I am a lay judge. Don't be nervous to correct me on debate lingo or debate rules. I do not always disclose, but I usually will if requested. If you are rude or disrespectful to your opponents, I will drop you.

Speak clearly. If you are talking as fast as possible, I’m not going to understand a word you’re saying and that’s not going to get you any points even if what you are saying is good. I need to be able to understand what you are saying. Speak at an appropriate pace and you’ll be good.

I'm in college and debated novice LD at a couple of tournaments in high school, so I know the basics, but I'm definitely inexperienced with judging, so please speak slowly and if you need to use advanced debate terms, make sure you briefly explain it. Additionally, I'm familiar with critical topics like capitalism so I am receptive to more progressive argumentations.

Overview: I have been the Head Coach at Scottsdale Preparatory Academy since founding the team in 2013. I have been fortunate to coach dozens of students both at the AZ-local level and on the national circuit, but believe this activity (regardless of event) is first and foremost about "seeking the truth" through deep reading, active listening, clear thinking, and finally honest speaking. Your goal should not be to only be able to convince people with insular prior experience and expertise in S&D; good communication is good communication and should be about being able to reach anyone. As a coach, I also have the privilege/challenge of training lots of new parent/community judges who are scared to judge for the first time. My honest belief is that if you've "read a book before, watched a movie before, listened intently to a lecture before, and had a conversation with someone who disagreed with you" then you have sufficient life experience to become a good speech and debate judge (assuming they also learn the event rules/format, give feedback, and keep asking questions to keep improving).

Congressional Debate: Congressional Debate will forever be one of my favorite events. Your job is to be the whole package: convincing speaker, solid researcher, active questioner, and get into the collegial role play (without wandering too far into excessive, unnecessary motions).

- Speeches: There is no specific speaking position that is prone to do better or worse than others for me. I've seen and coached dozens of students who were primarily constructive speakers who liked speaking in early cycles on each bill. Thoroughly researched and original constructive speeches are vital for inviting good debate to follow. Others preferred (and were successful) at being a mix of late-constructive-speaker with some refutation (I welcome direct refutation as long as it is deeper than "Rep XX says YY and I disagree", offer an analysis of their claims/warrants/impacts). Others preferred to be a late cycle ("crystalization") speaker with greater emphasis on "weighing" and clarifying the overall issues brought up in the debate (please know that just giving a laundry list of previous speaker names, what they said, and whether you agree/disagree is not a crystalization; I was already here to hear their speeches, you still need to offer unique research and original analysis, even if it is analysis of their analysis). Any of those three speaker positions can do well or can do poorly depending on the speaker/speech. All three of them have an important role to play in Congressional Debate. In all 3 speaking positions, evidence is necessary.

- Decorum/Speech Length: The NSDA rule is that speeches have a time limit of 3 minutes, but does not specify a penalty for those who abuse the speech length. My belief is that exceeding the time limit is un-collegial (privileging one's own speech over those of others), shows a lack of decorum, and disrespects the rules. Many tournaments/leagues have begun offering a 10 second grace period (with the idea of letting a speaker finish their sentence/thought). If you are competing at a tournament that allows such a grace period, know that your goal should still be to give a 3:00 speech and not 3:10 speeches. Exceeding 3:10 is frankly rude (I've been horror-struck to see speeches go to 3:17, 3:26, 3:42, etc.), particularly when your PO is giving you several warnings. Stealing time from Congress’ ability to get to other speeches is unfair and poor form.

- Presiding: I have trained many students to preside (and even been fortunate to coach a student who Presided in the Finals at Nationals), and know how incredibly difficult it is to lead your peers. I have judged many POs who have been ranked in my Top 1-3 or Top 6, and also judged POs who have been in the bottom 25% of my Parli ballot. I know how difficult POing is and wish to reward a truly great PO, but the bar for leadership is still quite high and getting elected is not a guarantee that you're going to earn a good rank. POing takes practice both inside and outside of tournaments.

- Mentorship/Civility: In some ways I am grateful that there isn't a novice division of Congressional Debate because it means that new students or competitors from teams who are new to Congress will hopefully get to see some good models from experienced students in the room which they can learn from and emulate. If you are an experienced Congressional Debater, you already have a sizable competitive advantage over these students learning the ropes; they are not a threat to you. Build them up, invite them to discuss the docket with you before the round, encourage them to come to the next Congress (its in your best interest for Congress to grow across the State and Nation). Bludging a new congressional debater to death or being condescending just makes them never want to do the activity again, and makes judges less inclined to vote for you (even if you give solid speeches). This activity is about more than winning rounds; "speaking with good purpose" should be about more than giving quality speeches.

Public Forum Debate: Despite having a background in debate, I wish teams would emphasize the "Public" nature of Public Forum Debate. I competed in Public Forum Debate shortly after it was founded, and remember that part of the rationale for creating it was that debate was getting too far removed from the public and becoming increasingly insular If this community exists to only persuade those who have been specially trained to think in a specific way, then this activity fails at its goal of being relevant in the real world.

Speak clearly, medium slowly, persuasively, and be grounded in thorough research (in all speeches, not just the constructives). Unsubstantiated claims, or rebuttal/summary/final focus speeches that keep re-hashing your side while ignoring the opposition's side, are not rewarded. Even though I am coach, you are inevitably far more broadly and deeply read on this specific topic. Your job is to teach me just like it would be to teach any judge. I should leave feeling like I've learned something about the world, or think about the topic in a slightly new way.

Lincoln Douglas Debate: Please allow me to give you the respect of speaking honestly. I have coached lots of Novice LD through the basics of traditional LD, and past that I admit my limitations. I am essentially non-responsive to kritikal arguments and spreading. I acknowledge that you are significantly more thoroughly read on the topic than I am and likely will ever be. Use that knowledge responsibly and teach me. I should leave the round feeling like I as the judge learned something new about the world (or I should think about something in a new way), because you slowly taught it to the audience. Make it obvious your side is winning.

Policy Debate: If a tournament is in dire straits and desperate enough that I am judging a round of policy debate, then God rest all of our souls. Firstly, consider what I've said above about Congress, PF, and LD. If judging policy debate, I will basically adopt a "policy maker" paradigm, and your job is to (slowly, like a real policymaker would) convince me that the policy plan put forward is or isn't the better option. If I can't understand you, then I don't write it down and it didn't happen. You will have more success with stock arguments: topicality, advantages/disadvantages, maybe counterplans. If you're willing to meet me where I'm at, I'll give you a fair listening. I understand the need for progressive/kritikal arguments to exist in this form of academic debate, but they will most likely not help you win my vote.

Lay judge.

Long-time speech competitor so I like well-presented cases and clear questioning :-) 

This is my third year judging and mostly have experience with speech events. I just ask for you to speak at normal pace as I have some slower processing issues and I want to understand and follow your piece!

General:

- Pronouns: he/him

- I have experience judging/(kinda) coaching in CD, PF, and LD

- If there's anything I can do in terms of accommodations please let me know (either via email, chat, or whatever feels most comfortable).

- Be kind and have fun!

- Feel free to ask me any questions for clarification.

Congress:

- IMPACTS!!! WEIGHING!!! Take the argument one step further and connect the dots.

- Don't forget to refute! Especially after the first 1-2 cycles!

- If the debate on the legislation starts to repeat or become stale, please move to question.

- I will gladly consider the PO in my ranking. However, the PO must show good knowledge of procedures and handle the chamber well.

PF:

- Keep me in the email chain, please!

- Organization is more important than ever!

- IMPACTS!!! WEIGHING!!! Take the argument one step further and connect the dots.

- Don't make assumptions, go through every step.

- If your opponent(s) drops something in a speech or concedes in CX, I better hear something about it in your next speech to get it on my flow.

LD:

- I prefer a traditional debate

- Keep spreading to a minimum but if you must, it should still be clear.

- Err on the side of caution and overexplain, but if I'm on the email chain, I'll be fine.

- Organization is more important than ever!

- IMPACTS!!! WEIGHING!!! Take the argument one step further and connect the dots.

- Don't make assumptions, go through every step.

- If your opponent drops something in a speech or concede in CX, I better hear something about it in your next speech to get it on my flow.

My preference is for clear and enunciated speech at a conversational speed. There is no point in whizzing through facts or quotations faster than I am able to digest the information.

Pragmatic and logical reasoning are more persuasive than semantic and petty arguments. Rebuttals need to be effective, but kept short. The debate will most likely be won in the constructive and summary portions.

Debate: Please remember I don't have the preparation you do, so talk slow and be understandable. I most likely won't let you know you're going too fast in a round, only after in my comments. I'm not knowledgeable of debate jargon/abbreviations, so please clarify and assume I have no previous knowledge of what you're talking about. I will time you if I remember, but to be safe, time yourself and your opponents (if you don't want them taking extra time). Otherwise, just be respectful and have fun.

I am a parent judge, speak slowly and clearly and explain all your arguments efficiently. Avoid using debate jargon.

“Please speak slowly and clearly because if I can't understand then I can't vote for you"

Daughter of the judge writing here. She is a lay judge and prefers clear concise argumentation. The better you can make you more point the better she will receive it and evaluate. Do not try to spread or talk too fast.

I am a parent judge with some experience judging speech and public forum. I will try to take notes, but I am not a flow judge. I look for competitors with a clear and smooth speaking style, solid gestures, but most importantly, logical and well-supported arguments.

Style:

• Speed: Speak clearly regardless of your speed. Don’t use speed as a tool of exclusion. If you need to speak quickly to make all of your arguments slow down on the important points, I will only evaluate arguments that make it to my flow.
• Flex Prep: I have no problem if debaters choose to use some of their prep time for additional clarification questions.
• Be respectful and professional! This is supposed to be fun and educational, don’t be rude.

Content:

• Theory: Demonstrable, round-specific abuse is necessary for me to vote on theory arguments. I would rather hear arguments that address the substantive issues of the round so please consider the legitimacy of the argument on the discourse of the round before running Theory.
• Kritik: I love a good, thorough K argument! (with strong links and impacts)
• I will entertain most arguments as long as you are deliberate about your choices and provide significant and high-quality impacts. If you can't explain to me how this argument weighs out in the evaluation of the round, I am not likely to vote on that argument. If nobody does a good job providing me with a quality impact calculus, then I am likely to start looking for my own reasons to prefer one side over the other instead of remaining tabula rasa. Do your work so I don’t have to do it for you!

Hi Everyone,

I will do my best to give you great feedback. Please speak clearly and slowly because I am a parent judge.

It's fine to be passionate about your topic; please be respectful.

I will be trying to flow; it is my first time so please make arguments clear and easy to follow.

I look for organization, analysis (supported by evidence), cross, and clash. Also, I prefer debates that clearly link the value and criterion directly to the contentions and throughout the debate or clearly highlight what the key issue is and consistently connect this through the round.

I prefer quality over quantity.

I have been debating and doing IE's as a competitor and judge since the 1970's with a long break in the 90's and 2000's while working in the private sector. I have coached teams in Oregon and Arizona over the past ten years, and I'm experienced with all the main formats of debate, particularly Oregon Parliamentary, Public Form, and LD.

I judge as a policy maker looking for justification to adopt the resolution and will accept well-justified arguments on both substance (the issues of the resolution) and procedure (framework, theory). In policy rounds I have a bias against affirmative K's, because I believe the Aff prima facie burden requires that I be given a reason to adopt the resolution by the end of the first Aff constructive in order to give the Aff the ballot. Arguments founded in social justice approaches are fine as long as they lead to a justification for adopting the resolution and changing the status quo.

I can handle speed but remember I'm not seeing your documentation--a warrant read 600 words a minute at the pitch of a piece of lawn equipment might as well not be read from the judge's seat. You flash each other, but not me, so make sure I understand why your evidence supports your argument. I won't debate for you, and I don't flow cross-ex/crossfire. If you want me to consider an argument, introduce it during one of your speeches. In formats other than policy, particularly in Public Forum, I expect a slower rate and more emphasis on persuasion with your argumentation as befits the purpose of those other formats. In LD, I expect arguments to be grounded in values, not "imitation policy."

I will automatically drop any debater who engages in ad hominem attacks--arguments may be claimed to have, for example, racist impacts, but if you call your opponents "racists," you lose--we have too much of that in the contemporary world now, and we are trying to teach you better approaches to argument and critical thinking.

Above all else, I like good argumentation, clash, and respectful conduct. No personal attacks, no snark. Humor welcome. Let's have some fun.

I am a lay judge, but I have watched several rounds of PF before. I will consider arguments if they are made clearly and consistently in the round. Please make sure your voice is clear. I will not tolerate exclusion in any part of the round. I am not comfortable with theory or Ks. Please make sure to explain weighing mechanisms, and do not use jargon. Signpost during your speeches, and explain the warranting behind your links.

Hi. I am a lay judge.

• Please speak clearly and avoid spreading.
• Have strong and defensible arguments.
• Be respectful towards your opponents.

L@@K: Do not use 'victims of police brutality' (any brutality) just for intros, or as an additional piece of evidence that you immediately move on from. No person(s) should be used as 'gotcha' evidence or a card just to win. If you are ignoring people's humanity to win = time to reevaluate why you are doing speech and debate.

1.I'm an experienced community judge (all kids in college now. Between them, they achieved six IE AZ championships, and captained one team state championship).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. DEBATE: I've judged only a few debate rounds, including LD Quarters, 2022-23 AZ State Championships.

*That said, I'm tabula rasa as long as you have complete claim-warrant-impact arguments. i.e. I place a premium on logical analytical work, evidence comparison, and impact comparison. Note: quality logical analysis can easily beat subpar evidence.

*Be excellent to each other - this video explains best. BE KIND. Be respectful. Be courteous. Be professional. (I only vote on behavior that I observe IN round).

*Choose a 'moderately fast' rate - if you lose me... you lose me.

*Best warranted argumentation + best control of comparative impacting THROUGHOUT the debate is paramount (final rebuttals = small part of entire process - so don't save it all for them - that won't work).

*Prefer a good balance of quality evidence and analysis, not one over the other.

*Most impressed with: good balance of ethos, logos, pathos; clear advocacy; strategic thinking (especially cx); excellent analytics; in-depth comparison of evidence.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. CONGRESS: I've judged Congress a couple of times, including 2021-22 AZ State Championships.

In Congress, I look for clear and concise analysis, while anticipating clash, cited evidence, and rebuttal (clash, not 'trash' - I will drop you for trash). I expect 40% presentation, 60% content.Every post-authorship speech must include refutation...must.

Author/sponsor: explain HOW the mechanisms of your legislation work (what it does and how it solves problems in status quo). Don't just give the first 'aff speech'.

If you speak 2x on same bill I will drop you. Everyone = 'representative/senator' = don't use gender-related titles = I will drop you. Provide clear impacts and ask questions often. Don't just read a prewritten speech off legal pad (this is not extemp). I will rank high for good POs.Those who immerse themselves in the debate and act as if their votes are important to constituents back home will get my highest rankings. While the end result is artificial, act like it matters.

Always... Be kind, and treat your colleagues with respect. If you're overly aggressive in direct cross I will want to drop you.Avoid parliamentary games to try and prevent others from speaking. I will recognize these and I will drop you. As always, have fun!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. IE: So that leaves IE/Speech, which I started judging in 2018.

I have judged at all levels, to breakout rounds at Nats.

What I'm looking for:

SHORT VERSION: Be prepared. Be confident. Be good. Make it easy for me to rank you higher vs lower.

----------

LONG VERSION follows...

OO/INFO:

IMPORTANCE: Is topic significant? Is thesis clearly established? Does delivery help convey importance of topic?

RELATABILITY: Can audience relate? Is delivery personable? Do you establish how others are impacted?

• OO: Is rhetoric inclusive?
• INFO: Do you 'inform' well?

ORIGINALITY: Do you address topic in unique, inventive way? Are supporting examples new and interesting?

----------

POI:

PROGRAMMING: Were 2 of 3 lit genres (Poetry/Prose/Drama) used? Did all lit contribute to theme/argument? Did performance flow make sense? Balance among genres?

BLOCKING: Each scene easily understood? Clear which source is used in each section? Manuscript control maintained throughout? Motivated movements?

CHARACTERIZATION: Distinct/engaging characters for EACH source? Performance matches genre (e.g., poetic elements emphasized when performing Poetry)? Dynamic performance?

----------

DI/HI/DUO:

CHARACTERIZATION: Character(s) well-developed? Character(s) relatable? Character’s response(s) = believable given situation being portrayed?

BLOCKING: Clear what performer is doing in each scene? Clear what character(s) they are playing? Is movement motivated?

CUTTING: Easy to understand what is happening? Is story line easy to follow? Does sequence of events make sense?

----------

PROSE/POETRY:

PERFORMANCE: Presenter comfortable and commanding in the space? Use of physicality, facial expression, and gestures enhances performance?

VOCALIZATION: Brings words 'to life'?

• Prose: uses vocal qualities like diction, pausing, volume to advance narrative?
• Poetry: uses vocal qualities like rhythm, pacing, volume to advance performance?

CUTTING: Is theme/narrative easy to follow throughout the selection of lit? Does selection flow well and make sense in terms of how it’s developed?

----------

STORYTELLING:

TONE: Performer's voice aligns with type of story they've chosen to tell? Clear this story is suitable for children to hear?

EXPRESSIVENESS: Brings words 'to life' using effective techniques to convey appropriate emotion? Facial expressions aid overall delivery of presentation? Seems engaged in literature?

RELATABILITY: Delivering story in manner that would engage young children? Effectively establishes connection to audience? Eye contact used to engage audience?

I'd say I'm your typical college student judge -- looking forward to judging some quality rounds after 4 years of high school debate. For reference, I mainly competed in Congressional debate, Public Forum debate, and Extemporaneous Speaking.

For Public Forum specifically: I know the event has evolved a lot recently, but I still value more 'traditional' debate. I also strongly believe that PF should still be as easily accessible to any judge as possible (hence the name, Public Forum) i.e. I want you to do the work for me as if I was foreign to debate -- I especially love killer summaries that tell me exactly what to weigh. For crossfire, I don't flow it but I'm listening (so stay polite and composed), just bring anything relevant up in your speeches. I'll give feedback if asked at the end of a round.

For Congressional debate,

I consider of the content of speech, the argument skills (synthesizing, refutation), and responding of questions and the delivery skills to evaluate.

1. The content of speech

a. organized structure ? Introduction, body and conclusion.
b. Quality of content - how effectively developed the idea.
c. Supporting evidences: I prefer specific evidence with credible references. I’ll check they are logically linked together with the main topic.
d. Clarity of perspectives: clearly approaching without confusion of affirmative or negation.

2. The argument skills

a. Contribution of debate: How is the speaker actively involved in the round and leads the round?
b. The balance of synthesizing and refutation.
I don’t like the speaker simply repeat the previous argument without anything. I prefer to hear new argument with fresh new idea.
c. Q&A time: Are the questions answered adequately?

3. Delivery

a. Eye contact and reading: I prefer to have eye contact as much as possible during the speech. I don’t recommend reading without eye contact.
b. Vocal control - proper volume, pronunciation and speed. I also prefer dynamic vocal changes instead of monotonous speaking.
c. Physical poise: Is there a polished manner for the presentation? is the gesture proper when speaking? Is there any unnecessary movement or habit presented?

4. P.O.Evaluation

I consider of the quality of Parliamentary procedure (clear explanations of rules, smooth running the round with little to no error) and the ability of speaker recognition ( the consistent and fair distributions of speaking opportunity).

For Speech event,

I consider of the contents of story, the performance quality, the delivery skill and so on for judging.

1. the contents of story,

a. The selection of story - is it unique and distinct?

b. Thesis - is it clearly established?

c. The selection of references

- Is it well linked to the main topic?

- Is it effectively support the main topic?

d. The well developed structure

- Does the story flow well?

- Does the sequence of event make sense?

- Is the story line easy to follow?

2. The performance

a. Attitude- Is the presenter comfortably commanding in the space?

b. Delivery skill

* Vocal quality

- I prefer the clear diction with the normal pace.

Also like the dynamic vocal skill using the efficiency pausing and rhythmical vocal change.

* expression

- Is the expression and movement motivated in the story?

- Does facial and physical expression enhance the performance?

- Does the performer maintain and control the performance?

- Is it dynamically presented?

* fun

- Is it fun to watch? How much audience involved in?

* Is it easy to understand the presenter’s performance?

3. Prepared material

- Is the picture or photo easily recognized?

- Is it well linked to the story? How efficiently support the topic?

- How is the Material preparedness quality?

4. Conclusion

I also weigh the conclusion part because it is the most important part of the presentation. I prefer to tell me the exact summary what you present in the end.

Thank you.