I am the type of judge that will be giving feedback based on what I was taught about Public Speaking, I also value the historical points of view of the topic. For example, I am a History major and Spanish Teacher and will be looking for facts and dates and also examples of historical past history. I also will be looking for specific information that will be adheareing to the actual topic this year of Artificial Intelligence. The aff I will be looking for a continuance of the plan and also will be looking for specific details and dates and facts to past history. The Neg I will be looking for the best counter argument possible with leads into K's and also different topics to further enhance their argument against the plan. I want to see Artificial Intelligence in the forefront of where the world is going and also using past history to further establish how and why Artificial Intelligence can be a detriment to the plan.

I also believe that the inflection and the voice of the team and the Cross x questions I will also take into consideration in my judgement of the rounds that I will be judging for. I am excited to be judging on a National Debate scale and this will be very meaningful for me to bring back to my school and learn how to judge rounds as a judge for BAUDL as well.

Lastly, I would prefer to be able to judge the continuation of the argument rather than the speed of the debate. I feel that if I can understand what the team is saying and with their inflection and the best arguments come from their evidence rather than from the speed of the debate. I want to understand what someone is saying and not so concerned about how fast that they can speak. I come from a Public Speaking background with FFA and that the best argument and ability to connect the dots with their evidence is key rather than how fast they get facts out.

Novice judge, 1 year of experience in LD, PF, policy on the beginner level.

Not a fan of spreading.

TL;DR

Be considerate, speak clearly and not excessively fast, avoid bombarding the round with excessive numbers/stats unless your reasoning is already top-notch and comprehensive, and avoid theoretical arguments unless your opponents are undoubtedly abusive.

----

Be considerate to your fellow debaters! Don't be dismissive or incredulous, treat their arguments with respect.

Speaking Comments:

Do your best to be a clear, easy-to-flow speaker. This will make it much easier for me to write down your arguments and prevent disagreements on what was said in the round. Be comfortable and confident in your speech. The less stumbling, the better. If you have to speak a little slower, go for it!

Contentions:

I'm a big fan of specific, well-explained evidence backing up strong reasoning in contentions. Try not to give one line of reasoning then cite four different publications ;)

Don't beat around the bush with your contentions! If you want to say "x political party good," say "x political party good." I will not be judging based on my personal beliefs.

Refuting:

Comprehensive refutes will greatly improve your chances in the round. Remember that your opponents will be bringing arguments just as prepared as yours -- tell me how their case isn't valid!

Impacting/Weighing:

At the end of the day, if I buy both side's cases, the debate will be down to the impacting. Make sure you explain exactly how your contentions lead to your impacts and not just what your impacts are, but why they're more important than what your opponents are offering. Tell me how your side wins if their case doesn't stand, and how you win even if it does.