I am a traditional PFer. I did PF all four year in high school here in utah and in california. Morals will not play a key in my decision process as it is part of LD not PF. I can understand speed but i prefer that you do not spew as it is hard to understand on all sides. Key things that i look for in rounds is strength of case, how it was defended, and if your evidence lines up with the point you are making. At the end of the day your are the debater so convince me that your case should win and the opponents shouldnt. Also be polite in your cross ex and dont talk over your opponents.

I am retired now after coaching debate for over thirty years. I also debated in high school and college. I coached all events but always focused on debate before anything else in my program. I have taken students to nationals in all events so I know my way around a flow sheet and rely heavily on it to make my decision in a debate round. If I look confused or stop flowing it means arguments are not clearly labeled or coming too fast and I can't get them down. If that happens, those arguments won't be a part of my final decision.

I like to see the round start on time and good manners all around. I expect students in LD and PF to be good speakers but will not punish them for speed.

Please don't ask me tho shake hands at the end of the round. It's just not what I do.

Students need to speak slowly and distinctly.  Want to see clear framework.

Be respectful of each other.

What I look for when I judge is respect of me and other debaters.  That you try to do your best and learn from round to round.  I also want to see that you try to be interested about what you are speaking about.   

I am a coach of over 15 years for policy, pf, ld and all speech events at North Sanpete HS, Mission San Jose, Alta and Summit Academy, at Westlake High School and currently an Assistant Coach for Salem Hills High School.

In HS I competed in Speech events, LD and coached policy teams (there was no pf then).

I am the Chair for the NSDA Sundance District and former president for the UDCA. I have judged IE and debate events at the Nationals Level and have served on the pf wording committee. In other words, I know what I'm doing and know speech and debate very well!

I believe that you should give a well organized logical argument in any debate or speech. Topicality is imperative to a debate, and supporting and explaining your position on that topic is vital to a clear argument construct. If you don't say it, I didn't hear it. Don't assume I will know what your evidence means the same as you...

Policy debate should be relevant, and well understood by the competitors otherwise it will not be understood by the judges. I do not mind speed, but if it is so fast that I can no longer understand your words, then I can no longer understand your argument to judge it. K's and theory are fine as long as they go toward the overall value of the debate and topic. They should in no way demonize or devalue any individual or group of people asa part of the K. Analysis and connection of evidence/cards to the plan and solvency is imperative in making a good argument and being a good debater. Cards do not a case make, the debater does. Know your cards, know your plan, and know how they work to support and solve the inherency of the issues involved.

Public Forum should be a thoughtful discussion and not overly repeat questions and answers. Don't just read evidence and think it will make your argument for you. PF IS NOT just policy light....it is its own event with no plans and merits. Treat it well. Weighing and analysis of the topic, evidence, and oppositions arguments are imperative.

Lincoln Douglas should have a clear value and criterion from which to work from, and stay focused on topic and argument. Don't just read evidence and think it will make your argument for you. CARDS and EVIDENCE DO NOT A CASE MAKE...the debater does. Analysis, rebuttal, and connections to the value criterion are paramount in an LD round Plans are ok, as long as they are relevant, on topic, and are shown how they connect to the value criterion like any other argument in the case.

IEs should be unique, appropriate, and follow all structures outlined in their respective events. I look for organization, relevance, creativity and thoughtfulness as well as the presentation being engaging, and suitable for piece and audience. Remember when trying to engage an audience, one should want to help them understand, be brought into the conversation, and allowed to learn another perspective while still maintaining their own in the end. Try not to preach, demean, or ostracize your judge in your piece or presentation---even when controversial topic---they can be great, if done right.

My primary paradigm can be divided into two categories.

1. Skill in presenting

 -Confidence

 -Clarity of speech

 -Variety of tone of speech

 -Professonality

 -etc.

2. Preparedness

 -Well formed arguments

 -Good sources

 -Knowing what you're going to say before you say it. i.e. not rambling or punctuating with phrases like "um" or "Well"

 -Addressing your opponents arguments effectively

Note: If you are unprofessional in your dress or behavior towards others, it will not reflect kindly on you.

Nancy Smith is the parent of a Juan Diego LD Debater. She has extensive judging experience on the local level and loves evaluating talented, hard-working debaters. 

Focus on persuasiveness, impact comparison, and writing her ballot in the last speech and you will do just fine. 

Most importantly, have fun and be nice. 

I am a Speech and Debate Coach for a High School in Salt Lake City, UT.  I occasionally judge both Policy Debate and Individual Events.  When I judge Policy Debate I am looking for significant voter issues.  I do not choose them myself unless forced.  I wait for the debaters in the round to tell me how to vote.  I will sometimes have to decide on my own which arguments are most significant but I always prefer the debaters to tell me.  I like to think of myself as Tabula Rasa, knowing of course that that is almost impossible.  But I do not care if you run a policy, performance, and or Critique, or what you wear or say during the round specifically regarding issues etc.  I can adjust.  I promise I am smarter than I look. Your debate will have a much bigger impact on the type of judge I am than anything I could say here.  However:

1. Be courteous- you can have confidence but don't be a jerk

2. Humor is appreciated

3. Debate like you want to be there
4.Sound smart--look like you know what you're talking about. You build ethos by knowing your arguments like the back of your hand.
5. Be bold.
6. Don't lie- I will probably vote against you just for lying.

When I judge Individual Events I really like to hear things I haven't heard before.  I am looking for a well constructed speech with a flow.  But I like stories.  Even in Impromptu.