theories of argumentation-it is a time to debate real issues that are faced by real people everyday.

Additionally, be active in chamber. Don't just give your speech, answer some questions, and sit there until the next bill. Show me that your are invested in the debate taking place-or at least are pretending to be invested in it.

Presiding has no out-sized impact on your rankings. If you preside really well it will be as if you gave a really good speech. If you preside not so well, it will be as if you gave a not so great speech. Just because your preside does not mean you are guaranteed to be ranked, but it does not mean you will never be ranked. It's all a part of congressional debate. Be memorable-after all you're in a chamber with many other competitors. At the end of the day, the best all around competitor in the chamber will get the best rank on my ballot.

World Schools Debate

In general, I look for the same things in World School as I do in other debate styles-be clear, be consistent, have good facts, and convince me why you are correct. However, World Schools Debate is its own distinct form of debate and should be treated as such. Adhering to the specific rules and style of World Schools Debate is a must in order to get the best score possible. Don't turn this into three-person Policy, PFD, or LD.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

I judge Lincoln-Douglas the least out of the three events listed here. In general, the same rules apply-be clear, be consistent, have good facts, and convince me why you are correct. The competitor that does this the best will win the round.

Final Thoughts

At the end of the day, I am one judge for one round. These are my opinions, and everyone has their own. Don't read too much into this. Speech and debate is meant to be a fun and educational experience. I hope your experience is both fun and rewarding, no matter the result.

Good luck!

I am a Mechanical Engineer and have over 25 years of experience in Project Management. Believe it or not, debate has been part of my entire career. I am logical, driven by numbers and facts. The only way to drive a good project is to have a good team with a good strategy.

I have been judging Congressional Debate for 5 years and occasionally LD and PF. I do prefer less and very well prepared arguments than many contentions thrown at light speed! So please be quick, clear and effective when you speak. Also, the use of current and updated data is important.

Please respond to your opponents questions clearly and to the point as you can loose points in my score sheet if you don't. Most teams come to the rounds very well prepared on their contentions, but lose the debate when they can't answer properly.

Also, if you know what you are talking about, if you are calm while talking about it and if you can show me that you care and that I should care too, it will make it very difficult for me to vote against you.

Be professional and respectful.

Greetings: I have been around the Carolina West District for approximately 10 years. At one time or another I have judged every event. Although we are a very small school, we have had many students place in their respective events and go on to use their speech and debate skills in college and the work force.

Policy: All 5 elements must be clearly addressed. Spreaders should ensure I have their taglines or at least sign post before they start to rock-n-roll. I pay special attention to topicality, sources, cross x, and solvency.

Lincoln-Douglas:The AFFIRMATIVE has the burden of proof of the resolution as presented and should provide fair definitions. The NEG can and should challenge unfair definitions. I pay special attention to sources, cross x, and contentions coming full circle as well as defense and rebuttals.

Public Forum: Simply looking for which side presented the more compelling case with viable sources and confident defense.

Congress: I see two major elements here: speech content & speech delivery. I focus on well organized speeches with quality sources and ability to address questions. The P.O. should run a tight fair chamber. Outstanding =6 pts, Very good=5 pts, Average=4 pts.

IEs: The first presentation I see is in first place of that round til someone beats them and so on down the line. I look for all literary elements, appropriate use of: hands/body/posture, facial expressions, and vocal variety as the piece dictates. As OI, POI, Novice Reading, or Children's Lit do not require memorization, nor do I. I neither reward students who have memorized, nor penalize students who haven't. My personal favorite events are: Extemp and Informative Speaking.

I do NOT disclose my decisions and I do NOT share oral critiques in the room. I will gladly answer student's questions with their coaches permission to speak with me. I will generally challenge all Extempers with a short questions following their speech.