For Lincoln-Douglas debates, I look for clearly articulated value and criterion, with opening case statement arguments that are closely related to the value and criterion.

Arguments that are overly structured with complicated subset points begin to lose effectiveness; a clean, clear structure is more convincing.

The pace of speaking should not be so rapid, in haste to make as many points as possible, that the judge cannot clearly discern the arguments being made. A well designed argument is more convincing than rushed speaking where the judge may not be able to acutally discern the points the debater is trying to make.

NEG should focus in the case statement period more on building a strong argument rather than using an inordinate fraction of time to initiate rebuttal; if the case statement is made stronger, and minimal time devoted to the beginning of rebuttal, the NEG argument will probably withstand AFF rebuttal better.

Both AFF and NEG should avoid such phrases in rebuttal like "...if you don't buy that argument..." Such language suggests uncertainty in the argument just presented, which undermines its effectiveness.

Debate: I make final decisions based on my flow.

I try to be as Tabula Rasa as possible.

LD: I appreciate robust value debates and constant decorum.

I am a traditional judge.

I expect to see an articulate, well reasoned debate.

I debated LD for four years at North Allegheny. I'm a flow judge. You should collapse and weigh. You shouldn't make new arguments in the 2NR/2AR, nor should you cheat (e.g. evidence ethics violations). For speaks, I start at a 27 and adjust up/down from there. This paradigm is deliberately short for faster reading; feel free to ask questions if you have any.

(If I am, by chance, judging circuit LD or policy, please ask before the round for my preferences. I'm not opposed to judging these kinds of rounds, but the information above is probably not of much use to you.)

I was my school's debate coach for five years and have been judging both public forum and Lincoln Douglas debates during that time period.  I am now retired but continue to judge for my former team. 

While I am ok with speed, please do not spread and be careful that you enunciate clearly.  If I can't understand what you are saying, I won't be able to flow your speech and I will be frustrated at the end of the round. 

I do work my way down the flow and prefer that debaters argue in the order of the flow.  I do pay attention to dropped points but only if there is additional commentary on why the drop is important. Organizational skills matter so please go in the order that items were mentioned and try not to bounce around. If a round is close, I do consider voting issues to be a good way to break ties so please leave yourself enough time to include them.

I also expect all competitors to be respectful of each other. I will dock points for outwardly rude or arrogant behavior.

This is my first year as a debate judge. I am a Toastmaster.

I will flow through the debate and track points. I am looking forward to hearing and following your arguments, therefore my preference is that you speak clearly and do not "spread". I would especially encourage you to slow down a bit when making key points. I expect competitors to be genuinely respectful of each other, especially during cross-fires. Points will be docked for arrogant or rude behavior.

I will be rooting for each and every one of you, and hoping that you enjoy the experience.

add me to the email chain: djwisniew@gmail.com

I am a fifth year parent judge and a former competitor in Policy in the late 80s. Currently, I judge for my kid who is a small school ld debater. Pref me high if you want a FLAY judge

No spreading - I do NOT appreciate spreading. Skimming through a document trying to figure out where you are is NOT debate. I need to be able to follow and understand your arguments and responses. Dazzle me with your intellect, not your speed. I will not be relying at the docs - they're only good for reference.

For LD circuit debate - It’s in your best interest to give me signposts (a lot of them, and be clear) - policy, case, K, disad, counter plan, etc. I will evaluate the flow per your direction. If T comes before case, tell me why and we're good. I like K when done well, but it's not an automatic win. I enter the round tabula-rasa, if you're running something complex please explain it well. Make sure I know where you are in the flow!

Note - Run disclosure theory at your own risk - I typically don't want to see it, take care of that yourselves.

For Parliamentary Debate - I judge you based on what you tell me, not what I know. I am tech over truth. There’s never a bad side of the motion. Argue what you’re comfortable with and make it an interesting round. I will be flowing all your arguments, and I make my decisions based on who convinces me their arguments are the strongest. You should tell me which issues are the most important and why you win those issues. Don’t forget to weigh, this is crucial to how I make my decisions! Any impacts are welcome. The extra 30 seconds are intended to complete a thought, not start a new one. Ties are awarded to the Opposition. Please rise when you want to interrupt with a question. Time pauses for POCs and POs, not POIs. Please be respectful to your opponents and have fun!

For all other debate most of the same points go - run whatever you’re comfortable with and I’ll judge the way you tell me to. I vote for the better debater. A list of preferences:

1. Contentions should be based on quality, not quantity. I’m not going to vote for you if you fly through 12 contentions and tell me your opponent dropped half of them.

2. Please be respectful to your opponent during cross. You’re debating, not bullying or belittling. You can be better than that. Your behavior will be reflected in your speaker points.

3. I will weigh all arguments carried through, and consider the impact of dropped arguments per your direction. (please don't drop your opponent's entire case) In LD, please weigh your argument against your framework. Framework is crucial in LD, and you should always have impacts. In all others, please clearly state how your impacts outweigh your opponent's.

4. I don't consider any new arguments in final speeches.

5. In your final speeches, please number or letter your voting points so we are all on the same page. I’ll flow you regardless, but it’s in your best interest.

Debate should be educational and fair. Good luck and have fun!