I am a parent judge, and am so impressed by the work and effort that all of you have gone to in order to debate today -- so please know that first of all. Having said that, I expect clear, concise and coherent speaking of a reasonable pace; please no spreading. I want to be able to understand all of the arguments you have prepared, but if you speak too quickly or spread, I cannot evaluate you properly. I am looking for organized, structured arguments, and will be a big fan of clearly articulated contentions, evidence/sources, and quick thinking cross-examinations. Please give me full-circle argumentation from contentions to voting issues, and please note I would value quality over quantity all day long. Come prepared to time yourselves, but I will also be timing to hold accountable. Be courteous, respectful and professional during the debate which will only enhance your performance from my perspective.

I have been judging debate tournaments for three years mostly in PF format and a few times in LD and Congress. I look for well researched and logical presentations and preferably not speed reading. Being able to offer good strong counter arguments to your opponents' contentions will score points in your favor.

Past Experience

Debated at Hamilton High School (AZ) in Policy for 4 years.

Philosophy

I am fine with any arguments, but just make sure to articulate the warrants and engage in the debate on an at least somewhat resolutional level. That being said, I am a fan of Ks, but not so much theory/topicality. I will still buy all arguments, though, so run what you are comfortable with. I am not as concerned with the performance of the debate as opposed to the quality of the argumentation (unless of course the performance is a key part of the case)

General

Not gonna count random stuff as prep, but don’t take advantage of that and still make sure you’re not doing work if you’re not taking prep.

Roadmaps/signposting is a MUST, it will be very difficult to flow every argument otherwise, which may come back to hurt you in the end.

I will say clear and/or slow if you are incoherent - speaks get docked after the second time.

Speaker Point Distributions (I am more influenced by quality of argumentation than speaking performance):

30 — Nearly perfect, everything that needed to be covered was covered and articulated well

29.5 — Extremely well-articulated and thorough debate

29-29.5 — Strong, skilled arguments

28.5-29 — Solid

27.5-28.5 — Average, argumentation could have been better

Below 27.5 — Lots of work needs to be done, key arguments were not addressed or argued properly

Extra 0.5 speaker points for making me laugh or any UNC bashing

I have been judging for about 3 years. I expect you to demonstrate your knowledge and depth of the content as well as the ability to make a confident argument towards your stance. Clear and logical communication is key. Fast conversational speed is acceptable.

This is my 3rd year judging high school LD. I judge based on what I can understand, so that is bad news for those who "spread" because I cannot evaluate the merits of your argument if I cannot follow the words in spite of my best effort. I prefer logically consistent arguments, supported by evidence. In real life, demagoguery often wins debates, but I have not yet met anybody polished enough to pull that off in any of the LD events that I have judged. It is a high bar but I have great expectations and respect for everybody who is brave enough to engage in a public verbal duel.

I'm flow oriented and prefer that debaters explicitly state and weigh impacts. I like to include authors' names when I flow; please read them clearly.

I've judged LD for a long time. I want to make a moral decision, and I'm looking for the side that best walks me through why I should affirm or negate. I want to see both sides treat each other with respect, I don't wake up early and give up my weekends to hear snotty kids spew blippy arguments.

There are valid arguments to be made on both sides of a Lincoln Douglas resolution, and there will be evidence on both sides. I vote on the debate as a whole, rather than using the flow as a scorecard in terms of the number of arguments advanced. I enjoy cases that have clear values and criteria that provide substantive reasoning as to the most important issues in the round. I do not enjoy cases with messy, generic values or criteria that don't really tell me anything and leave me with 2 sets of contentions bouncing off each other.

I'm not a fan of extremely meta or theory laden cases, and if you have a case that is really off-the-wall and a case that is more straight down the middle, I'd prefer the straight down the middle one. I'm not going to vote against you simply because I don't like your approach, but in general I don't find those sort of arguments compelling. The more convoluted your case, the more receptive I am to simple arguments from your opponent. Word salad debate jargon isn't a substitute for a compelling argument.

If you feel that you've made a good point in cross-ex, mention it in your rebuttal and tell me why it is important. Please remember that this is not a TV courtroom drama where you are the prosecutor trying to get your opponent to confess on the witness stand. I've never seen a round decided on a trick question during cross ex. The best uses of cross ex that I've seen involve making clear how your opponents' case works and in setting up the core conflicts that will be in the round.

I don't shake hands, but I'll give you a fist bump. There are too many illnesses out there.

I have a fairly straightforward perspective on my judging preferences. I am very much a traditional flow judge. I do not prefer progressive styles. I don't prefer spreading, and if a debater speaks so quickly that I have trouble understanding them, I will not be able to prefer their arguments.

Backing up your arguments with convincing evidence and telling me specifically why I should prefer your evidence over your opponent's will help you win the round. Extending your arguments throughout the flow and pointing out to me any concessions your opponent made in cross-ex or any arguments dropped by your opponent will greatly strengthen your case. Voter issues are helpful. Explain to me the reasons for why you believe you won the round. Clarity of thought and logic for me will trump fast speech every time.

Been judging debate (PF and LD only) for almost 20 years. Coached PF at Cary Academy last year. While I try to stay up on the "technical stuff," to me, this misses the point of debate as an educational or, for that matter, a persuasive activity. So, while I can probably follow whatever case you want to run, put me in the truth (vs tech) camp. Running a well executed rhetorically sound argument will be the best way to win my ballot.

As for style, clear communications will win the day. Can probably flow at whatever speed you choose to run, but I don't value quantity over quality, whereas I do value clarity over vagary.

In addition to advancing rhetorically sound arguments, I expect debaters to find the clash in the round and give me a standard with which to weigh it. Don't expect me to do that work for you. You don't want me imposing my sensibilities by picking some arbitrary standard for the round. Moreover, between two sound cases, I will prefer any reasonable standard to no standard at all (even for an otherwise compelling/sound cases). Word of caution, though, don't let the round devolve into a pure weighing debate. At the end of the day, I will vote for the side that presents the most compelling case for affirming or negating the resolution.

I am a parent judge who has been judging at local tournaments for a few years.

I have been judging all forms of Speech and Debate for 5 years. I competed in Congress during my time as a competitor

I prefer to have a structured debate that has a progressive flow on both sides of the argument. Aggressive debate is fine but competitors should remain cordial to each other throughout the debate. All debate is point structured, so the win or loss is allocated to the competitor who both makes the better point and defends best against their opponent.

Organization is key for me as a judge. Your debate needs to follow a logical order with cohesiveness, if I can't understand the argument than I will have a much harder time judging it.

The most important aspects of a debate in terms of wins and losses is an evidence based approach that addresses all arguments in a manner of completeness. Leaving an opening within the debate is a sign of lack of preparation and will be judged accordingly. I expect all competitors to be aware of NSDA rules and regulations within their debating structure.

Background info: Former Policy Debater (Ohio), History, Government and Econ Teacher (NC), American History Professor (NC) BA in History and Poli sci, MA in American History (emphasis on Women's history). I now coach LD, PF, Congress and Speech events and have had the pleasure of jumping into World Schools.

I'm pretty easy going and do not mind spreading in LD so long as you are clearly speaking when doing it. Not such a fan of PF speaking super quickly as that's not really the point of that event. Make good use of time but don't rush it. Outside of that in these events feel free to ask for any other concerns you may have. Happy to answer before a round starts.

Update on WSD: I do value the flow but also want to see WS norms happening in the round. Take POIs and engage with each other when time allows. I'm not a huge fan of first speech getting into refutation as two other speeches do that I would rather 1st speech take some POIs and develop your sides case. Please remember this is WSD US centric arguments happen based on the motion but I really value some international attention happening regardless of motion as I think it shows broader understanding of the World as a whole .Not to mention a countries decisions do not occur in a bubble and international events do impact other countries decisions, US included.

I am new to LD, but look forward to judging. I am a parent of four, and an avid reader with an interest in a variety of perspectives. I am also a fan of politics, (old school) and have experience in the journalism profession, (also old school). As an LD judge, I will value strength and consistency of a well researched argument. I’m sure I will be impressed by those who best demonstrate clarity of position, and perception in discerning and refuting opponents’ assertions.

Heather Weisz

I competed in Lincoln Douglas for 3 years in New Mexico, which is a fairly traditional circuit. I've had experience with more progressive debate both through my participation with SWSDI and generally being up to date with CX strategy.

Debate Paradigms
I believe LD is, at its core, a value-driven debate, so I hold the framework debate quite highly in my consideration. This doesn't mean I want you to spend half of the 1AR/NC on the framework debate. I really don't care whether you have a debate or drop your framework and choose to run with your opponents -- I do, however, need your arguments to uphold your value. When I make my ultimate decision on the round, I will weigh each of the major arguments on the winning value. Make this easy for me by making the link from your impacts to the value clear. If I don't think it's important on the value, I don't really care who wins that argument.

Progressive/Traditional Debate
You're free to talk as fast as you want. I'll yell "clear" if you need to slow down and/or annunciate better. You should also pay attention to my facial expressions -- you'll know if you're talking too quickly.
I've run Ks, Ts, and theory shells before, but it's been four years. You're free to run them, just make sure 1) they're relevant and necessary to the round (aka explicitly state your impacts), and 2) you explain everything quite clearly.
I've been steeped in a lot of critical theory throughout my education, so there's a pretty high chance I'll know what you're talking about if you run some critical theory.

General Paradigms
Don't be rude.
Please, for the love of God, signpost. Clean flow = happy judge
Again, pay attention to my facial expressions. I'm pretty good about emoting whether or not I buy your argument -- and if I don't, it's probably in your best interest to slow down/explain your logic and evidence more clearly.
I'm fine with flex prep as long as you also have an actual substantial 3 minutes of CX. Put it this way -- CX can bleed into prep, prep cannot bleed into CX.
I drop my pen once time ends. You're free to keep talking, but nothing's making it onto the flow. Actually, strike that. Stop talking once time ends.
I care deeply about evidence in rounds -- please engage the actual statistics and articles your opponent's using, even if it's just "prefer my card because _____." I will ask for any cards I might need to look at for clarification, but if you don't argue it, I can't vote on it. I'll just end up writing my notes about the evidence and not vote on that card -- but don't make me do that.