I am generally a flow judge and can follow fast paced debate.

Framework should be established and followed throughout the round. Tell me why your framework is superior and back up your claim with evidence in contentions. If there is no framework debate, the round will rely on weighing evidence in contentions.

Contentions should be clearly stated with supporting evidence and analysis. Your evidence should be fully explained and analyzed as to its impact on the debate. I prefer evidence be referred to by subject/topic throughout the round rather than simply the author's name. Know your evidence well enough defend it in cross-examination.

Your case should be organized, focused and come to a reasonable conclusion that convinces me to vote in your favor. Failure to communicate the importance of evidence, weighing values and impacts, or extending key arguments may result in a loss.

I like a nicely structured debate. Making the framework and definitions clear is important. However, I do not like for this to carry on. Make the structure clear and move on. You should not still be debating what the framework is in your last rebuttals.

I look for quality sources, not quantity

Debates that build off each other are the best. Don't debate at me, debate with your opponent.

I also look for speaking style. Since I am primarily a speech judge, I take speaking skills into account. Mumbling, speaking monotonously, over using hand movements, and stumbling will rank you lower.

Lastly, I just want the argument to make sense. Don't give me a convoluted, overly complex argument. Make it make sense.

I have judged LD for a year. I will look for good, strong arguments with good warrants and impacts. By speaking a little slower, clearly, and precisely, it will help with my decision.

I am a parent judge with some limited experience judging traditional LD and no experience on the National Circuit. Given my lack of familiarity with the National Circuit, I have no pre-existing bias on theory issues such as Education v. Fairness. 

If I am judging you the following would be recommended: 

1. No Spreading: Since I have not judged National Circuit LD, I have no first-hand experience with spreading, though I have watched several videos online to get a sense of the practice. If you spread, I will not be able to understand you, thus will not be pleased. If I stop flowing, you are going too fast. As a college professor who regularly evaluates presentations and helps prepare students for a world where they need to present arguments in various professional contexts, I find spreading counter-productive. In no real-world context would speaking like an auctioneer prove a useful way of laying out an argument. Please slow down and speak clearly.

2. Traditional Case Layout Appreciated: Because my only experience with LD has been on traditional circuits, I am more accustomed to the case organization and round-routine of traditional cases. Having said that, my preference for traditional case organization does not mean that you have to stick to traditional arguments. Too often on traditional circuits, debaters collapse the round down to Utilitarianism which leads to a "card war" with no substantive or discernible argumentation. You can run a K, CP, Plan, etc., as long as the case is formatted with a value and contentions; a K can be applied to this format with C1:Link, C2: Implications, C3:Alt (please don't use these terms, but rather frame what each part of the K's argument is actually saying).

3. Slang: I realize that debaters use a lot of slang, however, explanations would be appreciated. For instance, I have no problem with you running a K, a Plan, a CP, etc. In other words, if using slang, please clarify its meaning. If I look confused, I am! 

If you keep these three points in mind, you should find the rounds to be pretty straight forward. 

I am a returning parent judge. I will provide constructive notes for students.

Here are a few notes for students:

1. Speak as clearly as possible.

2. Please signpost and frame your arguments in a logical flow.

3. Be courteous, polite and respectful to your opponents.

Hello! This is my first time at Nationals and I'm really looking forward to judging at the National level for the first time. I have been judging for the past 2 years and have judged both Debate and Speech events.

Please know that I am always listening, but I do look at my computer a lot or writing on my notepad during the round. I want to make sure I am giving fresh feedback, and I want to be sure that I am following the rules of your individual event if I haven’t judged your event before.

Please Do not spread. If I can’t keep up with what you are saying, I will drop you.

Additionally, please speak so that I can hear you. Enunciate and show your passion for your topic and event.

Finally, be respectful and try to have fun!

I competed from 7th grade thur college - I was a Policy Debater.

I have been coaching for 20 + years. I am not a fan of the direction that most debate is going.

Don't waste my time with obscure arguments. Bonaparte once said that "Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever."

You need to extend BOTH the warrant AND impact of your argument(s) in later speeches if you're serious about finessing my ballot. PS...make sure you have a warrant and impact...

If your flow and delivery are clear - SPEED isn't a problem, but if it sounds like you are having a spiritual moment while you are running your case - I am not impressed. Spitting is just rude. Work harder - no-one cares.

Loud isn't an emotion. No Bullies aloud/allowed 20L is in your future.

I am okay with offtime roadmaps - if it's really a roadmap and not trying to sink the other team...

Signposting is fine - I am an English teacher.

Use author qualifications when first citing a piece of evidence (for extensions last name will suffice).

I like good solid evidence, clear debate, and solid connections.

Debate is hard but it's not personal. Have fun - be kind - play fair and tell great stories.

I love powerful words and phrases.

CX can be the root of the best conversations.

Hi, I'm Michelle, a current student at UNC-Chapel Hill and former extemper. I competed locally and nationally for Ardrey Kell High School from 2017-2021 where I reached quarterfinals at 2021 NSDA Nationals and finals at Emory, Sunvite, and Cavalier.

For extempers:

- Analysis holds far more weight than mere charisma. Simply put, I'll be flowing your speech.

- Crisp substructure, point-specific sig statements, tangible solutions, and extended impacts win rounds.

- *If you're using IR theory, then you must TANGIBLY apply it to the on-the-ground situation.

- I will not penalize speeches without AGDs or on-tops.

- AGDs cannot be personal stories.

- Any racist, sexist, xenophobic, or homophobic statements will automatically earn you the 7.

PF/LD:

Hi, I'm Jakob Lucas and I just graduated last year. I was involved in debate all 4 years of high school and did Congress for every year. I like all different types of arguments and weighing mechanisms. It's up to you to determine how I should weigh the debate, I will make the decision of how to weigh the debate myself ONLY IF no weighing mechanism is provided. Overall I think I'm pretty well-versed and you can run almost anything you'd like I just have two requests:

- Please no spreading.

- Please no kritiks (Ks).

I am a parent judge from Carolina Day School and have been judging speech events at the local, state, and national level for 2 years. My background in journalism, pubic speaking, and theater helps inform my judging style & scoring. I am an engaged listener and I want each student to feel comfortable and confident when presenting. I want to see all students grow in their experience & my feedback is usually succinct where I outline areas of strength and areas for improvement.

When I judge interpretation events it is important for me to see you showcase your storytelling ability & confidence with the material. Pace, rhythm, and tone are critical to help bring the piece to life. While I enjoy "voices/ charachtures" - I believe those should be natural and not forced. All action & character choices should feel connected to the piece and serve a purpose when communicating the story and not just act as a gimmick.

My judging focus for public address speech events is on clarity of message and a deep understanding of the material you are presenting. There should be an effortless flow and confidence in a more structured/memorized presentation. With impromptu - the speeches should have a clear narrative direction and the student should feel confident in their delivery.

I love judging speech and my goal is to celebrate each student's hard work & talent!

I am a former High School and College competitor in both speech events and congress. I have 4+ years of judging experience and love being a part of this process.  I appreciate thoughtful, respectful competitors.   I do not appreciate competitors that speak too quickly or who are dismissive of other competitor's questions or comments.  I appreciate creativity and generally don't reward formulaic or overly choreographed presentations.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

I flow each speech and, as a result, use my flow as my primary decision-rendering tool. The flow is especially important to me when deciding between two debaters with nearly equal performances. I also value clear, distinct voter issues and look for debaters to use voter issues to connect multiple ideas across the debate. Additionally, I look for clear frameworks to set up the round for each debater and for each debater to use these frameworks to present deep analyses of the main issues in the round.

In general, I prefer you speak no faster than a brisk, conversational pace. Trying to “out-speed” your opponent or overwhelm them by spreading will not earn you points in my book. If you speak so quickly I cannot easily gather your main points, how am I supposed to flow them and weigh them in the round?

Final Thoughts

At the end of the day, I am just one judge with one set of opinions. Speech and debate is meant to be a fun and educational activity. I hope your experience is rewarding, educational, and, above all else, fun.

Good luck!

My first 20 years of coaching were devoted almost exclusively to policy debate. My second 20 years were spent on every other forensic event. I am a fan of both speech and debate with PF as my personal favorite. Coming from a policy background has helped to mold my judging preferences:

What I like:

Clash - arguments only

Respectful crossfires

Evidence that actually supports the argument it is supposed to

IMPACTS - if you don’t have impacts, you won’t win; if you don’t link your impacts, you won’t win

I actually care about topicality and talking about the actual resolution

Real world issues plus a comparison of pro world vs con world

What I don’t like:

Ks

Plans

Rudeness

Unintelligible grand crossfires because everyone is talking over each other

Squirrelly arguments

HOLLERING

I don’t mind some speed, but policy garble won’t fly.

I look forward to direct clash in a respectful environment with well vetted ev supporting real world issues.