I am a parent judge with little experience judging PF events. I prefer that you don't talk too fast or spread - I need to be able to understand what you're saying in order to judge its merits.

I take a lot of notes and will try to judge on the flow. Please clearly articulate your contentions, back them up with warrants and support with strong evidence. I don't fully flow Crossfire, so anything important that you want noted, please extend in your next speech, and make it clear why it's important to your case or detracts from your opponent's. Please don’t run progressive debate unless something extreme has happened in the round, I will not know how to evaluate it.

By your final focus or last speech, you should have made a convincing case why your impacts or value out-weigh your opponent's. And in keeping with the rules of debate, do not bring up any new arguments in the second half of a round, or they will be disregarded. Good luck and have fun!

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Charlotte Latin School. I coach a full team and have coached all events.

Email Chain: bbutt0817@gmail.com - This is largely for evidence disputes, as I will not flow off the doc.

Currently serve on the Public Forum Topic Wording Committee, and have been since 2018.

----Lincoln Douglas----

1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.

2. Am ok with speed/spreading but should only be used for depth of coverage really.

3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks

4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:

----Public Forum-----

- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater but don't use speed unless you have too.**

- I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that, with some humor and panache.

- I have a high threshold for theory arguments to be valid in PF. Unless there is in round abuse, I probably won’t vote for a frivolous shell. So I would avoid reading most of the trendy theory arguments in PF.

5 Things to Remember…

1. Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.

2. Framework

I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.

3. Extensions

Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense extensions to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech which may include early defense extensions.

4. Evidence

Paraphrasing is ok, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. Make sure to extend evidence in late round speeches.

5. Narrative

Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

Greetings, debaters. I'm a parent in my second year of judging debate. It would be helpful if you would:

1. Please ask, "Ready, judge?" before you launch into each speech. (I will be keeping time, too.) Even better would be something like, "Ready, judge, for my four-minute speech (three-minute crossfire)?"

2. Sign post your arguments. "Moving to my second contention, my opponent says, but we contend..."

3. Speak a little slower. Don't spread.

4. Avoid running theory during your arguments.

FInally, please be a good sport and have fun.

Second time judging congress…

Don’t speak too quickly or be dismissive of other competitor's questions and/or comments.

I LOVE big personalities, eye contact, thoughtfulness, creativity, and fresh ideas. Remember that only dead fish swim with the stream!

Happy debating!

I am a parent judge with little experience judging PF, LD or Speech events. I prefer that you don't talk too fast or spread - I need to be able to understand what you're saying in order to judge its merits.

I take a lot of notes and will try to judge on the flow. For PF, please clearly articulate your contentions, back them up with warrants and support with strong evidence. I don't fully flow Crossfire or Cross-Ex, so anything important that you want noted, please extend in your next speech, and make it clear why it's important to your case or detracts from your opponent's. Please don’t run progressive debate unless something extreme has happened in the round, I will not know how to evaluate it.

By your final focus or last speech, you should have made a convincing case why your impacts or value out-weigh your opponent's. And in keeping with the rules of debate, do not bring up any new arguments in the second half of a round, or they will be disregarded. Good luck and have fun!

I am new to debate competition judging but work in the public policy field professionally.

Please present your arguments with empirical evidence with a well-intentioned pace and intonation to emphasize your points. Racing through your presentation will not earn points, effective eye contact and emphasis on points that are important and that you think will be the most influential are much more impactful to my response and ultimately your score.

Being respectful and effectively responsive during cross will also gain points. Don't let the other team get the better of you. Defend your position well, don't just attack.

Don’t be rude to your opponents. Articulate clearly.

Dear Debaters,

As a judge, my primary goal is to foster a fair, constructive, and intellectually stimulating debate environment. Here is my paradigm to provide you with insight into my expectations and criteria for evaluating your performances:

1. Clarity and Organization:

   • I appreciate clear and well-organized presentations. Don't speak too fast. More importantly, ensure that your arguments are structured logically, making it easy to follow your line of reasoning.

2. Content and Substance:

   • Substance is key. Research your main points well. I like supported assertions. Depth of analysis and a comprehensive understanding of the topic will be crucial in my evaluation.

3. Engagement and Responsiveness:

   • Actively engage with your opponents' arguments. This is where most debates are won or lost. Be alert. Address counterarguments effectively, and be responsive to questions during crossfire. Demonstrating adaptability and responsiveness will positively impact your overall assessment.

4. Delivery and Style:

   • A compelling delivery enhances the impact of your arguments. Stand or sit up straight. Maintain a clear and audible voice, use hand gestures to emphasize your points, and make good eye contact with the judge and opponents.

5. Professionalism:

   • Maintain a professional demeanor throughout the debate. This includes respecting time limits, avoiding distractions, and presenting your arguments with a focus on substance rather than theatrics. Civil, respectful discourse is key for me.

6. Collaborative Teamwork:

   • For team debates, I value collaborative teamwork. 1-1=0... 1+1=2. Teams work best. Each team member should actively contribute, and an effective division of responsibilities can enhance the overall coherence of your arguments.

7. Critical Thinking:

   • Showcase your critical thinking skills. Analyze the implications of your arguments and demonstrate a nuanced understanding of the topic. Quality over quantity is important, and thoughtful, well-supported points will be rewarded.

8. Respectful Environment:

   • Foster a respectful and inclusive debate environment. Disagreement is expected, but it should be expressed with courtesy and professionalism. Create an atmosphere that encourages intellectual exchange.

Remember, my goal is to provide constructive feedback that will help you grow as debaters. Regardless of the outcome, each debate is an opportunity for improvement. I look forward to a thoughtful and engaging debate.

Best regards,

Sarah Patten

I'm a former High School policy debater who last judged a round 15+ years ago.

I am open to evaluating all kinds of debates.

Given that its been a while since I've judged, I would prefer that that argument tags and author last names be read clearly -- but I am also open to catching up on flow notes during CX or in between speeches.

Please be patient with me and do feel free to ask questions.

I am committed to providing constructive feedback to all participants.

I am a novice, parent ‘lay’ judge with little experience judging speech & debate events, and honestly find public-forum a little chaotic at times. Speak clearly, at normal conversational pace and stay ‘on point’ with your arguments. I value substance over style and quality over quantity – speaking in a rush to the point of hyperventilation to squeeze in as many disjointed points as possible will not impress me much – making the strongest, soundest, evidence-based case and laying those arguments out in a clear and cohesive style will.

Be sure to back up your contentions with strong evidence and finish strong in final focus. Please don’t run theory or any type of progressive debate because I’m not even sure what those are and I will not understand what you are even talking about.

Good luck, have fun and give yourself credit in advance for having the courage to participate in speech & debate and learning this invaluable life skill.

This is my third year of Judging.

I judge PF and LD debates. I prefer you speak slower. If you speak too fast I won't keep track of what you say on my flow.

Being polite is important to me. Don't bring up new evidence during final focus.

I am a patent judge with several rounds of experience judging debate events. I am the typical “lay judge”. However, I am more than capable of evaluating strength of argumentation and evidence when deciding who has won the round. Please make sure your arguments and evidence are clear.