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 my main strength is in oratory and other traditional speech categories (i.e. extemp, impromptu)

Priorities for all types of debate

1. Delivery matters, clarity and signposting (I will judge spreading but will not flow what I can't understand, I will "clear" twice then stop flowing)
2. I will vote off the flow- don't drop arguments. Road maps are preferred and line-by-line rebuttals make my job easier.
3. Direct and fast question and answer in crossfire
4. I lean Truth > Tech but will not discount any argument presented well and backed with clean evidence
5. Impacts must be clear and I want to see voters in the final speech
6. Specifically for PF- I like balanced strength in teams.
7. Clash- For both PF and LD I expect clear CLASH. Debaters should be able to manipulate their cases on the fly to create a clear clash. It also shows you are actually paying attention to the debate at hand and not debating in a vacuum
8. 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. Not gonna lie- I like trad debate. I believe it is beautiful and when done well can take down any outlandish K or progressive case.
9. For Policy- Anything goes, have a blast. I am down for anything. Just keep it respectful, clear, and logical.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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! :)

I am a Finance and Taxation 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 I graduated 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.

Good luck!

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.