Hi, I have debated for around three years for BC academy.

Even though I have to participate in various tournaments, most likely, I would still be inexperienced in judging other people, especially through the internet. So prior apologies for the technical mistakes I can make for me to learn from it.

(I need the inspiration to write this, so it will most likely be the same as the other PF judges.)

What I look for as a Judge

1. Evidence does not make an argument. Evidence for the sake of evidence is not helpful and does not help your argument. I want to see that you use the evidence as an extension of your logic and analysis to ground the idea. If the reasoning behind your evidence isn't explained, I won't provide it with much weight. Also, the evidence needs a citation, at least a simple one like what you read, a link to the website, and other basic stuff (name, date, etc.).

2. Don't be mean to anyone under any circumstances, as doing so will be met with low speaking points. Moreover, there is a difference between being aggressive and lousy attitude.

3. speed is mostly okay with me. But note that if the speaker is spreading and, worse, doing a bad job at it by mumbling or inadequate signposting, most likely, I would not be able to flow it. This will be your loss, so control the speed of your speech as you are here to convince than to rap.

4. Don't forget to weigh or show me a comparison between the arguments to show why I should vote for a particular side, and collapsing will help with this.

Also, just as a side note, I would most likely not flow crossfire, so if it is a great point, it should be mentioned in a speech.

Another also, note that you should keep time for the speech and the prep because I might forget to time.

Qualification: I've competed in Speech and Debate for approximately six to seven years and have coaching and judging experience before and after my High School years. Most of my debating experience comes from Public Forum but I do have some involvement in World Style, CNDF, and British Parliamentary.

Judging Paradigm:

1. Speed is not a huge issue for me, but be considerate to everyone in the round so that contention taglines and pieces of evidence are clearly presented. (Be extra clear with presenting your contention taglines and refutation titles)

2. I will be flowing throughout the whole round, but refutations and reconstructions should be extended to the summary and final focus speeches. If contentions or refutations are dropped somewhere during the round, make sure to mention this in one of the speeches.

3. Summary and Final Focus speeches are the most important speeches in relation to making my decision at the end of the round. This also means that the team that can weigh-out arguments and present voter issues most effectively will most likely win the round.

4. Only have a framework if you are going to use it throughout the round.

5. Don't be rude.

tl;dr: I am a flay judge who votes on 1) weighing and 2) clean narrative and analysis.

--

Below is my detailed paradigm:

• I prefer clearly articulated arguments with logical links, warrants, and impacts.

• I will not have the same level of understanding of the topic as you do, so don't expect me to catch everything if you're rapid-fire-spitting content. I prefer you speak more conversationally and keep the event a "public" forum. The faster you speak, the more likely I am to miss content.

• Repetition is key to understanding. Make sure you're extending points you want me to vote on until the final focus.

• Weigh impacts and links through direct comparison. Tell me why your impacts are more significant and why your links are clearer and stronger than your opponent's. The clearer, the better and the more likely I am to vote for you.

• Please do not read theory, Kritik, or other progressive arguments. I have a shallow understanding and won't make a good decision should I evaluate them.

• Please read content warnings or have an opt-out form for sensitive topics and ask if the opposing team is okay with you reading the argument. You must have an alternate case if they aren't. I have the right to drop you if I think you're making the round an unsafe space.