I'm fairly familiar with all types of debate and the rules associated with them. I'm alright with speed, put a lot of weight on impacts and flow, and ask that the debate is professional (i.e. avoid ad hominem, attack arguments not opponents).

Respect comes first. We’re here to compete, but there’s a fine line between being competitive and being aggressive. That said, I do consider myself a flow judge. At the end of the day, my vote is going to boil down to consistent and clear refutation across the flow. Clear signposting is also HIGHLY appreciated.

Speed is alright, so long as you’re able to annunciate. It doesn’t matter how many points you’re able to fit into a minute if I can’t tell what you’re saying.

Tl;dr: Refute, be respectful of your opponent, and annunciate.

I'm a fairly new judge, so please stay away from any debate jargon or talking fast. Please time yourselves during speeches and prep time. Tell me how to vote, judge, and weigh the round. In the end, I will vote for which side makes the most sense to me and has the most important impact. I don't know K's, theory, or topicality, so if you are going to run one of them, make sure to explain it very well and tell me how it impacts the round and my vote. I judge rounds based on how persuasive the teams are, and how well they respond to counter-arguments. I've judged LD and PF, but not policy so make sure to explain things and not use jargon. Most of all please be kind to the other team and have fun!

I am a 'tab' judge. Teams/speakers must show me why their arguments should be voted on as opposed to assuming I will vote on them based on my own beliefs. I am a former TOC circuit policy debater and current head coach of a high school debate program. I am fine with all types of arguments, and very familiar with debate jargon and procedures.

I am typically fine with speed as well.

Please give clear voting issues a the end of the round.

Please signpost clearly.

Please give a brief off time road map prior to all speeches with the acceptation of the first affirmative.

Hi! My name is Gia Codina. I just graduated last year and competed on the circuit for four years. I competed in LD debate during high school. In a round, I look strongly at communication and flow. I want your arguments to be clearly laid out for myself and for your opponents. If I can't follow your arguments, I won't keep track of them. Also, communicate to me why you believe that you won the round. Despite being a debater myself, I still want any and all arguments and frameworks clearly explained.

I look forward to judging you and good luck :)

"An essential element of persuasion lies in the ability to adjust communication to resonate with the audience."

I am an experienced judge and former coach of individual events, LD, CX, PF debate and congress. I prefer a rate of speaking that is conversational. I am typically persuaded by specific direct impacts and clear analysis.

Persuasion must include more than just series of data, but an analysis of presented data and clear connection/discussion of the impact of such data.

I do not have a background in speech and debate, other than judging over the last two years. However, I have always been a good listener and am willing to hear people out on any given subject without getting too riled up. I have always been able to see from many points of view on many subjects, and appreciate well thought out, factual, and calm responses to any argument. I don't mind some speed when talking, as long as words still come out clear. I do enjoy judging and look forward to learning even more as I go.

My background/history: I studied speech/communications and have spent the last two decades first as a broadcast journalist and now as an executive in charge of strategic communication and change management for a large government agency. I have been judging since 2019.

Persuasion and influence depend on the strength and clarity of an argument. That's what I look for in every round.

I make my decision based on thoughtful, well-organized arguments where impacts are clearly defined. Convince me your argument is best. Tell me why. Be creative, but keep your arguments relevant.

I have to be able to understand your words — including the text of evidence - in order to judge most fairly and appropriately.

Quality of arguments is always more important than quantity. I love clash! Be respectful and kind.

Your primary focus should be on presenting sound arguments and countering your opponents' arguments, not just looking for opportunities to attack an opponent's style or method flaws.

I am generous on speaker points for those who speak in a natural way and command attention through eye contact and body language.

Some of my other favorite things? Passion about your position, anticipating an opponent's arguments, smart and spirited cross-examination (pay attention to your opponent's answers and work them into your counter!)

Bring your best self to the round...and have fun! I promise to do the same.

Email: andreadearden@gmail.com

Be decent humans.

Evidence is important, but so is making logical connections to the resolution; what are the real world implications of your arguments?

I am not impressed by the speed of your constructive speeches if you can't make logical arguments.

Please do not give me an off-time roadmap in LD or PF. Also, I know that the timer will start on your first word; I do not need you to tell me that.

Be decent humans.

Prefer conversational pace, weigh decision in debate holistically, minimize debate jargon (particularly in PF), swayed by competent philosophical arguments in LD, support is important but does not outweigh sound logical arguments and reasonable impacts/harms.

This is your round to have and enjoy, so most importantly, make sure that you are being kind to your opponent and having fun!

I am comfortable with speed, but do not be excessive or spread, and I am comfortable with all forms of arguments. If you run a K, or a CounterPlan, or something progressive in LD - it needs to be done in a way that is accessible to your opponent.

If you need to transfer evidence, I won't count it as prep time, but please don't be excessive or abuse that time. (I.E. have your evidence pulled up and organized)

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round! Have fun!

My email is hampton.allie@gmail.com if you have any further questions.

Please do not talk excessively fast. Your rate of speaking should be about the same as in a normal conversation. I prefer speakers and debaters who speak at a conversational rate. A fast rate of delivery has made it difficult for me to
understand arguments in the past. If you talk so fast that I cannot follow what you are saying it will be difficult for me to give you a high score and/or ranking.

Know and follow the rules for the speech or debate event in which you are participating.

I value both arguments and style, with a slightly higher emphasis on style.

Try to utilize the majority of your available time.

Be respectful of each other.

Have fun!

I have quite a bit of experience with forensics, so no need to worry about that! I competed in Policy and PF in high school for 3 years, and I am currently competing in collegiate forensics.

I am comfortable with just about any kind of argument as long as you can demonstrate you know what you're talking about. I am also comfortable with speed, but signposting needs to be clear otherwise I won't get your argument down on my flow, I do appreciate quality over quantity of arguments. Essentially, I am generally a communications judge, meaning that good communication, clear signposting, and also being respectful of each other and the rules of debate is very important to me.

For PF, I am a policy maker judge, meaning I like to view the round as if it is a policy proposal and weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the resolution. For LD, I am a tabula rasa judge, so I will focus on and whatever argument is key in the round. For Policy, I am a stock issues judge, so I do value harms, the plan, solvency, advantages, disadvantages, counterplans, and the like. I am also comfortable with Kritiks and will take them into consideration, but I do not prefer them.

Tell me why your side is right.

Speed is not something that bothers me but I need you to make sure that I can understand you. Also if your intent is to outtalk your opponent for the sake of outtalking them, that isn't going to get you the win. I want to hear why you're right and your opponent is wrong.

I did very little debate in school but am a practicing attorney so I too have a way with words. I will take into consideration your eye contact, volume/inflection, and your clarity when determining points (not whether a side wins or not)

Hi! I'm Lexi. I did Speech and Debate in highschool for three years. I went to nationals in LD my senior year and placed top 45 in the nation. I love great flow work and respectful banter. For speech, I mainly did DUO, HI, and ADS. Regardless of what I'm judging though, I expect everyone to be kind and caring. Speech and Debate is fun.

I am the speech and debate coach at Owyhee High School, and I have been a high school English teacher since 2011. Because of that, I value all arguments, both scripted and improvised, that are evidence-based. I like a good amount of clash in questioning and rebuttals, and I do not mind speed. I guess the closest archetype for my paradigm would be a flow judge, but I am not strictly going off the flow for my decision. Not all arguments are debated equally, so I will value the points that get the most attention in cross ex and rebuttals.

I hate critiks, even in policy rounds.

I really want to be an observer who listens and records the winner(s). I prefer it when students time and manage the round themselves, and you do not need to ask me if I am ever ready. Of course, I will always answer any questions you have, but my favorite rounds happen when the students run the whole show and I get to sit back and take notes.

~*~Short Version~*~

Room rules: no stabbing, no fire, and no leaving without cause during a speech. Besides that, I don't just have no preferences, but actually prefer that you do whatever makes the most comfortable. Sit, stand, lie down while speaking. Tag-team in cross.Please time yourself.

Please give roadmaps, just don't say "brief offtime roadmap." Use all of your time, but if you don't, don't say you'll "yield the rest of your time." I'm a very evidence-focused (note, nothaving evidence, but demonstrating understanding of evidence - this entails referring back to your citations in speeches besides the first one you read them) judge who is also a big fan of unusual and philosophical positions. I default to condo good, reasonability, no RVIs, perms are aff ground, AFC bad, tag-teaming and flex-prep ok. Share evidence via speechdrop.

Contact me at zane@zanepmiller.com

~*~Long Version~*~

For lay debaters, the short version should be sufficient. I am a very flow- and evidence-focused judge, and I guarantee I can follow any pace of speech you're interested in (so long as the arguments themselves are cogent). For policy and technical/progressive debaters, read on.

I debated for 4 years at Centennial High School in Idaho, graduated in 2015. I qualified to the NSDA tournament 3 times and had been in multiple bid rounds (six my senior year). Won the Whitman tournament my senior year. I debated policy locally my senior year and did 2 and 1/2 years of policy at UNLV, and have been judging and/or coaching since (currently at Bishop Kelly High School in Idaho). I primarily read critical arguments late in my career and semantic, linguistic, ontological and epistemological positions remain my favorite, though I'm perfectly comfortable with down and dirty policymaking debates.

I have default opinions about procedural questions, but I hate using them. If the barest suggestion of a warrant for an alternative position is presented, I'll go with it (though I might not be happy about it, if the quality of said warrant is low). My defaults are listed in the short version; in general, I'm sympathetic to claims that a team should be allowed to do something as opposed to not. Many teams get surprised by the extent to which this is true, because I allow, and even enjoy, arguments many other judges might consider underhanded or even "abusive"; for example, the much-maligned 'tricks' archetype of LD AC was a favorite of mine in my senior year of high school, and I believe it remains under-developed and under-explored by other competitors.

If you want bad speaks, here are some easy ways to get it: be rude, especially in questioning periods (rude in this case meaning cutting speakers off unnecessarily - do control your CX, but there's a difference between 'controlling your CX' and 'asserting dominance' - making snide comments, talking down to your opponents), power-tagging or otherwise being misleading with evidence (distinct from actual evidence rule violations - I just really hate lazy cards), or making actively bigoted/micro-aggressive comments (this can easily spill over into my vote - don't say things that make me want to have a talk with your coach).

If you want good speaks from me, there are three ways to get it: sarcasm that remains in good humor (i.e., sassy comments that aren't belittling or unnecessarily rude), really deep understanding of your argument, and creative case-writing. Generally, the style I reward with speaker points is confident and humorous, with a preference for arguments that require deep understanding to execute well.

I have a lot of experience in mainly speeches.

I currently teach Speech & Debate. I have done this for the past year along with coaching speech/debate.

Debates that I can not judge are policy and congress. I am very comfortable in judging PF.

Have judged a couple times a year for the past few years, predominantly in PF and Congress.

I prefer well thought out and logical arguments that have a few strong evidence examples. I don't like being bombarded with fast talk and a stream of evidence that comes so fast it makes it hard to draw the connections and relevance.

Okay here's the gist...

Clarity and Organization: I want to see speakers presents their arguments with organized points, that have clear logical structure and utilize effective signposting.

Content and Argumentation: I want to see strong use of evidence; clearly stating the source, dates for relevance and, use those sources effectively to counter opposing arguments.

Delivery and Presentation: Everyone has different delivery style/s I get it. Factors I consider are confidence, voice modulation, gestures, eye contact, and overall being present I want to feel like your argument is something you are familiar with and invested in, and we are just having a conversation, you heard.

Clash and Engagement: I will determine how well the debaters are based on how engaged they are with each other's arguments. So are they actively engaging in the debate and directly addressing their opponents' points? if yes then this factor is what makes their case score higher. debate is about challenging ideas don't just stand their and have a speech on your case and don't make effort to poke holes in your oppositions argument. Because that's just no fun, lets have some clash folks!

Time Management: It is advised that for the speakers, effectively manage your allotted time for each speech and stay within the prescribed time limits. Its totally okay to go a little over and maybe 5 seconds or so, more than that however is a no. But do take the time to finish your thoughts and don't panic.

Respect and Decorum: While being a good debater is knowing what your doing and having a good case, its also crucial that as you debate maintain respect for your opponents and the audience. Check for any use of offensive language or behavior, there is certain behavior during in round that should not be tolerated and if that line is crossed as a judge that's just something I will take note of and will weigh in on your performance because debate should not be toxic and ensure participants have fun and learn in a healthy environment.

Cheers and good luck!

Clarity and Communication: I want clear and logical structure with on time roadmapping and signposting throughout. Try not to speak so fast that I can't understand you. I do understand that you have a lot to say on your topic but try to keep a clear and consistent pace.

Clash: The more clash the better, in all styles of debate

Respect is extremely important in debate, it won't affect your placement but it will affect your speaker points

If you do not provide voting issues I can not and will not vote for you unless you provide a succinct and strong case that can beat your opponent on its merit alone

I do not keep a rigorous flow, I will write down key words and points that I pick up on and I will keep track of the interaction from both you and your opponent regarding those points

Good (Morning, Afternoon, Evening). I debated 4 years in High School and I am currently a member of the Boise State University Speech & Debate team. I am primarily familiar with Public Forum, however I have competed in Congress and am familiar with LD.

I do not really have much to say, debate should be about the competitors not the judges. You can basically run whatever you want with me, just make sure you have good links. I won't tolerate any homophobia, sexism, transphobia, racism, or personal attacks. Just have a good time. Feel free to email me with questions about the round @ adampendergrass@u.boisestate.edu

Have Fun!

I participated in speech and debate in high school and in college. I am very familiar with all forms of debate and have judged it for a few years now. During the round, I will be flowing your arguments. I am looking for the ability for you to provide solid arguments, strengthen them throughout the round, and to be able to refute and debate your opponent’s arguments. I am good with speed, just if I can still understand you well. You can also run time yourself during the round, but I will be doing so as well. Let me know if you have any questions!

This will be my second-year judging speech and debate and I am looking forward to it! I appreciate students being organized, articulate, courteous, and showing good sportsmanship. Please do not talk too fast, if I cannot clearly understand you, it will impact your ranking.

I began my experience with Speech and Debate in 2022. I have a background in Classics (Greek and Latin Language, Culture, Literature and History), and care deeply about effective pedagogy.

Essentially, I am a hybrid communications/flow judge, meaning that effective communication, clear signposting/structure, and also being respectful of each other and both the rules AND SPIRIT of debate is very important to me. I will judge from my flows for both LD and PF, so I will ask for pre-flow of your number of contentions and sub-points; please make sure I can flow your case. Please note: LD is not Policy, PF is not Policy, and I am not a Policy judge. For my approach to speech events, please follow this link.

Speaker Points: I am developing a Speaker Points Rubric that will assess the following categories:

~Constructive Argumentation
~Refutation & Rebuttal
~Evidence & Logic
~Cross-Examination
~Delivery

Cross-X and Clash: I value civil and direct cross, as well as effective engagement with opposing arguments and framework. Direct clash with claims and evidence is possible while still treating one another well. I will notice evasive responses.

Spread: I can tolerate a fairly quick rate of speech, but if I miss key terms or points, my understanding of your argument will suffer. I also find that people who prioritize speed and quantity of information over clarity lose my attention, since it's impossible to use effective vocal dynamics if your pace is too quick.

Resolution Analyses and Kritiks: Unless you are a going to do something amazing with them, or there’s something in the Resolution that truly merits one, I think they're a waste of time and unnecessarily obfuscate argumentation. I repeat: LD is not Policy. PF is not Policy. I am not a Policy judge. Until I see a K or RA that changes my mind, I am of the opinion that K's are most often a cowardly way of avoiding engagement with the opposing side. Counterplans are fine!

Pet Peeves: I resent being gaslighted. I keep careful flows, so don't tell me they dropped your case/points, unless that's clear from the flow.

Hello! My name is Madison Pritchard. I debated for 3 years in high school with experience in LD, Congress, and mainly Public Forum. I have also debated in college at Idaho State University, so safe to say I am very experienced. I have organized my paradigm by events that I am familiar with, as well as some general preferences. Happy debating and good luck!

General:

Be kind! This is high school debate and at its core needs to be about respect and understanding. I love clash but you need to make sure it is respectful, clash makes the debate interesting, without clash a debate ends up being bland. Make sure you are not interrupting your opponent a lot during cross examinations. Be sure that you have all of your evidence on hand and that it is properly cited, if I catch you falsely representing evidence then you will probably get a loss, unless your opponent does something somehow worse. If you choose to run a definition argument, be completely sure you can make it work, I don't love these but sometimes they are needed, make sure it is necessary if you do run one. I am fine with spectators as long as your opponents are fine with it, and as long as they are respectful (NO BEING ON THEIR PHONES). If you have any further questions, feel free to ask in round! Good luck debaters!

Public Forum:

This was my event in high school so you will not be able to get a lot past me here. A good balance of evidence and ethics are the core of this debate. I flow, so make sure your attacks stand and not to drop any main arguments, that will lose you the debate. Do not make the whole debate about evidence, evidence validity debates are not fun for anyone. If I feel a piece of evidence needs addressed, I will take a look once the debate has concluded. Speed reading is not loved but I can follow to a degree, just remember this is not policy.

Lincoln Douglas Debate:

I have a decent amount of experience with this event, so I can follow a lot of the jargon and ideas. My main problem sometimes with this debate is when people make it solely about the value/criterion, don't forget to attack the actual case and not just the value it is based on. Remember this debate is about morality, you need to convince me that yours is the morally correct argument, I will carry these over on the flow more than solely logic arguments.

Policy:

I don't have a lot of experience participating in this one, but I have ended up judging it a lot, so I have experience in that sense. A lot of the jargon I can understand but still be sure to explain some of your terms if you think there is a chance they could not be understood. Make sure your links are very clear. When your links get muddy, especially on a counterplan, you can lose me. Topicality arguments can be great, but again, just make sure they are completely clear. I do not love speed reading; I can usually follow but tread carefully.

Congress:

I just thought I would put some things in here I like to see in congress just in case someone looks for it. Make sure your speeches have substance, I really hate throw away speeches. If you are getting up just to get a speech in, it will not get you any points with me. Everyone needs to be respectful, do not be rude or personally attack other representatives. Please do not use questioning periods to debate, use your speeches, if you do this it will not reflect greatly in your ranking.

Hey y'all,

I'm a coach and competed for 8 years. I vote on persuasion through links, impacts, and comms. The more work you do the less work I have to do, meaning the less chance I have to reach my own conclusion. Help me help you.

The main thing I look for is impacts, I like to know how I am affected and why I should care.

The next thing I look at is the framework, if you give me a framework work use it, and don't drop it.

I don't mind conflict during the round (I think it is fun to watch) but when you leave please be kind and friendly to your opponent.

Hi! I’m Sarah. I use she/they pronouns. I graduated from Penn State in the spring of 2022. I’m now at Cornell Law School. I currently don’t have any program affiliation, but I love the activity and am glad to be involved however I can. If you have questions about this paradigm, any of my decisions, want to talk about law school applications, or just need a friendly ear, feel free to reach out via Facebook or email (ses452@cornell.edu).

General things

• I’m a person first, educator second, and adjudicator third. You do what you enjoy and I’m excited to learn from you. Tell me what to do with the ballot and I’ll listen.

• I’ll do my best to be tabula rasa. I’ll share my biases because I can’t be perfectly neutral as much as I might want to. Everything in this paradigm (except decent human being things) are only defaults, you can change them easily with an argument.

• Tech over truth but it’s way better when your arguments are at least dubiously true.

• I’d like novices to stick broadly to the topic and to reasonably understandable arguments. It helps nobody to hand your novice a Baudrillard file. I’m pretty willing to fill in the gaps for novices making smart arguments who don’t make them in technically correct ways.

• I’m good with speed if and only if everyone in the round is, please slow on tags.

• Don’t do things to make the debate community a worse place. It shows a lot more skill to win elegantly and cleanly by an inch than to bash the other side and win by a mile.

• Please make complete arguments - this means at minimum have internal links, ideally ones with warrants. If your argument isn’t complete, I can’t vote on it even if nobody points out the flaws.

• I get that there are things the community universally accepts even without links (e.g. politics disads) and I’ll probably give those to you if nobody points out the lack of links. I’ll err on the side of granting them for predictability but I want to be up front that since I’m new to judging I don’t know yet where my threshold is.

• It’s fun and makes for less frustrating decisions when you weigh and meta-weigh.

• CX is underutilized and it would be cool if you accomplished something with it.

• Things I reserve the right to stop the round and give you the L for:

• Doing or reading something the other side explicitly asked you not to do for mental health reasons

• Misgendering someone after being corrected

• Explicit bigotry (exception: if everyone in the round agrees beforehand to test arguments like “sexism good for econ,” I think that can be educational. But you can’t spring that on someone)

• Making arguments about sexual violence or suicide without ASKING the other side if it’s okay. Content warnings that do not ask are not okay. If you do this I will stop you and confirm with everyone in the round that it is okay before continuing, and if it’s not and you can’t read a different position, the round will end and you will lose

• Ad hominem arguments - you can attack the argument or the framing, but not the person or intention

Feedback and evaluation

In novice or JV divisions, I’ll type out notes mid-speech. I think it’s more important that you get specific feedback than that my flow is perfect. In open, I’ll prioritize my flow but make a point to be extremely detailed during the RFD. The distinction is mostly that open debaters can benefit a lot more from strategic analysis. I’ll also do everything I can to give you tips on fixing errors instead of just pointing them out. If you feel like you’d learn more from a different kind of feedback than this, just let me know and I’m happy to oblige.

Speaker points are silly, arbitrary, and biased. My hope is if enough people simply refuse to take them seriously, it will disavow people of the notion that they have any value as a metric and we can get rid of them. As such, you’re all getting 30s unless you do something worth getting 0.

Ballot comments on Tabroom go to you and your coach (and anyone else with access to your team's Tabroom page). Nine times out of ten this is good for education. If for some reason (and I won't ask the reason), you do not want your coach to see your feedback, just let me know privately and I'm happy to give feedback orally or share it via PDF in the Speechdrop instead of putting it on the ballot.

Counterplans

• Dispo > condo (dispo means a CP is like a disad where you can extend defense but can’t kick out of offense)

• Two condo fine if it’s a CP and an alt, more than that probably bad

• Perms are probably advocacies

Theory

• I-meets are terminal defense on theory

• Competing interps > reasonability. I’ve been told I think of theory in the NPDA sense more than the LD sense if that helps anyone

• I don't need proven abuse. I honestly don't know what proven abuse is. If your practice is bad, it probably had some impact on strategy. You don't need to execute a bad strategy to prove that it's bad.

• I’m probably more amenable to resource disparity arguments than a lot of people as a product of debating for a student-run team in college

• Disclosure theory is elitist and bad. Aff disclosure is probably good, but 9/10 times people don’t do it because they don’t know how (especially with these new confusing caselist updates). Educate, don’t punish

Kritiks

• Alts should either have some evidence indicating solvency in the traditional sense (of fixing the problem you present) or subvert traditional notions of solvency. Alts that do neither probably do nothing and the other side should point this out

• Alts that operate in a different paradigm than the aff (e.g. discourse alts compared to policy affs) need a ROB to be cohesive. Otherwise you’re just talking past each other because the government could do the aff and you could do the alt and there’s no contradiction. Perms are really strong here and at best with these alts and no FW you win on K turns case

• Fiat is illusory, but that doesn’t mean it’s not valuable, and it would be better if you had more than “the plan isn’t real”

Performance

• Nontopical affs should have neg ground and you should be able to tell us what it is during CX.

• If the neg ground is theory and you then make IVIs to theory I’m going be really persuaded by arguments that there is no neg ground

• It’s much preferable imo if the neg ground is topic generics (e.g. a movements case where the effect is change to election laws, a topical plan text with narrative evidence, or a critique of NFA elections in the direction of the topic)

• In novice divisions you have to be topical or at least have topical neg ground - predictability reasons are overwhelming when it comes to making newbies want to stay in debate

Miscellaneous thoughts

• I won't enforce the rules simply because they're the rules. Appeals to the rules are fine though if you warrant why following the rules is good.

• One piece of unethically cut or cited ev → drop the arg + ballot comments to your coach. If it happens again, auto-loss. Unless you’re a novice, in which case still fix it but you get more leeway

• New NR and 2AR arguments don’t get flowed

• Zoom lets you do cool things and if you need to screen-share to do them that should be allowed. We ought to get something out of this virtual debate thing

• Baum-Barret is a garbage card written by people who need to at minimum SKIM Rawls before incorrectly citing him. I’m pretty sure most people under the veil of ignorance would care a lot more about the threat of crushing poverty than a 1% risk of nuclear war

• Evidence comparison > tons of cards that all say the same thing

I’m sure I’m missing something. I’ll try to edit as I notice things. Feel free to ask any questions before round!

I am an assistant coach with ten years of experience judging debate.

I will judge on the flow and am open to most kinds of arguments. Make sure you connect the dots (tell me how it connects to your case). I am fine with speed, although sometimes speakers are not as clear as they think they are.

Although I like lots of clash, please clash politely with your opponents. I want to hear you address your opponent’s arguments meaningfully. Tell me why winning dropped arguments wins the debate for you. Give me the impact of those dropped arguments.

For LD, know and understand your arguments. Then explain and link them to your value and criterion for me.

I want you to give me clear, impactful voters. Why did you win?

Have fun!

I have been an English and History teacher since 2002.

Although this is my first year judging speech and debate, I have judged National History Day competitions since 2010.

I like a logical flow with well-structured evidence to support your assertions. Politeness is important to me. I appreciate when competitors time themselves.

Clear links to your values and criterion are important to me.