I have been a middle school coach for speech and debate for the last 8 years. I do NOT judge PFD/LD/CX/WSD on a weekly or even monthly basis. I follow the original idea that PFD is supposed to be kept to a conversational pace, where we could grab anyone off the street to be able to judge your round.

Things you should be aware of if I am judging you:

1. Do not speed through your case/speeches. If you do, I will miss multiple things and if I cannot understand what you are saying I will give the win to your opponents. If speeding is required to get through your case, this is where you learn how to change it up (adapt to your judge).
2. Do not be rude to your opponents OR to your teammate. Making rude comments/gestures/body movements is not acceptable. Your speaks will go down if you are rude.
3. I have my own way of flowing and will do my best to make sure I get everything, including dropped/unanswered contentions. Please, please, please do not lie about what your opponents did/did not say.
4. I like evidence being used to be from reputable sources.
5. Do not run a case that has NOTHING to do with the topic (those of you trying to bring LD into PFD, no "K"s)!

I am an international teacher from the Philippines with a degree specialized in Mathematics education but am very passionate in speaking and writing competitions. I’ve been involved in speech and debate competitions in my home country and coached our university team in policy debates.

As a debate judge, I approach each round with an open mind and a commitment to impartiality, educational value and genuine interest in the art of persuasion. My focus is on clear arguments, logical thinking, and effective communication. I value well-supported points and thoughtful engagement with the case at hand. While I appreciate passion, I prioritize civility and respect in discourse, hence, foul language and profanity is a big no.

These are my "look-for" and expectations:

1. Clarity and Logic - Speakers/Debaters should provide a roadmap for their arguments to give me a better understanding of the case.
2. Evidence Quality - Arguments presented must be substantiated with quality and relevant evidence from credible sources.
3. Rebuttal and Engagement - I appreciate debaters who engage in opposing arguments thoughtfully and constructively and being able to deliver timely and essential responses to their opponents.
4. Time Management - If you are given 4 minutes to deliver a speech, use that time wisely and cover key points adequately.
5. Respectful Discourse - I discourage personal attacks and encourage a focus on the merits of the arguments - how well questions are thrown and webbed and how the opposing team answers back. At all times, debaters must maintain a civil tone throughout the competition.

On the other hand, if I get assigned in a speech event, I would consider additional aspects such as speaker's delivery style and originality, emotional impact/humor (if applicable), vocal variety (if applicable), body language and cultural sensitivity.

Let's make speech and debate a positive and educational experience for everyone.

Right off the bat… I do not like rehash- try to refresh the debate

EVIDENCE is crucial….DATE IT, its how judges compare impacts

be respectful…. Attack contentions not debaters

I like to see you into the debate besides good arguments, which means voice tone and performance can also take you a long way with me,

Typically I dont rank PO’s in top 6 however if the job is done well with little to no mistakes it is always a slight chance.

CLASH IS CRUCIAL, I always appreciate a good round winning speech that SHUTS DOWN the opposition to close the debate in a full circle,

anyway have fun be concise be convincing and be entertaining

:)

Hey I’m Sofia! (I prefer Sofi)

I competed for Cypress Bay from 2017-2021, I mostly competed in POI, but I also dabbled in impromptu, OO, and Congress.

I currently attend school at Florida International University :)


Blue Key 2023

In round, I hope that competitors will be respectful when someone is performing. I’d appreciate it if everyone silenced their phones before the round so you guys won’t be distracted while you’re giving your speech. I know some of you guys are double flighted so if I forget to let you go first, I’d really appreciate it if you could give me a heads up! Also, feel free to clap at the end of each other’s speech, it’s great to see you guys supporting each other!

Honestly, I’m happy as long as i can feel the passion you have for your event and see that you’re having fun!

If you have any questions, feel free to email me at sofi728@gmail.com

General:

ALWAYS ask permission to spread.

Above all- maintain decorum. Assertiveness is perfectly fine and even encouraged. But unprofessional behavior will only get you an easy L.

Public Forum:

Self-described as hybrid trad-tech judge, slightly trad-leaning.

If you try to run a theory case, just know it has a 99% chance of falling flat and failing with me.

Signposting is appreciated, but not required.

Stick to the time restrictions. I'll cut you off if you go too far over.

Avoid interrupting someone or speaking over your opponent, particularly during cross rounds. Only interject when absolutely necessary.

Don't let things go- if something goes unrefuted, that's another easy ballot to submit.

Student Congress:

I value an efficient PO. If you keep the chamber productive and run it fairly, I will likely rank you.

Unless you are the author/sponsor, you should be clashing.

Please behave like actual senators; failure to do so can impact your ranking.

LD/PF:

I am a lay judge, I do not want any Theory Shells, K's, or Trix arguments.

I will usually choose truth over tech, but it depends on the topic and case specifically.

No Spreading! I will take away points if I cannot understand what you are saying. LD/PF were created to combat the issues in Policy, I would like it to stay that way. I do not care if students stand, sit, use a computer stand, or do not, as long as their voices and arguments are clear.

I would like clear evidence, if an opponent asks for your card, show them to prove your point. If there is confusion on whether or not a card is valid, ask me and I will decide on the ballot, or in person, if needed.

I will do my best to flow the argument, but I am not the best at it, so be patient with me. Do Not Send Me Your Case,I do not want to read a case, I would like to be able to hear and flow it. The only exception is if there is confusion on a student's card, contention, or observation, then you can send your case so I can decide.

Obviously, no bullying, no Ad Hominem attacks, and no discrimination on religion, race, etc. There should also be no unfounded accusations of discrimination, as this is just as bad as discrimination.

Moderate speed. I consider both style of debate and strength of argument important

Director of Speech and Debate at Lake Highland Prep - Orlando, FL

Email chain info: njohnston@lhps.org

The Paradigm:
Debate is meant to be a fun activity! I think you should do whatever you need to do to ride your own personal happiness train. So have a good time in our rounds. That said, remember that riding your happiness train shouldn't limit someone else's ability to ride their's. So be kind. Have fun, learn stuff, don't be a jerk though.

I've been around debate for over 15 years. You can read whatever arguments in front of me and I'm happy to evaluate them. I'm fine if you want to LARP, read Ks, be a phil debater, do more trad stuff, or whatever else. I'm good with theory as long as you're generating genuine, in-round abuse stories. Frivolous theory and tricks are not something I'm interested in listening to. If I'm judging you online, go like 50% of your max spreading because hearing online is difficult. I'd like to be on email chains, but we all should accept that SpeechDrop is better and use it more. Otherwise, do whatever you want.

Rankings:
K - 1
Phil - 2
Policy - 1
High theory - 2.5 (it'll be ok but I'm going to need you to help me understand if its too far off the wall)
Theory - 1 (but the good kind), 4 (for the bad, friv kind)
Tricks - you should probably strike me

The Feels:
I'm somewhat ideologically opposed to judge prefs. As someone who values the educative nature of our events, I think judge adaptation is important. To that end, I see judge paradigms as a good way for you to know how to adapt to any given judge in any given round. Thus, in theory, you would think that I am a fan of judge paradigms. My concern with them arises when we are no longer using them to allow students the opportunity to adapt to their judges, but rather they exist to exclude members from the potential audience that a competitor may have to perform in front of (granted I think there is real value in strikes and conflicts for a whole host of reasons, but prefs certainly feed into the aforementioned problem). I'm not sure this little rant has anything to do with how you should pref/strike me, view my paradigm, etc. It kind of makes me not want to post anything here, but I feel like my obligation as a potential educator for anyone that wants to voice an argument in front of me outweighs my concerns with our MPJ system. I just think it is something important and a conversation we should be having. This is my way of helping the subject not be invisible.

TLDR: parent judge, don't be a meanie

for debate:

no spreading

no prog

will give you max speaks if you do your whole speech in fluent chinese

Hello! I am a parent judge volunteering my time to participate in various online and in person Speech & Debate tournaments. With a degree in Social Sciences, love of current events, history, politics and culture, and former high school teacher of 11 years, participating as a judge in tournaments is quite rewarding. I take my role seriously and approach each presentation with an open mind and true admiration for the hard work and dedication students put into developing their craft. Although I have judged many rounds and categories of speech, I consider myself a novice when participating in various forms of the debate arena. Thank you.

About Me

I used to be a high school English teacher and helped with congress debate, but I have since changed to the healthcare field. I still judge for events because I love speech and debate.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

When it comes to LD, I prefer trad debates. Imagine that you are trying to convince an educated public, not another LD debater. I don’t flow completely, but I keep track of arguments/counters and evidence as best as I can. I give my vote to whoever persuades me best with their overall case and I only judge based on what is presented to me. For example, if your opponent has a really strong counterargument with clear evidence and real-world impact that you don't address whatsoever, then that will lower your standing in the debate.

You can add me to the email chain: Colin.Nohr@gmail.com

Some things to incorporate in LD for me :

✅ Strong evidence/arguments that are relevant, clear, and show real-world impact

✅ CLASH whenever possible. Collegially, of course.

✅ Voting issues down the flow and during final speech

✅ Strong value criterion framework that connects well to your points is a bonus (especially if there is a clash)

Some things that do not convince me in LD:

⏺ Unrelated extinction or highly improbable impacts (e.g., how student debt will/won’t lead to nuclear winter)

⏺ Theory shells that put unreasonable strain on the competitor and the spirit of debate (e.g., we should only consider a priori arguments in round)

⏺ Kritiks (In spirit, I appreciate them, but in practice it does not really influence my final decision much at all)

Congress:

I care a lot about proper decorum, especially with respect to interaction among members in the chamber. For example, if you're asking questions to the congressperson with the floor, please do not preface your question for an inordinate amount of the questioning block. Use questions to get your prefacing in. Prefacing is fine, but excessive or unnecessary prefacing is not.

Question and rebuttals are the heart of what makes this event something more than just people going up to the front of the room to read a static speech then sit down 15-20 times in a row.

For speeches, make your arguments and supporting evidence clear with sign posts. Don't read so heavily from your speech that you rarely (if ever) look up.

If there is a one-sided debate going on (two or three affs/negs in a row) please know that I will be expecting a better than normal speech with arguments that have not already been made along with clear rebuttals OR strong crystallizing.

I love congress and I'm excited to hear your speeches and give you feedback in comments.

Speech (interp, info, oratory, extemp, impromptu, etc.):

Pacing, passion, novelty, and and complexity score highly with me.

I am a former participant in speech & debate. I am currently in my last year of undergrad and have read up on the current topic for the Varsity State Tournament. These are some of the things you should do if I am judging you.

1. Speak clearly, do not speed. If you are used to speeding then learn judge adaptation. If I can't get your arguments down and understand what you are saying then you have lost the round. I mostly did speech events in high school so I will be taking A LOT of notes during the round, speak clearly so I can follow your arguments even when I'm not looking.

2. You will not win the round by trying to win an emotional argument - please make clear connections//links

3. I like a well-thought-out/planned case that makes sense logically - I like to be able to connect the dots.

4. I do not flow so please make your arguments clear and organized.

5. Do not be rude. I can deal with assertive, but screaming, belittling opponents, eye-rolling, head shaking, and showing general contempt is not acceptable. You may win the round but it will be with 20 speaks.

Sorry for being really extra about Congress. I just want to make it clear what I think of each speech

Congress

I judge a lot of Congress. Congress to me is half speech and half debate. The best congress students have a mix of both qualities. I find myself in prelim rounds and local tournaments frequently rewarding better speakers because there is a greater talent disparity in those rounds, and kids who are phenomenal speakers break. However, you likely are only reading this if you are a student who takes Congress seriously and expects to get into break rounds. Here’s the thing, once you are in Congress break rounds, everyone is a good speaker and the gap between 1 and 12 is really often negligible to me. Therefore, if you expect to make it into the top 6 and move on, you have to give the appropriate speech at the appropriate time. Here is how I classify different speeches. Each one is judged differently

• 1st Aff/Authorship/Sponsorship

• Judged to a higher evidence standard since you are literally setting the table for the entire round

• Needs exceptional structure and argumentation. This should read like a debate case in PF/LD. No claim should go unwarranted, no argument should lack a variety of strong evidence, the impacts should be clear and heavily emphasized

• Speech is generally easier since it is prepared in advance, so this speech needs to be very well written

• 1st Neg

• Same standards as the 1st Aff/Authorship/Sponsorship

• Difference, you must directly refute what the previous speaker stated. You do not need to refute everything necessarily (although better speakers will), but you should definitely pick out whatever was the key point of their case and directly refute.

• 2nd Aff/2nd Neg-7th Aff/7th Neg (roughly, this depends on chamber size)

• Speeches need to address what is happening in the chamber. A good rule of thumb is to always address the claims of the speaker who went right before you plus the key issues of the round up to that point. If you are not making the debate unique by refuting previous speakers and extending previous speakers from your side, you will have a tough time being ranked top 6

• Unique arguments are great and you should draw attention to them. However you are not going to win the debate with a rando argument at the very end with limited impacts. Unique arguments are not a replacement for refutation and extension of previous speakers

• Closing Affs and Negs (like the last 4 speeches or so)

• Crystalize/Weigh voting issues. At the end of a cycle of debate, it needs to be like a final focus in PF or a 2AR in LD. Isolate the key issues of the round and explain why your side is winning. Speeches that do not weigh this late in the cycle do not add anything to the debate and are judged as unnecessary.

General Congress Speaking Tips

• Remember to always use decorum and professionalism

• Be consistent in the language you use (don’t flip between bill and legislation randomly)

• Important. At the end of the day, you are acting. You are a legislator, not a high school student. You are a legislator whose personal worth is attached to either the passage or failure of this bill because of how it affects the United States citizens. You delivery and disposition should be that of someone who is desperate to see its passage or failure. Show me this is important to you

Role of Cross Examination

• I am not paying attention to how many questions you guys ask. I am only really paying attention to the person’s answers. Cross ex should be a time you try to get the opponent to make concessions or show the judges they don’t really know what they are talking about. Be aggressive, but be respectful

• Ask lots of questions though. I may not be noting it down, but if you ask a lot of questions, I’ll remember that and it can be used to break ranking ties

Evaluating the PO

• If the PO does the following, I am going to rank them top 3 no matter what

• Maintains excellent professionalism and decorum

• Showcases strong knowledge of parliamentary procedure

• Maintains control of the chamber

• Makes no mistakes with recency or frequency

• One more thing to point out. Running an effective chamber also involves encouraging motions in order to continue facilitating legitimate debate. If there are 3 negs in a row with no Aff, and the debate has been done to death - you should be actively asking for motions and reminding the chamber about how we frown on one sided debate and can move on

One final note about Equity

• It is important to be fair to everyone in the chamber. However, this is a competition. You are trying to destroy your opponents and proceed in the tournament. You have no obligation as competitors to ensure all speakers get to speak the same number of times. Now I will admit, other judges may frown on this - so it is risky behavior. I am just letting you know that I will not take points away because you force a motion to call the previous question and end debate when the debate is clearly over and keep someone from speaking.

• Tabroom will not let me eliminate this stray bullet

LD/PF Paradigm

1. Speed kills. Spread at your own risk.

1. In LD, you need to win the framework to win the debate

1. Case needs to tell a cohesive story. You should not include arguments that don’t function under your framework for the sake of just having extra offense

1. You have to weigh the debate. No weighing, no ballot

1. Respect your opponent. Ideally you should be stone faced when your opponent is speaking and never snicker or make any comment of any kind. I’ll drop you

1. Voting issues. Gotta have them. What are the key issues of the round in your view? How do I know what to vote off of if you don't tell me what matters?

2. There is no 7, tabroom will not let me backspace

Speaker Points

• If you are competent and minimize mistakes, you automatically finish with 28.5 speaker points (29 if decimals are forbidden). To improve on that, there need to be zero mistakes, zero arguments that go unrefuted, clear weighing of impact analysis, etc. If you get lower than 28.5, it means you missed something somewhere. I’ll try to put it on the ballot. Overall, if you do your job, you are not finishing with less than 28.5. Going to be honest though, I can't tell you what a 30 is. You have the impress me in some way that I really can't quantify

I'm a very lay judge, please say out loud your type of argument, e.g., turn, extend, de-link, non-unique. Don't run theory or K, preferably send your cases 30 minutes before the round to my email or add me to any chain on samantha.sikes@browardschools.com . Explain why your arguments win and your opponents don't. Weighing is the most important part of the round and is how I'll look at the debate. Explain simply the importance of your framework and I'll prefer it. Truth>Tech. No spreading. Like at all.

Did Congress in high school. Have been judging speech and debate on and off since 2015, mostly ie.

It is my pleasure and honor to be a judge at high school debates. I enjoy watching and listening to the various student participants - many of whom will be the future leaders of our society and country. As I judge the participants, I will be looking for confidence and passion in their speeches, questions, and answers. I will also be looking for steady eye contact to their opponents, members of the audience, and the judges. Reputable facts and figures are, of course, important and will be noted by me. But if a participant cannot effectively present and defend their positions, my attention and vote will usually go to the participant who convinces me that their position is superior to their opponent. May the best debater win!

I am a parent judge. I prefer a moderate speed. I need clear weighing and extension of warrants, links, and impacts.