I am a lay judge. I have been judging for around 3 - 4 years for parliamentary debate.

I am a parent judge who has participated a few debate events previously. I prefer solid logic and clear presentation, and I believe the structure and quality of the arguments/evidence should be way more important than the quantity and density (i.e. talking speed) of the information conveyed.

I also like to see the debaters treat their opponents in a respectful manner. In my opinion, the debate process is a very good pathway to get the very best out of yourself and learn to think critically and efficiently, and from this perspective, the strong competition indeed benefits both sides greatly and they are actually helping each other, so why not feel grateful?

At the end of the day, I would enjoy seeing and listening to a passionate human with deep thinking on the debated issues, as well as open mind to recognize the balance of conflicting forces in almost everything. Choosing a side helps you think with focus , but is not meant to limit your thinking into a narrow bandwidth.

I don't pay attention during cross fire. Anything brought up in cross fire has to be brought up in the next speech for it to be weighed. All impacts need to be clearly stated.

Just speak clearly. Anything over 150 wpm will not be flowed.