Hi! This is Hattie Bilson, and Heather Bilson is my mom!

She's really nice, but she's also definitely a lay judge.

Don't be oppressive; she will be very sad if you are problematic or mean.

Please don't go fast or she will also be sad :(

Yay debate!

I believe that all debates should be an educational activity, with inherent qualities of persuasion and logic. I want to hear debating about the topic, not technicalities of rules. I also want a persuasive, well-presented debate, and NOT speed delivery.

I have been judging Speech and Debate for over three years, primarily in Public Forum. I take judging seriously and though I am a lay judge, I flow and take notes, pay attention and I don't play on my phone during the round. I make every effort to leave my biases at the door and to listen to your case. I look for CLEAR contentions followed by sourced support. Reading from your case at rapid speed is NOT helpful. You know your case. I do not. I appreciate the hard work you have put into your case and do my best to fairly judge which side had the stronger case.

Congressional Debate

- I like unique/creative arguments and the use of props.

- I highly value good research and well-sourced information — and I will fact-check you.

- Good decorum is a must. I’m not judging based on the best debater, but rather, the best legislator. Keep your arguments within the relative mainstream.

- I do not value critical arguments or spreading.

I take a holistic approach to judging debates - the winner will be the person/team that has the most convincing overall presentation. The quality of the reasoning and the evidence used to support contentions carries more weight than the number of contentions. I do flow and will consider the failure to refute or address a significant point to be a basis for giving the win to the other team. A minor point that flows through will rarely be a determinant of the outcome.

You will likely lose if you make unsupported assertions; make up or misrepresent facts; or abuse your opponent or the process. The likelihood of winning are greatly enhanced if you are able to clearly rebut your opponent's voters and emphatically point out why your contentions should prevail.

I have judged few times before, in PF, Parli and Congress events.

Please express clearly the facts and your arguments. Explain your argument thoroughly.

Please stick to your allotted times, and manage your time.

I am the parent of a high school Public Forum debater.  I have been judging debates for 3 years now but I consider myself to be a lay judge.  I have judged PF, LD, Parli, and Congress at local tournaments, but this is the first time I will be judging at a circuit tournament.

What I DO Value:

* Well researched arguments backed by sound logic;

* Depth of Analysis

* Delivery that is clear, loud, and well paced (no overlapping of words);

* Quality of arguments over number of arguments;

* Signposting as needed throughout the debate.

What I DO NOT Value:

* Shallow arguments;

* Arguments unsupported by solid evidence;

* Garbled delivery;

* Frequent Interjections.  I realize that at times interjecting the speaker is necessary but interjecting for the sake of interjecting is disrespectful and also an impediment to the flow of debate.  Please use your judgement and only interject when absolutely necessary;

I realize that most debaters are more or less of equal caliber, highly motivated, and well prepared. Therefore, to stand out and win my ballot, you have to be clear, concise, and articulate. 

During the debate, I will not display any signs of approval or disapproval, or indicate in any manner whether I find your arguments convincing or not. I will not give comments or disclose after the round. Everything will be on my ballot.

Good Luck.  I hope you give me enough reasons to vote for you.

Debates:   I want you to convince me that your side is the "correct" one.   Please assume I know nothing about the topic, regardless of whether that might be true or not.    I have judged lots of PF, Parli, and LD, but consider myself a "Flay" judge. 

Spread at your own risk!  Quantity DOES NOT equal quality and if I get the sense you are trying to just overwhelm me with information and data vice being "on point" with your arguments it will most likely work against you.  On the flip side providing me lots of relevant information and facts can help you, as long as it is all germaine and meaningful.  There is a subjective aspect to most debates and I value well founded points that are delivered deliberately and effectively more than those that are delivered haphazardly or in a flurry of words.  Take your time and DON'T WASTE WORDS!

I will reward elequent / articulate speakers appropriately with speaker points, but it also isn't unheard of for me to award low point wins, so focus on your contentions and counters to your opponents' points - that is what will decide whether you win or not. 

Be respectful of your opponents during the heat of battle and in particular during cross-ex!  I realize your tempers may flare depending on what your opponents may say or do, but part of what I am looking for is your ability to remain professional and level-headed despite that.  I have been known to "ding" a team if I feel they were excessively rude and/or condescending.    

IEs:   I am looking for a presentation / performance that has a solid underlying message / meaning and I really want to feel that it is coming from your heart vice just being recited.  I believe IEs can and should make people think as well as just be entertaining.  A topic that is "funny", "tragic" or "sorrowful" isn't necessarily thought provoking.  Your use of the whole "stage", eye contact, projection, inflection, etc. really influence how powerfully your message comes across.   I want to sense an aura of confidence and command of your material when you are performing.  Endeavor to "Own the Room!"   

Twelve things to know when I am judging you:

1. I do not like spreading. If you are speeding through a debate round and I cannot understand fast enough to flow the arguments, they will get dropped and it will affect your speaker points. Please don't spread with me! I will interupt you to tell you to slow if needed. 

2. Utilize your speaking time effectively. Don't over elaborate on points if it's unecessary, but certainly make sure you don't overlook impacting out your contentions. Terminalize why I should care about your points. 

3. I compete in open Parli debate at college level, so I am aware of theory arguments, procedurals and the like; however I much prefer direct clash and argumentation. Show me logic, impacts, and explain your points throughly. The fancy stuff is good, and important to work on, but the ability to argue in a clear and informative manner is far more important. 

4. Be organized, use subpoints, number your responses, explain your impacts. I will listen to complex arguments but please explain them clearly. If your logic is muddled I will not accept. 

5. If I think your argumentation is illogical I will not accept it. Make sure there is a clear thread of reasoning. I do not like nonsequiters and will drop points for that. 

6. I am biased against arguments that rely on faulty factual premises. I may vote for such arguments if there is nothing brought up by the opposing team to discredit the factually incorrect argument, but even minimal responses will likely defeat them. Simply put, if I think you are not using accurate information I will not flow it, or will only require a brief mention of the fallacy by the opposition to disregard it. 

7. My pet peeve is appeals to emotion or illogical argumetation. Debate is a meeting of the intellects. I want to hear the real world impacts of a plan, not some ephemeral emotional argument. Give me logic, practical benifits, and real world impacts.

8. You should try to take at least one question from the other team in each constructive to avoid confusion. You should also not let them abuse points of information.

9. On topicality, if you're being  abused by the aff run it. If you really need ground or see a strategy, have at it. Do not run T just to run T however. If you run it as simply a way to whine then I will drop points. Show the articulated abuse when you run it.  

10. Stand when you speak. Partner to partner communication is okay, but no parroting/puppeting.

11. I will do my best to maintain tabula rasa. I will accept argumentation for concepts not held as traditional, so long as good support is made for them. If you can made a good logical case for something controversial it will make it on the flow and be measured same as other points. 

12. I hate appeals to bias. I am not on the traditional polotical spectrum, attempts to appeal to either a liberal or conservative bias will be frowned upon. Give me straight logic without the partisian BS.