State Update: I'm sick, please don't get mad at me for coughing and sneezing.

Vestavia Hills High School '18

Auburn University '22

Email Chain: joeycompton17@gmail.com

Judge Philosophy: I feel like my job as a judge is to be as objective as possible and evaluate the round solely on the merits of the arguments presented.

General Debate Predilections/Requests That You'll Inevitably Ignore:

-I like debates about the topic. The stupider your interp is, the more annoyed I get.

-Tech over truth. Notwithstanding, if your "technical concession" took two seconds it probably doesn't matter.

-I really, really enjoy impact turn debates. They will be rewarded with higher speaks if done correctly.

-I hate, hate, hate long overviews. Just do it on the line by line.

-I care a lot about evidence. More on that below.

-You don't have to shake my hand, lol.

PF:

-You can have a framework debate if you want. I really don't care. That being said, if it's useless, your speaks will go down. Strategy, and using your time wisely, is key. Also, I need effective warrant analysis to evaluate voters under the framework - so, please do that.

-I don't care about speed. If you are *actually* going to spread, I'm cool with an email chain (email is below). If you are incomprehensible, I'll yell "clear" twice. After that, I'm done.

-I don't care whether you read the card straight up or summarize. But keep in mind, if you get called out for miscutting, I will call for the card at the end of the round. If I find you have grossly misrepresented the evidence, I'll probs drop you. It's up to you. I used to summarize, and it helped with the flow of the case, but if you want to play it safe, just read the card.

-I like effective warrant analysis. I will be sad if you don't do this. If you want to concede links for strategic purposes, I'm completely fine with it, just make sure you do it in the immediate speech from which the turn was read.

-I don't flow crossfire, but I really enjoy it. Ask strategic, nuanced questions and you will potentially be rewarded with higher speaks. Don't make arguments - that's for your speeches. Don't be rude.

-I think it's advantageous for the second-speaking team (2) to cover the first-speaking team's (1) offense on Team 2's case. It won't hurt your chances at winning my ballot and I won't require it, but it could potentially hurt your speaks. I like this because it makes for a cleaner summary and somewhat evens the playing field between Team 1 and Team 2.

-I hope you have your evidence! I used to call for a lot of cards, and I think it's cool when debaters actually try to directly interact with the evidence. As soon as you receive the evidence, I'll start prep. After a significant portion of time, if a team can't find a card or evidence, I will just start your prep until you concede the argument. You should have your evidence - no excuses. If a team or debater asks me to call for a card, I'll look at it after the round. I also reserve the right to call for cards even if I am not prompted to. I often do this if I'm making my decision off of one or two pieces of evidence. If I call for a card, I will never insert argument into the debate based on what the evidence implies, but I do reserve the right to drop you if it is miscut or you misread/misinterpreted it.

-As of recent, I've gotten really tired of keeping time. I've decided the best way to deal with this, as a judge, is to give lower speaks to teams who irresponsibly keep time. It's not that hard and it bothers me a lot. C'mon.

-Strategy, competitiveness, and good crystallization will get you good speaks. +.5 if you say Kanye lyrics, exclaim "War Eagle," or say a funny joke/pun during the round. Both teams can do it. UPDATE: Quite a good bit of debaters have been saying "War Eagle" to me. That's great and all, but the sentence above says "during the round" - thus, it should be in a speech.

-Rudeness, offensive behavior, wasted time/inefficiency, etc. will give you low speaks.

-I'm good with progressive args. I like disad-esque arguments with solid links. If you think it's necessary to run theory, please run it in shell form. I've never been too high on K debate. I'll vote on them, but I'm unfamiliar with most of the literature. I never really ran these when I debated, but if you feel as if you can explain it well, go for it. Don't pref me too high if this is what you do - I wouldn't be able to give you due diligence. It's not you, it's me.

-I'm more tech over truth. I'm willing to vote on a bad argument if it is won on the flow. I'm going to hate myself for doing it, but as much as I dislike dumb arguments, I dislike arbitrary judge intervention more.

-Meme cases? I'm listening. Don't throw away the round and run these if you can break, though. I don't want to take this opportunity away from you like John Scanlon did with me. You probably won't win, but it'll be fun.

-No matter your record, keep your head up and your mind open. Every tournament, and every round, is a learning experience. Don't let your record define you. Have fun with it, and don't be afraid to come talk to me before/after the round or over email if you have any questions.

-Email: joeycompton17@gmail.com.

LD:

-I'm open to really anything in a round, and I'm generally familiar with most styles of argumentation. I've only judged one LD tournament this year, so, depending on how good you are, I may be a tad rusty.

-I feel like my job as a judge is to be as objective as possible and evaluate the round solely on the merits of the arguments presented. I will vote on anything as long as it is: A) clearly explained, B) well defended, and C) weighed against other arguments. Basically: you do you.

-I'll vote on less-than-stellar args like NIBs or frivolous theory. You can definitely pick up my ballot if you do that, but I probably won't give you good speaks. As much as I dislike dumb arguments, I dislike arbitrary judge intervention more.

-Speed is fine, slow down for tags and authors, though. If you're going too fast, I'll yell "clear" twice. After that, I'm done. Keep in mind, if I can't understand you, I can't vote for you.

-I may call for cards after the round if need be.

-I won't flow cross but make it enjoyable - I was a huge cross guy. Make sure you're asking strategic questions. I don't want to be bored.

-I'm fine with progressive strategies such as Theory, DAs, T, etc.

-I'll vote on disclosure theory but your speaks will reflect how upset I am about voting on it.

-If you're gonna have an email chain, add me to it.

-Adding stuff to a speech doc counts as prep, but the physical act of emailing or giving a flash-drive to your opponent does not.

-I'm usually glued to my flow during the round, so if I'm not looking at you don't panic.

-Don't pref me high if you're a K debater. I'm unfamiliar with most of the literature and never really ran these when I debated. I wouldn't be able to give you due diligence. It's not you, it's me.

-Speaks: I'll dock points if you're obscenely rude or do cheap/tricky args. If you say a funny joke, drop some Kanye lyrics, or exclaim "War Eagle" during the round or cross I'll add .5 points to your speaks - both debaters can do it.

-Email me before the round (or after idc) if you have any questions: joeycompton17@gmail.com

....

Things I default to (not my preferences, just what I'll default to if you fail to address the issue).

-Competing interps

-No RVIs

-Drop the arg

-The resolution is a statement that is to be proven true by the Aff

-Theory comes before Ks and T

-Fairness / education are theoretically legitimate reasons to exclude certain practices

Big Questions Preferences:

Lol.

Please treat me like a lay judge.

I will vote on arguments I find more persuasive

If you're running an email chain, please add me: Andrewgollner@gmail.com

he/him

About me: I debated one year of PF and three years of policy at Sequoyah High, and I debated three year of college policy at the University of Georgia. I was a 2N that generally runs policy offcase positions but, especially earlier in my debate career, I ran many critical positions. I'll try to be expressive during the round so that you can discern how I am receiving your arguments.

Judge Preferences: On a personal level, please be kind to your opponents. I dislike it when a team is unnecessarily rude or unsportsmanlike. I am completely willing to discuss my decision about a round in between rounds, so please ask me if you want me to clarify my decision or would like advice. You can email me any questions you have.

FOR PF/LD:

I am primarily a policy judge. This means

1. I am more comfortable with a faster pace. While I don't like the idea of spreading in PF and LD I can handle a faster pace.

2. I am decently technical. If an argument is dropped point it out, make sure I can draw a clean line through your speeches.

3. I am less used to theory backgrounds in your form of debate, slow down and explain these.

4. Ask me any specific questions you have.

FOR POLICY:

I recognize that my role is to serve as a neutral arbiter without predispositions towards certain arguments, but as this goal is elusive the following are my gut reactions to positions. I strive to ensure that any position (within reason, obviously not obscene or offensive) is a possible path to victory in front of myself.

CP: I love a well written CP which is tailored to your opponent's solvency advocate and that can be clearly explained and is substantiated by credible evidence. If your CP is supported by 1AC solvency evidence, I will be very impressed. Generic CPs are fine, I've read a ton of them, but the more you can at least explain your CP in the context of the affirmative's advantages the more likely you are to solve for their impact scenarios.

DA: Make sure to give a quick overview of the story during the neg block to clarify the intricacies of your position. If, instead of vaguely tagline making a turns case arg like "climate turns econ, resource shortages", you either read and later extend a piece of evidence or spend 10 to 15 seconds analytically creating a story of how climate change exasperates resource shortages and causes mass migrations which strain nation's financial systems, then I will lend far more risk to the disadvantage turning the case. Obviously the same goes for Aff turns the DA. I will also weigh smart analytical arguments on the disad if the negative fails to contest it properly. I'm also very persuaded when teams contest the warrants of their opponents evidence or point out flaws within their opponents evidence, whether it's a hidden contradiction or an unqualified author.

T: I've rarely gone for topicality but I have become increasingly cognizant of incidents in which I likely should have. My gut reaction is that competing interpretations can be a race to the bottom, but I have personally seen many affirmatives which stray far enough from the topic to warrant a debate centered over the resolution in that instance.

K: I used to run Ks pretty frequently in high school but I run them far less frequently now. I'm likely not deep in your literature base so be sure to explain your position and your link story clearly.

FW: My gut feeling is that debate is a game and that it should be fair, but I have seen many rounds where the affirmative team has done an excellent job of comparing the pedagogy of both models and won that their model is key for X type of education or accessibility there of. However, I am persuaded that a TVA only needs to provide reasonable inroads to the affirmatives research without necessarily having to actually solve for all of the affirmative. I do find the response that negs would only read DAs and ignore/"outweigh" the case to be effective - try to add some nuance to this question of why negs would or wouldn't still need to grapple with the case.

Non-traditional Aff: I've always run affs with USFG plan texts, but that doesn't mean that these positions are non-starters. I will be much more receptive to your affirmative if it is intricately tied to the topic area, even if it does refuse to engage the resolution itself for whichever reasons you provide.

Theory: I generally think 2 condo is good, more than that and things start to get a bit iffy.

Most importantly, please be kind to your opponents and have a good time.

Main Paradigm

questions/email chain - jordant2debate@gmail.com

You do you; I do not care. Any style of debating is on the table as long as there is clash and respect.

I will vote on pretty much anything, as long as it is warranted and packaged well.

The following are just random thoughts.

Policy:

You are not allowed to send more than three cards in the body of the email.

Theory: I will not judge kick. Multiple conditional planks on the same cp are very bad to me. All other theory depends on the flow. I am in favor of multiple conditional alternatives as long as there is no contradiction.

T:Love me some T debates. The neg should provide an explanation of the topic and clearly define how the affirmative justifies unfair/unpreppable affs. The neg should also provide a clear vision of topical ground with possible affs that could be read under aff's interp. The aff should provide a defense of how their plan text can be reasonably debated within the boundaries of the topic itself even if it might be outside the lit base.

K stuff:

Planless affs should respond to the resolution, even if you say no.

The k should link to the aff.

I am very sympathetic to presumption in a lot of these debates, and under-explained or confusing alts/solvency mechanisms are not going to go well with me. When on the neg, critical teams should highlight specific examples of the problematic philosophy/worldview that manifested in the 1AC. I also need strong arguments for why your argument matters in this scholastic activity.

More framework debaters should just go for the object of the resolution as topicality. Way too many planless teams depend entirely on state bad to win the debate without addressing real topic knowledge.

LD:

Overview:

I default to an offense/defense paradigm. Win the impact debate and the framework, and you will probably win the debate.

I will be deep in the cold, hard ground before I vote on an RVI.

Flex prep is allowed, but I do not count it as CX. You really should only do it to ask clarifying or procedural questions.

I am much more familiar with arguments that can be found in other events than I am with more specific LD arguments. This means that the nuances of unique LD debates like Phil could be lost on me. If you find me in the back for these debates, I will require more explanation and application to the larger debate to make sense of your argument.

Phil:I need a good overview at the top to explain your position. I am getting more familiar with this type of debate, but a quick and concise argument will make the debate easier for you.

Ks: Do it. I am pretty familiar with most lit bases, so I will probably have some bad comments to make.

PF:

No need for off-time road-maps or clarifications about the topic: I am aware of the resolution. Unless you are anticipating a definitions debate, that time could be better used. PF roadmaps don't make sense; you only have two flows....

I disclose, and I expect you to take notes on my RFD: You only get better with honest feedback and taking notes on said feedback. Feel free to ask questions of my decision.

I strongly encourage disclosure/evidence sharing: Good debates are made by good prep. Disclosing contentions and sharing evidence helps all of us ensure that we are using the best arguments possible. This is not a requirement, but it will help me give a better RFD and help you get better at debate.

Most 'voters' I hear aren't real voters: Voters should be crucial moments of the debate that control how I adjudicate the round. They are not just your impacts...

Framework: Can either be in the constructive or the rebuttal. It should be in the final focus if you want me to vote off it.

Theory: Allowed, but I will only vote on it if the violation is egregious and obvious.

Generic Thoughts: I think the second rebuttal should respond to the first rebuttal, and I think the first rebuttal should include a number of preemptive arguments that you assume will be read in the round. Use their contentions, their cross-fire questions, and your knowledge of the topic to predict what they will run and base your defense around that. Most case defense is meaningless repetition at best, and I don't bother flowing a lot of it.

The summary should be your last refutation of their points and the final focus should be framing, impacts, and writing the ballot. This means not everything has to be in the final focus, but offensive arguments should be.

Very new to debate. I will follow logical arguments. I prefer slow speeds and signposting.

My name is Alyssa Kirby, and I debated PF for four years on the Sequoyah Speech and Debate Team. Nothing crazy as far as prefs go; I would say I'm a fairly technical judge. When it comes to the individual speeches, I don't have much preference (speed is fine, just make sure you speak LOUDLY and CLEARLY). Do try to have good sign posting because that helps me in judging. I'll be writing a lot so repetition and reiteration is much appreciated. If you don't say your framework in your first speech and your opponents bring one up that you don't like, please try and address it in first cross. Make sure you keep things civil in crossfire. A lot of your speaker points are going to come from that, so if you're rude/don't let other people talk/don't have any questions, I'll dock points. Humor is appreciated and encouraged but disrespect is NOT. I may give you higher points if you make a good (or not so good) pun. **Does not apply for online debates—Be sure to face me during crossfire and stand except for in grand. You aren't debating to get your opponents to vote for you, you're trying to win your judge over. Face me durning speeches.** I may look up from time to time, and some eye contact is always appreciated. Make sure you do a lot of weighing! You should never leave it up to your judge to decide what the most important argument is. Tell me what I should care about and why. It's really easy for me to vote for you if you emphasize weighing impacts in your last two speeches and quantify. Additionally, if you want me to flow your argument, include it in both summary and final focus. If you don't, I will not consider it while voting. I'm not super familiar with progressive debate, so please refrain because you probably won’t win off of it. Please keep your own time. It's also probably a good idea for you to keep your opponents' times as well. If your time ends during a speech, you can definitely finish your sentence, and I won't take off points as long as you're not abusing your time. Same goes for cross if you are asked a question as the timer goes off; just answer quickly.

If you have questions about my decisions don't hesitate to email me: alyssa.kirby.2291@gmail.com

Speak clearly and slowly.

Don't assume prior knowledge. (explain clearly)

Experience/Background: I coached at Columbus HS from 2013-2021, primarily Public Forum, and now coach at Carrollton HS (2021-present). I did not debate in high school or college, but I have been coaching and judging PF, a little LD, and IEs since 2013, both locally (Georgia) and on the national circuit, including TOC and NSDA Nationals. I spent several years (2017-2022) as a senior staff member with Summit Debate and previously led labs at Emory (2016-2019).

Judging Preferences:

If you have specific questions about me as a judge that are not answered below (or need clarification), please feel free to ask them. Some general guidelines and answers to frequently asked questions are below:

1. Speed: I can flow a reasonably fast speed when I'm at the top of my game, but I am human. If it's late in the day/tournament, I am likely tired, and my capacity for speed drops accordingly. I will not be offended if you ask me about this before the round. For online rounds, I prefer that you speak at a more moderate speed. I will tell you "clear" if I need you to slow down. If I am flowing on paper, you should err on the slower side of speed than if I am flowing on my laptop.

2. Signposting and Roadmaps: Signposting is good. Please do it. It makes my job easier. Off-time roadmaps aren't really needed if you're just going "their case, our case", but do give a roadmap if there's a more complex structure to your speech.

3. Consistency of Arguments/Making Decisions: Anything you expect me to vote on should be in summary and final focus. Defense is not "sticky" -- meaning you cannot extend it from rebuttal to final focus. Please weigh. I love voters in summary, but I am fine if you do a line-by-line summary.

4. Prep (in-round and pre-round): Please pre-flow before you enter the round. Monitor your own prep time. If you and your opponents want to time each other to keep yourselves honest, go for it. Do not steal prep time - if you have called for a card and your opponents are looking for it, you should not be writing/prepping unless you are also running your prep time. (If a tournament has specific rules that state otherwise, I will defer to tournament policy.) On that note, have your evidence ready. It should not take you longer than 20-30 seconds to pull up a piece of evidence when asked. If you delay the round by taking forever to find a card, your speaker points will probably reflect it.

5. Overviews in second rebuttal: In general, I think a short observation or weighing mechanism is probably more okay than a full-fledged contention that you're trying to sneak in as an "overview". Tread lightly.

6. Frontlines: Second speaking team should answer turns and frontline in rebuttal. I don't need a 2-2 split, but I do think you need to address the speech that preceded yours.

7. Theory, Kritiks, and Progressive Arguments: I prefer not judging theory debates. Strongly prefer not judging theory debates. If you are checking back against a truly abusive practice, I will listen to and evaluate the argument. If you are using theory/Ks/etc. in a way intended to overwhelm/intimidate an opponent who has no idea what's going on, I am not going to respond well to that.

8. Crossfire: I do not flow crossfire. If it comes up in cross and you expect it to serve a role in my decision-making process, I expect you to bring it up in a later speech.

9. Speaker points: I basically never give 30s, so you should not expect them from me. My range is usually from 28-29.7.

RAP Paradigm:

Clash. Most importantly, I value clash rather than distracters or debate "theory." For all forms of debate, clash is essential; beyond initial presentation of cases, "canned" or pre-prepared speeches are unhelpful.

Evidence. I prioritize proof. Therefore, I value evidence over unsubstantiated opinion or theory, and I especially value evidence from quality sources. Be sure that (i) your evidence is from a quality source, (ii) your evidence actually says what you claim it does, and (iii) you are not omitting conditions, limitations, or contrary conclusions within your evidence.

Delivery. I debated back in the day when delivery mattered. Persuasion is still key, so if you are monotone, turn your back, or never bother with eye contact, your speaker points will likely suffer accordingly. You may speak quickly, but you must be clear, particularly with contentions. Eye contact and a well-organized, well-documented case are much appreciated. Always bear in mind that you’re trying to persuade the judge(s), not your opponent(s) or your computer, and focus accordingly.

Weighing arguments. I don’t weigh all arguments equally. You can spread if you want, but the decision will go to the team that carries the majority of the most-substantive issues with greater impacts. I appreciate policy arguments (vs. theory), especially if they relate to law (e.g., the Constitution), economics, international trade (e.g., the WTO), international relations (e.g., the UN or international law), or government policy.

Organization. This is essential. Off-time roadmaps are okay. I try to flow carefully. Please structure your case with numbered/lettered points and sub-points. When refuting arguments, please cross-refer to your opponent(s) case structure (preferably by number/letter) and be very organized for me to keep track.

Resolutions. Please debate the resolutions. Thought has gone into these and their specific wording. Regardless of the form of debate, I prefer that students debate the resolution, and I am not a fan of “Kritiks,” “Alts,” or the like. Whatever the rubric or euphemism, if they relate specifically to the topic, okay, but if they are generic or primarily distractive, I may disregard them. In any event, they are no excuse for failing to deal with the current resolution, for failing to clash with the other side’s specific arguments, or for failing to organize your own points with a clear structure.

Ridiculous rulemaking. Please spare me any “observation” or “framework” that attempts to narrow the resolution or to impose all of the burden on your opponent(s) (e.g., “Unless the other side carries every issue, I win the debate”).

Other pet peeves. These include: not standing during speeches, answering for your partner, claiming that you proved something without reading evidence, claiming evidence says something it doesn’t, rudeness, speaking faster than you can organize thoughts, failing to clash, forgetting that debate is ultimately about persuasion, debating during prep time, etc. Avoid hyperbole: not every issue leads to “global thermonuclear war”.

Feedback. Some students find my feedback very helpful. Even if you don’t, it’s not a time for arguing against the decision or for being disrespectful, which is counterproductive with me.

My background. I was a Policy debater who also competed in Congress, Extemp, and OO. I’ve coached PF. I am an international business attorney and former law school professor, with a background in Economics and experience working on Capitol Hill. I also teach and tutor ELA, History, and SAT (Reading/Writing); words matter.

The above thoughts apply to all forms of debate. I judge a fair amount, primarily PF and L-D. Below are some thoughts specific to those types of debate:

PF—

--I prefer line-by-line refutation. I am not a fan of dropping or conceding arguments. I do not appreciate attempts to reduce the debate to “voters,” ignoring other arguments. This is particularly inappropriate when done during your side’s first two-minute speech.

--No “scripted” speeches after the initial presentations of cases. Clash is key.

--Framework is optional, not essential. It may not be used to narrow the resolution.

--Even though you are not required to present a plan, that can’t be used as a knee-jerk response to all arguments or questions concerning Solvency or Topicality.

--Remember that “There is no presumption or burden of proof in Public Forum Debate”.

L-D—

--I am not a fan of abstract philosophy. Any philosophical presentation must be tied specifically to the resolution and not presented in a generic vacuum.

--I don’t necessarily weigh framework over contentions.

--Your value and criterion should work with your contentions. Ideally, in discussing the relative merits of each side’s framework, explain specifically why your choice is more relevant rather than relying on a circular “chicken and egg” analysis (e.g., “My value comes before her value”).

Northview High School '20

2A/1N

Add me to email chains: manavirao38@gmail.com

LD:

1.) I’m a policy debater. Don’t assume that I know what you’re talking about. That being said, if you explain your arguments well and debate your best, you’ll win my ballot.

2.) I will hold LD debaters to all the standards I hold policy debaters to. Look below for more information. All preferences still apply.

3.) Speed is fine, but please please please be clear.

4.) I tend to evaluate framework first. That being said, win your value criteria and I'm much more likely to vote for you.

Some Top Level Stuff:

1.) "Tech over truth, no exception. Reading poor, ridiculous arguments like racism good, patriarchy good, suicide good, etc. will reflect in low speaks." - Faeez Juneja

2.) Clarity > Speed. Please don't try to go 100% speed if you're not going to be clear. I'll yell clear one time, then I'm docking speaks.

3.) Please, be nice. We come to debate to learn and have fun. I won't have fun and neither will anyone else in the room if you're not being nice.

Counterplan/DA

Love. Them. A good PIC that solves the aff and a good (or bad) DA/case turn as a net benefit is sure to get my ballot.

Take advantage of advantage counterplans - solving one impact and turning the other is a very underutilized strat that I like a lot.

Politics DAs: love them, but don't just throw evidence at me. Give me reasons why I should prefer your [x] evidence or why your [y] evidence is better than theirs. Often times these debate get so caught up in the cards that people forget what the cards say. I want evidence comparison - one super good link card can destroy 6 bad link turns.

Topic Specific DAs: I love topic specific DAs. The most compelling arguments is if you can explain why exactly the Aff's plan links to your impacts. You have to win that there is a very high chance of the link.

Kritiks

I like them. However, I'm not super versed in a lot of K literature. If you're reading something like Cap/Neolib or anything similar, great. Win the K. But if you're going to read some Bataille/Baudrillard/D&G mashup, you gotta explain the arguments to me and make me understand them. Only then can you win the flow.

T

I flow aff on T. I think that reasonability is a compelling argument that should beat most of the T violations this year as long as you win standards and impacts.

I do however like it when the aff mishandles T and the 2NR completely crushes them. So do your thing. If you think the aff mishandled T, explain it to me and I'll probably agree with you.

K Affs/Non-Traditional Affs

I don't have anything against them. If you can give me a reason why I should prefer a non-traditional form of debate, you'll be in a good spot. If not, I'm likely to vote neg on framework/T to preserve fairness/clash/education. I am familiar with cap, security and more policy leaning Ks, so if you are reading something I am not familiar with, be sure to take the time to actually explain it. I can't vote on something that I don't get.

Theory

Nothing but condo is a reason to reject the team. That being said, use other theory violations strategically to give you more leeway in your own arguments. I'm swayed easily by reciprocity.

I has been judging for a few years, and really enjoy it. I am a senior manager with a large company, and the author of some scientific papers and a book entitled GIS Technology Applications in Environmental and Earth Sciences (ISBN:9781498776059). I have been speaking at many conferences, including the United Nations GIS conference in New York City, October 2013.

I can handle faster than normal conversation speed, if you speak clearly. I don’t like you read your entire speech to me. Doing so will definitely cost you speaker points.

I evaluate teams based on the quality of their arguments, reputable evidences and sound analyses. Please make warranted arguments why I should prefer your cards over your opponent's cards. No new argument should be introduced in the final focus. I usually do my own research on the topic before I judge it, so I have some knowledge about it. But, my personal opinions have absolutely no influence on my judgement of yours, regardless of anything.

Also, I may pay attention to CX, and judge it. If you interrupt your opponent too much, you may lose points. You win by clearly delivering your convincing arguments, credible evidences and good analyses.

"Tout ce qui se conçoit bien s'énonce clairement, et les mots pour le dire arrivent aisément." ~Boileau

I vote on the clarity of the arguments and on the clarity of their articulation, so it is wise to avoid spreading.

I am looking for proof of your argument - make sure you cite cards throughout, and be clear about what point you are drawing from the evidence you're quoting.

Language matters! Don't assume that speaking faster / louder = making a stronger point. If the words you're using are not clear, or if your syntax / grammar is obscuring what you're trying to say, then it doesn't really matter how loudly you shout it or how fast you say it. There are plenty of examples of overemphasis in the world; be different. You should aim to stun your opponent & judge with an argument (or speech) that is worded with precision, starting from a solid framework, methodically laid out with a logical progression, and reinforced throughout with sound and airtight research / data that you have thoroughly cited.

Finally, but perhaps most importantly, be respectful of your opponent(s). You can and will lose your argument if you resort to incivility. Again, there are plenty of examples of rudeness in the world; be different. And please, keep your own time.

Ph.D., Emory. I've judged on the regional and national circuit, mainly LD and PF, although I've also judged speech a bit and quite enjoyed it. ;)

Email: lupadhyay@chapin.edu