My name is Chris Brown. I'm a second year judge. I have had the opportunity to judge PF, Congress and LD rounds.

I strive to listen to the arguments of both sides. My expectation is for debaters to provide arguments with appropriate evidence. I also expect debaters to be smooth in their delivery, without pauses, ums or other sounds that interrupt their delivery. Being able to respond to your opponent in a cogent manner is very important.

I do not like spreading. If you are going to go as fast as possible, I require having a copy of your case. Otherwise, it's difficult for me to keep up and if I'm judging, you want to make things as easy for your judge as possible

In LD - the clashing of sides is really important. Although the opening speeches are important, the cross and returning speeches are a big part of how you do in LD. Listening to your opponent and being able to respond effectively is the name of the game.

I'm judging based what is presented by both sides - as much as I may disagree with a particular viewpoint, if the other side can't counter it, I have to go with what is presented.

It is an honor to be able to do this and I will strive to be the best judge I can be for myself and the debate community.

My e-mail is cmbrown007@aol.com

she/her

Marcus '20

StMU ‘24

Email: cynthiamd147@gmail.com (I don't look at the doc during the debate, but I like to have it if I need them).

I debated LD for 4 years and I have a little experience competing in Congress, Extemp, and World Schools.

For all events clarity is extremely important to me, for example, you would be better off with 4 sources stated clearly than 10 that don't come across clearly. With that, I prefer fewer well thought out arguments over tons of half-baked ideas.

I don't love spreading, especially if you have to gasp for air the whole time, it takes away from what you are saying and distracts from the content of your speech.

I don't really want to limit too much as far as content goes because I feel that is unfair to the competitors, that said, I am mainly a PF judge so in other events I may not love something like a K for policy or running a theory heavy case or something like that.

As a former female debater, I know judges often mark down women for sounding 'shrill' or 'aggressive'. While abuse will never be tolerated, neither will sexism against powerful/confident women, and speaker points will reflect that :)

I’ve judged a few tournaments in the last two years, and I would consider myself to be a lay judge. I’m open to listening to any arguments that you want to run as long as they are clear, well warranted, and delivered clearly. I do flow in the round and do my best to vote off of the arguments that remain at the end of the round. I typically give high speaker points as long as you are clear and explain yourself well.

At the end of the day, debate is supposed to be fun and a learning experience, so please try to have fun in the round and be respectful of your opponents in the round.

I am a parent judge, and I have some experience with judging congress, LD, public forum, policy, and parliamentary debate. I have been judging for less than 2 years, and I don't know all the rules about these events.

Please speak slowly and clearly, and don't use too much debate jargon. I evaluate rounds based on what you convince me to evaluate, so please clarify this.

Good luck! If you have any questions, feel free to ask me in the round.

I'm a traditional judge who prefers non circuit arguments. Evidence is important, but you should also use logic and reasoning to persuade me. Spreading is a no go with me, if you start I'll tune you out.

· I am a parent judge with previous experience judging debates and public speaking.

· I value the presentation of the debate a lot, and look for good eye contact, diction, and inflection of the voice.

· A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments

· Remember that in order to get good speaker scores, respect towards your opponent is paramount. It is hard to favor debaters who belittle or berate their opponent in or out of round. Graceful winners are as important as graceful losers.

· Please do speak clearly. Speed is okay, but you must be understandable. Please remember this is not about how fast you can go, it’s about how good your arguments are.

· And finally, please enjoy your debates. It will show in your performance.

I have judged HS and MS debate for 4 years now, so I have am familiar with the inner workings of Congress and PF. Some things I look for:

Clash and Refutations- As the round develops, there needs to be more refutations/analysis of the debate as a whole. I don’t want a repetition of points and want you to engage with other senators

Rhetoric/Speaking: I need to be able to hear you properly. Speak clearly and at a reasonable rate. I like emotion and rhetoric in speeches, but make sure your arguments are sound too

As always, be respectful of everyone, especially during cross-ex. Things can get a little tense in cross-ex, so just be professional you’ll be alright.

The critical aspect that I look within a participant are as follows:

1. Clarity on the thoughts.

2. Content and Factual data presented in the arguments in a debate:

3. Flow of arguments.

4. Any applicable refutation presented.

5. Overall. presentation which includes eye contact, expressions and emotions.

I am an experienced coach and experienced competitor. I have been tournament champions of numerous tournaments (in Originals and Interp) and have been to State every year of competition and qualified to Nationals. My team has always sent a delegation to Nats every year we have been a program. I do my best to leave quality and constructive criticism on ballot.

Debaters:

I sure love it when debaters signpost. That helps me and you stay organized on the flow sheet.

If I can't understand you, I can't judge you. So make sure you are speaking clearly and slowly enough so I can digest what youre saying.

I have a conditional love towards "out of the box" plans and ks but keep them tasteful and thoughtful. Anything facetious or "edgy" is not it for me. But an interesting take and or something whimsical but thoughtful I will appreciate. In the end, is it something you would run in front of your coach? If yes, I'll take it. If you do extinction theory, it's not going to go well. That's not showing me how good of a debater you are. I am much more about the spirit and intention of argumentation, not the letter of the flow.

Speechies:

Please enunciate and project. Again, if I can't hear or understand you, I can't judge you. For originals I am expecting a well organized and analyzed speech. For you Varsity/Open competitors, you should be completely memorized (but a few flubs here and there will NOT make or break your speech). For interpies, please have clean and distinct character pops, and the cut of your piece should follow the elements of story telling and make narrative sense. Also, remember, if I didn't see you emote, did you? Be mindful of facial direction, and focal points. If I can't see you, I can't judge you.

Spontaneous speakers, if I see that you are canning your speeches, your rankings will reflect that. Spon events are testing on your ability to organize and complete a speech spontaneously. If you are using canned examples and just swapping out phrases or words, that is not speaking spontaneously. I will penalize HEAVILY.

I am a parent judge. I prefer clear and logical speech. Make sure you explain your argument very clearly. Respect your opponents. Please do not interrupt your opponents during crossfire.

I am a lay judge. Be sure to explain any terms or acronyms that is specific to the topic. I will be looking for an organized argument and analysis presented in a clear, concise way. I am looking for a good balance of depth and breadth of argument. I am also looking for how completely each point is refuted.

Don't assume that I won't vote for a crazy argument just because it is "crazy." (You might be able to convince me to blow up the moon if you can show some benefit and if it goes unrefuted.) Spend the effort to refute those and move on.

Use spreading at your own risk. Because I will be looking for some depth of how each point is argued, choosing quantity of points over quality of the argument is a negative to me. However, kudos if you can provide substantial depth to a good subset of (3 or more) points.