I am judging for the first time.

I expect the speech to be clear, confident, to the point and have good eye contact.

Hi , I am lay Judge, I would like Contestants to speak slowly and use simple words when they speak. I prefer debators to be respectful to other team at all times and let others speak. Even though I try to flow the debate but at the end my decision is based on if you can convince me based on your arguments on why should I vote for you.

Hey everyone!

I am currently a master's student studying Math & CS at Stanford, and a member of the Stanford Debate Society. I have 3 years of competitive experience in Speech competing for Monta Vista High School, with championships at NSDA Nationals, Berkeley, and James Logan.

While I have the most experience with spontaneous events, I am familiar with platform events as well. I have never competed in the interpretation events, but they are generally my favorite to judge.

Impromptu: I will judge your speech based on delivery and content, with both weighed roughly equally. Generally, while good delivery will place in you in the top half of the round, great content is what will ultimately get you the 1. For delivery, fluency is top priority. Try to have fun and make jokes if appropriate - impromptu shouldn't be boring. Regarding content, make sure your examples are both unique and relevant to the topic at hand. While talking about prepared material can be effective, reciting a canned speech is not.

Extemporaneous: I will flow your speech, weighing content over delivery (though both are important). In particular, I expect a clear evidence-based argument that features your personal analysis. Signpost as much as possible; structure and clarity help me understand your points. Try to pick quality, unbiased sources and use them with integrity (I would rather you omit the exact month/date of an article than make up a date on the spot). Above all, make sure you are really answering the question that you are being asked to answer!

Original: For original speeches, my main judging criteria is the quality of the argument put forward by the speech and how effectively it is conveyed (in both diction and delivery). The most effective speeches will be clear, well-structured, and evidence-driven. Speeches should offer new insights that are not already obvious to the average audience member. To me, humor is important in maintaining the audience's attention - jokes should be well planned and well delivered. Delivery should be confident and compelling, but natural (not sounding overly scripted or polished).

Interpretation: I will focus on two main criteria in your performance: technicality (blocking, vocal performance, etc.) and story (cutting/script, scene choices). For humor, the best speeches are delivered boldly enough to garner laughs while remaining very clean in popping. For dramatic, all components of the performance should contribute to the story rather than be included simply for the sake of drama (ex. screaming). For duo, the above applies with an extra emphasis on the interaction between the two partners (cleanliness and coordination is key here).

Looking forward to seeing your speeches, and best of luck! :)

good luck

Hey everyone!

I currently am a debater at Monta Vista High School in the Bay Area. I have experience with debating pofo and parli as well as judging some other formats. Regardless, I still want you to debate as to if I am a lay judge since that is what you will encounter for the most part. In terms of your video, I don't require you to keep yours on however I will give you higher speaker points for it. It will not affect my decision, however. Before you begin, introduce yourselves and make sure you keep each others' time, I will too but I will not cut you off. I will however not consider any evidence stated past 1 minute overtime. Generally, speaking skills like a tag-team cross, video being off, etc. will not affect my decision but it will affect the speaker points I give. Add me to the email chain: zayd.musa25@gmail.com.

I also did 3 years of speech in middle school: DUO, HI, and Impromptu. It's been a while though but I will judge to the best of my ability.

Overall, follow the rules, be courteous, have fun, and don't stress!

General: Debate is a game that is played to be won but it is also a game that can involve very personal components. So in round be respectful and inclusive. Tell me what weighing mechanism to use when evaluating who should win, debate which weighing mechanism is better, and tell me why you win within that weighing mechanism. Also, more structure and signposting is ALWAYS better. I default to evaluating the round through the technical components of the flow unless told to do otherwise.

Policy Debate: Run anything you want (politics, PICs, business confidence, anything). I prefer the contemporary debate structure (Advantages and Disadvantages) to the classical stock issues style. Solid impact weighing/framing can easily win you an otherwise close round.

Theory: I am good with anything. I prefer it when it's used to actually check back for abuse in round and not just as a time suck but I am willing to vote on it regardless. I do not have a preference of the standards vs voters debate. Speed / Speaker Points: I have no problem with speed, but be clear and maintain solid word economy. Don’t exclude other teams from the debate with your speed, it will cost you speaker points and I am open to theory/critical arguments against it. Otherwise, go as fast as you want. Speaker points are awarded by the quality and competitiveness of arguments made rather than persuasiveness.

I appreciate clear, effective, and compelling arguments and prefer slower speaking. Maintain composure and self-control. Good manners are important and well-explained evidence & arguments are crucial.

If you like, you can email me your case. Please do not spread - if I cannot follow your arguments, I cannot give you points for it. I enjoy the debates and look forward to them with an unbiased mind.

I judge based on the notes I take. I try hard not to inject my own knowledge and opinions into a debate.

Please engage one another's arguments and provide clash. Please provide well-developed arguments with good warrant and impact. I would be more impressed with one to three well-developed, deep, and logical arguments over eight superficial, conclusory, and/or flat-out-ridiculous arguments.

Theory arguments have their place. If you make a theory argument, please convince me that your theory argument is actually worth caring about and is relevant to this topic, to this debate, and to your deserving to win.

Please be a human talking to another human and not a space alien talking to a computer. This means (1) you should be respectful to all, (2) if you speak too fast, I will be unable to write down all you say, and what I do not write down will probably not help you, and (3) if you decide to use jargon, please explain the jargon as if I don't know what it means. Debate is supposed to develop great leaders, and great leaders can communicate to all people, not just to other specialized people exactly like themselves.

Good luck!

I am a parent judge.

I prefer debaters speak clearly and at a normal speed.

If you can email me your cases so that I can follow up, that would be great.