I was a successful policy debater in high school, many years ago. I've been judging parli rounds for the last 2.5 years. I can flow your round and assess your argumentation, but I won't be up on the latest debate jargon. You'll need to explain the arguments you make and not assume that a quick label or phrase can make an argument for you. I can flow and follow a fast spread debate, but my preference is for speaking that is not faster than normal speech.

I will judge based on the content of the round, and in principal I'm open to any argument you want to make. I enjoy creative arguments, but I'm skeptical of theory that allows either side to ignore the topic or avoid clash. I expect rebuttal speakers to focus on the critical issues, sum up the debate with intelligence, and explain why they've won and how to make a decision.

I am a parent judge (not a technical judge) and appreciate well organized evidence supported argumentation. I appreciate pleasant, non aggressive presentations. Please show respect to your judges and other debaters.

Please speak slowly, restrain from jargon as possible (or explain) and summarize your main points briefly (only once) at end of your time slot.

Hi everyone,

My judging paradigm is pretty simple. Whoever is the most convincing, has the most logical case, and whoever provides the most historical warrants will win my favor. I do enjoy t's, but mostly just convince me you're right and you will win.

Do NOT spread!!!!!!

I am a first-time parent judge.