I'm a lay judge, so please speak clearly and don't use debate jargon without explaining what it means.

I am an assistant Speech and Debate coach, but mostly work with Speech events. I know the basics of Debate events, but I am not a pro, so I prefer when debaters speak at slower speed rather than spread.

I'm ok with either progressive or traditional style debate (I'm ok with running K's for the most part)

The most important things are to be kind and have fun :)

Jay Rye - Head Coach - Montgomery Academy

Experience- I have been involved with L/D debate since 1985 as a former L/D debater, judge, and coach. I have been involved with Policy debate since 1998. I have coached Public Forum debate since it began in 2002. While at many tournaments I serve in the role as tournament administrator running tournaments from coast to coast, every year I intentionally put myself into the judge pool to remain up to date on the topics as well as with the direction and evolving styles of debate. I have worked at summer camps since 2003 - I understand debate.

Philosophy

I would identify myself as what is commonly called a traditional L/D judge. Both sides have the burden to present and weigh the values and/or the central arguments as they emerge during the course of the round. I try to never allow my personal views on the topic to enter into my decision, and, because I won't intervene, the arguments that I evaluate are the ones brought into the round - I won't make assumptions as to what I "think" you mean. I am actually open to a lot of arguments - traditional and progressive - a good debater is a good debater and an average debater is just that - average.

While for the most part I am a "tabula rasa" judge, I do have a few things that I dislike and will bias me against you during the course of the round either as it relates to speaker points or an actual decision. Here they are:

1) I believe that proper decorum during the round is a must. Do not be rude or insulting to your opponent or to me and the other judges in the room. Not sure what you are trying to accomplish with that approach to debate.

2) Both sides must tell me why to vote "for" them as opposed to simply why I should vote "against" their opponent. In your final speech, tell me why I should vote for you - some call this "crystallization" while others call it "voting issues" and still others just say, "here is why I win" - whatever you call it, I call it letting your judge know why you did the better job in the round.

3) I am not a big fan of speed. You are more than welcome to go as fast as you want, but if it is not on my flow, then it was not stated, so speed at your own risk. Let me say that to the back of the room - SPEED AT YOUR OWN RISK! If you have a need for speed, at the very least slow down on the tag lines as well as when you first begin your speech so that my ears can adjust to your vocal quality and tone.

4) I am not a big fan of "debate speak: Don't just say, cross-apply, drop, non-unique, or other phrases without telling me why it is important. This activity is supposed to teach you how to make convincing arguments in the real world and the phrase "cross-apply my card to my opponents dropped argument which is non-unique" - this means nothing. In other words, avoid being busy saying nothing.

5) Realizing that many debaters have decided to rely on the Wiki, an email chain, and other platforms to exchange the written word, in a debate round you use your verbal and non-verbal skills to convince me as your judge why you win the round. I rarely call for evidence and I do not ask to be on any email chain.

Hey everyone, I go by Chris for ease, pronouns are he/him. I'm a student at Georgetown University and competed heavily in forensics in high school, including final rounds at NSDA, NCFL, Harvard, Emory. I had some state championships as well, competing with St. Andrew's Episcopal School and with Sacred Heart Catholic School in Mississippi. I also did Mock Trial at the national level. In college, I have done a fair share of APDA. Most of my national circuit experience was in PA events, but the two high schools I competed with were debate-oriented and interp-oriented respectively, so I have ample experience working with national-level competition in the fields. Excited to be judging and hope I can make things easy for everyone.

Speech:

Paradigms for PA/interp are uncommon because evaluation is rather standardized, but know that I value polish and comfort -- not a fan of plasticity. Be real, make well-founded arguments, and do your best to make me feel engaged with the topic. Interpers, do your thing! I like pushing the boundaries of what is considered acceptable, so long as it is done in a respectful way. I'll let you interpret that statement as you will. Pun intended.

i will be blunt with my comments sometimes because i think that is most effective.

i am also a sucker for spongebob

Also, if I mess up on time signals, I won't dock you for it. Promise.

Debate:

I am fine with speed and progressive debate, but if you're going to spread hard, either send me your case to read along or be sure you spend enough time clearly articulating your important points to ensure I get it on the flow.

Good with theory as well, but don't assume I'll do the work for you of deciding why your theory wins the debate. Not a big fan of deciding the debate based on short one-line remarks or arguments that were briefly touched upon but not fully developed.

I value truth and practicality. I've done parli in college, so I love out-of-the-box arguments, but give me good warranting. It all really just boils down to claim, warrant, impact, and evaluate. Evidence is important. I will happily vote on topicality, K's, or theory. If you're curious, I did every style of debate save Big Questions in high school, so I won't be one of those PF-only judges who despise philosophy.

Be kind, stick to your time limits, and have a meaningful debate.