Preferences

Speed: I am a new judge to debate so PLEASE refrain from spreading! If I can’t keep up it’ll be hard to understand the information I am being given.

Argumentation: I am looking for a debate not just who can speak the best. So with that being said:

• Do not bring up any new arguments or ideas not made prior to the summary speech.

• If your opponent(s) drop or conceded to an argument let me know. Don’t expect me to catch every single statement made. I am still new to this.

• Extend your arguments.

• I am not a fan of Ks and theories. I have never witnessed one, so I will not know how to judge one.

I'm a third-year parent judge with lots of experience judging LD, though I'm still a traditional judge who will not evaluate the extremely technical side of LD debate.

The framework debate is most important, and you should have a value and value criterion. These things should be clearly stated along with your contentions, and I would prefer if you avoided policy jargon (e.g., "fiat," "perm," "pic," etc.) and didn't spread, because I will not be able to follow it.

That all being said, I've become more open to progressive arguments like kritiks and counterplans. There is a caveat to this: your arguments should be clearly explained and presented in a format that is understandable - you should still have a framework even if running a counterplan or other similar argument. Err on the side of extreme caution when reading progressive arguments in front of me.

I always try my best to check my biases at the door, and I will try to evaluate the round using only arguments presented in round.

Congressional Debate:

I have judged and/or been parliamentarian at local, regional and national tournaments, including Isidore Newman, Durham Academy, the Barkley Forum and and Harvard. My students have found success at both the national and state levels.

POs- I default to you. Remember, your tone as PO has a big influence on tone of the chamber. Be efficient, clear and consistent and have fun.

As far as the round and debate within the round, consistency is important to me. The way you speak and vote on one piece of legislation should most indeed influence your position on similar limitation unless you tell me otherwise. Debate and discourse does not exist in a vacuum.

Acting/characterization is fine as long as there is a reason and has a positive impact.

Finding a balance of logos, ethos and pathos is important. Difficult to accomplish in three minutes? Absolutely. The balance is what gets my attention.

I'll be honest. I don't like when debate jargon leaks into the chamber. SQUO, affirmative/negative, counterplan, link/turn, etc. This event is it's own unique event with norms.

Additionally, Student Congress is not Extemp-lite. If you are trying for three points in a speech, how do I know what to focus on? If everything is equally important then nothing is important. Take a stance, go for the impact and make the balance between logic and emotional to persuade. Include previous debate points, elucidate your point of view and have fun.

I debated in high school and also was active in Model UN over 20 years ago. I help out my wife who is a speech and debate coach. My job as a judge is to serve as a neutral party. I would rather a competitor make two (2) or three (3) coherent arguments than run with ten (10) ill-conceived attacks. I will not vote based on a dropped specious argument. For example, if someone drops or fails defined a word such as "is". Only run or attack definitions if they are actually pertinent. The average conversation occurs at sixty (60) words per minute. Some debaters speak up to three hundred (300) words per minute. You would never do this in real life. Do not do it in a debate!! Imagine I am a CEO or an executive within the Intelligence Community. Each competitor should work to provide clear arguments to let the judge make a decision. In real life an "elevator pitch" may be the only time you have with a senior leader.

My background is criminal justice/law enforcement/intelligence community. I hold graduate degrees in public administration and national security studies. I judge based on evidence and arguments. In most cases my range of speaker points is between 25-30. If you get below 25 you were either completely unprepared or did something unethical.

In debate/public forum run with whatever plans you want. It is your round. Non-traditional or "outside the box" arguments are okay. I tend to put more emphasis on a good summary and final focus. Tell me why I should vote for your team. I do not flow the cross. I tend to keep very general notes of the cross. I do not disclose. My ballot is normally submitted very quickly after the round. So you will know who won.

I am actually a Speech judge so I will be looking for proper syntax and good delivery. I will weigh arguments with ethos and pathos heavier. Please do not spread or I will deduct points.

I have judged Public Forum Debate as well as most speech events [Impromptu, Extemp, Dramatic, Humorous, Duo, POI, Original Oratory, and Informative Speaking]. I've judged this variety of speech events for 4 regional tournaments this season.

When I'm judging speech I'm looking for speakers to be practiced, confident, and engaging. I look particularly for good speech organization/clarity. I expect speakers to have good poise [meaning good posture, avoiding distracting movement, loud & clear speaking, as well as professionalism - no hands in pockets, shuffling feet, touching hair, etc.].

I coach PF Debate and have judged LD for 15+ years. I love to see professionalism, real logic in cases and rebuttals, impeccable speaking skills, and good time management. Please avoid barraging me with questions about my expertise before the round starts.

“Off-time road maps” serve no purpose. Framework and observations are not just for show; I weigh them throughout the round. Spreading does not belong in PF or LD, and I will not flow arguments that I cannot hear.

Good argumentation matters the most to me. I should hear incisive warrants to support all claims. Your impacts should be specific and resonate throughout your contentions. Good debaters achieve turns and can group arguments well.

In regard to PF:

Summary speeches should, above all, situate the round and extend the rebuttal.

Try not to turn the round into just an “evidence-off”. Know when to move on from a dispute over one piece of evidence.

In the Final Focus, you must weigh arguments with specificity and effective persuasion, but the focus should be on the holistic argument and impacts, not line-by-line analysis at that point.

I don't give long-winded verbal feedback at the end of rounds, but I try to give an abundance of ballot comments for your benefit.