I am a first-year parent judge, but I will evaluate argumentative logic first and care about evidence quality and evidence ethics. Speaking presentation and style are for speaker points but do not substantively impact who wins or loses the debate. Please do not paraphrase when you first introduce evidence. Also, please don't speed-read. Speak slowly.

I'm a volunteer and I've read over some information about this topic and watched a demo video, but I'm still new to judging and learning it.

Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final focus.

I am a parent judge who is fairly well read on current events. I tend to vote for teams who focus on the big picture with realistic impacts rather than insignificant and poorly warranted impacts.

Please self govern your prep time. Speak clearly and make sure I can understand what you are saying.

she/her/hers

tl;dr - be nice, signpost, pls no kritiks. I was a pufo debater and it shows :')

Judging preferences - Summary

Always signpost. pls. always. signpost. Always.

Your number 1 job is to debate the topic. I want to hear about the topic. I like arguments about the topic, SIGNIFICANTLY MORE than arguments about the rules and how your opponent is messing up the debate because their arguments "don't hold according to CHSSA or NSDA rules..." I've found that in past years, everyone says that their opponent's case "don't hold." Keep the debate educational, I know enough about the rules by now.

My favorite kind of debate is a slightly fast, intellectual Public Forum/LD debate. If I can't understand you due to speed or lack of pronunciation, your contention will not make it onto my flow. Or, I simply won't care enough to write it down. Far-reaching analyses of improperly used evidence may just result in my perplexion and the audience's confusion. However, evidence-based conclusions that show a deep understanding of the topic are always appreciated. I do NOT like Kritik arguments in high school debate. I'm slightly ok with them in LD. Do NOT run them unless you have NO OTHER OPTION.

In-Depth Prefs:

Please - Always signpost.

Speed is whatever. I can handle spreading, but if your competitor asks you to go slower and you ignore them, I will be very annoyed. The purpose of the debate is to educate - not bulldoze. If you need to spread to win, I won't vote for you. IMO, three strong arguments are better than 6 weak ones. If you want to spread, become a policy debater. A couple of my best friends in High School made it to Parli finals at the state championship without spreading, so there's no need to do it.

Flow Style is typically on an Excel sheet, so if you're speaking so fast that I can't type it and I miss a contention ... you're going too fast.

Evidence is the most critical component to me. To me, the best defense in debate is a strong defense. Well constructed arguments should have citations and explain to me why a case should win. However, evidence isn't everything. If you are concerned about recency or methodology, make it ONE point. Don't turn the debate into a squabble over those things because I stop listening. Evidence is concrete and empirically explains the case.

Theory is a stepping stone in debate. It's fun to listen to if it's thoughtful and enhances your case. However, if you're just throwing around debate jargon and my paper starts to look like a million arrows, then the theory point isn't worth it. Because I did LD for a while, I can follow inherency/solvency/topicality/harms. I think they have great potential to either make a great case phenomenal... or to give me a minor headache for the afternoon.

Attitude is key. Be kind or lose, it's just a tournament. Your opponent may be new and trying this out for the first time - don't be the person who ruins public speaking for someone. Don't be a dingus. A dingus is too fast, mean, demeaning, rude, etc. Keep it pleasant, no chair-throwing. :)

Kritiks in HS Debate imo usually waste the hour - not always, but they rarely convince me. As in, out of the hundreds of rounds I've watched - there's only been one time I've voted for it. And that was a practice round. If you want your Kritik to win, ground it in evidence - but for the most part, I don't care for a Kritik. I don't recommend running one unless this is one of the worst debate topics ever generated. Please don't run them. I am slightly more ok with them in LD debate, but mainly because I know the debate has been trending that way for a while and some topics are dependent on them now. So... I'll listen in LD.... but I can't guarantee I'll like it.

Kritiks in College Debate are fine, but I still don't like them very much.

About me:
Head Coach of Redlands High School
Premier Distinction and 5 Diamond competitor
State Runner-up in Informative 2017
Stanford 2018 Informative Champion
Frequently hungry in round

Background-

Currently I am a novice as a judge in the realm of Speech & Debate. I am a active school parent with my daughter on the student debate team. My background has been in the healthcare field as a Medical Social Worker for 22 years and over 30 years as Social Worker. As a Medical Social Worker my assessments are based on following evidence based treatments and outcomes. I was also a Field Instructor for Masters in Social  Work Graduate students at  California State East Bay , UC Berkeley, Sacramento State and San Jose State focusing on applying theory to practice.   Furthermore, I have been an active member of our Bioethics Committee for end of life challenges with patients. I look forward to this new endeavor!

I value quality over quantity. A citation or example where there is a depth of understanding shown will be given more value than numerous examples with little explanation. Connect your arguments to the resolution. I will judge the round based on arguments for and against the resolution. Arguments that can break a topic down to it core issue are valued over arguments that come at a topic from tangential and/or superficial angles.

Speaking at a high rate will result in examples being missed and reduce the effectiveness of the argument. A barrage of citations show a students ability to do research, but not necessarily an ability to dissect an issue and reason.

I am a parent judge. What matters to me is that you make a convincing argument in front of me on the topic given. I would be judging only based on the content and quality of the debate.

Clearly state the following:
⦁ Your value/criterion for the debate and how it is relevant on your side.
⦁ Your contentions/arguments supporting your side. No spreading please. Your arguments should be clearly articulated in a way that a lay person can understand.
⦁ Citations (do not count on the number but quality and relevancy) are required. Complete lack of citations is a red flag.
⦁ Rebuttals to your opponents arguments.
⦁ Any inconsistencies on the opponents side should be brought up but in a respectful manner.
⦁ Do not evade your opponents questions during cross examination but answer respectfully and to the point.

I am a parent of two students who participate in debate.

I will usually vote on a few things --- how each case stands by the end of the debate and how each team refutes the other side's case at the end of the debate.

I look for clarity and great speaking. If I can't understand an argument I will not note it and therefore I cannot vote for it.

For timing I expect you all to time yourself, and to keep track of each other's prep time.

Good Luck!

I follow the rules and standards of the GGSA debate judging. On top of this, I value clear communication and ability to summarize.

I'm a lay judge that believes the winning team should have clear arguments they extend and defend well with impacts. If you talk too fast I may miss what you are trying to communicate so spread at your own risk. I don't have experience with theory or ks but I will understand framework if it is explained well. I want your evidence to back up what you are saying and prove why your evidence is more true than your opponents. Please be polite and respectful of your opponents. Good luck!

I am a novice in judging.

I would love to see debaters speak clearly and audibly, using eye contact would be great.

Don't forget to make good use of the three methods of persuasion, especially logos. Support team members and make connections with each other's contention and be consistent. 

I want to see more relevant facts from debaters. Please make sure your facts are valid.

I am not a professional judge, but I have been judging events for a while (as you can check from my history). My goal is to be fair and not be biased by my own opinions on the topic, race, gender, location or school name.

My request to you all, please try not to spread. If I can't capture your contentions in my notes, I will not be able to give you points for it (unless your opponent brings it up later, for me to catch up on it). So focus on quality and not on quantity.

Learn from each other and have fun.

Clearly audible, speak slowly.

1. I have judged speech tournaments since 3 years
2. Please be clear and concise in your speech. Avoid using jargon or technical language. Explain clearly what certain abbreviations mean.
   
3. Things I will be looking for:

• Is the flow of your speech easy to understand.
• Focused (has a purpose)
• Structured (clear beginning, middle, and end)
• Engaging (gets audience attention and drives them to a purpose)
• Supported with relevant examples, facts, etc.
  
  I will take personal notes during the round and try to jot down key points/ statement. For Interp, follow the rules of blocking/ no touching and not going over your time limit, you only have 30sec grace after which you cannot be can you cannot be ranked the best in the round
  
  

All the best and do well!

Hello, I’m a lay judge, and this is the second tournament I am judging. Please speak clearly and provide strong arguments to support your side. good luck!

Hello there,

I'm a religious studies teacher at St. Ignatius College Prep in San Francisco, CA. Thank you for taking the time to look at my paradigm.

When I judge Lincoln-Douglas debates, I look for a number of things, especially:

-Value and Criterion. I prize a competitor's ability to connect their arguments back to a sound value and criterion. I seek logical consistency. An opponent would do well to highlight inconsistencies in the construction and application of the value(s) and criterion. Framework is key to any good debate.

-Civility. I look to see if you are treating your opponent with civility and respect. I most certainly welcome lively and passionate debate as long as it stays clear from rudeness, haranguing, or mean-spiritedness. You are debating a real human person and they should be treated with dignity and respect.

-Attentive listening. Demonstrate to me that you have listened to your opponent's arguments and are willing to engage in thoughtful dialogue with them. Avoiding their arguments indicates to me that you may not have listened attentively to your opponent. Respond to your opponent and demonstrate how your argument is better.

-Measured speech (no spreading). This often comes across as a disingenuous tactic that inhibits your opponents from being able to actually address the merits of your case. I should not have to have a copy of your case in front of me to help me decipher what you are trying to say. Your public presentation skills are important to me as your judge.

When I judge Public Forum Debates debates, I look for the civility, attentive listening, and measured speech mentioned above as well as:

-Solid constructions. Set the foundation for the rest of your debate with strong contentions that have a clear connection to the rest of your debate. Framework is important for me as a judge.

-Appeals to ethics or values. As a religious studies teacher, I greatly appreciate seeing a common philosophical throughline in argumentation. Similar to the above point, values, frameworks, and ethics set a solid foundation for the rest of the debate.

-No frivolous asks for cards. If you do not plan on directly referencing something in your opponents' cards or raising a legitimate concern with me as the judge, please do not waste time asking for them. This often appears to be a sly way of taking off-time prep.

Debate- This is my third year judging. I am well informed and have done my homework so as to judge fairly and effectively.

-Speak with clarity and at a reasonable pace so that I can take notes.

-I look for effective presentation, organization and strong evidence.

Speech- Not judged too may tournaments but familiarizing myself with the various platforms of speech. I look for effective presentation, body language and facial expressions.

Best Wishes!!

I am a lay judge with five years of combined Parli and PF judging experience.

Preferences:

- Be polite, especially in cross. Don't shout at each other, please.

- Speak clearly. Don't spread.

- Take the time to explain complex arguments.

Good luck!