I am a new Judge, and I enjoy judging speeches. I have Judged several speech competitions this year. While Judging, I look for a strong introduction and conclusion and would like to hear more logical and supportive data and analysis of the stance one is taking. I do my best I can to judge each Speech on its own merits. I take notes during the Speech and rate the candidate on the style, delivery, content, analysis, examples/citations, and the strong introduction and conclusion.

Public Forum Paradigm

I've debated public forum for the last three years.

Content

-I'm generally tech>truth and will hear and flow any arguments.

-Second speaking team has to respond to the first rebuttal (particularly turns) or the arguments are dropped.

-Both summaries have to extend defense.

-I'm fine with nearly all speed but I can't follow spreading; however, I've never been in a PF round where I couldn't understand my opponent.

-Extended arguments have to be well-warranted. I'm far more likely to flow something if I understand the argument, and won't flow blippy extensions: "extend Wallace 13."

-I default util. Don't bother extending your framework if your opponent's don't contest. I think weighing as you go would be a lot more effective.

-Summary has to reflect final focus and you should collapse on arguments. I certainly won't vote on something not mentioned in summary and certainly won't vote on a 2 second extension.

Speaks

-I'll disclose speaks after the round if you care.

-While I won't vote off of speaks and feel very comfortable giving a low-point win, I still think that public forum has some elements that should appeal to the average citizen.

-Paper cases are cool

-Minimizing computer use in general is cool. I'm fine with you paraphrasing your cards in rebuttal.

-Giving really clear and appealing analysis to the arguments that matter.

-That's where the majority of the speaks will come from, but I'll take off speaks for things like running a double-turn or a turn and a non-unique.

I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly, clearly, and explain any acronyms.

Please add me to the email chain m_sangh@yahoo.com

Speak slowly so I can understand you. Obviously, don't be racist, sexist, etc. Explain your arguments to me as if I have never heard the topic before. Back your arguments up with evidence, and be sure to call out any flaws in your opponent's case.

Cross- Please be respectful but extra speaker points for being funny.

I want strong argumentation and clash throughout the round. It will come down to a comparison if both sides do well with their arguments. I will deduct points for disrespect.

Don't go over your time and have fun debating!

This is Parth, here's some tips for my dad as a judge:

1. Speak slowly and explain your arguments well. He's a pretty easy person to read, so it'll be pretty obvious if he doesn't understand your argument. Signpost so that he knows what you're talking about. He'll take notes, but he's not going to be flowing.

2. Don't run tech arguments. He won't intervene, but he is most likely not going to vote off your 17 card link chain into thermonuclear war.

3. Weigh. Tell him why your argument matters more; he's a lot more likely to vote for the debater that writes out his ballot for him.

4. Be respectful. It probably won't affect the decision unless you're a massive jerk, but good speaks are always nice to have.

5. He's a pretty well informed guy, so don't bring up not-that-logical points without backing it up with evidence.

Overall, just make smart arguments, while maintaining a good presentation, and make his decision as easy as possible.