I prefer a debate that is focused on facts and evidence. I appreciate a clear roadmap. If I can't understand what you are saying because you are speaking to fast or not clearly connecting ideas you will not do well. Speaker points are given when it is clear you have practiced your opening argument.

I am a flexible judge for the most part. I do my best to offer as much feedback to the students as possible because I remember how much I wanted feedback when I was competing. Every event has its own novelties and styles, which makes judging a variety of events interesting.

Debate:

I try to listen to what the key arguments are in a round and then judge based on that. I have more first hand experience with LD than any other type but argumentation is similar in almost any style when you break it down into Claim, Data, Warrant.

LD:

I prefer to see a value and criterion and see them linked throughout the case. However, they are not a deal breaker for me. I listen to what the students focus on. If neither one of them bring it up, then I deem it as less important. During the round I keep a detailed flow so I make sure I have the best information from each student. Sometimes I might think of my own rebuttal to a contention but unless their opponent makes that rebuttal, I will not count it against them. I only judge based on what the students in front of me bring up.

CX:

I am familiar with the STOCK issues and how they play in a CX round. I am also aware that argumentation differs from LD style. I have a stricter tally of 'won' arguments for this style because I feel it is far more focused on application and action that the more values/thought experiment style LD typically offers.

Things I will be critical of:

I focus on the resolution in any round. I find critiques on the style of the debate to be inherently un-topical. If the resolution is about the death penalty, for example, a student arguing whether or not LD/CX is inherently fair is not on topic. It is, in my opinion, a waste of time to debate a topic that is not related to the resolution. The other side will have no preparation for this topic change, and thus it is not beneficial for the purpose of prepared discussion. This does not mean squirrely cases are off topic, or that arguments cannot go on unique tangents. I simply want all students to be able to debate the resolution.

Speed. I am ok with any speed. I have yet to run into a student who was too fast for me to keep up. However, if a student becomes incoherent because they are trying to be speedy, it will affect how much I can put on my flow. If it isn't on my flow, I will not count it in my decision process. I find it unfair for me to 'guess' at what a student was trying to say simply because they were talking so fast they became incoherent. Again, I am comfortable at any speed, but I hope students don't sacrifices understandability for quantity of words.

Individual Events:

Each one has it's own grading rubric and scales. I try to fill out each section as full as possible so the students know what they did well and what areas could be improved on.

My name is Katlyn Owens, I use they/them pronouns

I am fairly open-minded for types of arguments and structure of the debates. I prefer no spreading in the round. I would rather hear a few good, thought-out arguments, as opposed to as many as possible in the time allotted.

Unless, the aff is so far out of the realm of the resolution, I don't tend to buy arguments on topicality. 

Clarity and organization of the speeches are important.

Experience: Teacher and Coach of Speech & Debate! Although I have a few years of experience I am BIG on public speaking skills!

What I look for: A speaker who keeps the audience in mind by applying speaking techniques that keep the listener interested. (Eye contact, non-verbal communication, body language is important to get an overall perspective of the speaker).

Each speech or performance needs the basics: intro, body conclusion.

For extempers, I love to see the waltz during your delivery.

I am always open for the speakers to find their own unique ways to make their topics interesting and purposeful! I am all about the persuasion and emotion behind a performance (THINK ethos, pathos and logos).

*Treat the round as a "communication experience" and remember to have FUN!!

For debaters, DO NOT spread during a round. I like to flow during rounds and understanding your arguments is most important.

I enjoy clash during CX and voter reasons! (Remember part of a debate is in the art of persuasion)

I like to see a good clash. I do not have a preference when judging. As an older judge I tend to listen and look more at the debate clash. I flow fast, organized and well. I do not drop case arguments and look for that when judging a round. The arguments and a clear understanding of one's case is crucial for me when determining a round. Throwing out evidence with no understanding or context does nothing for me. Strength in the second constructive is important to me as I see this as the best opportunity to defend, clarify and reiterate one's case.