I am a lay parent judge. Please be clear with your arguments and don’t speak too fast.

Prefer a focus on your most important arguments for your side and counter arguments to the other side. Don't like a really fast delivery. The winning side usually has the most compelling quantitative or other real evidence that their argument provides the most value to society.

I am a current debater most experienced in Lincoln-Douglas with a small amount of Public Forum experience.

My overall beliefs/expectations when judging are as follows:

1) Be respectful.

No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc. or personal insults or attacks.

2) I am here to judge your performance.

Debate is a competition, and that means that I am here to evaluate how you debate. With that in mind, I remove myself entirely from the debate. I can and will only judge what you present in round, and I will evaluate the flow as it stands after the final speech. In short, if you want me to count it when making my decision, you must say it.

3) If I don't understand it, I can't evaluate it.

I'm a debater judge, and that means that I am more familiar with theory, counterplans, kritiks, and the like than most. That said, if you run anything that's not a traditional case, the burden is on you to present it clearly and comprehensibly. If you explain your argumentation, you should be fine, but be warned, over-reliance on jargon and under-explaining complex arguments may lose you the round if you're not clear in explaining your case.

4) Debate is a spoken-word event.

If I have to read your case to understand it, you're doing something wrong. Debate is about the verbal interaction with and exploration of ideas. It is not an essay-writing contest. I will not evaluate anything that is presented in writing, as the oral presentation of ideas is at the core of what we do as debaters. Yes, this means no spreading. Again, if I don't understand it, I can't evaluate it.

5) Make my decision easy.

Don't just focus on refuting what your opponent is saying or what your case says. It's great to be able to determine what the facts in a debate are and what they are not; however, you still need to tell my why I should vote for you. I want to see you interacting with your opponent's ideas, weighing impacts, and providing voters so that I can clearly see what your case matters.

Hi, I am both a debater and a judge. Here are some preferences and things you should avoid when debating.

Preferences:

I like debaters to give clear roadmaps of their speeches and have easy to follow line-by-line

Speak clearly so I can flow all of your important arguments

If you have a specific response, be clear about what it is (Non-uniqueness, turns, etc)

Dislikes:

Do not spread, you may speak quickly if needed but I prefer you to speak at a normal pace

Please do not use unconventional types of arguments in public forum, I think they hurt fairness (Ks!, CPs)

Don't avoid arguments, clash is the most fun part of debate

Debate history: 1 year in NLD, 2 years in VPF

Things I look for in speaking: Debaters speak clearly and stay organized on the flow.

What a good debate will look like to me: Extension of arguments, weighing and voters, attacking the opponent's actual argument (not solely the evidence), and presenting all information clearly while making cogent and relevant arguments. The latter is especially important because in order to be a fair judge, I cannot use background knowledge to analyze the validity of arguments, only what I hear in the round.

If any debaters reading this have clarifying questions, I am always happy to answer any questions before the round, assuming time permits!

Hi all! I graduated from Lexington High School in June 2021 and I am currently a sophomore at University of North Carolina at Charlotte. I have debated LD for 2 years and PF for 2 years, so I understand almost all the antics.

things that I look for in a debate:

- extending and explaining your framework(LD) + arguments across the flow

- good cross-x questions

-being respectful to your opponents

-giving voters and overview at the end of the round

and:

- do not spread while speaking (LD), can go a little fast but not too fast.

- bonus speaks for an entertaining round

If you have any questions, you may email me at this address mehr.k2k3@gmail.com --but please no scam emails .

Parent judge. Please don't spread. A roadmap would be helpful. I prefer to judge a round on evidence based structured arguments and responses to your opponent’s contention. Clash is good.

I competed as an LD debater when I was in high school over 30 years ago. I now coach LD debate, but my preference remains for traditional LD cases that debate the resolution and allow your opponent to do so as well.

I strongly dislike spreading, because it is hard for me to understand. If I don't hear your contentions or evidence, then they can't help you win the debate. Plus "winning" a point because your opponent didn't catch it is a pretty hollow victory.

Both of these preferences link back to my perspective on the activity of debate--it should be an educational experience and provide you with skills that you can apply throughout your life. I haven't seen any evidence yet that spreading is of use anywhere in the real world.

I am a lay judge. Please speak in a reasonable speed, don't talk too fast or spread. No progressive arguments