I know about a lot of different things, try not to make stuff up to win (unless you're supposed to), I'll know. 

I enjoy a spirited debate or event, where the speakers are passionate (but not overbearing) and CLEAR. Get your point across, stand your ground, but don't lose it when you're called out.

If congress (or any event), please take a moment to state your name before your start, clearly- every time. If you don't there is a good chance I might not find you before the next speaker, and not be able to give you proper points/ feedback.

Please don't be gross or overly grotesque.

Have fun!!!!!

Thanks

Matt

Be civil. Debate beyond your case. As you debate, interact with and include all of the information brought up in the round. Speak clearly, and organize your arguments in a clear and concise manner.

Be civil. Debate beyond your case. As you debate, interact with and include all of the information brought up in the round. Speak clearly, and organize your arguments in a clear and concise manner.

I have long experience in formal and informal speech and debate events. I debated in high school and college. I teach critical thinking and ethics at university. Perhaps you could say that I'm a traditional judge. As such, I'm very objective and will judge impartially, based solely on the merits of the debate. I generally have the following judging philosophy for Policy (CX):

Framework - Framework is necessary. Tell me where you're going and how you're going to get there. If no framework is provided, I'm left to making up my own mind what you're arguing. Impact calculus is crucial, because if the "problem" has no measurable impact, your policy is not necessary.

Topicality - For me, this is the foundation of Policy Debate. Establish, and root in the topic. Make sure all arguments have a claim, warrant, and impact. If your plan does not address the resolution, that's bad news for your case.

Solvency - Did I just say that "Topicality" is key? Okay, well, honestly, Solvency is the most important. You must convince me that your approach will effectively resolve a real problem. And when I say "resolve," I mean that real people are really affected.

Speed - I have no problem with your speed as long as you slow down a bit on identifying tags/authors for signposts. Clarity is far more important than speed. I personally prefer a slow, deliberate, thoughtful speech over a speech that is simply trying to wedge as much as possible into a short window of time.

DAs - Go for it, as long as your disadvantages are specific and topical. Nothing is worse than vague generalities.

Ks - Not a fan. But give it a go if that's your thing.

CX - Although I know other judges ignore and/or hate cross examination, I actually prefer it. A good CX demonstrates an intent to understand the opponent's point of view. Engage (don't accuse) in CX, and seek to understand. Understanding your opponent's position makes for a far more compelling debate.

Critique - I feel it's entirely appropriate to question the resolution itself. Just be sure that you can substantiate (with evidence) your critique of the resolution. The people who create resolutions are pretty smart folks, too, and the resolution deserves a fair shake.

Don't Drop Arguments - You drop, you lose.

Evidence, Evidence, Evidence - But reason, argumentation, and passion employing the evidence (quality) is far superior to a bucket-full of evidence (quantity). Substantiate all arguments with evidence.

Ethos, Pathos, and Logos - balance. Aristotle's views have persisted for 2500 years for a very good reason.

Off-time roadmap - No. Just. No. (Is this a thing in Policy?? It's a terribly annoying thing in other events.)

Bottom Line:

No Ad Hominem attacks; you must treat your opponent(s) with the utmost respect and civility, or I will penalize you. Be nice. Argue the issues, not the opponent. Speak plainly and clearly -- speed is fine, but not at the expense of understanding. I can easily see through "snow jobs"; I understand the reality of you reading a position that was originally written by someone else, but if you haven't bothered to study and understand the issue(s), the arguments, and case for yourself, you will not win and you're wasting everyone's time.

I am Junior at the University of Utah currently studying kinesiology. My brother is debating at this tournament and he dragged me to judge, so here I am.

I would be what you call the typical "lay judge". I have judged before in SOUTHERN Utah but from what I hear this type of debate is entirely different.

I probably won't be able to translate the debate jargon so keep it minimal. I would say that traditional debate would be safer to run by me but I find unique arguments (that aren't esoteric) to be compelling as well.

Spreading is prohibited. Swiftly speaking is tolerated. Clarity is necessary.

Overall, I have limited judging experience. Keep the debate simple and stick to the basic elements of persuasion.

Lay judge. Appreciate civility.

Value convincing arguments, speed is not a problem if it is clear, but don't enjoy spewing.

Don't have enough experience to flow all arguments. 

I value quality over quantity, I would much rather hear 2-3 well thought out/clearly presented points then pages of material blurted out at high speed. Be engaging and sell your point of view, be confidant and resolute. Present factual ideas and have data to back them up. Personalize the topic to yourself using available data on subject(s) such that you can better relate (pro or con) to the topic. Have fun!

Kristy Oblad Paradigm

I participated in Speech and Drama in High School. I have a Bachelor's Degree in Socio-Cultural Anthropology. My brother was a state champion in debate and placed in Nationals. My oldest son debated all through HS and I currently have a son in his third year in debate. I enjoy judging all types of speech and debate. I am the most inexperienced with Policy and Congress. Speaking skills/communications is my predominate style of judging. You must be consistent from start to finish with your hypothesis to conclusion. Contradiction will hurt you. I do not mind if you go fast but if you do you must still be articulate. Speed as a tactic does not impress me. Filler words such as "like" and "um"--I tend to dislike these.

I feel tournaments are a place to practice and get better. That is an important part of participating in debate. If you are well-prepared and I can see your effort and desire for improvement, yet you aren't a top-notch speaker--yet...Your preparation and participation combined with a well researched, reasoned argument will sway me. Make sure you are civil. I can see through tricks/tactics to confuse. I do not appreciate condescension. I do appreciate explanations with the premise that I am intelligent and will be able to follow your argument/presentation if you are well prepared and have a good flow of reason.

I have been doing debate for a long time. I can handle most things that are thrown out in a round. I don't like incredible speed, but I can handle it. I like it when the argument is clear, concise and performed well. I do not like personal attacks in a round. Keep things civil! If things get too out of hand I will be very motivated to give the round to the most civilized team. Aside from these few things, I am not extremely worried about the content of the round. Whoever's argument is better will win!

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.

CX-

I am pretty tabula rasa, I dig everything from Cap-K's to stock issues. I can handle spreading if you are decent at it and I can also support a K or any other counter plan you can run. An automatic down vote will be coming your way if I don't have a road map or taglines to follow THROUGHOUT the round, whether you spread or not. I will dock you more if you are under time rather than over, and I LOVE lots of aggression.

PF-

Basically the same as policy but I will give you an automatic L if you spread or use a plan.

***For both events, I like to see that the work between partnerships is equally distributed. For example- when I used to do debate my judges would always write on my ballot that I was too aggressive compared to my male partner, and that I should let him do all the work. With that being said, if you identify as female, PLEASE show me how much butt you can kick with your words. Overall just make sure one of you isn't carrying the burden.

IE's-

These events ARE NOT meant to be serious. With that, please be entertainin. Be dramatic, humorous, loud, even throw yourself on the ground if you have to. If you do not use all your time, give roadmaps and taglines, or follow my paradigm I will rank you last.