Hi I’m Will! I did a lot of LD in high school and am only comfortable with traditional debates. I don’t care what arguments you use (as long as they are relevant to the topic), but I appreciate people speaking really slowly and explaining their own reasoning clearly and insightfully. I don’t like it when people spend most of their time reciting cards—most of your speeches should consist of original analysis and contextualization even if you do bring in some quotes from academic papers/articles/books. Although I take notes, I don’t flow and do not care about “dropped” arguments. Address the cruxes of your opponent’s position, but if there are just too many arguments and/or if some of them are silly, I don’t expect you to waste time going through them. My main thing is that if you speak too fast or don’t debate the topic, I won’t vote for you. Feel free to ask questions before the round, and I look forward to hearing you debate!

Greetings!

For just a little background about myself, I am a high school chemistry teacher from California. I am a parent judge who is newer to judging speech and debate. Over the past year, I have judged speech, PF, and LD. I prefer clear slow speaking, please do not talk fast/spread. Please keep speech/debate jargon to a minimum. Please thoroughly explain and signpost throughout the round.

Hello,

I am currently in my 21st year teaching Social Studies at Byram Hills High School. I am also the director of our school's Speech and Debate Team

General Interp Paradigm

I value creativity including very unique informative topics. I enjoy blocking; however, only if it is clear. I also hate obscene movements that don't add to the overall build of the performance. I love realistic characters and absolutely don't enjoy cartoony characters(Unless it applies to the piece). I also feel that the performance should connect to the audience. Lastly, no matter your background in competitive success (Even if you are a national champion) I rank to what your current in round performance shows me.

I am a lay judge. I cannot vote for what I do not understand.

No spreading. Please be respectful to your opponents.

I like a nicely structured debate. Making the framework and definitions clear is important. However, I do not like for this to carry on. Make the structure clear and move on. You should not still be debating what the framework is in your last rebuttals.

I look for quality sources, not quantity

Debates that build off each other are the best. Don't debate at me, debate with your opponent.

I also look for speaking style. Since I am primarily a speech judge, I take speaking skills into account. Mumbling, speaking monotonously, over using hand movements, and stumbling will rank you lower.

Lastly, I just want the argument to make sense. Don't give me a convoluted, overly complex argument. Make it make sense.

For judging I am incredibly easy when it comes to judging.  I like good debate that is clear and easy to follow.  I'm not a huge fan of spreading.  Especially in debate formats that it isn't meant for.  I will pretty much flow anything in the round with in reason.   If you stretch too radical then I'm not inclined to buy into your thoughts.  I've been judging world schools the last 9 years so prefer to stick to the ideals of world schools.  Definitions should be clean and easy to follow, nothing squirrely.

Howdy there, my name is Cameron Burns and I'm excited to get to judge all of you!

I did congressional debate for 3 years and found decent success in it, so I know my warrants from my impacts, and have competed before in PF, so I have a basic grasp of the format. Therefore, don't feel like you need to stoop down to totally unaware judge level for me to keep with you. That being said, I am a congress kid, so you should probably speak slower and explain things more clearly than you might need to for a judge more accustomed to PF. I CAN NOT FLOW ARGUMENTS I CAN'T UNDERSTAND, whether due to the speed of your delivery or because you gloss over crucial parts of your link chain/don't explain them well enough for me to understand.

Do not be afraid to give me explicit voting issues (aka, we win because __________), I love that stuff. Theory/prog pf scares me, so lets not if possible. Being courteous to your competitors is a must as well, I will drop you for being a jerk in CX.

Apparently the above was not clear enough. I'm from an event that is half speech, you loose me with your speed then its gonna be real tough for me to be able to actually understand the round. PLEASE do not go overboard on speed.

I've been judging various forms of speech and debate events on local, state and national levels since 2013. Head coach of St. John's School since 2020.

I have no event specific expectations on what should happen, I prefer everything to be spelled out in round. I do not like intervening.

Speaker points are a tie-breaker, so I am a bit more conservative with them, but that doesn't mean I'll tank your points unless you're unclear, have frequent speech errors, go over time, or if you're rude. Expect an average 27.5-29.5 range in PF/LD/CX and a range of 68-72 in Worlds and a 3-5 range in Congress. Perfect speaks reserved for those who truly exemplify great public speaking skills. Rudeness can also be a cause for a team losing.

Don't assume I know anything, explain as if you were talking to someone non-specialized in whatever subject matter you're speaking on.

Ask before round any further questions you might have.

-----

For WSD

I will be following the conventions and norms that asks us to:

• think about these things on a more holistic approach;
• nuance our argumentation and engage on the comparative;
• think that the principle level argumentation is key and that the practical should make sense in approaching the principle;
• not engage on tricky arguments or cherry picked examples;
• debate the heart of the motion and not conditionally proposing or opposing (that we are debating the full resolution);
• reward those that lean into their arguments and side;
• preference thinking about the motions on a global scale when applicable.

Debaters,

I am a parent of two debaters, one is in college, one in high school. I've got 4-5 years of judging experience dating back to 2018. I like to be brief in my direction to debaters, so I will leave my guidance to you in the following points:

Please treat each other with respect.

Please ensure any ground rules set at the onset of each round are agreed by all participants.

Please do not speak over each other.

Please try to not speak too quickly.

Always approach each round ethically, with dignity and respect for your fellow competitors.

I will always follow your logic and will be more impressed by your argument. Confident speaking style is important - but it will not win me over without a strong, factual-based argument.

Good luck!

I am a high school science teacher and Speech & Debate club sponsor.

I prefer a slower debate. It allows for a more involved, persuasive and better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable. Don’t compromise quality and clarity for speed. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

I am a Professor of Political Science and offer courses designated as Speaking Intensive within my discipline that are designed to assess and improve students' oral communication skills.

Here are some pointers I give to my students that should be helpful to participants:

* Speakers should value preparation, professionalism, and authenticity. The most effective speakers are those who are well prepared, conduct themselves with respect for themselves and others, and are comfortable with and true to themselves in whatever space they occupy.

* Each of us is entitled to hold our own opinions but not our own facts. Misinformation is a profound threat to education, critical thinking, and democratic values. I expect speakers to reason their way through arguments using evidence-based, substantiated claims.

* Be as clear as possible in enunciating your words and your pace of speech. If I can't keep up with and understand what you're saying I can't evaluate your speaking and the content of your arguments.

* Enjoy the spirit of competition and the speech experience. Effective speakers aren't born but are made by opening our minds to learn from one another, taking constructive feedback to heart to improve our oral communication skills, and caring about the impact our words have on one another and the exchange of knowledge and ideas more broadly. By those standards we are all a work in progress.

I believe that all debates should be an educational activity, with inherent qualities of persuasion and logic. I want to hear debating about the topic, not technicalities of rules. I also want a persuasive, well-presented debate, and NOT speed delivery.

Hi all! I am the Head Coach of Speech and Debate at Pinecrest High School in North Carolina. I am a former extemper with pretty deep knowledge of the happenings in the world.

LD & PF

--I am fine with speed, but remember with speed comes the risk I won't get it on the flow. If you see me stop typing/pen is no longer writing/I am staring blankly at you, consider that your cue to slow down.

--Make sure to differentiate your sourcing. Authors' last names are great, but tell me where the source comes from first. John Doe from the Council on Foreign Relations in 2022 sounds better than Doe 22. After that, you can refer to the source as CFR or Doe and I'm good on what you are referring to.

--Please weigh. Please. You have to do this in order for me to be able to determine a winner.

--Respect. Respect your opponents, partner (if in PF), self, and the host school. Competitive debate is a great activity; but you must maintain some sense of decorum throughout your time in the round.

Congress

--When you go to an in-house recess to determine splits, or inquire as to why no one is speaking, you have done yourself and your fellow competitors a disservice by not being prepared. Please avoid this as much as possible.

--I'm fine with rehashing arguments to a point, but you need to add more evidence to support this rehashed point. Something niche and unique that can catch the opposing side off guard.

--Presiding Officers: thank you for volunteering to run the chamber. Please only defer to the parli when you are unsure of certain procedure.

I have been the sponsor of the Speech and Debate Team at Apex Friendship High School for the last eight years. This is my eighth year judging. I have taught English for 20 years and Speech for five.

1. Framework is critical. If you don't connect your evidence to your framework, you haven't succeeded.

2. Do not spread--I value quality over quantity.

3. I value strong CX skills--being able to think on your feet and attack an opponent's case is key to winning the round.

4. Civil discourse is expected.

Bottom-line upfront: Present clear, well-organized arguments supported by appropriate evidence. Respectful passion is appreciated, but decorum matters. Bullying an opponent is unacceptable and will lower speaker points. Speed is acceptable (but should not be used to skip over weaker parts of your argument), and I recommend you do not speak so quickly that your arguments cannot be absorbed or I cannot take adequate notes. Arguments should be coherent, relevant and on-point. Have fun!

Pacing: You may speak as fast as you need to but please be understandable. If you go so fast that I cannot understand what you are saying, I will not flow it and if I do not flow it, I will not be able to judge you for it. Generally Moderate pacing with clear supported arguments is preferred. Make sure your Value and Value Criteria are clear. Do not speed through them. Explain why/how each argument supports the VC.

End of Speech Cut-offs: When I tell you time, you may finish your thought quickly. If you attempt to abuse this by stretching out your sentence or quickly fitting in more than the end of your thought, I will suspend this privilege and, depending on how egregious the attempt, dock speaker points.

Who to Address in Speeches: Remember that you should be addressing me (ie the judge) during your speeches, NOT your opponent. At the end of the day, your arguments are being presented to me for judging so avoid things like "You said..." during your speeches.

General: I judge rounds based on the values and substance of the arguments. Evidence is important but I am not going to be swayed if all you can say regarding an opponent's contention is "they only presented two cards of evidence but i clearly have three" or "my evidence is clearly better because it came from this scientific journal as opposed to this one." Unless the source of the evidence is clearly unreliable, I expect debaters to address the substance of the underlying arguments. At the end of the day, my decisions will be based on the values presented and whose overall arguments better support the VC and V.

I am an experienced judge in both speech and debate, having coached for 30+ years in all categories offered within the spectrum of S&D. I began coaching Lincoln Douglas and Congressional Debate in the 1990’s, have coached PF since its inception, having coached the first PF team that represented NJ at Nationals in Atlanta, GA. I currently coach the NJ World Teams.

I am a flow judge who looks for logical arguments, a valid framework, and substantiation of claims made within your case. As a teacher of rhetoric, I appreciate word economy and precise language. Do not default to speed and redundancy to overwhelm. Persuade concisely; synthesize your thoughts efficiently. Be articulate. Keep your delivery at a conversational rate.

A good debate requires clash. I want to see you find and attack the flaws in your opponents’ arguments, and respond accordingly in rebuttal. Cross examination should not be a waste of time; it is a time to clarify. It is also not a time for claws; be civil, particularly in grand crossfire.

Disclosure is not a discussion or a renewed debate. Personally, I am not a fan, in large part, because of a few unwarranted challenges to my decision. You are here to convince me; if you have not, that will drive my RFD.

Sasha Kreinik Paradigm

Always include me in the email chain susanna.torrey@gmail.com

I am a pretty straightforward judge and was in forensics way back in the Stone Age when I was in high school. I am a teacher and speech and debate coach first, so I value education, good and creative cases, and expect professionalism and respectful behavior.

I am open to any arguments as long as burdens are being met and I value strong evidence ably applied. Over the past few years I have found myself needing to highlight the items I have listed below most often in rounds.

LD/CX:

Mad spreading skills need to come with mad pronunciation skills. I’m okay with speed, but am even more impressed by the debater who can do more with less. You are less likely to have an issue with my rulings if I have been able to easily flow your round. I am noticing a trend lately (fall 2022) of debaters that goes far beyond spreading to actually mumbling quietly and incoherently through most of the case, only enunciating specific phrases, tags, etc. If you are this type of debater, strike me. Yes, I can read your case, but that's not what debate is about. Your speaks will be the lowest possible. One more caveat about spreading--if you are using it in an open round merely to disadvantage a less experienced or novice opponent, it will annoy me. Have that conversation with your opponent at the start of the round.

LD:

Enough with the disclo theory. Run it and I will probably drop you.

All:

One of my pet peeves is a debater who is obviously seeing his/her evidence for the first time or, worse, sounds like it. Be sure to master the material you are using. If there is a piece of evidence or a theory you are presenting that you don’t understand, we won’t either, and it will show.

I abhor racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and any other language of hate or any language that enables it. They have no place in the debate space and will cost you the round.

In the end, I want you to have fun, learn something, and bring forth truly creative and interesting cases. If all else in your round is perfectly equal, I am going to give the round to the debater who told a better story.

Feel free to email me if you have any more questions.

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

James Lewis
Affiliation: University School

About Me: I did four years of Lincoln-Douglas debate way back when. (I'm old) Never accomplished anything of note. Competed in parli in college (accomplished very little of note), did grad work in American history. Now I teach history and I'm the head coach at University School (OH). Helped start Classic Debate Camp a traditional camp where I was the head LD instructor for a bit, left to get a life away from debate, then came back to teach top lab in 2020 and online in 2021. Stayed home and played with my cats in 2022 instead of teaching at CDC in person.

LD Judging Philosophy (Edited for Durham 2023):

Edit for Durham 2024: I thought this was explicit in my paradigm, but it was not. DO NOT SPREAD. IF YOU PLAN TO SPREAD, STRIKE ME. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING WHEN YOU SPREAD, I DO NOT INTEND TO FOLLOW YOU ON THE CASE DOC TO TRY TO DECIPHER WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. FOR EVERYONE'S SAKE, IF YOU PLAN TO SPREAD, STRIKE ME!!!!!!

Edit #2- While I'm giving the oral critique/RFD please do me the courtesy of giving me your full attention. Specifically, do not spend the critique furiously typing while I talking to you. Signal to me that you are engaged. If you're not particularly interested in my input, that's cool, just say so and I'll save my breath. (Seriously I won't be offended. It keeps things moving along quickly)

I think it's really important that you actually research, write cases about and debate the actual resolution. Please leave your tricks at home. I have no interest in hearing arguments about debate theory. I guess I'll flow them, but have a very low threshold for dropping the arguments. I'm not the judge to run a kritik on. I don't coach them, hardly understand them and have a very low threshold for being convinced to drop them. (Hint: Just say, "Judge, that is all well and good but can we please debate the resolution at hand?")

The one way I have changed is that I have become more favorable to LARPing in the debate. I used to be one of those "The rules of LD doesn't allow plans and counterplans!" But given that the resolutions given to us by the NSDA are so often rooted in concrete policy questions, it doesn't seem fair to ask debaters to resist the urge to craft plans or to preclude the NEG from the strategic advantages of a counterplan.

My threshold for buying extinction impacts is VERY VERY high. For me to believe that extinction is going to happen or is probable, you have to have a very strong link chain. Like very strong. Otherwise, I'm just going to drop that impact.

I like not having to make a decision on my own about who won the round. Both debaters should prioritize a) giving me a standard (call it a criterion/standard/argument meter, I don't care) which I can use to decide who won the round and b) applying that standard to the arguments they have made in the round.

I believe that ultimately the purpose of competitive debate is to communicate and persuade. I tend to favor debaters who more effectively communicate their ideas and do a better job of presenting a coherent rationale as to why I should uphold their positions. In the end, my vision of a good debater is one who can take their opponents’ strongest arguments, treat them fairly and still show why their position is the more valid position. I tell my debaters to strive for "clarity" and "synthesis"

Obviously the use of evidence is important in that it substantiates analysis, arguments and conclusions. But I place a very high premium on analysis and argumentation. I don’t consider whether your opponent attacks every single “card” (Honestly, I don't flow every card you mention in your case.) Use evidence as a tool AND don’t let it obscure your reasoning.

PF Notes- My background is largely in LD but I've judged enough PF to know what I'm doing.

Edit for NSDA Opener: My threshold for buying extinction impacts is VERY VERY high. For me to believe that extinction is going to happen or is probable, you have to have a very strong link chain. Like very strong. Otherwise, I'm just going to drop that impact.

Edit for TOC 2023: Look, the calling for cards is getting excessive. At the point where you ask your opponent for "all the evidence that you read on X argument" I suspect that you're fishing for cards/not listening/now flowing your opponents arguments because you plan to just call for all the evidence later. Don't give me that impression.

I'll evaluate everything I hear in the round.

Emphasis on "hear" I HATE spreading. I HATE that debaters think that quantity is a substitute for quality and that a lot of "high level" rounds mostly consist of debaters spewing unwarranted statements + card taglines (and the cards in PF are usually miscut/misrepresented) + jargon. I don't even know what half the jargon y'all are throwing out there means. So if that's your game plan, please strike me for everyone's good.

I'll also try to intervene as little as possible in the round. I've been on way too many panels where oral RFDs consist of judges citing flaws with in round arguments that WEREN'T ACTUALLY BROUGHT UP IN THE ROUND. I despise this. My debate days are over. (And as mentioned above, I wasn't that good at it) I'll leave it up to y'all to do the debating. I'll probably express my displeasure with bad or messy argumentation in a round, but I won't factor it into my decision.

While I try not to intervene and to evaluate everything on the flow, I should note that there are certain kinds of arguments that I just don't find too convincing. So the threshold for responses to those arguments are going to be REALLY REALLY low. I think debaters should actually debate about the resolution. I don't have much patience for theory debate. If you want to debate about debate, go write an article in the ROSTRUM or get a PhD in rhetoric. So I'll flow your kritiks and your theory, but if you opponent gets up and says "Judge, this is kind of silly, can we please talk about the resolution at hand?" then I'll probably drop that argument. I have little patience for the idea that debate rounds are a mechanism for social change. I have even less patience for debaters who are trying to commodify social issues and the suffering of others for a win in a debate round when it is not particularly relevant to the round itself.

And for the love of all that is good and decent, would someone please take 30 seconds to establish a framework for the round? And actually warrant it? Even better than weighing is weighing that a debater can do in the context of their framework.

I appreciate a well organized & thoughtful structure to your case. I take a lot of notes, and while I don't mind reasonable speed, please don't rush through your main points. Be especially clear with your value and criterion and main contentions. More isn't always better. Well thought out evidence and your explanation of its impact to your case is more important to me than speeding through citations that don't get much explanation.

Clash will weigh heavily in my voting and usually decides the winner in a close debate. I appreciate a spirited cross ex but expect that students remain civil and respectful of each other. Please tell me your voting points and why you think your case won the debate. If you feel your opponent dropped an argument or was unable to adequately refute a main point, tell me.

I appreciate your giving up a weekend day to debate and will do my best to give you a good round of judging and meaningful feedback on your ballots.

Having been brought up in Jesuit and classical academia, government entities, and corporate environments, I look at Speech and Debate events from two separate standpoints:

In Speech events, I focus on method of delivery rather than the choice of message. Eye contact, confidence, and intonation are physical starting points for my evaluations. It is important that competitors recognize delineated components of any speaking event - the speaker (competitor), the audience, the message, and the medium of delivery. I often use the phrase, “practice sounding un-practiced.” This can be deduced to mean that I felt, as the audience, that I was hearing a message for the first time, and that it was personally directed at me. At the same time, as a judge, I should appreciate the clarity that there was intentional and dedicated preparation time prior to the evaluated event.

In Debate events - in addition to those expectations that align with the Speech competitors - I also look at the logical process of the presenters’ arguments. Are they relevant, without presumptions, and clear? Have they chosen a formal approach (focused on structure) or an informal approach (focused on content), or a combination of the two? If they are supporting an opinion, is their defense of such opinion based on communicated evidence? I don’t base my evaluation on my own personal agreement (or disagreement) with their stance; rather, I objectively rate opponents and their rivals based on the structure and content of their message AND their delivery.

Prefer typical conversational speaking cadence with arguments organized in numbered talking points.

No Ida Behrouz Vazeri

» Completed Cultural Competence Course «

- - - - -

I have judged speech and debate events for more than 15 years, and have been a coach for about 10. I primarily coach interp and public speaking events, but I've also judged Public Forum Debate for years, and assist with coaching PFD. I have judged final rounds of PFD and DUO, as well as many break rounds, at the National Tournament.

I do not judge LD, WSD or Policy.

General thoughts

No matter what event I judge, I will do my best to be as prepared, professional and fair as possible. I expect no less from competitors. If you are unprepared, exhibit unprofessional behavior, are sloppy or waste my time (or another competitor's time), you won't be rewarded. Be professional. Be present. Be courteous. You will not be rewarded for being rude.

Public Forum Debate

My approach to PFD is pretty traditional. Be clear! Convince me you should win. Because of my speech background, I value presentation. Yes, I want your words and arguments to bring me to your side, but how you say those things is important (vocal variety, emphasis, eye contact, gestures). As you present your case, you've got to convince me your arguments are the right arguments, and guide me through your case. Your presentation skills — or lack thereof — play a big role in this process. I also expect you to be professional in every aspect of the round; you should look and play the part. Abusive or overly aggressive language or attitudes will not be rewarded. And, if you never look up from your laptop, tablet or pad, you're missing an opportunity to sell me on your case.

I've heard PFD was never designed to be Policy. It started out as Ted Turner Debate. Extreme speed or arcane debate jargon or argumentation theory won't win points with me. I am looking for persuasive and logical arguments that are clear and accessible. If you speak so fast that I can’t flow your argument, then how can it be on my flow?

While your analysis needs to be solid, I do want good information. Support your arguments. Cite your facts; I want to know where your information comes from. Good information is important, and I don't like teams that cite only one or two sources over and over — or rarely cite arcane sources. Solid warrants and citations will be rewarded, assuming you link everything together.

I try to intervene as little as possible, and I will not discount an argument because I strongly disagree with it — as long as you can support it and I understand it. I value facts and will judge a debate based on the information presented — not my opinions. How well do you support your contentions? Do you have sufficient warranting? Clear impacts? Do you understand the resolution beyond what is in your cases? That's the information that will help you deliver solid blocks and control cross. Some judges discount cross; I don't. If you don't know the subject, this is where it will show.

Time yourself (and your opponent, if you want), but I will also keep time using a dedicated app. I'm not a stickler for time — if you go a few seconds over time to finish a thought or respond during cross, that is OK. Just don't abuse it. And keep those off-time roadmaps super brief.

Interp/speech

I realize I don't need a paradigm for speech events, but since competitors do occasionally ask, why not? Here are a few general thoughts:

» Delivery: Clear, fluid delivery, whether you're presenting an oratory or doing a character in a DI, is a must. If I can't hear or understand you, or clearly identify your characters, that's an issue.

» Oratories, Expos, Info: I look for an interesting topic, clear points, effective and persuasive speech, good support and fluid movement/gestures. For an Info, a clear, effective prop need not be complex or consist of 50 things. Sometimes, simple is best. Does it add to the speech? Does it help the audience understand the speech better? If it controls you, then it's not effective. Do not neglect eye contact with me and the rest of the audience. If you don't connect with me, how can I connect with your speech? Finally, why do I care? Why should the audience care? Bring it back to the audience and let us know why we should care. In an OO, you are likely advocating for something. Tell me why I should care, or at least listen. In an info or an expository, what's the impact? For example, if the extinction of a little bug will cause a bigger bug to also become extinct, that's impact. But it's not necessarily the final impact to the audience. Bring it to us: The extinction of this little bug will cause a larger bug to become extinct, potentially impacting our food supply. An informative should tell me more than how to do something; it should tell me something (or an angle on something) I didn't know. And then, it should explain to me why I (the audience) care.

» DI/HI/DUO/POI: A good piece that is cut tightly and effectively is a great start (don't underestimate the cutting). From there, I look for good, clear, distinct and effective characterizations (TIP: focal points may be somewhat ignored these days, but I'm one of those judges who still look for them, and I like good eye contact with the audience during narration), effective blocking and purposeful movement. Tech is OK, if it doesn't overpower the presentation but rather enhances the piece. For DUOs, tight cue pickup, distinct characterizations and creative blocking are rewarded. In POI, do the pieces continually support your argument or thesis?

A note about POI: Per the NSDA, "The use of a manuscript during the performance is required." I expect you to refer to your binder, turn pages and — if you wish — use it as a prop. Never turning the pages or looking at the binder is not what I am hoping to see.

» EXT: I look for clear structure, good support, good facts, fluid delivery. Answer the extemp question you received: Pivoting to some other angle of your preference won't be rewarded. Be sure, too, that I know your answer: be clear! Canned intros can work, but they need to be pertinent, and many are not. Sourcing is important; if you have (for example) three points, I'll look for two reputable sources per point. Varied sources work best and help support your overall argument. Do not neglect eye contact with me and the rest of the audience (if any). If you don't connect with me, how can I connect with your speech?

Final thoughts

Don't read too much into any of this. It's my opinion and opinions are cheap. At the end of the day, the most important thing is that your experience is fun and rewarding, and that we both learn something. If that happens, we were both winners.

Stay focused, and good luck!

General Stuff -

She/Her

I competed on the national circuit for 4 years in the interpretation events. I am also familiar with the speech events, Public Forum, World Schools Debate, and Congress.

I competed for Trinity Preparatory School (Winter Park, FL) all 4 years of high school.

For debate events, I vote primarily off argumentation, not delivery.

I'm an International Studies and Political Science double major at the University of North Florida so I will most likely be familiar with whatever current events you may mention, so don't lie or I'll know lol.

Be respectful to your competitors. If you are disrespectful to any group or individual for their race, ethnicity, sexuality, gender identity, class, sex, nationality, ability, or religion you will automatically lose the round/be dropped. Just be nice and we will all have fun.

Email me if you have any questions - ashleynmason20@gmail.com

Public Forum -

I’ve competed in Public Forum a couple times and have watched quite a bit but I’m still definitely a lay judge.

Do’s:

- WEIGH. Otherwise I’ll do it for you, which you probs don’t want

- Extend whatever you say in crossfire. I don’t flow crossfire so if you want me to evaluate it, extend it.

- Collapsing - don’t be afraid to drop a point. Focus on the most important stuff. It’ll make all our lives easier.

- I'd prefer you to go line by line down your competitors case in rebuttal

- Feel free to frontline in second rebuttal

- If your competitors want to see a card, please pull it up fast. You should have it readily available. (This obvs excludes tech issues due to the current format of debating over Zoom).

Don’ts:

- Spread. Talking semi-fast is fine.

- Don’t bring up new stuff in final focus. I won’t consider it.

- Please don't refer to your cards only by name when extending. I will probs miss the name of your card so tell me what you are talking about please.

- I'm not going to say absolutely NO theory, but if you run theory, you better explain it really really well because I'm not well-versed on it at all.

How I evaluate the round:

- I’ll flow. Whoever wins the flow will win the round. So make sure to extend your points and respond to your competitors

- I won’t consider stuff said in cross fire unless it’s extended.

Other stuff:

- I probs won’t call for a card unless it seems sus.

- Please just be honest about how much prep time you’ve used because I can’t keep up with how much you’ve used.

World Schools Debate -

I competed in Worlds Schools one year at nationals so I have some experience and understanding.

Do's:

1. Talk about countries other than the US. This is WORLD Schools Debate.

2. Bring up a 3rd substantive argument in your 2nd speech. OPP, feel free to respond to the PROP's 3rd substantive argument in your 2nd speech.

3. WEIGH your arguments. Otherwise, I'll have to do that for you, which you might not like.

4. Collapsing. Don't be afraid to drop a point. It'll make all our lives easier. Quality over quantity.

Don'ts:

1. Don't spread (talking fast is fine)

2. Don't bring up new stuff in final reply. I won't consider it.

3. Don't only talk about the US. This is WORLD Schools.

4. Please don't refer to your cards only by name when extending. I will probs miss the name of your card so tell me what you are talking about please.

How I'll Vote:

I'm going to vote off who wins the flow. So extend your arguments and respond to your competitors.

If the opposing team presents a model/mechanism and you don't want it to be the framework for the round - counter the model/mechanism. Otherwise, I'm voting off it.

I'm not going to consider POIs in my decision unless they are extended.

I probably won't call for cards unless it seems sus.

Congress -

I've watched quite a bit of Congress and I competed once at a local. I have some experience judging Congress. Still, I'm definitely a lay judge.

Be professional, but don't be afraid to make a joke or two. I like dynamic speakers and speeches.

I like unique arguments. I don't want to keep hearing the same stuff over and over.

Abide by congressional debate rules and procedures.

I like clash but still be respectful.

I don't prioritize delivery, but I still want to see the proper formatting for a speech: roadmap, transitions, etc.

For a PO, I want to see someone who can keep a chamber under control, properly follow the speaking order, and appear unbiased and fair to all in the round. I don't understand judges who refuse to rank the PO. If you do your job well, I will rank you. :)

Speech and Interp -

I'm not going to write a paradigm for speech or interp. It's not like you can read it and change your speech before walking into the round. But, I'll try to make it very clear why I gave you the rank I did on your ballot. If you are confused or have any questions, feel free to reach out!

I am a very traditional judge. I do not like speed. Speak at a normal pace.

No K's. Debate the topic.

Crystalize. Tell me why you won the debate. If you write out my RFD, you stand a better chance of winning.

Make sure that you bring up any cross-ex points in your next speech. Connect them to what you have said.

Overall, I want to know why you should win the round. Spell it out. If you leave it up to me, don't be surprised if I had a different takeaway than you wanted.

I am a former LD coach and camp instructor who is now assisting with the Charlotte Latin School (NC) team. Though I will listen to kritiks, plans/counterplans, disads, etc., I prefer a good standards debate. If you choose to offer theoretical approaches, just be sure to explain and impact them clearly. NEG, avoid trying to win the round by spreading; instead, give substantive responses to the AFF case in addition to your case.

I do flow carefully and will make my decision largely based on coverage, argument quality, clash, and impacting. When you address standards, you should actually explain your argument rather than simply cross-applying arguments that don't necessarily fit your point. I can handle speed as long as you signpost and enunciate; if I cannot understand what you are saying, then your point won't be on my flow, and I won't vote on it. Please make CX count by asking substantive questions. Remain civil. You will not impress me by being arrogant, condescending or rude to your opponent. When tournaments allow, I am happy to offer a critique at the end though I generally do not disclose.

If you are a novice, please know that I am a friendly and accessible judge. I work with primarily with novice LDers and really enjoy that process. Feel free to ask me questions if you are confused during the round. I will write specific and constructive comments that you can later use in practice, and please don't hesitate to speak with me outside of the round about your performance. Above all, remember that your round should be a learning experience! It's NOT all about the "win." You should take something valuable from the round regardless of a win or loss.

Yes, Email Chain: mclelland0@icloud.com

Debated Congress, Extemp, PF, Policy and World Schools in high school. I am a well-rounded debater that understands the flow and structure of every event.

Public Forum:

My goal is to be as close to a tabula rosa judge as possible in PF. I am a flow judge and feel speed is okay in PF - let the natural course of the debate determine the speed. I live for solid clash. I will not hesitate to call for evidence at the end of a round if a card doesn't make sense or your opponent effectively convinces me your source/analytic is not credible.

While voters are important, I will vote on the entirety of the round. Don't mention something in your voters that didn't occur throughout the round. Make sure you weigh in your latter speeches - failure to weigh leaves it in entirely in my opinion of what occurred during the round.

Lincoln Douglas:

I am holistically a tabula rosa judge in LD. While I will accept any argument introduced in the round, I do not prefer K's, . This style of debate is value-focused - make sure that you provide me a solid weighing mechanism that aligns with your value criterion. Speed does not bother me - just ensure your opponent is at the same level as you.

While I typically won't decide a round based on theory, I will take it into consideration if abusive arguments or tactics are highlighted, not through a block and jargon, but a logical explanation of the theory and why it matters. Please... do not give me an off-time roadmap. The only time this is needed is for Policy/CX debate where I might have 8 million flows... in LD there's two flows - we can follow along.

Congressional Debate:

Reference my PF/LD paradigms to see what I look for from general terms on argument structure. I highly value clash in congressional debate. I do not like the congressional debate role play - use that time to make substantive and logical arguments. I pay close attention to evidence used in speeches - academic journals and case studies in addition to publications in the last two years will rank you higher. Congress speeches are short, so make you evidence use short, impactful and highly analytical to show your understanding - don't just read other people's work to me during your speech.

I fairly consider PO performance in my ranks. I will give the 1 to a PO that has zero issues with precedence/recency (speeches and questions), actually runs an efficient chamber (I should hear you talk as little as possible), understands Robert's Rules of Order (know the difference between majority and super-majority votes) and expertly manages the chamber (if there's no prefacing, rule down prefacing; stop speakers or questioners that go over time; enforce the rules that are set). Not everyone is GUARANTEED an opportunity to speak on every bill in this event. I expect a strong PO to strike down one-sided debate and use discretion to move to previous question without chamber approval for the sake of active debate.

Your ability or lack thereof to rebutt as a questioner and answerer in questioning will be considered in my rankings. Questioning is an exceptional opportunity to convince me of your ability to ask well-intentioned questions. As mentioned in the beginning of my congress paradigm... clash is vital to doing well on my ballot.

!! Note on Inclusion !!

Speech and Debate is SUCH a fun activity - which makes it even more important it's inclusive and accessible. Do not utilize CX time to assert dominance and/or privilege. Condescension, consistent interruptions of opponent, xenophobia, racism and classism are all behaviors that absolutely have no place in this activity. Your crossing of the above-mentioned lines will decimate your speaks and potentially get you dropped in that round whether it's round 1 or finals. There is absolutely no reason in this activity to make people feel unsafe or uncomfortable.

I competed in speech in high school and have been judging speech events for 8 years. I am an assistant speech coach, and therefore I am not a flow judge.

I am a parent judge. Please explain arguments thoroughly and clearly at a reasonable pace.

I have judged debate since 2001. From 2014-2021 I coached Public Forum and Speech events. I retired after 8 years as the Co-Director of Speech and Debate at Cary Academy in North Carolina in 2021.

DEBATE: In debate (LD/PF) I look for clear claims, evidence and links to logical, clear impacts showing contextual analysis. I flow each round and look for you to bring your arguments through the round, tell me the clash and how I should weigh.

I judge as if this activity is preparing you for the real world. I won't flow what I have to work too hard to follow or translate (read speed). Asking for evidence for common sense issues won't count either. You can use flow jargon, but tell me why. You want me to flow across the round? cross apply? for instance, tell me why. Don't exaggerate your evidence. Finally - I'm not here to show you how smart or clever I am by pretending to understand some sesquipedalian or sophomoric arguments (see what I did there?)- that means. 1.) do a kritik and you are going to lose because you failed to acknowledge that ideas can conflict and are worthy of discussion; 2.) "the tech over truthers" and other silly judging paradigms don't make you a more articulate conveyor of ideas once you have to "adult". I will know the topic, but judge like a lay judge. Convince me. Have fun and enjoy the activity!

CONGRESS: Well researched unique takes on a resolution are important. Simple stock arguments and analysis is easy. I look for you to look deeper into the consequences/outcome of passage. Don't rehash, not only is it boring but it suggests you needed to listen more closely. Refutation of previous speeches shows careful analysis in the moment and it shows you have more than the case you wrote the night before (even if you did :)). Presentation is also important. I don't like BS for the sake of being a good presenter but a balance of solid research, thoughtful analysis, ambitious and relevant refutation from a persuasive speaker will get high marks!

Stay on topic. Make sense. Have your evidence ready to share. Do not speak so fast that I can't understand you. Watch your aggressions, above all respect yourself and your opponents.

On arguments. I appreciate arguments that acknowledge the complexity of the imperfect world we live in. There are no perfect solutions to the issues we debate, so I find it disingenuous to pretend otherwise. These issues are complicated; approach them with compassion and nuance. In LD, this means I really want you to lean into the lens of your value. Engage with your opponent's arguments authentically, don't twist their words or intentionally misconstrue what they are saying for a "technical gotcha."

On delivery. Slow down. I know it's not speech, but I'd like your delivery to add something. I don't want to feel like I would have been better off simply reading your argument. Consider variance in tone, tempo, and volume. Pauses separate ideas and can add emphasis.

On losing me. I will question your entire argument if you use logical fallacies, outdated research, or clearly unreliable sources. Do not use arguments that rely on racism, sexism, classism, etc. You will lose my respect if you attempt to intimidate your opponent.

About me. I'm an English teacher who loves cats, books, and learning new things. I value passion and creativity in others. Kindness and compassion are more important than the win.

General overview:

I was a high school and college debater and have been an active high school coach ever since. I am chair of my state league as well as an NSDA District Chair. Dating back to high school, I have over 35 years of experience in the activity. However, please don't consider me as "old school" or a strict traditionalist. Like any activity, speech and debate is constantly evolving and I am open to and embrace most changes. You'll clearly understand all of the rare exceptions to that as you read my paradigm.

It is very important to remember that debate is a communication activity. As such, I expect clear communication. Well articulated, supported and defended arguments, regardless of quantity, are far more important to me than who has the most cards that they can spout out in a speech. While I'm okay with a limited amount of speed, excessive speed beyond what you would use in the "real world" is not effective communication in my mind. Communicate to me effectively with well reasoned and fully supported arguments at a reasonable pace and you will win my ballot. I don't accept the "they dropped the argument so I automatically win the argument" claim. You must tell me why the dropped argument was critical in the first place and convince me that it mattered. I look at who had the most compelling arguments on balance and successfully defended them throughout the round while refuting the opponent's arguments on balance in making my decision.

Things to keep in mind about the various events I judge:

Policy debate is about policy. It has a plan. Plans have advantages and disadvantages as well as solvency or the lack thereof. Some plans also might warrant a counterplan from the negative if it is good, nontopical, and can gain solvency better than the affirmative plan. I am not a fan of "circuit style" policy debate and greatly prefer good and clear communication.

Lincoln Douglas Debate is about values. I am interested much more in values in this type of debate than any sort of policy. However, I'm not a strict traditionalist in that I don't require both a value premise and a value criterion that is explicitly stated. But I do want to hear a value debate. That said, I also want to hear some pragmatic examples of how your value structure plays out within the context of the resolution. All in all, I balance my decision between the philosophical and the pragmatic. Persuade me of your position. However, please don't present a plan or counterplan. Switch to policy debate if you want to do that. Bottom line: debate the resolution and don't stray from it.

Public Forum Debate is about current events and was intended for the lay judge. Don't give me policy or LD arguments. Clear communication is important in all forms of debate, but is the most important in this one. I am not open to rapid fire spreading. That's not communication. Please don't give me a formal plan or counterplan. Again, reserve that for policy debate. Communicate and persuade with arguments backed up by solid research and your own analysis and do this better than your opponents and you will win my PF ballot. It's that simple. Debate the resolution without straying from it in a good communicative style where you defend your arguments and attack your opponent's and do this better than they do it. Then you win. Persuade me. I am also not a fan of "circuit style" Public Forum that seems to be increasingly popular. Communicate as if I am a layperson (even though I'm not), as that is what PF was intended to be.

Congress Paradigm: (I'll be honest. It's my favorite event.)
Congressional Debate is designed to be like the real Congress when it functions as it was intended. Decorum is absolutely critical. While humor may have its place in this event, you should not do or say anything that a United States congressperson of integrity would not do or say. You should also follow Congressional decorum rules and address fellow competitors with their proper titles. When judging congress, I want to see clash/refutation of previous speakers (unless, of course, you are giving the first speech of the topic). Try to avoid "canned" speeches that are largely prewritten. This is not dueling oratories. It is still debate. I look for a combination of new arguments and clash/refutation of arguments already made. I do not like rehash. If it's been said already, don't say it unless you have a uniquely fresh perspective. I am not impressed by those who jump up to make the first obvious motion for previous question or for recess. Obvious motions score no points with me, as they are obvious and can be made by anyone. It's not a race to see who can be seen the most. I am, however, impressed by those who make great speeches, regularly ask strong cross examination questions and show true leadership in the chamber. Simply making great speeches alone is not enough. If you give three perfect speeches but never really ask good cross examination questions or rarely participate proceduraly in the chamber, you might not get the ranking you were hoping for. Although speeches are very important and a major factor in my decision, they are not the complete package that I expect from a competitor. I'm looking at your total constructive participation in the chamber (in a productive sense, not a "just to be seen" sense). Finally, to reiterate what I said at the beginning, I take decorum very seriously. You should too.

Congress Presiding Officers: Keep your wording as brief and concise as possible. Avoid the obvious. Please don't use phrases like "Seeing as how that was a negative speech, we are now in line for an affirmative speech." Here is a MUCH better option: "Affirmative speakers please rise" or "We are now in line for an affirmative speech." There is no need to tell anyone that the previous speech was negative. We should know that already. Just immediately call on the next side. It is acceptable and advisable to also very quickly give the time of the previous speech for the reference of the judges, but we do not need to be reminded of what side the previous speech was on. The phrase I dislike the most in Congress is "seeing as how . . ." So how do I judge you as a P.O. in relation to the speakers in the chamber? Most (but not all) presiding officers will make my top eight ballot if they are good with no major flaws. But how do you move up the ballot to get in "break" range? I place a great deal of weight on fairness and decorum, knowledge of parliamentary procedure and the efficiency in which the chamber is conducted. I reward presiding officers who are precise and have minimal downtime. And, as mentioned earlier, it does not require a great deal of language (especially jargon and phraseology) to be an excellent presiding officer. I'm not judging you on how much I hear you speak. I'm judging you on how efficient the chamber ran under your leadership. An excellent P.O. can run a highly efficient chamber without having to say much. Keep order, know and enforce the rules, and be respected by your peers. That said, you should also be prepared to step in and be assertive anytime the chamber or decorum gets out of hand. In fact, you should step in assertively at the first minute sign of it. Finally, while it is often difficult for a P.O. to be first on the ballot, it is also not impossible if your excellence is evident. And as a side note, while this is not a voting issue for me, it is worth noting. When giving your nomination speech, you don't need to tell me (or the rest of the chamber) that you will be "fast and efficient." That phrase is overused and heard from almost every candidate I've ever seen nominated. Everyone makes that claim, but a surprising number don't actually follow through on it. Come up with original (but relevant) reasons that you should be elected.

Things to avoid in any event I judge:

"Spreading" or rapid fire delivery. Just don't.

Ad Hominem attacks of any kind. Stick to the issues, not the person. This is the first thing that will alienate me regardless of your position.

Kritiks - You must be extremely persuasive if you run them. I'll consider them and vote for them if they are excellent, but I'd rather hear other arguments. Very few kritiks are in that "excellent" category I just mentioned. These are mainly only appropriate for Policy debate. I'll reluctantly consider them in LD, but never in PF.

Debate that strays outside the resolutional area. Stick to the topic.

Lack of respect for your opponent or anyone else in the room. Disagreement and debate over that disagreement is great. That's what this activity is about. But we must always do it respectfully.

Lack of respect for public figures. It's perfectly fine to disagree with the position of anyone you quote. However, negativity toward the person is not acceptable.

Condescending tone or delivery. Don't even try it with me. Trust me, I'll hear a condescending tone/delivery much louder than any argument you make, no matter how good the argument is. I'll make a condescending tone a voting issue that does not play in your favor. You don't want that.

I am a parent judge, and I’m in my fourth year of judging Public Forum, Parli, LD, and extemp. While I’m not an expert at judging debate, I have a Master’s in Foreign Service from Georgetown University, and so I do have more than a basic knowledge of US and international politics and current events.

Here’s what I like in a speaker:

Speak clearly, NO SPREADING, and present your arguments and analysis in a respectable manner, as those are important for speaker points.

Present your case in a way that is clearly connected to supporting evidence, and fully explain your analysis.

I expect all of you to time yourselves.

To convince me to vote for your team, present clearly what arguments you are winning on, but make sure you do so with respect and dignity. Do not assume that the judge is incapable of making that decision correctly.

Bentonville West High School Speech & Debate Coach

I have been a coach and competitor in the forensics/speech/debate world for 20+ years. I specialize in speaking. Speaker points are important to me. Sloppy or disorganized speeches can cost you the round. Please don't just read to me. I want to see your speaking & delivery skills as much as I want to see your arguments. Make clear arguments and focus on line-by-line analysis. When it comes to splitting hairs for a win, I will go with the team with the best line-by-line argumentation.

Back your claims and counterclaims with solid cards. I'm an analytical thinker when it comes to debate rounds. I want to hear your claims back with more than your opinion.

I am a tab judge and willing to listen to any argument. However, don't kill a dead horse or bet your case on minuscule points. Support your claims with professional backing. Make your points clear and understandable. Make sure you link to the resolution.

I enjoy a clearly organized debate with strong signposting, road-maps, and line-by-line analysis. Organization is key to keeping the flow tidy as well as maintaining clash throughout the round.

PLEASE DON'T SPREAD. Adapt your case structure/speaking style, to adhere to this request. I'm a speaker. I expect solid speaking skills. I can deal with fast speaking as long as you are clear. However, I'm a traditional judge. Don't spread in styles outside of CX. If you do speak quickly, make sure you're clear. If I miss your argument because you're not clear, it could cost you the round.

Be sure to read arguments that have a clear link to the resolution/framework. If I don't understand the argument itself or don't understand how it links, there is no way I can evaluate it.

You're not going to win rounds with me in cross. Just because you bring a point up in cross does not mean I will flow it. If you want it considered, bring it up in your rebuttal. Keep it professional. A true debater can give their points without sounding demeaning or disrespectful. It will cost you the round with me. Learn to disagree respectfully.

I am by no means a lay judge, but I judge PF & WSD rounds as if I am. Don't use debate jargon in these rounds. Speak to me as if I had never heard the word debate before. That's the design of these styles.

If you have any questions, please ask me prior to the round.

Avoid arguments that are homophobic, sexist, racist, or offensive in any way. Be respectful to your opponent and judge. Use professional language at all times.

This is your debate so have fun with it! Best of luck to you!!

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

I flow each speech and, as a result, use my flow as my primary decision-rendering tool. The flow is especially important to me when deciding between two debaters with nearly equal performances. I also value clear, distinct voter issues and look for debaters to use voter issues to connect multiple ideas across the debate. Additionally, I look for clear frameworks to set up the round for each debater and for each debater to use these frameworks to present deep analyses of the main issues in the round.

In general, I prefer you speak no faster than a brisk, conversational pace. Trying to “out-speed” your opponent or overwhelm them by spreading will not earn you points in my book. If you speak so quickly I cannot easily gather your main points, how am I supposed to flow them and weigh them in the round?

Final Thoughts

At the end of the day, I am just one judge with one set of opinions. Speech and debate is meant to be a fun and educational activity. I hope your experience is rewarding, educational, and, above all else, fun.

Good luck!

Don't spread and don't make excessive evidence calls.

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 love judging speech! I have judged over 30 speech and debate tournaments (over 100 rounds) since September, 2019, and have experience judging every single speech event, and a little bit of LD as well.

I have also had the great pleasure of being a judge at TOC, NSDA, NIETOC, NCFL as well!

I'm definitely not a strict judge, and try to make the round atmosphere as comfortable as possible. In addition, I sincerely try my best to rank all of the students in a fair and unbiased way, as well as give them feedback that they can improve from, but I am also always open to questions if you want to learn more about how to improve your speech!

Outside of being a speech and debate judge, I have a PhD in Environmental Engineering. I try my best to protect environment.

Pronouns: she/her

-Oct.  2022

Hi, I'm a parent judge. I've been judging for a long time with a lot of debates over time, but don't consider me a highly skilled varsity debate judge. I really prefer novice debates and slower, clear speakers. I am very good at keeping an open mind and a blank slate, so tell me how to vote, carefully follow the flow and we should do just fine. Thank you!

put me on the email chain: tywang2020@gmail.com

previous experience: debated policy @ strath haven in 2016-2020 but haven’t really been active in the debate community since then

disclaimer: I have not listened to spreading in a hot second and I also have not heard any rounds on either LD or Policy topics this year so taking time to explain things is a good idea

general things: please disclose!! timing and such should be done by teams themselves! being extremely rude in cx or speeches will result in reduced points!!

==================================================================

Policy:

when I was in high school, I usually debated/went for more policy args, but K rounds were always interesting and nowadays I will vote for anything you can really convince me on

specifics args:

disads/counterplans -- very familiar with these as a whole and are good // don’t really know the ones for this year’s topic but as long as you frame and have nice overview/extensions you should be more than fine

impact turns -- love to see these pulled off well, but careful to take time with them and really explain all the components and how they interact with everything in the round

k's -- I am pretty familiar and open to the common Cap, Security, Bio, etc. args. personally I would stay away from high theory args with me unless you think you can explain them exceptionally well. I do believe that the k has to have specific args and links to the aff. I will weigh the aff against the K unless framed otherwise and so case turns against Ks are definitely something to consider.

k affs -- I never ran these in highschool and would often go T or Cap against them. i'm also open to these and will vote for them, and i also believe that the neg does have to interact with aff specific answers

t/fw -- fairness and education are both important impacts, but make sure to explain how the team has caused these abuses. make sure abuse story is clear. good interp/counter interp debates (and TVAs!) are convincing to me. I usually stand as a policymaker unless you frame otherwise and unless told otherwise the ballot is usually just a win/loss (but good argumentation can change this).

theory -- I would definitely prefer to vote on the substance, but if abuse is evident or theory is completely dropped (with good explanation on why I should reject the team), this is a viable option.

==================================================================

LD:

- I have essentially no experience with LD or this topic, so be careful to explain things thoroughly

- speed and most arguments (high theory is a little confusing but if you can explain it well go for it) are fine, but I do really value good extensions and warranted out args

==================================================================

This is my fourth year as a parent judge(speech mainly). I have judged in some national speech and debate events: NSDA national, TOC, NIETOC, etc. I emphasize on clarity and confidence in delivery. Do not spread. I need to understand you to rank you high.

I did competitive speech and debate for all four years of high school. I competed on the local and nation circuits, so I am well equipped to understand the flow of the round. However, I am still looking for the teams to weigh the round on their own. I do not want to look back at the flow and try to decide which argument was better; tell me. Since this tournament is virtual, I will not penalize you for technical difficulties. To ensure the round runs smoothly, I would suggest making sure you have a stable network and doing a sound test to make sure I can hear you.

David Yastremski
Director - Ridge High School
30+ years experience coaching and judging

LD/PF/PARLI
I'm considered a very traditional flow judge within the various competitive debate arenas. I appreciate slightly-higher than conversational rates as a maximum. I will afford you a 'clear' if necessary.

I do expect and reward debate with a clear framework of understanding. I also like direct application of your argument to clear and defined system(s). I don’t believe we exist in a vacuum – there must be context for me to consider and weigh an argument, and I recognize the resolution is created and should be interpreted within a particular context. Therefore, hypothetical worlds must be warranted as reasonable within a pragmatic context developed within the resolution. I appreciate creative, though plausible and non-abusive, House interpretations in Parliamentary rounds.

In LD and PF, all evidence must be clearly tagged and clearly linked to the grounds within your claims. In Parliamentary, examples should be true, contextually-defined, when appropriate, and directly linked to your claims. You can create hypothetical examples or indicate your personal beliefs on an issue; however, if you are unsure what a particular constitutional amendment or Supreme Court decision states, please avoid introducing it. Also, where tag-teaming is permitted, proceed with caution. One or two interjections is fine. More than that diminishes your partner's voice/skill and will be considered in speaker points and, if excessive, the RFD.

Crystallization is key to winning the round. Be sure you allow yourself ample time to establish clear grounds and warrants on all voters. I don’t consider arguments just because they are uttered; you must explain the ‘why’ and the ‘so what’ in order for me to weigh them in my decision, in other words, directly impact them to the framework/standards. I do appreciate clear signposting throughout the round in order to make the necessary links and applications to other arguments, and I will give you more speaker points if you do this effectively. Speaker points are also rewarded for competence, clarity, and camaraderie during the round. In LD and PF, I will not give below a 26 unless you're rude and/or abusive.

Overall, please remember, I may not be as well-read on the resolution as you are. I do not teach at camps; I don’t teach debate in any structured class, nor do I judge as regularly or frequently as others. I will work hard to reach the fairest decision in my capacity. I really enjoy judging rounds where the contestants make a concerted effort to connect with me and my paradigm. I don't enjoy rounds where I or my paradigm is ignored. Thanks for reading this far!! Best of luck in your round.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE:

I have 25+ years experience in Congressional 'Debate' and REALLY enjoy judging/parli'ing great rounds! I evaluate 'student congress' as a debate event; hence, if you are early in the cycle, I am looking for clear affirmative and negative grounds to establish clash and foundation for the remainder of the debate. If you speak later in the cycle, I expect extensions and refutations of what has already been established as significant issues in the debate (beyond just name dropping). I see each contribution on the affirmative and negative sides as extensions of the previous speeches presented; consequently, if there is a significant argument that has not been addressed to by opponents, I expect later speakers to build and expand on it to strengthen it. Likewise, if speakers on the other side do not respond to a significant issue, I will consider it a 'dropped argument' which will only increase the ranking of the student who initially made it, and lower the rankings of students who failed to recognize, respond or refute it; however, it is the duty of questioners to challenge opposing speakers thus reminding the room (including the judges) on significant arguments or issues that have gone unrefuted. In other words, students should flow the entire round and incorporate that information into their speeches and questions. I also highly encourage using the amendment process to make legislation better. Competitors who attempt it, with germane and purposeful language, will be rewarded on my ballot.

Most importantly, enjoy the unique experience of Congressional Debate. There are so many nuances in this event that the speech and debate other events cannot provide. Own and appreciate your opportunity by demonstrating your best effort in respectful dialogue and debate and be your best 'self' in the round. If you do, the rewards will far outweigh the effort.

EVIDENCE: All claims should be sufficiently warranted via credible evidence which ideally include both theoretical and empirical sources. I reward those who consider constitutional, democratic, economic, diplomatic frameworks, including a range of conservative to liberal ideologies, to justify their position which are further substantiated with empirical examples and data. All evidence should be verbally-cited with appropriate source and date. Students should always consider biases and special interests when choosing sources to cite in their speeches. I also encourage students to challenge evidence during refutations or questioning, as time and warrant allows.

PARTICIPATION: I reward participation in all forms: presiding, amending, questioning, flipping, and other forms of engagement that serve a clear purpose to the debate and fluent engagement within the round. One-sided debate indicates we should most likely move on to the next piece of legislation since we are ready to vote; therefore, I encourage students to stand for additional speeches if your competitors are not willing to flip, yet do not wish to move to previous question (as a matter of fact I will highly reward you for 'debating' provided that you are contributing to a meaningful debate of the issues). I expect congressional debaters to remain engaged in the round, no matter what your speaking order, therefore leaving the chamber for extended periods of time is highly discouraged and will be reflected in my final ranking. Arriving late or ending early is disrespectful to the chamber and event. Competitors who appear to bulldoze or disenfranchise others regarding matters of agenda-setting, agenda-amendments, speaking position/sides can also be penalized in ranking. I am not fond of splits before the round as I've seen many students, typically younger folks, coerced into flipping; hence, students should just be ready to debate with what they've prepared. If you are concerned with being dropped, I recommend exploring arguments on both sides of the bill/resolution.

PRESIDING OFFICER: Thank you for being willing to serve the chamber. I look highly upon students who run for PO. If elected, be sure you demonstrate equity and fairness in providing the optimum opportunity for every competitor to demonstrate their skills as a debater and participant in the chamber. I value POs who assert a respectful command and control of the room. Do not allow other competitors to take over without your guidance and appropriate permissions (even during breaks while others may be out of the room). Your procedures of recognizing speakers (including questioning) should be clearly communicated at the top of the round to promote transparency and a respect for all members of the chamber. Mistakes in recency or counting votes happen -- no big deal (just don't make it repetitive). Public spreadsheets are appreciated.

DELIVERY, STYLE and RHETORIC: Good delivery takes the form of an argument and audience-focused presentation style. Authorship/ Sponsorship/ first-negative speeches can be primarily read provided the competitor communicates a well-developed, constructed, and composed foundation of argument. These speeches should be framework and data rich -- and written with a rhetorical prowess that conveys a strong concern and commitment for their advocacy.

After the first speeches, I expect students to extend or refute what has been previously stated - even if offering new arguments. These speeches should be delivered extemporaneously with a nice balance of preparation and spontaneity, demonstrating an ability to adapt your advocacy and reasoning to what has been previously presented. Trivial or generic introductions/closings typically do not get rewarded in my rankings. I would much prefer a short, direct statement of position in the opening and a short, direct final appeal in the closing. Good rhetorical technique and composition in any speech is rewarded.

DECORUM & SUSPENSION OF THE RULES: I highly respect all forms of decorum within the round. I value your demonstration of respect for your colleagues referring to competitors by their titles (senator, representative) and indicated gender identifiers. Avoid deliberate gender-specific language "you guys, ladies and gentlemen" etc. I encourage any suspension of the rules, that are permitted by the tournament, which contribute to more meaningful dialogue, debate, and participation. Motions for a suspension of the rules which reflect a lack of decorum or limit opportunity are discouraged. I also find "I'm sure you can tell me" quite evasive and flippant as an answer.

Hello Debaters,

I am a first time parent judge. Please speak at a normal pace.

Hey everyone! So, if I'm your judge for LD, you can basically run ANYTHING you want to. I really don't want to limit anyone on what they feel comfy with! If you plan on running progressive, make sure you are able to explain your arguments to let's say.. your grandparents who have never seen these theories before. Make sure you can summarize things up in simple man's terms, in other words. All the more power to you :)

I'll flow the round as everyone is debating, so at the end, my winner is based off who has won the most arguments either by extension, drops, or impact analysis. In the case of a tie, I will glance at framework but honestly it's not something super important to me as a judge (so there's no point in engaging in framework debate), BUT if you tell me I need to accept your framework as the framework of the round and it's a decent argument, I'll flow as such.

The only thing I will say: I was never well-versed in theory when I did LD in high school, so I won't be able to give you constructive feedback on it other than whether or not I bought the shell in the first place. And regardless of what you run, make sure there's lots of clash!

Best of luck!