Fairly new judge here. I don’t like fast talking. I do like to hear thoughtful arguments with sources.

Don't speak too fast or I won't be able to digest what you are saying.

Speak in a firm confident voice, even if you are not confident.

Hello Debaters!

If you're reading this then you must have me as your judge. Depending on the event will depend on how I judge you. So please read carefully below. I'm the Head Coach at Viewmont HS and have been teaching and coaching for ~20 years. Debate has changed a lot over the amount of time I've been coaching and debating, and maybe not so much.

1) ADAPT TO YOUR JUDGE

Policy

I'm a Policy coach. I've been coaching Policy debaters to TOC/Nationals for nearly 2 decades. I've judged in TOC bid out rounds. I've judged quarter finals 3-0 panels Nationals rounds. I have a lot to say that about what I like to see in my Policy rounds:

Ya know... after 20 years, I just don't know anymore. I still hate Topicality but see it's value in the round. I've seen some pretty squirrely cases recently so it has its place. Framework has it's place as well. The only framework I accept is Condo bad. Can it win you the round by itself? Possibly, if you can prove the time-suck in-round abuse.

Trying to outspread your opponent hoping that they won't be able to answer all your arguments is a waste of my time so STOP IT! If you only have one line in a card, I'll cross it off my flow. Yup, I mean it. You need to have depth in your arguments. Without depth, education is lost and you're causing harm to this amazing form of debate. It causes people to quit because they just see you abusing them and winning. That needs to stop.

With the above said, you can go at any pace you like. If you're fast, but you have full cards, like 6 sentences in each card, AWESOME! You're actually increasing the depth of the debate. You're likely only going to be running a few off-case arguments at that point.

Traditional arguments are very legitimate. Running 2 DAs, a CP (PICs bad, but whatever), possibly a T, and Inherency/Solvency is a legitimate Neg strat. 10 off then on and I throw a pen at you.

Finally, be courteous, not condescending. Have sportsmanship skills. Adapt to me and the other team. Don't be cocky and you'll see that you'll get better with every round!

I HAVE TO SET UP LD AND PF AND BQ AND WORLD SCHOOLS AND SPEECH... :(

LD: As I flow your round, I’ll be looking to see how your value and criterion work in tandem to prove the moral rationale that LD rests; furthermore, I don’t like when crossfires engage in obnoxious back-and-forths with questions that don’t add any substantive value to the round. Lastly, it's imperative that you underscore the credibility of your cards, especially when making claims including stats, data, points, and political and historical claims that attack your opponent’s arguments.

PF: I enjoy PF and like to flow the rounds I judge to provide you with the best feedback I can. I love to see link chains and impacts that are substantial to the case; rather than just reading the cards, I’d appreciate you explaining and further reinforcing your points, data, and stats, to let me know that you know your case all around. If you speak too fast, I’ll try to keep up as I flow but once you’ve lost me, I’ll stop flowing. I am not a fan of voters that are reliant on ethos; I prefer you use logic in voters that explain to me what you’ve argued in round. Don’t forget that I’m also flowing the round so if your claim is that they’ve dropped certain points, I’ll refer to my flow to assess that claim.

CX: I like to flow Policy rounds - please be mindful that I will flow the round and I appreciate signposts. If you’re speaking too fast (spreading) and I lose track of what you’re arguing, I may not be able to appropriately flow the round. I like policy and I’ll be looking for which side proves the resolution is true or false. I’m not a fan of off-cases (T, XT, FX, or Ks) unless they’re CPs. If you must absolutely run a K because you believe you have an edge over your competitors, please explain it to me if it’s an obscure or unpopular K.

ADDED JUNE 2023

I've had about one year of experience judging debates at the High School level. My experience has largely been with congress and public forum events. As a judge, my primary focus is to ensure a fair and objective evaluation of the participants' performances. I firmly believe that decisions should be based solely on the merits of the arguments presented and should not be influenced by personal or political biases. I will approach each round with an open mind, giving equal consideration to all viewpoints and avoiding any preconceived notions.

In evaluating the strength of an argument, I value the use of evidence from reputable sources. The inclusion of well-supported facts, statistics, and expert opinions can significantly enhance the persuasiveness of an argument. Participants who effectively incorporate such evidence into their speeches will receive due recognition for their analytical and research skills.

Furthermore, I will take into account the presentation style of each participant. While this includes aspects such as speech clarity, annunciation, and projection, it extends beyond these technical elements. I appreciate engaging speakers who effectively connect with their audience, employing appropriate gestures, vocal variation, and overall stage presence. These qualities contribute to the overall impact and effectiveness of the speaker's message.