Background: I have been judging speech and debate for the last four years. I have a lot of respect for the amount of research and time that goes into preparing and delivering a quality debate.

Style: I prefer traditional debate, delivered at a traditional speed, with value and criterion and clear contentions and subpoints. I judge the round based on your framework, impact analysis and flow. Please be very clear about the impacts of your arguments. Saying things like "the magnitude of my/my opponent's impact is x" will go far towards my understanding of the voting issues in the round. If your framework is complex, please explain it very clearly. The winner of the round will be the one who most clearly presented their side of the argument, defended it, and attacked their opponent's. I will flow with you, and will be tracking each of the arguments. My own opinions on the topic will never be a factor in my decision.

Speed: I prefer conversational pace. Rate of speed does not factor into my decision. If you speak too quickly, however, I might miss important elements of your case. Please signpost your contentions and subpoints slowly and clearly so I can flow with you. You can also share your case with me to help with this. My email is sharmilla@venturelearning.org

Cross-X and Voters: I appreciate good clash, especially in Cross-X (but do not be rude to your opponent). I do not flow this portion of the debate. If you bring up any points in Cross-X that you feel are good voting issues, please clearly state them in your follow-up speeches. Please do not bring up any new arguments in your final speeches-- I will not include them in my flow. I appreciate voters in the final speeches of both the affirmative and the negative. These should include not only why your case wins, but also provides the impacts of your case vs. your opponent's case. Signposting the attacks on your opponent’s case is also of value in determining the winner of the debate

Theory: If you are going to run theory, I need you to be very clear why your interpretation should be valued in the round, as well as the violation and the impact that it has on the round. I am not very familiar with debate jargon, so if you are going to run theory, please simplify it so I can understand.

Topicality: This will not be a major voting issue in the round. If something is clearly untopical, please mention it.

Respect: I enjoy good clash--heated debates are fine (and fun!), but please be respectful of each other. Comments that are homophobic, racist, sexist, or at all discriminatory will result in an automatic loss and poor speaker points.

I have been judging PF for several years. I look for logical reasoning, creative thinking and attention to detail when evaluating the participants.

I prefer the participants use reasonable references with regard to objective claims.

Cross can be a good time to show your strengths for both sides and I find that to be a deciding factor in many rounds.

Prep and teamwork become apparent as the round proceeds and I judge based on that as well.

Decorum, civility and respect count towards an essential requirement through out the round.

Traditional (conversational speed, please)

I prioritize speaking clearly and slowly enough that it's understandable. I will vote based on persuasion and convincing evidence, and mostly consider realistic outcomes and impacts.