I have been judging tournaments for the past 20 years in both L-D and PF. I am more of an old school judge. In L-D I like value clash, but I do place more emphasis on the contentions rather than the value clash. I generally do not like debates that center around the definitions...note the difference if it occurs and move on. Either I am buying one side or the other, but do not spend the round focusing on just the definitions. Not a fan of spreading or other aspects that have bled over into L-D and PF over the years. However, if the person can spread and do it well (I have judged only a few students capable of this over the years) then I can live with it.. I also have no problem with the negative running a balance case.

Email: shannon.castelo@gmail.com

I am a high school debate coach with a personal background primarily in a speech where I competed in oratory and other traditional speech categories (i.e. extemp, impromptu) I have been coaching debate almost exclusively over the past seven years with my greatest success with LD debaters but I do love PF debate.

Priorities for all types of debate

1. Delivery matters, clarity, and signposting are appreciated (I will judge spreading but will not flow what I can't understand, I will "clear" twice then stop flowing). If you are going fast- be prepared to share your speech doc.
2. I will vote by looking at both flow first then considering technical skills and delivery. I do not typically offer low-point wins but have done so. Road maps are preferred
3. Direct and fast question and answer in the crossfire. Be nice!!!
4. I am a tech judge who loves trad debate at reasonable speed. I will certainly discount ridiculous, unwarranted arguments in the round and really do hate a slippery slope but do not totally discount a sound link chain that gets me to extinction-level impacts. The flow means a lot to me. I am watching cross closely but of course, will not flow the cross or vote off of cross. It only matters if it is mentioned in the next speech.
5. Impacts must be clear as in tell me literally "The impact is.." and I want to see voters in the final speech
6. I want to see clean and ethical sourcing and card cutting. Make sure you are not misconstruing evidence in any way. I am known to call for cards before I vote so be prepared to provide an evidence doc if requested.
7. Clash- I expect clear CLASH. LISTEN to the arguments and attack them directly. INTERACT WITH THE CASE. Don't rely on just cherrypicking block cards. Debate is about truth finding. LISTEN and analyze. If you are not responding, you are not winning the round.
8. Specifically for PF- if you use policy jargon or tactics that is hard to sell to me. I just believe it is all toxifying the PF debate space. If you think you can improve the debate space then tell me how and why that should be the prior question in the round. If the logic is clear and delivered well I will consider it of course.
9. Specifically for LD- Value FW is essential. I look for the connection of each contention level arg back to value. VC is optional for me but I want to see a value argument. I always weigh FW in LD! Give me those philosphical explanations- WHY should I value life? WHY should I value security? Who says so! Show me that you have done the HW
10. I am a sucker for great rhetorical STYLE. Make me laugh or smile in the round to up those speaker points.
11. For Policy- Anything goes, have a blast. I am down for anything. Just keep it respectful, clear, and logical.
12. As I grow as a coach and judge I have grown to respect cases that demonstrate creative, out-of-the-box argumentation. I am bored by stock cases and arguments that are overused and underdeveloped.
13. Disclosure Theory in round- I personally think disclosing helps grow education and makes for interesting debates but I don't want to hear disclosure theory as your argument for why you win. Work with what is presented. I don't think I have ever given a win to somebody running disclosure as a voter but I guess it could happen.
14. Use evidence challenges CAREFULLY and SPARINGLY- at the end of the day, it is usually a waste of time for us all. The judges are savvy enough to know when we are hearing evidence that sounds sketchy. If you don't buy evidence you can ask for cards but let's not do this repeatedly throughout the round. It breaks up the flow of the debate and becomes more frustrating than anything else. Don't hang your win on calling out one bad card but definitely call out untruths if you hear them and can prove them.
15. Decision disclosure- I will disclose if allowed by the tournament.

Side notes: I believe, ultimately that debate is as much about listening as it is about talking. I respect debaters who show respect to their opponents and who really process the opposing arguments in order to address them. I don't like an ugly or "arrogant" debate that resorts to ad hominem attacks, sarcasm, or denigrates the opponent. Be kind, be authentic, have fun, and let's debate! :)

P.S.S. for any of my former debaters who read this: I think you are all incredible humans. I was a speech coach who got drawn into debate coaching and it has created the greatest moments of my teaching career. I will remember you always. I have learned as much from you than I have taught any of you. Thanks for making me a better teacher and person. To Dylan, Kayleigh, "DaniEllie", Hannah, Maddy--- thanks for being my day ones. I am here for you always.

I am a Senior Finance and Appropriations Attorney for the Virginia General Assembly. I participated on the debate team in high school and have been volunteering as a middle and high school debate judge in Maryland, New York City, and now the Richmond area since graduating from college in 2013.

Generally, my philosophy on debating stems from my legal experience, legal education, and the legislative process. I seek well reasoned arguments presented with vigor, based on credible, varied evidence, and the ability of participants to address opposing views without losing momentum for their own case.

Please present with an organized structure that introduces your position, builds strength behind your position, and makes a conclusion that summarizes the most important points you want the judge to consider. Do not rush through your presentation and speak with clarity and confidence. Please do not simply read off of your notes.

Additionally, a brief pause to collect a thought is always preferable to saying "um."

I look forward to judging and seeing you all in action.

I'm a trial attorney who has had countless bench and jury trials. I also debated in high school (policy and LD). I value organization, well-reasoned arguments, a pace that can be followed (not so fast I can't keep up), and persuasion. It is important that a person argue the facts as they are but distinguish the facts when necessary.

With team events, I like to see partners on the same page, making arguments that work together.

We all make mistakes, sometimes get tongue-tied, and realize later that perfect thing we should have said. This is perfectly ok, but the thing I'm looking for is the ability to pick yourself up and move on when you've made a mistake or had challenges. A person can absolutely win with a very strong conclusion!

The most important thing is to have fun and learn from the experience.

I value civility in debate. I expect competitors to treat each other with respect at all times.

Good luck!

Hi! My name is Eric. I did Public Forum Debate at Cosby High School for 2 years, and competed at national levels, States, and ToC

-lot of the stuff im gonna say here is mostly for inexperienced debaters, i'm assuming at a local level like this it could be peoples first time debating

• I i definitely have lots of PF experience, i can follow pretty much any argumentation, i can flow, i an flay, i can lay, but if those words dont mean anything to you then dont worry about it! !i don't wanna see any spreading for the sake of competition

• I want everybody to be as comfortable as possible, so while i ask you stand up at your desk at least for constructive, i don't need you guys to move around any more than that

• Y'all can keep your own time i trust you, if you don't trust your opponent you can time them if you want and point it out to me if you feel inclined

• At this level i understand there may be differences in experience, so if your getting lost in the sauce just focus on, i guess weighing at the very least

• When it comes to cross ex, keep it civil but its pretty unlikely il intervene

• I give high speakers unless you say something like, blatantly bigoted, so don't worry about it

• I can't tell you who won or give oral critique sadly, il put everything on the ballet

Hi everyone! I'm a current junior at Virginia Commonwealth University. I debated PF all through high school and have previously judged both LD and PF debate. Below are my expectations and preferences for debate rounds.

Argumentation: I believe successful debate is built on logical reasoning, explanation, and flow. As such, I prefer rounds without spreading and frequent card calling. I keep flow during the debate and highly value organization throughout the debate. I will mainly base my judgment on your argumentation, including that debaters address opposing points directly and concisely using logic-based and empirical reasoning.

Etiquette: I greatly weigh courtesy of debaters and penalize debaters who are demeaning or sarcastic in terms of gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation. I like to see productive and respectful cross-examination. Please do not focus greatly on any singular point during crossfire - you don't have a lot of time, so use it wisely!

Good luck, remember to stay COVID-safe, and I hope to see everyone having a fun time!

I have been a debate coach for the last few yeara.  I am experienced in both LD and PF.  I prefer a conversational pace as opposed to spreading.  You can easily speak so quickly that the merits of your arguments can go unnoticed.  Above all, be respectful to your fellow competitor.  

I am a former competitor in high school, college and grad school. I've been judging debate for twenty plus years. Most experience has been in LD but last six years I've judged plenty of public forum. If I can not understand your argument because of speeding it is not valid. So, no speeding. Need clash of arguments or very tech decision. Do not let the round come down to a definition debate.

Not a lay judge, PF state title holder. Lots of CX and LD experience, so speed is fine with me. To me, clash is very important for all debate types, so make it strong.