I am not a lay judge. I participated in speech and debate when I was in high school. I qualified for nationals in both NSDA and CFL for Lincoln Douglas debate. Flow judge. I also participated in extemporaneous speech as a double entry at the national tournament. I have done congress (which were done on Friday nights before main tournaments on Saturday), impromptu, policy, and an abandoned category called Group Discussion.

In dramatic events I like to see a wide range of emotions and voices. I also like to see times close to perfect and great audience engagement. Your characters must be clear and unique and I need to see the scene you are conveying to the audience.

General

Respect your judges and competitors.

Follow the rules, as I read them and will ask Tab staff if there are any issues.

Be timely to your round.

Debate

I judge mostly on the content you provide and how you approach your opponent's speeches. However, your delivery is important in order for me to hear and understand you. I do flow the debates and will use my flow to do a majority of my own deliberation. Please use signposts, it will make it far easier for me to focus on your content, rather than where you are in your speech. I will prioritize certain points if you provide evidence or backing as to why they should be prioritized.

DO NOT SPREAD! I will not be able to keep up, it will not be an instant loss, but your points are far more likely to slip off (or not even appear) on my flow.

If you are to use theory, rather than evidence, please make sure you have adequate support as to why I should care (it’s the same for the vice versa). You may discuss general points, but show me impact. No non-topical kritiks.

For LD, your CV and VC are incredibly important as to why you win. However, you can win through other means if the values and criteria are a wash.

Online: Normally I would use a check and x system on my ballots. But due to online functionality, I will use :) and :( .

Congress

I judge your score based on a combination of how well it is written, the content of the speech, the delivery of the speech, and how it applies based on what has happened thus far in the chamber. I will rank you based on your scores, your questioning, and what your impact was on the chamber.

I want to see rebuttals and new content.

I do not want to see repetitious points or speeches with all words, no content.

I want questions that influence the flow of debate.

I don’t want gotcha questions that are only for making your opponent look bad (If it otherwise influences debate it is okay, but don’t do it maliciously).

Some level of purposeful blocking and vocal inflections during your speech would be recommended.

Speech

I will judge you based on a combination of vocality, movement, and content (these will weigh differently based on your respective event [this is not to say the ones weighed lower are unimportant]).

Please stand out in your event, it will make you more memorable when I am ranking you. Do not be monotone or use minimal blocking. Appropriate vocal pacing and emphasis are key to making it high on my ballot.

Please be respectful of other speakers, when they are presenting. Please stay attentive (or at least act like it). I know many of you will see the same script up to 4 times a day, but remember you want your judge and audience to give you attention, so do the same for them.

Your event has recommended guidelines for the judge, but they are also for you. Make sure you excel in each of them and you are more likely to rank higher. If you are unable to locate this, please read your league’s website or ask your coach, not your judge.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Good luck and have fun! :-D

Former LD debater with some experience in PF and Congress. Flow judge. I make a point of being as much of a blank slate as I can, but I'm only human. K's, theory, and everything else is fully on the table, but considering how long it's been you shouldn't assume I know Habermas's or Foucault's arguments by heart. Off-time roadmaps are perfectly acceptable.

I haven't been in the debate space for a few years, so my ability to understand spreads is a bit rusty. I'll try my best to keep up with y'all, but... speedrun your construction at your own risk.

I'll try to be in our room early, so feel free to ask me any questions about my paradigm before the round!

Email: quinn.foster@gmail.com

To all competitors

About me: I have an engineering background with a bachelor's degree from FIU and a master's degree in Engineering Management from FIU. I pay attention to flow and supporting data behind each contention and rebuttals

Please speak clearly. I prefer not to have off the clock road mapping.  I am not trained in spreading. If you choose to use this technique and I cannot understand you, I will not be able to judge appropriately.  Do your best, maintain good eye contact and be respectful throughout the debate.  Most importantly, enjoy the debate

Hi, I am a parent judge and have only judged lay rounds so far.

This is how I feel about things in debate:

General preferences:

- Call me Judge

- send me your case

- Speak no faster than 200 WPM so I can understand and follow along with your case efficiently

- Don't use complex acronyms or terms and instead say the full thing so I can understand what it is

- If you don't do the above I may have time understanding you and will not be able to accurately evaluate the round and this may cause you to lose because of it

Policy action debate or topical debate:

- I personally would prefer and understand this best as a parent judge

- I would like clear links and impacts for each policy or topical argument you make

Theory:

- You can make theory arguments but make them accustomed so that a lay judge would be able to see how education or fairness is being contested otherwise I won't understand it or flow it

- I will NOT understand or accept theory arguments stating when theory should be run because it distracts from topic literature and actual theory

Kritiks:

- Refrain from running these, they are too hard to understand and they distract from actual topical debate

Frameworks:

- Explain whether it is consequential or intentions based

- Stress more on making it understandable and relating to topic literature

Other:

- If I didn't mention it then I have no idea what it is and you shouldn't try it

I am a lay judge/parent judge affiliated with Palm Harbor University High School in Pinellas County, Florida. An attorney by profession, I work as a consultant to providers in the healthcare industry.

I began judging high school debate tournaments in the 2022-2023 school year, so I consider myself relatively new to the process. I did not debate in high school or college, so be careful with the debate jargon and don't assume I'm proficient in it - take the time to explain or, better yet, avoid jargon altogether if possible.

Participants should keep and adhere to time limits. I will be timing as well, and will disregard arguments made after time has expired.

Clarity is crucial to communication, so speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. If I can't understand you or keep up with your pace then you're not communicating. Be respectful of your fellow debaters and avoid talking over each other.

I am looking for a well-rounded performance, my goal is to weigh arguments/style/analytics/evidence equally. I prefer quotations over paraphrasing, and appreciate detailed citations. If you're going to cite a source, you should be able to explain why it is a relevant authority.

Most of all enjoy yourself and have fun!

rakent@aol.com

Hello! I'm a parent judge who has only judged lay rounds before, so please speak relatively slowly and clearly, and don't use technical debate jargon (or at least if you do, clearly explain what it means in your speech). Also, because of my judging experience, you should read lay/traditional arguments instead of tech/progressive arguments like kritiks, theory, etc. in front of me. PLEASE DO NOT SPREAD. I'll be judging off of how you well you support and defend your contentions/value/value criterion, and how well you prove your impacts matter more than your opponent's impacts. Other than that, just be respectful to your opponent during the round, learn from the experience, and have fun!

Please contact me if you have questions about my paradigm: mot7689@gmail.com

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