For Lincoln-Douglas debates, I look for clearly articulated value and criterion, with opening case statement arguments that are closely related to the value and criterion.

Arguments that are overly structured with complicated subset points begin to lose effectiveness; a clean, clear structure is more convincing.

The pace of speaking should not be so rapid, in haste to make as many points as possible, that the judge cannot clearly discern the arguments being made. A well designed argument is more convincing than rushed speaking where the judge may not be able to acutally discern the points the debater is trying to make.

NEG should focus in the case statement period more on building a strong argument rather than using an inordinate fraction of time to initiate rebuttal; if the case statement is made stronger, and minimal time devoted to the beginning of rebuttal, the NEG argument will probably withstand AFF rebuttal better.

Both AFF and NEG should avoid such phrases in rebuttal like "...if you don't buy that argument..." Such language suggests uncertainty in the argument just presented, which undermines its effectiveness.

I am a fairly traditional judge with three years of experience (mainly LD, but also Congress and some PF). I do not like overly aggressive spreading. I can handle any debate jargon you throw at me, but I don't appreciate it when people speak lightning fast to try and jam up their opponents.

I am a historian by training, so I expect the contentions to be based in some degree of reality. I can accept that open borders will cause a nation's sovereignty to erode somewhat, for example, but I cannot accept that open borders will lead to a nuclear conflict between two countries. Make sure your contentions are plausible.

Respectful, clearly articulated debates.

Debate:

I do not mind spreading. If you are an inarticulate spreader, then you will send me your case as well as your opponent:isabella.droginske@k12.wv.us

I strongly oppose paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches.

I greatly appreciate framework debates and debates that really investigate philosophical ideas. I have a fair knowledge base of Rawls, Kant, Locke, Rousseau, Bentham, Mills, and general schools of thought.

I do not mind Ks but excessive T is something I feel very strongly against.

I believe that debate should have the highest form of decorum throughout. I do dock speaker point for lack of decorum and respect to your opponent, judge(s), and the art of debate.

I make final decisions based on my flow-Tabula Rasa.

—LD: I appreciate robust value debates. Don’t collapse. Flow value to your side.

--PF: I dislike excessive time spent on card checking. I will not read cards after the round.

--Congress: I'm looking for analysis that engages the legislation, not just the general concepts. I believe that presentation is very important in how persuasive you are. I will note fluency breaks and distracting gestures. However, I am primarily a flow judge, so I might not be looking at you during your speeches. Being able to clearly articulate and weigh impacts (clash) is paramount. I dislike too much rehash, but I want to see a clear narrative. What is the story of your argument.

Speech: Do not be on your phone while a performer is performing in a round. Decorum counts.

Prepared events should know their times and be, well, prepared from the start.

—Extemp: Citations and organization are really important to me, but so is the entertainment part. Be compelling. Have an interesting AGD. Connect it at the end of your speech.

I am an Oakland Catholic parent volunteer judge.

I prefer clear and organized cases. I do not mind speed as long as I am able to understand your argument. If I cannot understand your case, I cannot flow your argument. I prefer that debaters argue in the order of their flow. In rebuttal I do like to hear why a debater feels they won the round and why I should vote for them.

I do expect that debaters treat each other with respect. I will deduct points for rudeness or disrespecting your debate opponent.

As a LD judge, it is important for the flow to be maintained so that your criterion and values are clearly articulated to me. For philosophical arguments, your value and criterion must clearly connect to your contentions. This information will take precedence to cards. If you are speaking too fast then I may loose your points during your flow. I am fine with speed, but please do not spread. If you spread and I cannot flow all of your arguments then they will not carry through the round. I expect for you to be able to establish your declarations and standards without being condescending. You may keep your own time but I will keep official time. If you continue speaking after time has elapsed, I will not flow your arguments. Please do not look at each other during crossfire but rather speak to me. When you call for a card I will begin using your prep time when the card is handed over to you. I will keep track of your prep time and I will tell you when I start and end the time.

As a PF judge, remember that your speed can negatively affect my ability to ability to follow your flow. I am fine with speed but do not spread. Please be mindful when calling cards as this can take significant time away from the debate itself. When you call for a card I will begin using your prep time when the card is handed over to you. I will keep track of your prep time and I will tell you when I start and end the time. I will not follow your directives to do so and the time that I keep is the official time. Decorum is important to me. Although you may not loose the debate over decorum, it can affect your speaker points.

In any round of debate, I want the competitors to be comfortable and do their best. It is important to me that all competitors treat each other respectfully. A professional decorum must be maintained from the moment you enter the room until you leave the room.

Please feel free to provide an off time road map prior to your speeches.

If you are speaking too fast or not enunciating your words, I may not be able to flow your points. I have no issues with speed but if I cannot understand what you are saying, I will not be able to effectively flow your arguments or other key parts of your debate. If this is the case, these items will not carry through the round.

You may keep your own time, but I will be keeping the official time. If I feel you are wrapping up when time is expiring, I will let you finish. If you are not wrapping up, I will give you a signal telling you its time and you will need to wrap up. I will not flow and arguments or points made after time has expired.

Unless you are the person speaking, please do not use a timer that makes noise.

When judging Lincoln Douglas Debate, it is important for the flow to be maintained so that your value and value criterion are clearly articulated to me. For philosophical arguments, your value and value criterion must clearly connect to your contentions.

For cross examination, I expect all debaters to ask clear and concise questions. If I feel the person answering the questions is deliberately taking a longer time to answer than needed, or anything else that is a tactic to limit the amount of questions asked may impact the final decision.

Calling cards can take significant time away from the debate and can cause our debate to run behind others in the round. This can cause cascading issues for the tournament organizers. I ask that you limit the number of times you call for cards and only seek to verify information that has a significant impact on the debate. Once a card is called, the opposing team will have one (1) minute to produce the information and once presented, the prep time for the team that called for the card will start running. If the opposing team is not able to produce the card in the given time, they will need to drop that card from their case.

competitor 1986 - 1990

judge and coach 1995 - present

I am a traditional debate judge.

I do not like spreading in debate rounds. If your delivery is too fast or too unclear, I will not be able to flow vital information. If that information is not on my flow, I cannot make a decision based on it when you tell me that it is a voting issue.

I prefer clash, thoughtful logic, and clear weighing mechanisms in a round.

I am a parent judge. I have been judging for this year.

My preferences for LD:

1. I don't mind a fast speaker but do not spread. Please respect your time limits. While I will officially monitor time, I'd rather be focusing on what you're saying than watching the clock.

2. It is always good to have stats and examples for your contentions. Repeating the same points during different arguments (unless relevant in a new way) will not make them more effective.

3. If you do not clearly refute one of your opponent's contentions, I will usually give them the win regardless of how good your contentions were.

4. Speak confidently and respectfully, and in an orderly manner. Maintaining a coherent flow is always very helpful for me.

WIP

Debated policy for four years at the JBS Law Magnet, mostly in DUDA, but competed at UIL States and NAUDL nationals. I'm currently a college junior not actively debating, which means I want each side to clearly and specifically lay out their argument, especially when it comes to more complex arguments like K's. If you're reading a random aff the average person would not have much background information on, providing some history would be helpful.

K's: I really enjoy K debates. I probably won't vote on a K unless the link chain is clear and plausible (no massive reaches). If you're going to read a K, explain the status quo, how the aff functions in the staus quo, and, most importantly, what/how/why the alternative is and how it resolves the links. You can still win the round without winning the alt debate, but I won't vote on a K that doesn't have an alt at all.

How to get speaker points: keep it kind and respectable with your partner and opponents. Flowing is a great way to keep the debate organized- I really appreciate it when teams go down the flow instead of jumping to arguments out of order. Don't steal prep time (!!)- I understand tech issues happen, but I have been in too many rounds where a team "stops" prep then doesn't email the file for another two minutes. Don't worry too much about stuttering/mispronunciation, as long as your arguments are prepared and cohesive you'll likely get good speaks. Spreading is fine, but start at like 70% speed to give me a moment to get used to your voice. Lastly, clash is good!!! Let's see more of it.

Keep it focused in rebuttals- DON'T read new arguments, DO impact calculus, and DO tell me the role of the ballot. Not every argument is important- choose an effective end strategy. Bringing the debate down to a few key arguments is one of the best things you can do for yourself at this point in the round. I'm not going to vote for a team that makes me do all the work of sorting through arguments for them.

Ethics violations (card clipping, cross-reading, making up/intentionally misrepresenting evidence) are an easy way for you to automatically lose the round. If you mark a card, email the marked copy when your speech is over.

Add me on the email chain! sophiasliterhays@gmail.com

(I'm from a school with almost no debate resources, so I'm biased to the belief you should all be disclosing your speeches on the debate wiki. If not, you should be adding every card you read (not analytics) to the email chain.)

Let's have a good round :)))