I was an active member of my high school speech & debate team, under an amazing coach, Ms. Croley, who instilled in us the true joy of forensics and its deeper impact on the larger community.

I have been judging high school students, for several years at the local, district, regional and national circuit tournaments and TOC. I have judged various categories and have great admiration for students who invest their efforts in the category selected. I started serving as a volunteer coach for younger students, from my teens, in part due to the legacy left by my late Coach.

In Congress -

I value substance and substantiation, and overall active involvement in the Chamber, through an organized presentation and active questioning.

Regardless of my own stance on a bill, I welcome convincing arguments with reliable sources.

Drama, unnecessary questions simply to garner attention and loudness, does not make a good legislator.

As competitors, I expect proper and thorough preparation prior to the session.

I expect the PO to be fair, respectful to all in the Chamber, with knowledge of proper procedures.

While I enjoy judging a variety of events and encourage students to have fun with competing, I do take judging events very seriously. I have been coaching a small, yet quickly growing team for almost three years and have been a middle and high school judge for almost six years. I judge consistently on both the local and national circuits, including the TOC and NSDA championships.

I strive to remain objective regardless of personal opinions and have often ranked students debating on the side of an argument I may not agree with personally because they were the most convincing or were able to poke holes in the arguments presented on other sides. I believe that as a coach and a judge it is my job to provide detailed critiques and solid feedback to all students, even those I rank highly, to best serve the hardworking students competing at these tournaments.

in general, my paradigms include strong evidence to back up claims, well-constructed and organized speeches and assertive, yet not too aggressive questioning. I expect courteous, respectful behavior at all times, both in and out of sessions, and frown upon negative facial expressions, comments, hand gestures and the like.

Specifically regarding Public Forum debate, I want the participants to be able to show me why the team won the round and each speech after the first constructive should have clash. That said, I am not a fan of spreading and look for a combination of persuasion, argumentation and reasoning in each round.

Regarding delivery, I will not mark down for speaking quickly, as long as I am able to follow what is being said. I look for debaters who make eye contact and are not simply reading a well-written speech. While voice projection and inflection are in no way valued over content and argumentation, they do go a long way with impact and keeping the attention of listeners.

NOTE FOR THE 2021 PRINCETON CLASSIC: I have not judged debates on this topic or done *any* research on it, so please do not assume any background knowledge on crypto or regulations surrounding it. Try to explain everything in as much detail as possible, and do not use acronyms or reference events that I will probably be unfamiliar with.

Debated PF for all 4 years of high school and do Parli in college.

- Decent at flowing, but please don't go too fast. Also signpost a lot (i.e. clearly/explicitly say what you are responding to at every point in your speech).

- No experience judging theory/Ks. Probably don't run these kinds of arguments in front of me, but I won't automatically vote you down if you do.

- No need to extend defense in first summary unless the second-speaking team frontlines in their rebuttal.

Former Speech competitor (high school & college), well used debate judge and coach. Currently, Speech Coach & Co-director at Delbarton. The 18/19 school year is my 20th year involved in this activity in some fashion. I've been doing this too long, give me a reason to keep doing it (part joke/part not....like 1:99).

SPEECH
In Interp, I am pro-argument, especially after competing at the college level for a couple years. This can really separate you from the opposition. Sometimes, I can break a ranking tie just by which one I liked better. When that happens, I always say something like "I just liked [the 1] better" or "I connected with [those other two] more". If I constantly harp about an issue and you get a 4 or something like that, you should be able to infer why. Also, see the last sentence of my Extemp & IMP expectations section below.

In PA Events, I give you a list of grievances: Phony/Robotic/Overly Practiced or rehearsed gestures, rushed through points, and not letting your jokes hit. You have to take your time and let your stories and jokes hit.

In Extemp & IMP, tie everything back to your thesis. I am not a fan of personal stories/references in the body of a speech, unless as witty on-tops in extemp or AGDs. I quasi-flow speeches, so don't be surprised if a decent chunk of your ballot is just me writing down what you said or what you said with comments (like "Huh?", "What are you doing?" or "Ooooooh! Nice!").

PF
Number of PF Rounds judged in career: Can safely say in the hundreds
Number of PF Rounds judged 19/20 year: 5

I've been judging PF since it began, so I've heard the infamous NBA dress code topic & remember the cancelled mosque topic. This is the second year in a row time that I have not already seen at least 10 rounds by this time of the year. I say this because I am very old school in my approach, leave LD (even though I have experience there and miss judging that) and Policy (NEVER! NEVER! NEVER!) out of the round.

I am a 50/50 judge in terms of content/argument and delivery. I am big on clash, but don't use that to say that you should win the round because your opponents did not counter Con. 5, Sub 8 or junk like that. If the foundation of your argument is, for example, Utilitarianism and the opposition never talks about it in their rebuttals, then you're more likely to get my ballot. I also like to use standard logic. Also, as some folks at Columbia probably know, I hear your misspeaks very easily. Be careful with word choice. I do like to flow if I have my legal pad with me, it may look more like a Parli flow, but you shouldn't really be looking at my flow anyway.

Cards are starting to get really annoying. Don't just ask for cards. There better be a darn good reason.
I don't mind off-time road maps.

I hate E-ballots. Don't be surprised if I give oral RFDs and leave your ballot blank (especially if I am told that "the internet is spotty").

CONGRESS
If you speak later on a bill, I would love it if you referred to others' speeches. I know I am only judging, but you should be trying to convince me to vote on your side of the bill.

I have experience in judging and/or coaching LD, PF, Parli, Congress, and Speech. So plan accordingly.

Good luck.

I'm a parent judge and have been judging over the last 2 years. I have judged district level, regional and national level events. I judge both public forum and Congress.I will flow and am comfortable if you spread to an extent. Main considerations :

1. I don't mind if you sit or stand, I want you to be comfortable and enjoy the debate

2. I don't care if a coach, teammate, or family member observes the round, as long as other teams have no objections.

3. Tech over truth

4. I try to minimize intervening (unless necessary) and will not ask for evidences(even if you cite 'The Onion'). It is opposing teams job to do so.

5. You can assume that i have good understanding about the topic (not because i am super smart, but because my daughter debates :-)) but i try to be free of any prejudices about the topic and will let the opposing team verify any evidences.

6. Very important that you treat your opponents with respect! I dont mind people who are assertive or have voice modulation, but any kind of dis-respect towards opponents and it will likely affect your speak points and outcome.

I am a former PF debater who currently does American and British parliamentary debate with Princeton's team.

Be nice to each other, bring up things you want me to remember from crossfire in your speeches, and make sure to thoroughly warrant and weigh a lot! Have fun!

I am a college professor (media and journalism studies) at Cuyahoga Community College. BA Wabash College. MA The Ohio State University. Ed.S. Kent State University. I've been coaching HS debate and speech since 2008 at two Ohio high schools, and in both my first students to "break" beyond preliminaries in State Finals did so in Congressional Debate.

CONGESS

Long before beginning my coaching career I worked in the U.S. Senate, where I ghost-wrote numerous speeches and op-eds for my Senator. I became a HS debate/speech coach in 2008. In that time, I've coached dozens of Congress competitors, including at least a dozen to Ohio's OSDA State Finals, and eight to the NSDA National Tournament. I've judged HS/MS Congress at Nationals on and off going back to 2016 (Salt Lake City).

In judging, I use the NSDA rubric and also look hard for what I call "excellent sewing." If you employ a strong opening story or example, make sure the "threads" of it extend well to your key points, the warrants you utilize, and the impacts you present. Stitch it perfectly! If you are the 4th, 5th, or 6th speaker for or against a bill, I expect clash and/or new insight in what you say. If you simply repeat previous warrants and use already-cited warrants, don't expect a high score. If you crystallize, make 100% sure you correctly cover points and speakers for both sides. If you create clash and/or provide a fresh approach for or against a bill/resolution, you have much better odds of a top score.

I've judged Congress many times and places than I can remember, and served as a parliamentarian at NSDA Nationals and at Princeton. Won't bore you with the specifics.

PUBLIC FORUM

A + R + E = decisions.

A = Argumentation. How well are developed is your constructive?

R = Rebuild/Refute -- How well do you attack your opponent's constructive? Using what? How well to you rebuild your own arguments (when attacked)? With what?

E = Evidence. -- Looking at quality, quantity, and how well you use the evidence yo present.

Speak as fast or as slow as you like. As long as I can understand your arguments, you're fine.

Cross X -- be purposeful, and make your purpose plain as the round develops.

Summary -- only new arguments I'll entertain is if the previous speaker (other side) presented something which needs an answer or a refutation.

Final focus -- never introduce new arguments.

I did Congress for four years at Dreyfoos School of the Arts in South Florida (C/O 2018), was good at it, and I now study linguistics and political science at the University of Florida and coach/judge (often) for Bronx Science in NYC.

I love POs and am looking for a reason to rank the PO high. If you mess up recency/precedence once it's not going to kill you, but if it's a consistent issue, or you mess up parliamentary procedure, you'll fall pretty quickly down my ballot.

Don't be cocky or rude (poking fun and jokes are totally cool and make things interesting). Make good arguments; if you don't have an impact, which means explaining the effect of the legislation and why it's good/bad, it doesn't count, no matter how pretty you sound. Just as importantly, you need to care about what you're saying. Finally, there needs to be some sort of clear speech structure. I'm totally cool with, and actually a fan of, speeches with alternative structures from the typical speech with two points, but you need to make that structure clear through signposting.

The most common feedback I give is about evidence. Remember, your job is to prove why a certain piece of legislation will do good or bad things for the world, so you not only need credible, relevant, and (ideally) recent data, but that data MUST be comprised of fact. Facts, as opposed to opinions, are a qualitative or quantitative assessment of either an ongoing process or something that happened. Facts may include numbers and statistics found in research, descriptions of an event or system/process, statements made by relevant government officials or organization leaders, existing/former laws or court decisions, etc. Facts are not unquantified descriptions of a numeric value; for example, statements saying something saw a "substantial increase" or was "significantly harmed" are relative and not factual. Those statements are an analysis of data rather than the data itself. If your whole speech is based on expert opinions and non-factual statements, I am left with no metric to actually weigh the importance of your impacts against those of other speakers.

Speaking well matters on my ballot, but only to the point that your presentation isn't distracting. I weigh speaking this way because a lot of metrics we traditionally use to assess speaking are pretty ableist and/or difficult for students for whom English isn't their first language or who use non-"standard" dialects.

If you say something blatantly problematic or harmful to any marginalized community, purposefully misgender someone (or continuously call them Mr./Ms. after being asked to not do so), or, as PO, clearly show bias toward any one group of people (that includes geographic prioritization, or prioritization of people from your school/district), you will be dropped.

also PLEASE refute oml

LD and PF: Although I list myself as "Traditional," I am open to different arguments as long as they are explained well and related to the resolution. I believe that we are debating the resolution, not fixing society's ills. Yes debate will enable us to fix society's ills but a competition round is not where that will occur. Debate theory can be interesting to judge, but again, needs to still be connected to the resolution. Also, be sure that the theory you're arguing is correct and logical. In terms of speed, to me it's not speed it's clarity. If you are going 97 miles per hour and have to constantly repeat yourself because you trip over words, maybe going 60 is better.

Congress: As a scorer or Parli, I look for good speeches with good evidence and analysis, but also continuous participation. I believe Congress is an overall package, including activity with questioning, motions and amendments. PO's should be able to move the chamber along smoothly, and fairly. However, they must also recognize that sometimes this may be a new experience for someone in the chamber, and be sure that everyone understands how the PO is maneuvering the chambers, not just assume that it's just standard operating procedure for everyone. Be good to each other and you will often stand out from the competition.

I am a debate coach in PF, have experience with judging PF and have judged Congress for 1 year. To judge PF I rely on the following guidelines along with my debate experience as an observer, coach, and judge to inform how I strive to judge every debate. Included here, I am sure is info sourced from others. Here is how I judge:

I am not an interventionist, I have seen judges do this, it hurts both sides and has no place in a fair and unbiased tournament. In debate judging I try to keep what I look for simple:

Every argument a debater makes should come down to an impact.

Have a clear statement of the claim that tells me what the argument is.

Provide a warrant, logically explain the reason why the claim is true.

Provide evidence - empirical data that supports the claim and warrant with facts, examples, expert analysis.

Provide impact- positive or negative consequences that explain why the argument is significant to the judges vote.

Debaters are responsible for comparing their evidence and impacts to explain why they have won a particular argument and important to establish which voting issues should have priority in my decision.

I evaluate a team on the quality of arguments made, not on my personal beliefs, nor on issues I think a particular side should have covered.

I write notes throughout the debate, and will use these to assess the bearing of each argument on the truth or falsehood of the assigned resolution. Those debaters demonstrating logical reasoning, maturity of thought, civility and effectiveness of communication earn higher speaker points.

Debaters should use evidence, examples, and analogies for the purpose of illustration. Debaters should use quoted evidence to support their claims; well-chosen, relevant evidence strengthens – but will not replace – arguments.

Simply, the pro should convince me that the resolution should be adopted, and the con should prove that the resolution should be rejected. When deciding I ask, “If I had no prior beliefs about this resolution, would the round as a whole have made me more likely to believe the resolution was true or not true?”

Teams should strive to provide a straightforward perspective on the resolution; I will discount unfair, obscure interpretations that only serve to confuse the opposing team. Clear communication is important. I will weigh arguments to the extent that they are clearly explained, and discount arguments that are too fast, too muddled, or too full of debate jargon to be understood by an intelligent high school student or a well-informed citizen.

I will not penalize a team for failing to understand their opponent’s unclear arguments, but if you find yourself on the receiving end of one, demonstrate you can handle such a strategy with directness & grace. Debaters who use abusive arguments lose points with me. As a guide for what's abusive or not, if it's denying your opponent debating ground or making it impossible to win, it's likely abusive. (e.g., Think topic interpretation that gives an opponent no or little ground)

Speakers should appeal through sound reasoning, succinct organization, credible evidence, and clear delivery. I will use points to provide a mechanism for evaluating the relative quality of debating by each side. I will write constructive suggestions for improvement to the debaters on the ballot. Dishonesty (manufacturing, misrepresenting research sources, and or making claims (false or not) against your opponent regarding same, etc.) will be referred to the tournament directors to address/resolve.

Regarding my background, I have served as a career diplomat with the U.S. Department of State and have served in U.S. Embassies across the globe as well as in Washington, DC and at the United Nations. Prior to that, I initially began my career working on Wall Street for Goldman Sachs in corporate finance. I transitioned to consulting on international finance for Price Waterhouse, and then left to begin a career in government working for the CIA. All that to say, my background is heavy on foreign policy, economics, and finance. I have judged speech and debate for the past 15 years but most actively in the last 5 years. I have judged every speech and debate event on both the local and national circuits. Congress has become one of my favorite events to judge because almost every round there is an issue that I can relate to from real world experience and it is truly a joy to watch students delve into significant and strategic issues.

I tend to spend more time listening and evaluating your arguments than I do writing feedback, though I aim to give constructive comments. In general, I look for strong evidence to back up arguments and well constructed and articulated speeches. Coming from a diplomatic background, I like a courteous debate, although I appreciate, when appropriate, the need to be assertive and forward leaning in defending a position.

I am very objective when it comes to the issues. However, I will mark down for a speech that does not stand up in the status quo. While content and argumentation are at the forefront of my judging criteria, I do appreciate fluidity and strength in delivery. I frown on rehash and grandstanding. Speeches should also demonstrate strong impact. Questions should be relevant and purposeful. Lastly, I especially enjoy judging rounds where students are listening and creating good clash. Have fun and make it a true debate!

A former coach of mine, Chase Williams, has developed a paradigm that he uses that I have always used for PF as well. It is as follows:

Paradigm

You can ask me specific questions if you have them...but my paradigm is pretty simple - answer these three questions in the round - and answer them better than your opponent, and you're going to win my ballot:

1. Where am I voting?

2. How can I vote for you there?

3. Why am I voting there and not somewhere else?

I'm not going to do work for you. Don't try to go for everything. Make sure you weigh. Both sides are going to be winning some sort of argument - you're going to need to tell me why what you're winning is more important and enough to win my ballot.

If you are racist, homophobic, nativist, sexist, or pretty much any version of "ist" in the round - I will drop you. There's no place for any of that in debate.

I won't vote for theory. Don't try it - it has no place in PF. Also, I am skeptical of critical arguments. If they link to the resolution, I'll listen - but I don't think pre-fiat is something that belongs in PF. If you plan on running arguments like that, it might be worth asking me more about my belief first - or striking me.

I am a parent judge. Do not speak too fast if you want to convince me of anything.

* Congress *

Just a couple notes on places where I may differ from certain other judges.

First: I see Congress as a true speech AND debate event. Rhetoric, passion, body language, facial expression, changes in pace & tone, the use of pathos & humor (where appropriate) -- these things matter! If your speech is three straight minutes of speed-reading through a list of arguments and cites, you'll absolutely get credit for the evidence & argumentation, but you'll also get dinged for treating it as a CX round, which it is not.

And, second: I find I'm much more impressed by discernible consequences than by abstract notions of fairness or inequity. That doesn't mean you shouldn't talk about big ideas, about right & wrong -- that's great, by all means you should include it. But if, for example, your Neg speech boils down to, 'Alright, the bill is better than the status quo and, sure, no one in particular is really harmed by it. But the legislation doesn't go far enough, and the benefits of the bill are distributed in an unequal way, therefore the bill is unjust and we must negate' ... then to my thinking you've accidentally given an Aff speech. Oops.

History has shown that not all judges see this issue the same way I do, and that's fine. But if you're trying to game my ballot, show me tangible harms or tangible benefits.

I am looking for clear speeches with refutations. No REHASH. Eye contact and fluency is important. Strong argumentation and good use of evidence.

I am an Assistant Speech & Debate Coach at Montville Township High School. In high school I competed primarily in Congressional Debate and Extemporaneous Speaking. I've been involved in speech & debate for over ten years as a competitor, judge, and now coach.

My debate paradigm is simple. I ask that you provide me a clear explanation for why your side is winning based upon the resolution. I prefer topical cases. Debate is supposed to be an educational activity and I value the educational experience above all else.

That being said, I will certainly listen to whatever framework, paradigm, or theory you plan to throw at me so as long as it is well articulated, warranted, and explained. Context is critical for me to evaluate your arguments and understand why your side is winning in the round based upon the stated resolution. Assume that I have not researched the resolution at hand.

I prefer clear overviews that explain what you plan to do in the round and how you plan to win. I want this to continue throughout the round. How and why you are winning? Interaction with your opponent is a must. The more clash that exists in a round, the easier it is for me to adjudicate. I'm not interested in inserting myself into the round as the judge. I need weighing mechanisms.

Word economy is a valuable asset. Speed is not. I will not yell clear, even if I cannot understand you. The communication aspect of this activity is not dead. So why take the risk and spread?

Please let me know if you have any questions before a round. Good luck!

- speed is fine as long as it does not sound like a disclaimer at the end of a radio commercial.

- your opponent is not really your "opponent" but a colleague trying to prove his point. please be nice.

- try to maintain eye contact with audience even if mainly reading from your notes.

- prefer traditional for LD

tldr: I am a traditional judge. It is probably in your best interest to run a traditional case. But if you feel the need to run something non-traditional I will do my best to keep up (especially if I'm the only judge on your panel who prefers traditional).

-----

I was the assistant speech and debate coach at Pennsbury HS in Pennsylvania from 2018-2020, and I am currently a freelance judge when needed. I'm also on the Board of Directors for the Bulgarian English Speech and Debate Tournament (BEST) Foundation. I competed primarily in Congressional Debate and Extemporaneous Speaking. I was a 3x NSDA qualifier in the Congressional Debate.

First and foremost, know that I am not usually a debate judge. I've judged my share of PF and LD, and I have a general understanding of how to judge both events (so I'm not a lay judge insofar as I do have an idea of what I'm doing). For that reason, I prefer traditional arguments, but I can deal with progressive cases if you have an interesting perspective (but I would definitely lean on the side of traditional). I'm also okay with counterplans (in LD), but I will caution that I am almost always on the lookout for a mutual exclusivity argument from Aff when I hear counterplanning from the Neg. So if you're going to run one on Neg, be absolutely certain that what you're proposing cannot exist in an Aff world. If it can, and Aff points it out, my ballot is almost always decided then and there.

I can deal with K's, theory, phil etc. But please explain some of terms you're using if you can - I don't know all of the acronyms and me being confused is probably not good for you. Err on the side of traditional if you can, as that's what I'm best equipped to judge. But if I'm the only judge on your panel with these preferences, run your progressive case - I'll try and keep up.

-----

Because I enjoy a good debate, here are my preferences:

- Come prepared with all of your cards organized. I don't want to sit there and waste time while you fish around to find a specific card.

- Speed: Spreading will make it so that I can't include as much info on the flow - my typing is not super fast. In terms of speed, I suggest that you speak quickly but don't spread.

- Please signpost and lay out a roadmap, ESPECIALLY in your rebuttal speeches. I'm cool with off-time roadmaps (in fact, I encourage it).

- I will time you, but I expect you to time yourself and your opponents - I will stop flowing if you go over time.

- I appreciate a good clash over a good point. It makes filling out my ballot much easier when I can link arguments together.

- PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE weigh the round. I cannot stress how important it is for you to lay this out in your rebuttal speeches.

My email is morgan.elizabeth.rowe@gmail.com if you have any more questions.

In LD and PF, I am a very traditional judge. Excessive speed, jargon, and trickery are NOT your friends. Win the round on the strength of your argument, the veracity of your evidence, and the clarity of your presentation. I will not disclosed unless expressly required to do so by the tournament host, nor will I give oral critiques. These are what the ballots are for.

I have over a quarter-century of experience in the dynamics of corporate environments, navigating the nuanced terrains of high-stakes boardroom discussions, strategic planning sessions, and vigorous debates with both peers and executives at the highest levels. These experiences have not only underscored the profound influence of adept speech and debate in shaping outcomes but have also instilled a deep appreciation for the art of persuasion, critical thinking, and collaborative problem-solving. Additionally, I’ve been a proud member of SAG-AFTRA for three decades which has enriched this perspective, reinforcing the indispensable value of performance, passion, and precision in communication. This unique mixture of corporate strategy and theatrical expression has profoundly informed my understanding of the transformative power of effective communication—whether it's captivating an audience on stage or influencing decision-making in business.

The model I adopt as a judge in these debates is deeply rooted in the conviction that quality, not quantity, of argumentation reigns supreme. It is a philosophy born out of real-world applications where the power of a well-articulated, passionately delivered argument can pivot the course of discussions, sway opinions, and forge consensus. It is a testament to the belief that the essence of impactful communication lies not in the volume of information conveyed but in the ability to craft arguments that resonate on a deeper, more meaningful level with one's audience.

While it may be tempting to speak rapidly and provide copious amounts of information, I'd like to encourage you to consider the following points that I feel are important:

The Power of Persuasion: In the world of Parliamentary Debate/PF, your ultimate goal is not just to present information but to persuade your audience. Whether you're addressing policy makers, executives, or peers, your ability to convince them of your viewpoint is paramount. Quality arguments, backed by sound reasoning and passion, have a far greater impact with me than a sheer volume of facts and figures.

Effective Communication: Imagine you are addressing a boardroom full of executives or a panel of policy experts. In these real-world scenarios, they are not looking for information overload but for a clear and concise articulation of your ideas. For me, there is only so much information I can consume, digest, and absorb in a given period of time. If you race through arguments you run the risk of diminishing the impact and persuasiveness of your case.

Memorability and Impact: Quality arguments are memorable. They linger in the minds of your audience long after the debate is over. Quantity may overwhelm momentarily, but it often fails to leave a lasting impression. In the real world, your ability to make a lasting impact is a valuable skill.

Real-World Application: Consider that the skills you are developing in Parliamentary Debate/PF are not just for competition; they are for life. In professional settings, you will encounter situations where you need to influence decisions, present ideas, and lead discussions. The ability to make a compelling case while maintaining clarity and coherence is a prized skill.

I want to emphasize that, as a judge, I place a greater emphasis on the qualities that make an argument compelling and persuasive rather than solely focusing on technical details. Craft your speeches with precision, emphasizing persuasive language, tone, and clarity. Remember that your power lies not in overwhelming your audience but in persuading them effectively.

I am a higher education & fitness professional. I have judged speech and debate over the last 4 years and have experience judging public forum, congress, and oratory. I appreciate a well-organized and thorough argument; spreading is discouraged since if I can't understand you, I can't judge you. Please remain professional and concise in order to prove your case in a mature and convincing manner.

For both LD and PF, I am a very traditional judge. Extreme speed, overuse of jargon, and trickery are not appreciated and could cost you the round. Win the round on the strength of your argument, the veracity of your evidence, and the clarity of your presentation. I will disclose ONLY if required by the tournament host. I will offer no oral critiques. Both of those are the purpose of the ballot.