I look for well-defined arguments that are educational and don't assume previous knowledge. I prefer hearing fewer well-defined arguments than a litany of arguments that are spoken at a rapid pace to deliver as much information as possible.

I look for respect toward opponents. I like a natural flow of speech and a tone that is passionate but not shrill.

Hi! I am a parent judge for LD, but I have been judging tournaments for a while. I heavily prefer traditional cases (no theory, K's, etc.); counterplans are fine. No spreading, do not be condescending, racist, homophobic, sexist, or anything that attacks a debater's personal beliefs or identification, else I will drop you. I flow crossx, as it is binding. I do not appreciate post rounding, unless you are truly confused and want to understand the outcome better.

Tech>Truth

Good luck and have fun!

Clash is king. I am a parent judge, but open to whatever style of debate you choose to run, traditional or progressive, just communicate it clearly and connect it to your opponent's case. I can connect dots, but I might not connect them the way you think they connect, so do your best to draw the lines. Signposts and structure are helpful. Spreading is fine, but I prefer quality over quantity. may request to see your evidence, especially if you and your opponent disagree on its interpretation and implications

For LD, framework is important. If morality is on your side, use morality. If logic is on your side, use logic. If evidence is on your side, use evidence. If feasibility is on your side, use feasibility. If you have nothing else, make me laugh or tell me a story.

For PF you must have hard evidence to back up your claims, I may request to see it.

I am a “newbie” parent judge; therefore, I understand the trials and pressure that competitive debating brings, and as such I value a cordial and respectful environment.

Here is some insight to a few things that may encumber my ability to evaluate information and arguments fairly and impartially.

Structure: I am very much a traditional flow judge. I do not prefer progressive styles. Please make your Value and Value Criterion clear at the beginning, weave them into your case, and tell me explicitly why your framework is better than your opponent's.

Speed: I prefer a well-developed argument to spreading. Stay on topic and debate the merits of the given topic. It will allow for my fullest engagement and fairest evaluation.

Style: I appreciate assertiveness but dislike aggression. Explain to me the reasons for why you believe you won the round. Clarity of thought and logic for me will trump fast speech and bravado every time.

I have been the sponsor of the Speech and Debate Team at Apex Friendship High School for the last six years. This is my second year judging Lincoln Douglas Debate. I have taught English for 20 years.

1. Framework is critical. If you don't connect your evidence to your framework, you haven't succeeded.

2. Do not spread--I value quality over quantity.

3. I value strong CX skills--being able to think on your feet and attack an opponent's case is key to winning the round.

4. Civil discourse is expected.

I have judges multiple events, however I spend most sessions in Debate, Congress, L-D and PF.

The opportunity of me to judge Nationals in 2022 was exciting and very rewarding!

I want to be able to understand you, please speak clearly. My expectations for this

event are:

Disrespect is never ok, be fair to each other and treat people as you would like to be treated.

Be kind, to others as well as yourself.

Logical, clear arguments are appreciated!

"Don't raise your voice. Improve your argument." Desmond Tutu

I am a quite new judge, I never did any sort of debate in highschool so this was my first year ever judging. It would be preferred if you didnt talk quite so fast so I can keep up

I am a Parent judge with limited experience. Please go Traditional. Keep things simple.

If I can't understand what you're saying, I will assume you didn't say it, so please speak clearly and don't spread. No K's, Please no full theory shells, and definitely no tricks.

Would like to see signposting. If you are extending an argument, please mention it. If I can't understand your framework, I can't weigh it. Please present and weigh voters against your framework.

Please remain courteous and respectful of your opponent.

Thank you and good luck!

I am a parent judge. Please go slow and clear so I can understand what you're saying. Please don't use any discriminatory language.

Email for disclosure : hussain.zakir@gmail.com

I'm a parent judge, who has judged debate since 2016.

I'm a flay judge..

My preferences:

• I don't mind fast talking, but don't spread
• Don't be rude -- or you'll lose speaker points, and, potentially, the round. No personal attacks, discrimination, etc.
• Don't call out your opponent's mistakes to me -- debate your opponent and let me determine if they, for example, introduced new evidence or arguments too late in the round. Don't try to help me.
• If you have questions for me, ask before the round

TLDR

Trad LD judge, ok with speed but be careful when spreading. Congress is about clash (reference your representatives) and presentation. Be nice.

Background/General

Email: pa.jonglertham@gmail.com

Currently a college freshman, graduated from Hastings High. I have mainly done LD and Congress throughout high school, Nats in World Schools. Debate should be accessible to everyone - making personal attacks to win a high school debate round is not going to end well for you.

LD

I’m most familiar with trad LD, and I’ll try to only vote on what's been presented in the round, though my background in Ks/theory/deviations from trad cases isn't very strong. A competitor that runs those kinds of cases is going to have to be able to lay it out well - explain it to me like I’m five. I will evaluate the round based on v/c debate first, then weigh voters and contention level arguments underneath. Arguments MUST have evidence and analysis links. If it's not provided or painfully weak I will not vote on it.

Speed - I can flow at a brisk pace, but not a fan of spreading. I will miss something for sure.

Congress

I appreciate speeches that have a lot of effort put into them, but are delivered effortlessly. Speeches should always bring something new to the table, or question what has already been said. Reference your fellow representative. I love clash, but also don't just say something for the sake of making an argument. Make sure your arguments are logically sound.

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

This is my second year judging LD as a parent judge. 

Please add me to the email chain: omicsoft@gmail.com

I am familiar with traditional LD and usually well-researched on the topic. When it comes to progressive-style debate, my knowledge all comes from the debate guru (https://thedebateguru.weebly.com/) 

Traditional or Policy-oriented arguments>Mainstream Critical=Mainstream Philosophy>Esoteric concepts that can't be explained fully within the time limits.

I prefer policy-oriented traditional rounds with straight-forward weighing and voter issues. I value clear logical connections between your arguments and your impacts. Furthermore, I will not extend anything for you. Please sign post, give an off-time roadmap, and try to stay organized. 

Under any/all conditions on a lay circuit: 

• No spreading
• No theory
• No tricks
• No spikes
• No Ad Hominem
• No Bigotry/Disrespect

For progressive debaters -

• Your chance of winning will significantly increase if you slow down to <250 wpm
• Your chance of winning will significantly increase if you run mainstream structures in a situation where you have to fight back using non-traditional arguments. I am comfortable with DAs/CPs but PLEASE read only one CP in your NEG case. Also, keep your DAs topical. 

Good Luck! 

I'm Ashley (she/her) and I debated for four years, all in LD, and captained my junior/senior years. Now I'm a junior at UNC Chapel Hill. I'm pretty traditional and would define myself as a flay judge. If you wanna know more of my creds or have any general questions I'd be happy to answer before or after round. This is a learning experience for everyone and I look forward to learning from yall!

Add me to the email chain : akat2468@gmail.com

Things I care about:

1) I will buy all evidence read unless it's contested in round. If it becomes an issue, I'll call for it at the end of round. If you are deliberately violating evidence ethics, I'll drop you from the round with the lowest speaks tab allows.

2) PLAY NICE. We are here to be civil, learn, and have fun. No harassment, belligerence, or rudeness will be tolerated.

3) Don't spread/do weird circuit stuff on a debater that has absolutely no idea what that is. It would be best if y'all can agree beforehand on circuit vs trad style. I can judge both circuit and trad. If you're a circuit debater and go crazy on some poor trad debater that has no idea what you're talking about I will tank your speaks.

4) You can spread if you want but you must disclose and you must speak clearly. I don't back flow off the speech doc because that's unfair to the other debater so if you're unintelligible in round and I can't understand a single thing you say I can't help you.

5) I have an expressive face. Don't take it too seriously.

6) If the framework debate is a wash or there is no framework I default to util.

7) If you are a high level circuit debater and want to run a super tricky prog round you might want to strike me.

Things I don't care about:

1) Everything else. Do whatever you want, I don't care as long as you're being nice and having fun (and hopefully learning something).

Ways to earn speaks:

1) Style. Enunciate your words and be rhetorically advanced.

2) Clarity. Self explanatory.

3) Cleverness !

Competed in high school LD for 4 years. Currently compete in British Parliamentary for Duke University. I primarily competed in traditional tournaments so I am the best at evaluating those types of argumentation. I am fine with most speeds so long as each word is properly enunciated. A byproduct of the online format is the maximum speed which is still intelligible is slightly slower than in person.

My judging belief is that it isn't my duty as a judge to evaluate whether or not you're making good arguments, it's my duty to evaluate how each debater is responding to the arguments their opponents are making. If you make a silly argument, my threshold to not evaluate it is very low, but if your opponent inadequately addresses it, then I give you full credit for that argument.

I will cast my ballot based on who I believe is "winning the flow." To me, that's not necessarily who's winning the most arguments on the flow, but who has done work analyzing and weighing the arguments they are winning under a reasonable framing. Insofar as that's true, having clear and fleshed out extensions and crystallization is really important to winning my ballot.

I only believe framing is as important as you make it to be. If both debaters want to agree early on to a very similar framing, great, that makes my job easier as a judge. If both debaters want to spend the entire round debating opposing frameworks, also great, those make some of the best rounds if you understand what you're talking about. No judge is perfect at completely removing their own value system from the evaluation of arguments but I attempt to evaluate arguments purely under the frameworks you provide in round. If one framework emerges as the clear winner, I will use that framework to analyze all arguments within the round. If framework debate is awash I will attempt to analyze the round using principles emanating from both frameworks but that inherently introduces my own subjective analysis into the round so spend time ensuring framework debate isn't awash.

Please ask me any further questions before the round starts. If the tournament allows it, I will give an oral RFD after the round, but here is my email if you have any further questions after that: jack.morgenstein@gmail.com

Hi I'm Shreya, I'm a second year college student studying economics and this is my first time judging.

Send me your case at: shreya.nadenla03@gmail.com

I will likely read evidence if it's a close debate.

Since it is my first time judging, please speak slower than you usually would and signpost well so I can understand your speeches well. Try to avoid being overly technical and clearly explain impacts.

Please weigh and give clear voter issues!

Finally please be respectful to your opponent!

Brisk pace / no spreading please

Clarity and logic above # of cards please

I am an ex-traditional policy debate coach (Stock issues judge) that has been coaching LD since 1990. I usually administrate tournaments rather than judge except when I have been at Catholic Nat's and NSDA Nat's.

Speed: Adapt to the judge who prefers a few well-developed arguments to spreading. I will flow as fast as I can, but it is up to you to communicate to me the compelling/persuasive reasons why you should earn my ballot. Speak clearly and articulate your words and you'll do fine.

Flex Prep. No. Speak within the time constraints and use prep time to see Evidence.

Evidence Challenge: If you doubt the veracity of evidence, then challenge it at the next available opportunity. Remember evidence challenges are all or none. If the evidence has been proven to be altered or conjured, then your opponent loses. If the evidence is verifiable and has NOT been materially altered, then you lose for the specious challenge.

Arguments: A few well-reasoned claims, warrants, and impacts are very persuasive as opposed to a laundry list of underdeveloped assertions/arguments.

Theory Arguments: Not a big fan of sitting in judgment of the topic with critiques. But I do weigh the issue of topicality as germane if made during the constructives.

Philosophy: It's been labeled Value debate for a reason. I encourage the discussion of scholarly philosophies.

Framework: There is a Value that each side is pursuing as their goal. There is a value criterion that is used to measure the accrual of the VP. The last steps include why the Value is superior and why the VC is the best way to measure that value.

Decision-Rule. While repetition often aids learning, I prefer that you tell me what the established standard for judging the round has been and why your arguments have met the threshold. Write the ballot for me.

PFD: I have coached and judged PFD since the event started.

I prefer a framework and a few well-developed arguments to the spread. Point key words as you read your case. Be polite in C-X and ask closed-ended questions. Tell me why your arguments are better by weighing impacts.

This is my third year judging - I judge Congressional Debate and Lincoln-Douglas, and occasionally have the pleasure of being entertained with speech performances. I have been a practicing attorney for 26 years, both in the trial, transactional, and appellate worlds. While in public practice I spent significant time drafting model legislation for use by the multiple states and testifying on its behalf in the Maine Legislature. I love policy. I love the art of persuasion. I value the ability to argue both sides of any issue. I enjoy pointed and concise argument. Be professional, be kind, and, most importantly, have fun.

This is my fourth year as a parent speech and debate judge, most of which has been spent judging public forum and lincoln douglas debate.

Please be respectful of your opponent and your judge. Please follow the rules and treat everyone fairly.

I appreciate speaking that is reasonably paced so that I can follow your arguments, so a little quicker than conversation-paced speaking works best for me. You will have enough time to make your arguments without rushing through them. I will listen carefully to your evidence, and to me, a few pieces of strong evidence are far superior to a lot of weak evidence.

I have little knowledge of your topic and have not prepped so do not assume that I know the literature, arguments, or acronyms.

Please convince me with good evidence and a carefully made argument.

I have been judging and coaching primarily LD, PF, and Policy debate for the past 28 years.

My preference is a moderate style of debate. Although, I can, and will keep up at any speed. I flow while judging and therefore appreciate the use by competitors of signposting.

Clearly state your Value Premise and Value Criterion. Let me know how they are related. And, be sure that your observations/contentions relate to your VP and your VC.

Be aware that definitions are important. An opponent may win a round by emphasis on the definitions of one or two key words in the resolution.

I am currently the debate coach at Middle College High School at Durham Technical Community College, a position that I have held since 2005. I started my debate coaching in 1997 at Hillside High School in Durham, NC. And, I was the first paid faculty debate coach at East Chapel Hill High School in the year 2000 under the leadership of principal Dave Thaden.

Education:

UNC-W (MALS) Master of Arts in Liberal Studies.

UNC-CH (NC Teach Graduate Program) Major, Education.

UNC-CH (BA) Subject Major, American History.

International Baccalaureate Certificate in North and South American History -

Nashville, TN

Victoria, Canada

Certified in Personal Financial Literacy from www.wise-ny.org/

I am the Director of Forensics and head LD coach at Cary Academy. I would describe myself as a neo-traditionalist. I follow a traditional approach to LD with some notable exceptions. I am a typical traditionalist in that I prefer a debate centered on a common sense, reasonable, good faith interpretation of the resolution; and I believe speakers should emphasize effective communication and practice the habits of fine public speaking during the debate. I differ from many traditionalists in that I am not a fan of the value premise and criterion, and that I do not believe that LD arguments have to be based on broad philosophical concepts, but rather should be as specific to the particular resolution as possible. If you want to win my ballot you should focus on developing a clear position and showing how it is superior to the position put forth by your opponent. You should not attempt to make more arguments than your opponent can respond to so that you can extend them in rebuttal. In my opinion most rounds are not resolved by appeals to authority. The original analysis and synthesis of the debater is vastly more important to me than cards. For further insight on my views please consult these following articles I have written for the Rostrum:http://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/ld%20Pellicciotta0202.pdf,

https://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/Luong%20RJ%20PresumptionNov'00.pdf

Please speak clearly and not too fast. Have logical connections between your arguments and impacts.

pendyala.neha@gmail.com

I am a parent judge who has been judging LD in eastern North Carolina for the past two years. I appreciate the challenges and pressure that competitive debating brings, and as such insist that a cordial and respectful environment be maintained at all times. This will ensure space for the highest level of thought and expression.

The most important points that I respond to in a successful debate are:

1) Clear logic and articulated support. Preferably argued under an overarching structure where evidence can be understood through tangential relationships, and not a series of unrelated statements.

2) Composed and effective communication, including body language as well as verbal skills.

3) Intellectual agility- the ability to quickly craft and articulate thoughtful positions in a short time frame.

If these points are present I am confident that you will be a very strong debater, and gain as much as possible from these exceptional educational opportunities.

There are however a few things that hinder my ability to evaluate information and arguments as fairly as possible. Primarily speed is a detriment to my ability to synthesize the arguments being offered. Please no spreading. Also, as a lay judge I prefer traditional debate styles. Stay on topic and debate the merits of the given topic. It will allow for my fullest engagement and fairest evaluation.

Hello! I'm Julianna Roseland (she/her). I debated LD for three years at Cary High, and was captain my senior year. I attended NSDA Nationals in 2022, but the bulk of my experience is with the DSDL league.

You can add me to the chain at juliannaroseland@gmail.com.

First of all, please don't refer directly to me in your speech as 'judge', it's an enormous pet peeve of mine.

I almost exclusively debate at local tournaments, so I'm most familiar with traditional style debate. Although I don't realistically expect this to happen in this district, if you run any sort of progressive techniques (kritiks, theory, spikes, Ks, etc) I will do my best to follow it. HOWEVER, it needs to be done respectfully. In my view, progressive debate is used 9/10 as a cheap trick for debaters from larger schools to steamroll over debaters from smaller schools, which I find to be grossly unethical. If you do run theory, make sure that it's clear why it matters in the round; you can't just whine about the neg having a timeskew and expect me to vote off of it.

As a judge, I most value clarity and creativity. For clarity, please please signpost as best you can! Good signposting will ensure that all three of us are on the same page and helps me judge the round as accurately as possible. In terms of creativity, put your own spin on things! I love it when a debater's personality comes out in their delivery, rhetoric, and chosen arguments.

FW: I love it when debaters have fun with philosophy; it's part of what makes LD so enjoyable. However, don't try to say that your opponent's framework is bad because it justifies genocide or slavery. It's ridiculous and trivializes real-world oppression and violence.

I'm tech>truth. Just be sure to be clear about your impacts, especially with more 'out there' contentions. And if an argument is not carried successfully across the flow, I will not carry it for you.

I'm fine with speed, but don't be excessive. Debate is as much of an exercise in rhetoric as argumentation, and speaking at 400 wpm sacrifices the former.

Above all, please be kind to one another! Good clash is what makes a round interesting to watch/judge, but there's a fine line in healthy competition and entitled chauvinism. If you are blatantly disrespectful to your opponent, expect your speaks to suffer. If you are racist/sexist/bigoted in any way, I will not hesitate to drop you.

My name is Julie Carroll Roseland, and I am the parent of a recent Cary High grad (three years of LD debate team experience) and a sophomore and current LD debate team member at Cary High. I am a first-year judge, so I am learning as you are. I appreciate it when individuals signpost, so that I can more easily keep up.

I like to handwrite my flow, so sometimes I need a couple of minutes after you've finished talking to catch up.

As a parent, I am already impressed with the amount of work and effort you've put in!

Former PF Debater

Prefer more traditional, big picture PF debate.

Slow down, weigh, warrant, create a narrative.

I am a lay judge. Please speak slowly, if I am not able to understand you I will not be able to judge your arguments.

My involvement in debate began 3 years ago when my daughter started in the club. I have a very numbers based and analytical background. Using numbers that you can back up will be the thing that most sways my thinking. I don't mind a fast talker but you need to be clear. If I cannot understand what you are saying you can't convince me of your arguments. 

I have been judging LD debates since October 2021 as a parent judge. While English is my second language, I have been in the country for more than 20years and am a professor in the field of marketing. Therefore, I don't expect you to purposefully slowdown just for me.

Some basic principles I follow for the judging:

1) Logic and impact come as the most important factor for winning the debate;

2) Techniques matter: please speak at a reasonable speed to clearly communicate your evidence and arguments in an organized manner;

2) Professionalism is the bottom line: be respectful when responding to the opponent's questions or arguments;

3) Enthusiasm and energy will be always appreciated.

I'm a parent judge with some experience judging LD. Please try to keep things simple and straightforward, and don't assume I understand complex theories. A well established framework and structured contentions supporting it will be awarded. I value concise, well organized and articulated arguments over speed and quantity. If you feel you must speak significantly faster than your normal conversational speed just to cover what you have to say, then you may be speaking too fast. Please don't spread. I don't flow, but I usually take good notes. Please be respectful to your opponent throughout the round. I view overly aggressive tone to be a weakness. Good luck!