Do not speak too quickly as it does not allow me to fully grasp what you are saying. I understand that sometimes a lot of information needs to be shared, but not at the expense of understanding for those listening.

Pretend that I know nothing (but I do, I have a lot of judging experience) about your topic, which sometimes may be true, and explain what you think I may not know for clarity (i.e. abbreviations, acronyms, jargon, etc). Then convince me why your side should win.

Experience

I am new judge, though I competed in Speech and Debate for four years of high school, including a trip to nationals in Congress. I also competed at the national level in the Center For Civic Education's "We the People" in high school and have done College research on a few political topics.

Overall Paradigm

I prefer arguments and speeches that fully utilize all three aspects of the rhetorical triangle (unless the specific event dictates otherwise, such as with Policy or DI): Pathos, Ethos, and Logos. Over-relying on one of these to the detriment of the others is a fast way to lose out to an opponent who provided more well-rounded arguments. Using too much pathos and it will sound like a sob-story. Overusing logic will make you sound impassionate and like a robot. Relying too much on ethos risks falling into the appeal to authority Fallacy. The best way to convince me is to utilize all three in tandem.

Outside of policy, where it is perfectly acceptable, please do not spread or spew. I can't really judge if your argument is worth anything if I'm having trouble understanding it.

Signposts/Roadmaps are preferred, especially in debate events, though if its presence would clearly detract from the speech rather than help it isn't essential.

Where it is applicable, I weigh good writing and contentions about equally with strong presentation. However, having both of these skills is essential and will always win out.

In debate/congress, good research is an essential aspect of victory. Though I will not dock points if you state research that I know to be incorrect (even the most ridiculous data), if your opponent brings it up and successfully counters it that will count against you. Conversely, that means knowing more about a topic than your opponent will benefit you. If your opponent says something that is ridiculous it won't factor much into the rankings unless you notice the logical error and provide an effective counterargument, but if you do counter it I'll take notice and make sure it's praised.

Nuance Matters. Except in very, very unique cases, most issues are not solely black and white. There are both legitimate and illegitimate reasons people would support either side of any given political issue. Therefore, it is important not to label entire political groups with blanket derogatory statements, especially saying they are all evil, crazy, stupid, etc. Calling all trump supporters, all Sanders supporters, all gun rights activists, or all feminists bad people is not even slightly persuasive and is likely to alienate portions of your audience. Fairly acknowledging a potential opponent's beliefs shows them that you understand their concerns and makes them more receptive to listening to why they may be wrong. It's also just plain easier to refute a position you fully understand.

Congress

POing/Chairing: I'll attempt to weigh POing and giving speeches as equally as I can, meaning that it will do nothing to hold you back (unless you do a bad job) or boost you more than a speech will. The most important job of the Chair is to ensure the chamber remains orderly and follows Robert's rules. Doing an efficient job at running a session and enforcing the rules as best as you know them will warrant a good score. Running things slowly or consistently missing rule violations will result in a bad score. Though subtle bias is uncatchable, if bias in how the session is run becomes obvious than it will result in penalties.

During questioning, please try to keep questions and answers concise (as I'm sure fellow congressmen-women will repeatedly remind you). I will be paying attention to the Q and A and providing effective answers can boost your rankings in round. Providing bad answers (unless they are particularly poor) probably will have no effect on your overall ranking, but evasion tactics are very annoying. Even if you don't have any idea what the question is talking about, giving a poor but honest answer or simply saying 'I don't know' will irk me much less than intentionally providing an off-topic response.

After the second or third speech on a piece of legislation, I would prefer to see as few canned speeches on a question as possible. Going after previous points or providing new information to the debate will benefit you: repeating someone else's point for the fifth time will not.

Debate events

In Debate, I prefer speeches that directly respond to your opponent's points and opponent's criticisms of your points. Simply repeating your points without providing rebuttals doesn't cut it.

Questioning the credibility of an opponent's source is often a perfectly valid argument (and will get noticed if its done well). However, be careful to recognize that bias alone doesn't make a source credible. For example, while Vox and the Daily Wire are extremely left and right-wing respectively, both usually get the underlying facts right even though they always spin it in favor of their party.

In your later speeches, it isn't enough of a rebuttal to simply claim that you've proven something is the case. You have to actually review, even for just 10-20 seconds, what proves that your point is true or that your opponent's point isn't true.

Clear, concise, and respectful. Establish and deliver a road map I can follow. Words are powerful. You are powerful.

Edit in progress! It will reflect the fact that I have not coached policy in a few years. Still a fan, but I'm rusty on what all the cool kids are doing these days.

Policy:

I'm happy judging whatever crazy, creative argument you think you can make me believe (which you will do by providing awesome evidence, links, etc.) BUT you better enunciate those crazy arguments clearly. My number one pet peeve in policy debate is debaters who try to spread but stutter and stumble through their speeches. I can flow as fast as you can speak, but if I can't understand what you're saying, I will say "clear" once or twice, and then simply not flow what I can't understand.

I'm fine with tag-teaming in cx.

If the round is shared via email chain, I'd prefer you still make an effort to say actual words.

A few caveats to the "I'll buy anything" -

I'm fine with Ks, but it's got to be a pretty killer kritik for me to vote on one K alone - it's more likely I'll weigh it as part of a larger strategy.

PICs are abusive as they take too much affirmative ground, BUT occasionally there's a PIC that justifies the existence of PICs, and those make me happy.

Run topicality if it's justified. If it's not, and you're running four Ts as a time-suck, I won't buy any of them.

I prefer textually competitive CPs. If it's only competitive through a link to a DA, then I'm going to give it the stink eye. Never say never - I do periodically vote for arguments I claim not to like - but you better advocate for that CP really, really well.

IN summary with the PICs, Ts and CPs - just run a good, relevant argument. If you're throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks, I'm probably going to dismiss it as crap. But if you're confident it's an awesome argument, tell me why I should buy it; it's distinctly possible I will, just understand those arguments have a higher threshold for me.

Signpost, give me clear voters, be polite. When a team starts showing contempt for their opponents, I start looking for reasons to vote against them.

And have fun.

Lincoln Douglas:

Value/Value Criterion Clash - I expect you to have a clear value and value criterion, but I use them as a way to evaluate the round (framework), not as a voting issue (unless they're really, really bad, abusive, or maybe unexpectedly brilliant). Show why you meet your opponents' v/vc as well as your own, or why yours makes much more sense in context of the round, then move on. It's probably not going to be a big independent voter for me.

If you're doing circuit LD - please don't make it dumbed-down policy. Arguments still need to be fully developed, relevant to the topic, and coherently articulated.

If you're doing traditional LD - I appreciate someone who can talk pretty, I really do, but I want to see CLASH. Weigh arguments. Compare sources, and delve into what cards actually say. I like to vote for debaters who can help me see the big picture in the round, but can also weave a convincing narrative out of all the minutiae.

As with all debate - be confident, be aggressive, but don't be a jerk.

Public Forum:

I'm fine with speed in PF - but same as other debates, enunciate clearly!

More than any other debate, I expect PFers to be respectful of opponents. Be confident, be aggressive, and never show contempt.

Please maintain a consistent strategy between both partners' speeches - you need to be on the same page as to what you're going for and how you argue things. If I see two different debates from one partnership, I don't know what I'm supposed to vote for, so I'll usually vote for the other team.

Most (not all, but most) topics benefit from a framework, so have one! Tell me how to evaluate the round so I can judge the debate on what's debated, not on my preconceived notions of what's important.

I am okay with paraphrased evidence, but make sure to represent the facts and perspectives of your sources accurately. If I ask for a card after the round, I want to see the paragraph before the portion (highlighted) read, the paragraph after, and of course, the evidence itself, with all non-read portions viewable as well. Do not send or show me a 30-page journal article.

I prefer that you begin to narrow the debate in your summary speech, and then highlight voters in your final focus. Maybe that's obvious?

Anyone, good luck, have fun.

I am a former high school/college debate participant in policy and extemporaneous speaking. I also coached debate at the high school level back when evidence and speeches were on paper and I am currently an assistant high school coach.

Policy

Arguments should be balanced with evidence and logic. Speak clearly and road map for me. I prefer impacts or benefits to be quantifiable but I’m flexible if strong enough arguments are made.

Individual Events

Speech competitors will see a higher ranking if they are articulate and tell me why their topic is important. A strong conclusion is a must for a top ranking. Higher rankings for memorized speeches.

LD

I will judge the round based on persuasiveness of arguments. Strong connection of value to criterion is a must.

PF

Persuasiveness and ability to demonstrate an understanding of arguments is key. Please clash. Clarify voters.

Debate:

I would rather hear a slow, clear argument than a rapid argument that is hard to follow. Chart a path that makes it easy for me to flow your arguments through.

Persuade me with reasoning, weighing, and any arguments you were able to turn to your benefit. Don't use circular reasoning or tautologies ("it's true because it's true"); instead, show evidence for your claim and attach impacts -- otherwise, I can't see a path to voting for you.

Don't try to win by criticizing the other team with minor points of order; wonky theory or K arguments will only make the round harder for me to discern. Strong reasoning, evidence, weighing, and persuasion are key for me. Still, if the other team does something that warrants mention, please do so as it could tip the scales in your favor. And I'm a big fan of Aristotle's appeals, but keep it all in balance. I won't be persuaded by a charismatic argument that doesn't have support or impacts.

For me, tech>truth, pretty much every time. However, see my note above about points of order; if you choose to critique the other team, I will judge that critique based on the merits of your argument, not your detailed knowledge of how policy debate works. Same goes for DAs and counterplans. It all comes down to clarity, reasoning, evidence, weighing, and who can convince me that their policy is best, using all the techniques of good flow debaters.

Finally, extend and weigh. If you drop a contested argument, then I'll drop it as well. Same with an uncontested argument; it flows through.

I typically don't evaluate cross, and I will reduce speaks for aggressive behavior.

Speech:

Eye contact. Eye contact. Eye contact. Try not to trail words; be confident of your delivery, and move with purpose. Show some passion if appropriate but also vary your voice dynamics. Be memorable but do not do this at the expense of a cohesive, well-styled delivery.

For Debate Rounds:

I enjoy flowing rounds. I expect debaters to speak to be understood and to forward their arguments with meaningful warrants AND impacts. I caution the use of spreading. I should not have to read your case in order to be able to track your arguments if you are speaking to be understood. Evidence that is left to speak for itself carries less weight for arguments than evidence that is contextualized and explained how it is being used within the argument as well as the round. I focus on how well debaters utilize Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. Your delivery (respect for opponents, and connection with the judge) and use of evidence fits under ethos. Your pathos increases when you are able to explain how what you are arguing matters--don't just state that it does. Logos implies logic, so make sure that you make sense. Finally, don't hide and gloss over your definition of the resolution. I need to know what you are debating. Regarding speaker points: speakers who are respectful during CX to their opponent, who roadmap and signpost their speeches, and who speak to be understood are awarded higher points.

For Individual Speaking Events:

Utilize your voice and body to convey your message to the judge. Contextualize your sources as you cite them orally. Roadmap and signpost your presentations. Regardless of the event, make your topic matter for your audience. 

I judged many years of debate and IE events except policy. I can handle any speed but do not like the speed of progressive policy. Every event has its rules and structures, I like road map and framework, they help a lot to see whether the person or the team is sticking with their flow.

LD, l look for things that whether the value and value criterion line up with their contentions. Evidence credible or not. Speaker has the fire along their speech or argments but not sound yelling?

PF, team needs to know their topic well. Time management on speech whether things are well organized by FW or flow, evidence always important in PF. Wrong information under my knowledge, definitely out some points from me. Plan should not be spending time during in PF, it is not policy event. Speaker point should be high with high convincing tone and voice but not yelling.

Please do not spend time in rule argument, I want hear your opinions on the topic!

I am so happy to be here and judge this round today!

A few paradigms I have for Lincoln-Douglas Debate:

1) I am looking for a traditional debate with lots of clash. CPs are not preferred. If you are wanting to run something more progressive just know that there is a HIGH burden of explanation. I would only run a K with me as a judge if you were REALLY confident and, even then, I would not recommend doing so.

2) Remember to focus on the arguments! Not the opponent, don't make it personal. Don't be rude, belittle, or unnecessarily cut somebody off. Respect and Humility are core principles of the NSDA's Code of Honor and I expect them to be upheld throughout the round.

3) I'm huge on impact calculus! Give me all the implications and weigh your impacts. I honestly like you to spell them out for me. Say, "judge, this is a _____ (high magnitude, probability, etc.) impact because..." and I would eat that up. Weigh those impacts against your opponents; why should I care more about yours?

4) Voters are a big must for me because it shows me that you can consolidate to at least three main reasons why you win the round and it easily crystallizes the round.

5) Housekeeping: remember to signpost. If you drop an argument and your opponent addresses that, you lose the argument (aka manage your time wisely so you don't drop arguments or, if you do, have reasoning to do so).

I don't believe LD is a place for spreading. If you talk too fast, I will stop flowing.

I'm a pretty straightforward judge. Be clear and concise in speeches, carry your points and contentions through the round as well as your opponent's. Be prepared and professional, I prefer debaters time themselves and don't use gendered pronouns in referring to their opponent. Along with that, I urge for political correctness in the round, arguing something that is explicitly racist, sexist, ableist, xenophobic, homophobic, transphobic, etc. will not help your case. Beyond that have fun and take it easy.

likes

clash (esp. in CX)

strong Neg CPs

strong solvency advocates

impact calc

argument extensions + line-by-lines

dislikes

disorganization

convoluted args

under-developed/non-extended args

As a surgeon, scientist and educator, I value confidence, diction, organization, data and presence for speech events. Have a little fun with it.

For debate events, I will flow. I value data and speaking ability. It is in your best interest for me to be able to understand your argument. You run risk of being marked down if you are speaking so quickly I can't understand you. I will weigh your citations. I am less likely to weight impact especially if this is taken to an absurd extreme (e.g, I have lived long enough to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that not every offense leads to nuclear war)

1. Please be polite/respectful to your opponents in round. You don’t earn any favors by being rude.
2. I did debate in high school so I know how important the flow is. However, after judging for a few years I realized it’s easier for me to leave you real time comments on your ballots rather than spend the whole round tracking your flow and frantically try to write my comments after. This doesn’t mean I don’t care about flow! I’m still following along even if I’m not writing it down. Make sure you’re telling me what on the flow I need to pay attention to.
3. I will not provide time. I think it’s actually better for you to keep track of your own time and will help you feel more confident in the round! But mostly, it’s just too hard for me to provide good thought out comments on your ballot and track the timer. With this I don’t really care about grace periods. Finish your thoughts and be done.
4. I’m fine with whatever speed you use. Just remember, if your opponent can’t understand you, the whole round is going to be a mess for both parties. That makes it hard for me to leave good comments if there’s nothing good to leave them on, you know?
5. I don’t judge on crossfire so you don’t need to impress me there! However, I am in the room so my first point still stands. Be aggressive! I don’t care. Being rude probably won’t get you any more answers though.
6. Most importantly, as absolutely cliche as it is, just have fun! You and me probably won’t remember a single thing you said after the 1 hour period we spend together, so don’t take it too seriously!

That’s it! If you have any questions for me asking them right after round when the whole thing is fresh in my brain is usually best, but feel free to email me too! (Or I guess you can approach me in that weird cautious walk like I’m some scared endangered animal wandering the hallways and ask your questions!)

Email: makayla.mail@gmail.com

I'm a big fan of framework in PF debate, I want you to give me the reason why I should be holding your impacts above those of your opponents. And no, impact calc is not a framework its the point of PF debate. That being said, if you don't do any impact calc I will not vote on your impacts. Unique and interesting arguments welcome but they better be well researched and have strong internal logic. I don't flow cross but I am paying attention to it, make it productive. I expect everyone to be professional and kind. Grace periods are ok down to like a couple of extra seconds but please don't abuse it. Also, I don't disclose or provide feedback after rounds but I try to write the most I can on the ballot.

Policy Debate experience primarily

Policy Maker and Stock Issues Paradigm

Speak at a pace that I can understand you at, anything I can't hear will not be on the flow and cannot 'magically' appear at a later time through the debate. I flow all evidence, logic will win me. If your argument does not make sense in any regard, or if you ask yourself if your argument makes sense and your answer is "sort of", "yes, but this..." or any others, don't run it. No proliferation unless realistically applicable. For PF and LD I track all arguments made on all points; evidence and reasoning is my main voter. Whoever wins the most contentions wins the ballot, but this can only be done if the team extends, cross applies, etc. evidence and information to be considered for that point. If it is not mentioned, I will not vote on it.

The purpose of a debate is to persuade me to your side, to convince me you are right.

A consistent, concise and well supported case articulately presented is the key.

With that in mind:

- Give me a roadmap so I know where you are going;

- Summarize at the end so I know where you think you won;

- Evidence is important, but appeals to logic, history and analogy can also be persuasive;

- Make sure I can understand your argument—volume (in decibels or number of words) does not compensate for an unclear or unsupported argument;

- Do not use jargon—I am a judge, not a debate groupie;

- Be considerate—shouting your opponent down is not the same thing as convincing me.

My background:

In high school (so long ago), I participated in Lincoln-Douglas and Congress. In law school, I was a finalist at the Oxford International IP Moot Court.

I am a patent lawyer and litigator, having argued before federal courts in California, Illinois, Texas, and Virginia, among others.

A little bit about me:

Debated Public Forum for 4 years in high school.

I am addicted to chapstick, (Burt's bees) so if I put on chapstick a lot during the round that's why.

I want to be your friend, probably.

Judging style:

Be respectful to each other, but I like a little sass lol.

I don't flow cross and usually don't listen.

Be sure to weigh for me so I don't have to.

Warrants are essential. If you can't back up your evidence with logical reasoning and warrants then the argument is not an argument at all.

Defense is key. Frontlining in second rebuttal is ideal.

I enjoy unique arguments, but your link chain needs to be established clearly. I won't weigh arguments that don't make sense.

I am fine with speed as long as you can be understood by the opponents and myself.

Sign posting is a MUST. Roadmaps should not be longer than 5 seconds.

Don't ignore contradicting evidence and continue to restate your evidence as an answer, INTERACT with your opponents evidence and explain why I prefer yours over theirs. Same goes for warrants. PLEASE compare your warrants and why I prefer yours over theirs.

I am a fan of organization in your speeches. Tell me where you are going. I lose a lot of motivation to flow if you jump around randomly every .2 seconds.

I don't want to be confused at the end of the round. Make sure your FF is clear.

If your opponents are saying something abusive or untrue, there is no need to get visibly frustrated to let me know what they are saying isn't right. Like you I also have ears, so take a deep breath and maintain your composure. I will catch it.

Please don't take 78483927 years to pull up your evidence. I will be very very sad. :/

When you are reading evidence you need to take prep! I'm really not out here tryna stay in one round for 2 hours.

You can run anything as long as it makes sense, but as a PSA I do not have a lot of experience with theory or K's, so if you run theory, you better approach it as if you are explaining it to a white suburban mother of 6.

PLEASE make the round fun. I beg of you. If you make me laugh, I will increase your speaker points by 0.2

These are super basic principles, so if you have detailed questions you can email me at hunterjakesteele@gmail.com

I am a flow judge. I need signposting and don't drop arguments unless you explain why it is no longer relevant. Don't look at your opponent in round, specifically cx. Don't use gendered pronouns to refer to your opponents (use they/them or "my opponent/s"). Above all else, anything explicitly racist, sexist, xenophobic, transphobic, homophobic, ableist, etc. will not help your case--and depending on the severity I will stop the round.

I am a parent judge and have been judging for about 6 years - primarily IE, PF, LD, and Congress. I am a marketing professional with a large software company, but also have experience in public policy research (I have a master in public administration). I love data -- so feel free to provide a lot of evidence to back up your contentions. Just be sure that it is relevant and logical. I take "tech" over "true" and expect opponents to question data/evidence and point out falsehoods.

Please do not spread -- you will lose the debate because I will not be able to follow you. Speak up, use eye contact. When doing debate virtually, please don't stand too far away from your laptop and check in once in awhile to be sure that the connection is still sound.

Please provide me with sign-posts -- where you are on the flow and when you move to the opposition's case. Be sure to let me know your voters and what to weigh. Let me know the impacts of your contentions/arguments and why they matter.

For speaker points, focus on showing me your strategy, thought process, impacts, sign-posts. Extend your arguments and explain well. Don't just repeat yourself, but further your argument and explain why your side will have the best outcome (impact).

Some other points:

- Don't use gratuitous profanity. There are so many words in the English language that you don't need to swear.
- No K-debates. Please debate the given topic. You won't win if you veer away from the topic
- Be kind. Be passionate about your argument, but don't get mean or condescending
- Be sure of your facts. If you bring something about current events into the argument, be sure that you are clear about the facts. I read the paper too, although I will not bring my own knowledge of the events into my judging until your opponents bring up the falsehood. It just reflects badly.
- Don't be too catastrophic in your impact, unless you really can show that, in all probability, the end of the world is at hand