Currently serving in the United States Navy in California. Honored to participate as a judge and watch young Americans practice one of the fundamental skills of Democracy. He/Him/His are my preferred pronouns. Unless preference clarified by participants, I will use initials and gender neutral pronouns when referring to specific participants.

Judging is based on participants' ability to clearly state their position, lay out supporting claims in an organized manner, provide insightful questions that diminish strength of opponents' claims, and defend their own position when questioned by opponent. I will do my best to provide comments that help explain reasoning and give feedback for improvement.

Key points:

I will always look negatively at responses that rely on straw person attacks, cherry picking data, unsupported slippery slope, and the greatest offender of all being whataboutism- derailing debate with unrelated issues.

Most importantly, be respectful to each other.

My background is College Mock Trial which requires you to know both your case and your opponent's case inside and out. I expect the same in a round of debate.

Things that if you do and the majority of competitors doesn't will LOSE you (yeah you) points:

- Reading at 1 million words per minute. Are all 100 facts in your constructive really necessary? My guess is no. Cutting those so you can slow down helps improve clarity and gives me a better idea of what you want to get across. As my Mock Trial Coach once told me "who cares what you are saying if no one can understand you"

- Reading off a script. My sister who does high school speech and debate has told me that this is unreasonable for you to memorize a speech for a pf debate but I don't care, if I have to memorize 70+ pages of a made up mock trial case you can memorize a four minute speech.

- Lacking Gravitas. What I mean by this is that within your two prewritten speeches you don't perform these three simple things to make your side stronger

1. Modifying volume: Wanna make a point? Increase your volume, it signifies to me that this is something you want me to care about.

2. Modifying pace/timing: After you just raised your voice and made this epic point what do you do? If you said "speed into another tirade of facts" you are wrong, I want you to let it rest for a second (I promise you have more than enough time), let me have time to think "Wow that was an awesome point!" If you do this your points will improve.

3. Modifying tone: Yes, you have ran through this speech a billionty times. Yes, you want to vomit when you think of the term "rural hospitals." However, this is one of the first times I have heard your case (I only part time judge) so to me this is a wonderful new topic I get to learn about. Share in that experience with me, give me EMOTION, be invested in proving to me why your side is the one I should fill out my ballot for.

Note: All three of the above become SO much easier if you memorize the material.

Here are some things that will GAIN you points regardless if your opponent does this because most competitors will NOT do this:

- Do not say the following things or anything like them: “Like,” “I Guess,” “I Think,” or “Maybe” this signifies that you are confused and being unprofessional

- Offering Analysis: Prove you know your stuff! I do not care how many facts you quote and how many statistics you read if you do not tell me the IMPLICATIONS of them. Yes the deficit will go up if x occurs but SO WHAT? WHAT HAPPENS? That is what you must demonstrate if you want to do well

- For crossfires, have the wording of your questions written prior to beginning the crossfire. I have judged 6 rounds so far and in all 6 at least one participant fumbled the bag on crossfire and took upwards of 15 seconds stuttering their way through a question. You have 3/4 minutes of an opponents speech to write out your question, there is no excuse for wasting valuable time just because you could not form the sentence properly.

- Understanding your opponent's argument: This comes in two forms:

1. NEVER ASK THEM WHAT THEIR CONTENTION WAS IN CROSSFIRE, THIS IS YOUR TIME TO DESTROY THEM DO NOT GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO FILIBUSTER AND BLATHER ON ABOUT HOW SMART THEY ARE. Instead I'd recommend paying actual attention :)

2. Countering your opponent's points logically. One round I saw had a person go "You say jobs would go down 20%, we say they would go up 40%, therefore the amount of jobs would go up 20%." Now, does that make sense? If you said yes you are wrong. I want for a team instead to say "Their job predictions are apocalyptic and would be countered by our forty percent as our opponent only is taking into account for jobs in a singular sector whereas we are taking into account all sectors. By removing private insurance yes you lose jobs but this creates far more job openings in the medical and other sectors thereby actually increasing jobs." That actually makes sense now doesn't it? This demonstration of knowledge is sorely needed in an event that too often turns into a fact reciting competition.

- Gimme context for your sources. When you say "per Kerry, 13" I have no clue whether that is actually a scholarly source. For all I know Kerry could be something your uncle's boyfriend said at the cookout last September. Instead say "per Dr. Jim Kerry, a sleep researcher from the University of Washington, in 2013" or "per a sleep research study by Dr. Jim Kerry and the University of Washington conducted in 2013"

And that's it, I know this is like super intimidating and you probly (don't laugh at me I don't know how to spell probably) are not looking forward to this round but don't worry I won't bite your head off. If you made it this far just know I admire your ability to read through all my blithering lol anyways here is your reward in the form of a cool video of a panda eating celery https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ . Good Luck!

Note: If my first competition is any indication of my judging toughness it appears I am quite a tough judge so don’t be discouraged if you receive a lower score than you expected.

I competed from 7th grade thur college - I was a Policy Debater.

I have been coaching for 20 + years. I am not a fan of the direction that most debate is going.

Don't waste my time with obscure arguments. Bonaparte once said that "Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever."

You need to extend BOTH the warrant AND impact of your argument(s) in later speeches if you're serious about finessing my ballot. PS...make sure you have a warrant and impact...

If your flow and delivery are clear - SPEED isn't a problem, but if it sounds like you are having a spiritual moment while you are running your case - I am not impressed. Spitting is just rude. Work harder - no-one cares.

Loud isn't an emotion. No Bullies aloud/allowed 20L is in your future.

I am okay with offtime roadmaps - if it's really a roadmap and not trying to sink the other team...

Signposting is fine - I am an English teacher.

Use author qualifications when first citing a piece of evidence (for extensions last name will suffice).

I like good solid evidence, clear debate, and solid connections.

Debate is hard but it's not personal. Have fun - be kind - play fair and tell great stories.

I love powerful words and phrases.

CX can be the root of the best conversations.

Former Public Forum and USX competitor. Senior at Duke University. Coached Congress for three years in the Triangle.

Be concise and be nice.

I am the Director of Forensics and head LD coach at Cary Academy. I would describe myself as a neo-traditionalist. I follow a traditional approach to LD with some notable exceptions. I am a typical traditionalist in that I prefer a debate centered on a common sense, reasonable, good faith interpretation of the resolution; and I believe speakers should emphasize effective communication and practice the habits of fine public speaking during the debate. I differ from many traditionalists in that I am not a fan of the value premise and criterion, and that I do not believe that LD arguments have to be based on broad philosophical concepts, but rather should be as specific to the particular resolution as possible. If you want to win my ballot you should focus on developing a clear position and showing how it is superior to the position put forth by your opponent. You should not attempt to make more arguments than your opponent can respond to so that you can extend them in rebuttal. In my opinion most rounds are not resolved by appeals to authority. The original analysis and synthesis of the debater is vastly more important to me than cards. For further insight on my views please consult these following articles I have written for the Rostrum:

http://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/ld%20Pellicciotta0202.pdf,

https://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/Luong%20RJ%20PresumptionNov'00.pdf

Background:

I've completed in the congressional debate circuit for three years in North Carolina, I have also judged Congressional Debate for nearly three years. I'm truly passionate about Congressional Debate and love when the debate comes to life. I enjoy Foreign Policy debate the most based on my personal interests.

Congressional Debate:

Congressional Debate revolves around one singular question, "who is the most convincing and strong legislator in the room?" There is many different ways to achieve this, via strong speeches, debate, or overall control of the room. A truly strong Congressional Debater will understand all of the major characteristic required to control the room, and thus will rank the highest on my ballot.

Speeches in Congressional Debate aren't supposed to be rehearsed multiple times, after the first affirmative and negative speeches there are elements of rebuttal that should be implemented into speech. These speeches should contain sources that connect to your main arguments and have a full flow into your final argument. If you're making points - they should have a reason and an end point.

Controlling the room and POing is one of the most daunting thing for new debaters, but I also highly value these people because the debate would simply not exist without a PO.

I love listening to congressional debate, and if you ever find yourself lost don't hesitate to reach out!

Please introduce yourself with your name and preferred pronouns.

I’m currently a first-year student at Duke and I competed mainly in Congressional Debate during high school and have had experience in Public Forum.

In Congress - I will be looking at strong link chains in your argument. Everything has to make sense if you want to be scored well. Argumentation will be valued over presentation (probably around 75% argumentation 25% presentation). Make sure you are respectful to your fellow competitors. I want to see a lot of clash and no rehashed arguments. If you can pull off a strong refutation/crystalization speech that will be scored better than bringing up two new points towards the end of the debate. Make sure you ask lots of good questions and are attentive throughout the debate. POs should be fair, respectful, and efficient. If I consider your behavior or your arguments as anything remotely sexist, racist, homophobic, or along the same lines of offensive will be immediately dropped.

In PF - Please no spreading or talking obnoxiously loud just to talk over your competitors. Make sure your link chains are strong and everything is as clear as possible. I'll want to see you cite from strong sources and are well prepared. If you want me to vote on your side I'll have to see a humanized impact (human reason). Presentation doesn't really matter to me I'll look at your argumentation and how you respond to your opponents mainly. If I consider your behavior or your arguments as anything remotely sexist, racist, homophobic, or along the same lines of offensive will be immediately dropped.

I have judged PF debates since 2020. I use computer to take notes of key points delivered. I value the logic in arguments more than style. Balanced defense and offense win debate. I expect each team to show respect to the opponent. Argue with facts and logic instead of rhetoric.