Hi,

I am a parent judge and rely on flow typically. I prefer a slower debate. This is my fourth year judging Lincoln Douglas Debate. I am mostly a lay judge, Some tips that you might want to take into consideration:

I like a great Cross-Examination

Having good evidence comparison is really good,

Framework debate is good, but I don't understand complex philosophies, so you will have to explain it very well

Follow the rules of competition

Respect the other side and all team members and their position on topic.

Track your time

Speak Clearly

First, let me say that I'm truly impressed by the caliber of person who invites this kind of challenge in their lives. Already, you win in my book. I appreciate the opportunity to witness your talent. I am generally new to judging, but if I had to categorize myself, I would say I'm a "flay" judge. I have a background in law and philosophy. I value logical arguments that are supported with evidence. I will not judge based on my prior knowledge, but on the arguments and evidence that you provide. I expect civility as a baseline. Present a strong enough case that you win on merits, not bravado. I appreciate if you can be specific when weighing instead of only talking in generalities. Also, I cannot give you credit for that which I cannot understand, so do not forsake communication for content. In other words, be careful when spreading. If your opponent(s) and I can't understand your arguments because you don't articulate, then you don't get credit for them. Lastly, because I will be flowing, I will know whether you provide an honest representation during summary arguments. Good luck!

I'm a parent judge who enjoys a spirited, intelligent debate built up logically with relevant warrants and a concise impact. I judge based on the logic, rationales and strategies of both contentions and rebuttals.

1. Feel free to go fast and I will keep up, if you are spreading aggressively, just know that I may not catch a key point.
2. I don't automatically believe assertions unless they're proven or supported.
3. I like a direct rebuttal, or question, if you believe your opponent has faulty logic, EXPLAIN... don't just tell me it's faulty.
4. Don't repeat yourself unless it's to make a point as to how important something is.

I have been judging since the beginning of the 2021-2022 school year. I have judged both Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum Debates as part of the Florida Gulf Coast Catholic Forensics League. I have judged in local and regional events including 8 in-person tournaments and 1 online tournament. I had the privilege of judging the Final Round of the National Lincoln-Douglas Debate last year. I do not like spreading. If I can not understand an argument, then I can not give credit to the points of that argument.

I feel that a few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. In addition, arguments should each be addressed individually.

Rebuttals should provide voters answers to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches. Rebuttals should also extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive speeches.

Citations after article introduction are preferred.

Oral prompting won't affect my decisions.

Build the value that is not overly complicated and should be relatable, and criterion should not be over technical.

I prefer empirical arguments over philosophical and theoretical to support a value position.

Critical arguments should provide substantial evidence for their support.

Debaters should make sure that all claims are supported with specific, defined examples with no paraphrasing.

Off case arguments should have a purpose or illustration for the case at hand.

The focus should be winning the debate, not just attacking a person's style or flaws of method. Winning on technicalities is not winning a debate.

Remember that in order to win a round, respect towards your opponent is paramount. It is hard to find in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent in or out of round. Graceful winners are as important as graceful losers.

I vote off the flow. I don't mind debate jargon, but I may ask you to clarify some terms. Don't spread or talk too fast (200 wpm is the max where I can still catch everything you say). I will ask you to slow down if I'm missing arguments. I may ask you after the round for cards and evidence, so don't run out of the room until I've let you go. Be respectful in cross. I will not tolerate Ad Hominem attacks (attacks against your opponent and not their argument). I do not like theory arguments that are off topic and trying to be "clever" to win on technicalities. I will likely not vote on it, especially if you are abusing it.

LD: I have a background as a philosophy professor. Please make your value and value criterion clear and carry them throughout the round. Don't turn this into a 1 person policy round. I prefer more traditional LD arguments. If you are going to try to tell me that mass extinction is good, for example, it better have some hard evidence and strong logic backing it up.

PF: Make sure your arguments all make logical sense. I probably will not vote on Kritiks or weird theory. I prefer you have evidence to back up your claims but it is not always needed for logical arguments. Please present me with clear impacts and carry them throughout the round.

Feel free to ask me questions after round (if this is a tournament where judges disclose), but know that I have already submitted my ballot so please don't try to convince me why my decision was wrong. If you want to set up an email chain, my email is josephmpergola@gmail.com

I have very simple demands when it comes to judging:

1. Speak concisely and at a reasonable tempo; if I do not understand what you're saying, I unfortunately cannot give you credit for saying it.
2. Be respectful to the opposing team throughout the debate and especially during crossfire.
3. Stay on time; I will not be timing throughout the debate, so it is your responsibility to hold the other team accountable either verbally or by letting your timer play aloud.

I vote solely based on the strength of your arguments and rebuttals to aforementioned arguments. I have only judged twice before this so I may occassionally need assisstance in running the round. I am excited to see what both teams have up their sleeves. Thank you for reading and good luck!

Hello,

I am a parent of a LD debaters (my son and daughter), who have been debating for 6 years. I have been judging for 6 years as well. So I can flow some speed and understand the framework debate very well. Please do not use your highest spread with me. I understand the logical arguments if explained well. I like confident debaters. My average speaker points would be 28.5.

Background

I never competed in debates either in high school or college. I graduated from Park University with a degree in Computer Information Management after four years in the United States Marine Corps. After the military, I became an entrepreneur for the past twenty plus years. Although I’m a parent judge, I’m not new to argumentation.

Debate Preferences

I would consider myself a flay judge. While I will flow both sides of the debate, I don’t want to have to intervene in order to come to a decision. Always warrant your arguments. If you use logic and rhetoric to explain something, be sure to warrant it. Always weigh your arguments starting in summary if you want me to vote for your ballot. I’m going to expect frontlines starting in second rebuttal. If you are unable to quantify your impact, I won’t be able to weigh your arguments effectively. Ideally, I shouldn’t need to put in additional work off the flow to vote one team over another.

Speed

I am okay if you spread as long as I can understand and you can articulate the words.

Pet Peeves

-Don’t use foul language. This has never been a problem, but it needs to be mentioned.

-If this is the first round of a tournament, it’s likely I don’t know the topic as well as you will. Please explain your acronyms if it’s the first round, even if it means having to do it off the clock.

-I won’t keep track of your prep time. That’s not my problem unless a team accuses the other of abusing prep.

Evidence

Pretty simple, follow the NSDA rules and read the last name and year of publication. No need to list the authors credentials, I don’t care unless the source is disreputable. It is up to the opposition to point out if evidence is misconstrued. If the evidence is misconstrued, depending on the severity I will either cross it off the flow or vote down the team using the evidence. I won’t look at evidence unless both teams cite cards that contradict each other, at which point I will decide which team wins the card.

Please remember to have fun! Debate is all about learning, and if you’re not having fun there’s no point in debating.

Thank you for all the work and effort you are doing. It is a joy to watch.

Melissa Wenenn