I have been a middle school coach for speech and debate for the last 8 years. I do NOT judge PFD/LD/CX/WSD on a weekly or even monthly basis. I follow the original idea that PFD is supposed to be kept to a conversational pace, where we could grab anyone off the street to be able to judge your round.

Things you should be aware of if I am judging you:

1. Do not speed through your case/speeches. If you do, I will miss multiple things and if I cannot understand what you are saying I will give the win to your opponents. If speeding is required to get through your case, this is where you learn how to change it up (adapt to your judge).
2. Do not be rude to your opponents OR to your teammate. Making rude comments/gestures/body movements is not acceptable. Your speaks will go down if you are rude.
3. I have my own way of flowing and will do my best to make sure I get everything, including dropped/unanswered contentions. Please, please, please do not lie about what your opponents did/did not say.
4. I like evidence being used to be from reputable sources.
5. Do not run a case that has NOTHING to do with the topic (those of you trying to bring LD into PFD, no "K"s)!

I am a lay-judge who does not tolerate kritiks, spreading, or generally just running performance. Thank you! :-)

Hello debaters

I am lay parent judge for 2 years. Speak clearly and make strong arguments. Always respect your opponents.

I take notes.Don't speak to fast.

I've judged a couple tournaments.Given 29s and 30s.

Have Fun

I retired recently after a successful corporate career in the healthcare IT field. I enjoy judging and am happy to see students improve on a skill that will be valuable to them regardless of career choice. 

If you are a beginner, focus on the basics: memorization, structure, posture, tone, on time delivery. If you are experienced, don’t make it so complicated that it is hard to follow. Keep your intros clear and to the point, don’t make it so it takes a Phd to understand your speech. Many of us judges aren’t that smart anyway!

This is my 39th year teaching and most of that I have also coached speech and debate. As far as debate goes, I coached LD starting in the mid 80's running on and off through 2017. I coached policy on and off from 1990-2000. I have coached PF on and off since its inception. I have coached congressional debate since the early 80's. I don't have a paradigm for Speech events, but I have coached and judged all speech events since the early 80's as well.

As a Congress Judge:

Delivery: I embrace the role play. You are all portraying legislators from across the country and should behave with the decorum that role suggests. That being said, we have legislators from across the country with various styles and habits -- that makes congress debate AWESOME! There is no single, perfect way to deliver!

Evidence Usage: CD is, at its core, a debate event. Arguments should have sound, sourced evidence that follows NSDA rules. Empirical claims require empirical evidence.

Analysis - If I am judging Congressional Debate, chances are the tournament is a national caliber tournament (otherwise I would be working in some capacity in tab). I expect high level analysis at a high level tournament. If you are the 4th speaker and beyond - I expect unique arguments and I expect analysis and refutation of earlier speakers. Crystallization speeches do not merely mention every speaker that spoke earlier on a piece of legislation. It literally crystallizes the two sides, weighs the impacts of the two sides, and persuades me of their chosen position.

Argument Impacts: Please identify who or what is impacted. Be specific. In CD, please explain real world impacts. The narrative of impacts is as important (if not more) as the numerics of impacts.

On the topic of cost benefit analysis and weighing... Be careful of playing the numbers game. A large number of persons harmed may not necessarily outweigh a single person harmed, if the single person's harm is total and complete and the larger number still enjoy existence.

Decorum: Behavior in and out of chambers is important. Respectful, educational, kind, and full of fun... these should be in balance! (I don't like boring debate)

I don't have a calculator on the above. Very seldom is there a debater who is awesome at them all... But all need to be part of the mix. If I am judging a top round, I suspect that all speakers will be amazing! That means the final ranking will come down to relevance in the round. If all speeches were brilliant, questioning and answering were spot on, and knowledge of topics is at the top, who stood out as the genuine, 'real deal'?

PF Paradigm - I embrace the notion that the event is intended to be judged by an informed public forum. That does not mean dumbing down arguments because you think the judge is dumber than you because they didn't go to camp (adults don't go to camp). I think most judges want to hear good arguments that pertain to the resolution and want to hear clash between positions. That being said, here is my more specific paradigm:

Speed - I love an energetic debate, but save spreading for policy (and sadly LD). You should have written a prima facie case that either affirms or negates. It should be written so that the first speaker can energetically deliver it. Most PF spread isn't really spread, it is spewing and incoherent choking due largely to the student's failure to adequately cut their case. I am fine with clean, clear, speed. Can I hear arguments delivered at 385 wpm? yes. Will I flow them? probably not.

Frameworks - Sure, if you really are running a framework. If it is legit (and stays up in the round throughout), both sides will be weighing impacts within that framework.

Observations - Sure, if they are observations. Observations are not arguments. They are observations. "It is raining - observation: things are wet." "If Trump wins the election it will trigger nuclear war" is an argument, not an observation.

Warrants and Impacts are your friends!! Numbers are just numbers - how do they happen? why do they happen? who is affected and why them? is there possible counter causality? Really good logic if well explained will beat blippy numbers. Well explained statistics that are connected and clear will beat poor logic.

Flowing - Yes, I flow. I expect you to do so as well. I don't flow card names and dates - so make sure when you refer to a piece of evidence you reference what it says, not a name.

Jargon - I am not a fan. Don't say de-link. It is often unwarranted. Explain how and why. Unique is a noun, not a verb. You cannot 'non-unique' something. I love turns, but don't just spout 'turn.' Explain why their argument works against them. Or show how their impacts actually are good, not bad. At its heart debate is a communication education activity; I take your education seriously.

Kritiks - They are arguments. I was okay with them in policy when they were a 'thing,' largely because policy is more game than debate. I was not okay with them in LD when used as a gimmick. I am the LD judge that still clings to the notion that we should have value debate. However, a well thought out K that communicates the impact of the issue must be answered in any debate! In PF, I might be okay if a team ran a kritik that they truly believed in, and they clearly had the ethos and pathos to convince me it wasn't just a gimmick, I MIGHT vote on the K if it is argued well. OR, if their opponents clearly understood the K but just didn't want to deal with it. A K is still an argument, and the premise of the K needs to be responded to as an argument. If not, chances are I am going to vote for the K.

I am not a fan of: rude behavior, gender put-downs, dog whistle language, or individuals being mean/cocky just for the heck of it. =26s-27s. I would go lower, but most tournaments won't let me.

I love intense and lively debate. I love true arguments that are well researched, argued, and impacted. I love smart. Smart gets 29.5s and 29.9s. It has been a very long time since I gave 30's but I do give them!

Introduction: My name is David Lehrman and I'll be serving as the judge for this debate. I come to this round as a parent/judge in my third season. I am here to facilitate a fair and productive discussion. My role is to evaluate the arguments presented by both sides based on their clarity, credibility, and persuasiveness. In this paradigm, I will outline my preferences, expectations, and guidelines for this debate.

Speed and Clarity: I prefer debates that are clear, concise, and accessible to all participants, regardless of their experience level. Avoid spreading or speaking too quickly, as it may hinder comprehension and fairness. If I cannot understand your arguments due to speed, it will be challenging for me to evaluate them effectively.

Structure and Organization: A well-organized debate is more persuasive and easier to follow. Please ensure that your arguments have clear introductions, credible supporting evidence, and conclusions. Signpost your contentions and respond directly to your opponent's points to maintain a logical flow throughout the debate.

Evidence and Sources: I value evidence-based arguments. Please provide credible sources to support your claims. The quality and relevance of your evidence will significantly influence my decision. If you challenge your opponent's sources, be prepared to explain why they are unreliable. Don't just ask for supporting evidence solely because want to use it for yourself.

Relevance and Staying on Topic: Stay focused on the resolution or topic at hand. Stray arguments that are not directly related to the debate may not be given much weight in my evaluation.

Counterarguments and Refutation: Effective refutation is key to winning a debate. Engage with your opponent's arguments and provide strong counterarguments. Address the most significant points raised by your opponent, and explain why your position is stronger.

Non-Philosophical Arguments: I prefer arguments based on real-world examples, statistics, and practical applications rather than purely philosophical or theoretical arguments. While some level of theory is acceptable, prioritize concrete evidence and real-world relevance.

Cross-Examination: I encourage debaters to use cross-examination as a tool for clarification and to expose weaknesses in their opponent's arguments. Keep cross-examinations respectful and productive.

Timekeeping: I expect debaters to adhere to the time limits set for speeches and to respect the allocated time for cross-examination. Going significantly over time may result in a penalty.

Decision Criteria: I will base my decision on the strength of the arguments presented, the quality of evidence, and the persuasiveness of the debaters. I will not introduce my personal beliefs or outside information into the decision-making process.

Final Thoughts: Remember that debate is not only about winning but also about learning and improving your skills. Approach this round with a commitment to fair and respectful discourse, and I will do my best to provide constructive feedback after the debate. Good luck to both sides, and let's have a productive discussion!

I was part of my high school debate team for 4 years. I understand decorum and procedure. I specialize in “congress” while is high school. A precise and well articulated argument is what I emphasize on. I am currently an Attorney specializing in litigation. 

Personal Judging Style:

Before the round:

Teams/speakers have to come to a consensus about whether they stand or sit. I expect you to keep your own time, and if your speech runs over time by over 30 seconds, I will step in and stop you verbally with "that's time." If you require an email for a the source email chain (teams must agree if doing this), I will provide my email for you.

Criteria:

I award the win to the team/speaker who is able to break down the topic and their argument in a way that is completely comprehensible, meaning that a beginner with absolutely no background in the topic should be able to follow everything said. Any technical terms used should be defined using a reputable source early in the debate. Debaters should be able to effectively poke holes in the other's argument, and provide credible evidence in a logical, quick, and professional way. Spreading is okay, however, if your words blend together and I cannot understand what you are saying, I dock points.

I dock points for any case of disrespect. If any team talks down or belittles their own partner, the judge, or anyone on the opponent's team, I will note this down in my ballot, and there are little to no instances for me where a disrespectful team wins. Disrespect and bringing prejudiced and judgemental attitudes into the debate is not what speech and debate should have.

At the end of the round, I will give my verbal Reason For Decision (RFD) briefly and will write more lengthy comments in my ballot. Please accept the decision I say with professionalism, and I will not take any questions nor will I be having an argument or discussion with you about what I said.

What I look for is the debater's composure, confidence, and if those things get better while speaking, and, if the competitor is able to get their point across in a clear and factual manner. Though I regard presentation highly, if what is being said has little to no structure or becomes difficult to follow or unclear, even if it is presented well, I will not give them the higher scores and points. I take notes during the entire debate, and if there are many places where I am unable to follow the organization of your argument, you will not win the round.

Background:

I was a competitor from 2010 - 2014 in Nova High School Speech and Debate in Original Oratory for all four years, and attended Florida Forensic Institute's summer camp for two summers. As a team member, I would help coach the underclassmen in their presentation and teach them how to edit their speeches. One tournament, Blue Key 2013, I coached a small amount of my team the night before we competed and every single person advanced out of prelims.

I started judging in 2021 and have continued until now. During this time, I mainly judged speech events, but have since judged debate for this academic year. My most recent tournament was Glenbrooks where I judged Varsity Public Forum for almost every preliminary round.

Hello, I am a coach in John I Leonard as well as a former competitor. I specialized in LD, but this paradigm can extend to all debate events.

1. Spread at your own risk. If you lose the round because I did not catch something as a result of your speed, I will not feel bad about it. The older I get, the less patience I have for speed.

2. I consider myself "tabula rasa" when it comes to the types of arguments I'll accept. My only requirement is that all arguments must directly tie into your ethical framework. I don't vote off of things like, "but even if you don't buy my framework..." or a K that is separate from your framework. All arguments need be clearly explained. If you expect me to cross apply something to a different argument, you must explicitly state you would like for me to do that. Your constructive is a story, in that it should fit together and be persuasive.

3. Ethical clash must be emphasized. I need to hear weighing of frameworks if you expect to receive my ballot.

4. Respect your opponent. Obviously no hateful comments of any kind, but this also extends to disposition in the round. I don't want to hear snickering, see your stupid "did this idiot just say that" face when you think the opponent has said something crazy, hear any attitude ("well if he had just listened to my case..."), etc etc. I have dropped kids before for offenses they thought were minor, so I do not play around with respect for your opponent. Emphasis on I will DROP you, not just lower your speaker points.

5. Voting issues. Gotta have them. What are the key issues of the round in your view? How do I know what to vote off of if you don't tell me what matters?

Speaker Points

If you are competent and minimize mistakes, you automatically finish with 28.5 speaker points (29 if decimals are forbidden). To improve on that, there need to be zero mistakes, zero arguments that go unrefuted, clear weighing of impact analysis, etc. If you get lower than 28.5, it means in some way I felt you were sub par. Maybe I noticed your 1AR was disorganized/maybe you did not signpost a few things. Overall, if you do your job, you are not finishing with less than 28.5. Going to be honest though, I can't tell you what a 30 is. You have the impress me in some way that I really can't quantify

Did Congress in high school. Have been judging speech and debate on and off since 2015, mostly ie.

Hey everyone!

I competed on the Speech circuit for a little over six years. I focused largely on Extemp and Informative Speaking, but I dabbled in Impromptu and Congress at the national level.

For speaking events: I want to see clear structure and articulate speaking. Good humor will get you very far for me!! If your event has a structure, I expect to see it (in extemp especially! I want data, warrants, and impacts for all points!!). Be confident and you will do fine.

For interp events: I want to understand your message and your characters. I have helped construct parts of POIs, DIs, HIs and DUOs so I know what I am looking for. If it should be funny, it better be funny; if it is dramatic, I need to feel the drama. Your intro, while short in comparison, is very important to me since this sets the stage for the entire performance. If I do not understand your story and message, I will not be able to follow you.

Congress: I want to see very clear arguments and unique points. If you speak and it is rehash, please know ahead of time I will drop you. You are not helping the round by having non-unique claims. If you are giving a refutation speech, it better have refutation. If you are giving the authorship/sponsorship, introduce the bill and why it is important.

General note for politically-based events: I am very well versed in politics domestically and globally due to (1) religious reading of the news and (2) I am studying it in college. If you are presenting an argument and I find the evidence to seem fake, I will challenge it or make my point known. If you are lying about something political, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and look it up to confirm, but I will protest if found to be false. Also, I am studying political science and international relations - I know what evidence means and when data is misused. If you are using data, use it correctly or I will call you out on it in ballots and ranking.