I debated for four years,I have been judging for a year. I’m a Tab’s judge, that’s about it. Anything goes!

Impacts, Framework, Flow

Also, how you present: Are you confident, prepared, good at convincing me and defending your case?

I am a parent judge and have no prior personal experience in debate. I have judged at a number of tournaments over the past year and have judged each of the debate events.

The strength and persuasiveness of your arguments are the most important, but specifically I watch for three things: organization, performance and clash.

Organization: I want to be able to track all of your arguments. Make it obvious when you are beginning a new argument or rebutting one of your opponents. Signposting is helpful.

Performance: Act confident, speak clearly, stand up straight and look up from your computer. Do not speak too fast. Use enunciation and inflection in your voice. If you're speaking so fast that I can't follow what you're saying your argument is wasted.

Clash: This is a debate event and I want to see debate! I watch for rebuttals of specific arguments, I also watch how well you handle yourself during crossfire. Do you ask intelligent questions, when answering questions are you able to respond knowledgeably and confidently?

I am a lay judge however I have fifteen years of teaching experience, especially in argumentative and persuasive writing. Additionally I was a state winner in speech and ranked first at a number of tournaments while at university. I value your communication skills. I dislike spreading or spewing -- if you choose to do this then it can have an impact on the result of the debate. If you speak too fast and I can’t follow you, none of your arguments will matter. It's better to streamline your points if that means I can follow what you’re saying. Signposting is always fabulous! Avoid debate jargon and explain things clearly.

I dislike warrantless claims and hypotheticals such as arguments of slavery, mass genocide, the holocaust, sexism, and racism. If you use an argument along these lines I will drop you.

Some of the definitions can be tricky but definition debates don’t accomplish anything or teach me about why I should vote for you.

Finally, I believe strong arguments are based in fact and not emotions. Please use good, solid evidence, stay within the substance of the debate, and convince me based on your facts why I should vote for you. Be professional, respectful, and kind. Most of all have fun!

· Delivery: Clear and measured delivery that is not raced through. I like to be able to follow each point with time to flow the debate.

· Evidence: Should be from credible sources that are diverse in their spectrum.

· Argument style: Attack the issue, not the person or their style. A debater should be able to persuade a judge through strength of argument, never Ad Hominem attacks.

I've been judging for more than 11 years now. I've been helping to coach for more than 3 years. I competed in speech and debate in high school. I know how to do all of the events.

Policy: I very much dislike when the debate goes off into theory arguments for policy. Most of the time they aren't even actual arguments that have been fully formed with all the necessary attributes. Those arguments will be crossed out on my flow. If you can't fully form the argument and have all the parts to it then why should I care to have it as a voting issue? I don't mind reasonable speed. If you breathe anywhere where there isn't punctuation then I will completely cross that card/argument from my flow. That is my biggest annoyance with speed. I lean very strongly towards Policy maker but I'm a stock coms judge. I will always weigh the arguments with stock issues more heavily than I will the other issues. Topicality will be weighed over it when it's actually reasonable. I want a clear shift of policy with the Aff case. IF YOU SAY THEY DIDN'T ADDRESS AN ISSUE THAT THEY DEFINITELY HAVE I WILL VOTE YOU DOWN FOR WHINING, INCOMPETENT FLOWING, AND BEING ANNOYING!

LD: I very much love the Value and Criterion debate. I love traditional debate. I HATE progressive debate you lose a lot of the skills you would normally learn and gain weak skills instead. Give me clear reasons why we should weight the round off of your Value. Both logic and evidence based arguments have their place in this debate. Make sure you use them accordingly. I will drop the entire argument you're making if you breathe where there isn't any punctuation. I'm fine with reasonable speed. IF YOU SAY THEY DIDN'T ADDRESS AN ISSUE THAT THEY DEFINITELY HAVE I WILL VOTE YOU DOWN FOR WHINING, INCOMPETENT FLOWING, AND BEING ANNOYING!

SPEECH:

So, I WILL NOT, emphasis on the NOT, judge a piece that has, or should have, a trigger warning in it. I will leave the round immediately if someone tries to run one in my round. Pieces can be very good without getting to the point where there needs to be a trigger warning. I will not judge those garbage pieces. Increase your quality of speeches by getting rid of those.

I've been judging for more than 11 years now. I've been helping to coach for more than 3 years. I competed in speech and debate in high school. I know how to do all of the events.

Policy: I very much dislike when the debate goes off into theory arguments for policy. Most of the time they aren't even actual arguments that have been fully formed with all the necessary attributes. Those arguments will be crossed out on my flow. If you can't fully form the argument and have all the parts to it then why should I care to have it as a voting issue? I don't mind reasonable speed. If you breathe anywhere where there isn't punctuation then I will completely cross that card/argument from my flow. That is my biggest annoyance with speed. I lean very strongly towards Policy maker but I'm a stock coms judge. I will always weigh the arguments with stock issues more heavily than I will the other issues. Topicality will be weighed over it when it's actually reasonable. I want a clear shift of policy with the Aff case. IF YOU SAY THEY DIDN'T ADDRESS AN ISSUE THAT THEY DEFINITELY HAVE I WILL VOTE YOU DOWN FOR WHINING, INCOMPETENT FLOWING, AND BEING ANNOYING!

LD: I very much love the Value and Criterion debate. I love traditional debate. I HATE progressive debate you lose a lot of the skills you would normally learn and gain weak skills instead. Give me clear reasons why we should weight the round off of your Value. Both logic and evidence based arguments have their place in this debate. Make sure you use them accordingly. I will drop the entire argument you're making if you breathe where there isn't any punctuation. I'm fine with reasonable speed. IF YOU SAY THEY DIDN'T ADDRESS AN ISSUE THAT THEY DEFINITELY HAVE I WILL VOTE YOU DOWN FOR WHINING, INCOMPETENT FLOWING, AND BEING ANNOYING!

SPEECH:

So, I WILL NOT, emphasis on the NOT, judge a piece that has, or should have, a trigger warning in it. I will leave the round immediately if someone tries to run one in my round. Pieces can be very good without getting to the point where there needs to be a trigger warning. I will not judge those garbage pieces. Increase your quality of speeches by getting rid of those.

I like good strong evidence that backs up your claims.

Be respectful

Okay with speed but make sure you are understandable.

Just make sure to follow the rules according to your debate topic and we will be good.

I am a 7th year debate coach at a small Southeast Idaho high school. While I have no specific preferences, I am a traditionalist. I keep a detailed flow, weigh arguments and their impacts, I don't like dropped arguments, I like medium-high speed, I like clash, I appreciate courtesy, and I prioritize clear and concise communication skills. Thank you for engaging in a fun and moving debate round!

I respect civility between competitors.

Please speak slow enough so I can follow your points.

I enjoy hearing arguments a lay person can follow.

Congressional Debate: I've done congress for the majority of my career; I know what I'm doing and looking for in competitors, as well as the rules of the round and common practice (Robert's Rules, etc).

The three main things I focus on are clarity, presentation, and clash.

You must present yourself professionally and succinctly, while also building a comprehensive case. This doesn't mean you have to dumb things down (I actually really love high-vocab and intellectual comprehension/interpretation of rules/congressional legal lingo), just don't try to elaborate unnecessarily on previously made points or talk a point to death once it has been introduced into the debate. It is also great to acknowledge previously made speeches, especially if you are citing work from a fellow house/senate member. I have a very high regard for civility, particularly in questioning period. Don't be rude, in short.

I know whether or not you actually know what you're talking about, as well, so unless you're capable of making a good on-the-spot extemporaneous speech or point, don't bother. Along with that point, you should be getting through as many questions in QP as possible: this is another dead giveaway as to whether or not you really know your stuff and gives you the opportunity to elaborate more upon previously made statements and really get your idea and presence out there. I may be biased, but I find Congress to be one of if not the most powerful and graceful forms of debate, and when done well, it is nothing shy of dazzling; live to your fullest potential in this regard!

Finally, there should be solid clash and new points being presented AT LEAST every three speeches (both aff and neg). Unless there is actual debate going on on the same point for several consecutive speeches, don't drag out an argument for longer than it needs to be- no it doesn't make you look smart or edgy. 

LD: Extensive background in this as well. Once again, I can see right through you.

Main focuses are clarity, clash, strong and assertive cross ex, and related value/criterion pairings- make sure to really reinforce and affirm exactly why it is that they go together, and continually reference and tie them into your speeches throughout the round

Off-time roadmaps are also much appreciated!

POFO: This should NOT look like an LD round, and should operate much more like policy. Do NOT tell me anything about a value or morality set. Automatic red flag.

I love to see effective tag-teaming that shows whether or not your team is in-sync and mentally present during debate. There is a difference between carrying them and working WITH them. Make sure all your questions reflect such as well. Always go over VOTERS!!

Policy: Essentially the same things as POFO. I want clarity, efficacy, and voters. Do not set up your speech/give your speech during a QP.

It is my sincere honour and pleasure to work with you all. Good luck!!  :))

First and foremost:

I like rounds to be fast and efficient. Do not ask if I am ready, I am always ready. Unless your opponent specifically wants to be asked, do not ask if they are ready as well. Just don't ask if anyone is ready. Roadmaps are okay. Yes time yourselves. I will drop you if you use the Idaho debate code as an argument. Rule violations are not to be handled during your speeches. If you use it as an argument I am just going to assume you were not prepared enough to have an actual attack.

LD: I will weigh the round based on the Value/Criterion and voters. Explain your v/c and why it is pertinent to the resolution also be sure to tell me why you win based on the v/c. I don't like to see a lot of clash on the v/c unless someone runs an abusive one. I think that good debaters are able to show how they win on both the AFF and NEG v/c. But like I said, if someone is being abusive, feel free to call that out. Please be clear with signposting. Please provide a clear voter speech (tell me how you win on the v/c and other aspects of the round.) I also love to see impacts. Plans and Counter Plans are ok with me! I think that it adds an interesting element to the debate. I am absolutely NOT OKAY with kritiks. I love to see impacts.

PF: I will weigh the round based on the Resolutional Analysis and voters. Explain your RA and why it is pertinent to the resolution also be sure to tell me why you win based on the RA. I don't like to see a lot of clash on the RA unless someone runs an abusive one. I think that good debaters are able to show how they win on both the PRO and CON RA. But like I said, if someone is being abusive, feel free to call that out. Please do not run values, that's for LD. Please be clear with signposting. Please provide a clear voter speech (tell me how you win on the RA and other aspects of the round.) I also love to see impacts and impact calc.

Policy: I am absolutely NOT OKAY with kritiks. Please don't run them if you run them. I don't care for "education in debate" args. However, If someone is being abusive feel free to explain how. I am okay with speed but do not talk so fast to the point you are wheezing. Just be understandable. Have impacts and have voters. Be consistent with your plan and counter plan. Constantly remind me why I should care about them or should not care about your opponents. I will weigh the round based on the superior plan or cp.

As a coach, my paradigm may shift slightly based on the form of debate.

Congressional Debate: I'm looking for a few well-constructed arguments. Though I would never ask for evidence in Congress, it earns you points to cite evidence in your speeches. I discourage being a late speaker on a bill unless you have new insights or arguments that weren't addressed previously. Please don't just stand and repeat what many others have said. Keep questions short--the longer they get, the more awkward and confused you sound. Have fun, but joke speeches will drop you to the bottom of my ballot.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate: It's all about the value and criterion (note that a criterion is a measuring tool by which we can see you've achieved your value; it is not a second value). All contentions should tie back to the value and criterion. The winner usually has shown that they either achieve both values better, has the only value that is achieved in either world, or has done sufficient harm to their opponent's case. Though I value logic more in LD than other debate formats, evidence will always enhance my evaluation.

Policy Debate: If it's worth saying, it's worth saying clearly. I do not favor quantity over quality. If I don't have time to write it on my flow sheet, it was never said. In order to win, the Affirmative needs to win all five stock issues; The Negative must win one stock issue (to suggest you could win in any other way is like a basketball player claiming they can win by how good they are at acting like they've been fouled). If the Neg presents a counter-plan, they have conceded the harms and inherency. At this point, you may only attack the plan and show that you solve better. Topicality is still an option if it was presented in the 1NR.

Public Forum: Public Forum is intended to persuade the average person off the street. I will flow the debate, but I will also judge heavily on your communication and ability to clearly explain the arguments on both sides. Overwhelming the "average person" is not the same as persuading them. If you would rather debate rules and pack four minutes with page after page of spewed evidence, I recommend switching over to Policy debate--better yet, change your ways.

Generally: Logic is great; Evidence is great; Logic and Evidence together are AWESOME! Be true to the form of debate you are in--there's a reason there are different events. Respect your opponents. Be ready to debate.

The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane.

-Mark Twain

I’m Broox, an undergraduate student in philosophy. I’m generally well informed but treat me as if I’m an idiot. Go ahead and read whatever case you want, even theory if you think you can. Absolutely do your best to write my ballot for me in the last few speeches. I try not to call cards often unless opposite things are being said about the same piece of evidence. Please don’t spread I’ll probably cry, I can flow spreading, but it will reflect poorly on your speaks. Good luck, have fun.