I am a judge who values clear and concise arguments that are well-supported by evidence. I believe that debaters should focus on the quality of their arguments rather than the quantity. I prefer debaters to speak at a moderate pace, allowing me to follow their arguments and evaluate them effectively. I expect debaters to be respectful and courteous towards each other and avoid using any offensive language or tone. I will evaluate the round based on the strength of the arguments presented, their relevance to the topic, and how well they are supported by evidence. I will also consider how effectively debaters respond to their opponent’s arguments and how well they can refute them. Finally, I will evaluate how well debaters can summarize their arguments in their final speeches.

I have been a parent judge for two years.

My email is chenjiyu@yahoo.com, please add me to the evidence share/email chains

I appreciate logical arguments backed up with solid evidences and relevant facts. When it comes to speaking style, I prefer clear articulation with regular speed of speaking.

Do not use theory, I am aware of how it works, but I feel that you should be debating the topic, not the rules of debate.

If you see my pronoun listed as "judge," please note that it started as a joke at my expense. In the end, I've left it as a reminder to judge every competitor as an individual with dignity and without bias.

-----------------Big Questions-----------------

This is NOT an event that should be featuring spreading. Your need to appeal to the philosophy of your position in a orderly efficient manner in important. Collegial discussion needs to be your manner to approach this and be successful. Please note, this is one of the few events where a judge can declare a forfeit without consulting tabroom (no true at nationals). You MUST remain topical. This is NOT an event to play games with kritiks and counterplans, etc. I have every expectation that you will take this event seriously. In doing so, you show respect for your team, your opponents, your judge, and yourself.

-----------------Speech-----------------

Do your best and be respectful of others in the room. Tell me if you want time signals. I will try and ask every competitor what they want, but it is the affirmative responsibility of each competitor to communicate what they want. I expect that you will know the rules and requirements of whichever league you are competing. Unless you are double-entered, you are expected to stay the whole time. If you are double-entered, please tell me before we begin, and do not interrupt a fellow presenter while leaving or entering. I will go in the order of the ballot. Give a warning if the piece you are presenting might cause anyone discomfort. If you need to leave for a necessary reason, please do so quietly. (You don't need to tell me why, but I may check to see if you're ok after. I worry a lot, sorry!).

Silence your personal technology devices. I would suggest using airplane mode to limit any visual notifications. Honor your fellow competitors and yourself with being mindful of your surroundings.

-----------------Debate-----------------

For LD, if you are not talking, you're prepping.

There is one official time-keeper, the judge(s). You are welcome to time yourself using your phone or another device as a timer. Your timer should be silenced and not interrupting you or your opponent's speaking time. Please ask if you want notifications whether on prep or debating and I'll be happy to let you know. When your time is up, I will inform you quietly so you can finish your sentence.

From the 2022 NCFL Bylaws "The resolution is a proposition of value, not policy. Debaters are to develop argumentation on the resolution in its entirety, based on conflicting underlying principles and values to support their positions. To that end, they are not responsible for practical applications. No plan or counterplan shall be offered by either debater."

Be polite. Argue your case effectively and clearly. As the debater, you (or your team) will decide that method. Speaking more quickly will not help you case if you are not clear. As a judge, I will attempt to read up on your topic of debate ahead of time, but it is best to assume that I know nothing and provide definitions accordingly. Be sure to ask both myself and your opponent if we are ready.

Silence your personal technology devices. I would suggest using airplane mode to limit any visual notifications. Anything that interrupts your speaking time will count against you. Doubly so if you interrupt your opponent. I'd appreciate it, as a courtesy, if you are using a phone for notes, etc (if allowed for your style of debate) to warn me ahead of time.

Internet access is being allowed in some tournaments. The rules governing access can generally be found on the tabroom page for the tournament. I have every expectation that you will use network access honorably and ethically.

I have been asked many times if I have a preference for types of arguments or styles of debate and the answer is that it doesn't matter. You are are the speaker, not I. Progressive, traditional, plans, counterplans, theories, or kritiks, your job is to convince me that your side's position is the strongest.

Extemp Debate:

Be prepared to move quickly through the round. Reminder: The use of evidence is permitted, but not a focal point due to the limited time available to prepare a case for the round. We will NOT be sending cases back and forth (unless you truly want to use your limited prep and speaking time to do so. I will be judging you exclusively on what you say out loud, so I don't recommend it!) I would recommend that you not spread. If you choose to, you'd best be on the top of your articulation game. Again, I will be judging you exclusively on what you say out loud, so I don't recommend it!

Policy Debate (CX): (Feel free to do the 1950s version of a policy round. You know, before they developed spreading. Since this is unlikely....) If you are passing cards back and forth, give me no reason to wonder if you are appropriating prep time. If you are passing cards, do so expeditiously. (Why yes, I'd like to be on the email chain! My email is tim@squirrelnest.net) Be prepared with USB drives or another medium for sharing documents. Please note, this isn't supposed to be war of the USB drives. Taking more than a minute to transfer a file will add up. Out of respect for your fellow competitors and the tabroom, I will be urging you in-round to move forward expeditiously. Especially at the varsity level.

----World Schools & Parliamentary Debate ----

I'm not going to treat this as LD/CX Jr, honest. This is NOT an event that should be featuring spreading, and the speed should max out at the upper end of a standard conversation.

NO OFFTIME ROADMAPS!!!

Argument execution is important. Each speaker should communicate using an effective combination of public speaking norms. Namely conversational speech rate, appropriate pitch and tone, and confident body language. Eye contact is key, so limit what you're reading verbatim from paper. If you read from a paper in a monotone voice for 8 long minutes, you will put me to sleep as well as your opponents. Please don't do this!

Case construction should flow seamlessly and I recommend it be logically laid out. Evidence calls are not allowed generally. Check the tournament's rules. If you think something is wrong, well, that's what POIs are for.

Do NOT abuse POIs. I will heavily dock speaker points in the event of any abuse.

NSDA nationals note: No electronic devices!!! Everything is on paper! (Other tournaments: internet use will be allowed on a per tournament basis). Any timers should be silenced!

Use of knocking and tapping in the appropriate manner is encouraged. My timer will ding for protected time. Humor will never be amiss in any round I judge.

Ask me questions before the round begins.

cards, so if there is a technology problem, we will be moving forward. Be prepared!!!

-----Legacy Pandemic Rules-----

Pandemic edition: Tell me if you can't stand or if there is another environmental concern in your presentation area. I know a lot of you are in bedrooms and otherwise at home. Do the best you can. I will NOT being taking in to account your environment with respect to your rankings.

Upon entering the room, put the title of your piece in the chat window and list whether you are double entered. Time signals can be in the form of an on-screen timepiece or traditional time signals.

As a judge for this debate competition, my primary focus lies on clarity and organization in communication. Debaters should articulate their arguments in a clear, logical manner with smooth transitions between points.

I prioritize the strength and validity of the content, looking for well-supported arguments through evidence, examples, and logical reasoning.

Notably, please do not spread (speed reading) – rapid and unclear speech – as it impedes clarity and hinders the overall quality of the debate.I need to be able to follow along to your argument while taking notes.

Coach since 2014

For the most part,you'll be looking at this paradigm because I'll be your LD judge. Cross-apply these comments to PF as applicable and to policy if/when I get recruited to judge policy.

Speed and Decorum:

Send me your case. Please tell me once you have done so (I won't be sitting here frantically refreshing.) Unless there is no other way, I would like to use tabroom share.

I don't care if you sit/stand. Really, I don't. Just generally try to remain in the room. I won't be shaking hands.

Please time your speeches and prep time. I prefer to devote my attention to the content of your speeches rather than focusing on watching the clock, but I can time if needed. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.

Debate:

I do not prefer theory. I'm usually left feeling that most debaters use it when it isn't necessary and thereby it just serves overcomplicate the round. Please don't do this.If you planning to run dense or tricky theory,you should strike me. However, occasionally theory is necessary to ensure a fair, equitable round (i.e. - your opponent purposely presents a case which is non-topical, etc). I strongly prefer paragraph theory to block theory if you are in such a situation.

You have an absolute obligation to articulate your arguments. Even if I’m familiar with the literature or whatever that you might be referencing I won't fill in the gaps in your explanation/argumentation.

Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!

Tricks = no. Thanks.

I will not vote for arguments that are mean-spirited or otherwise deny the humanity of others. This should go without saying, but this is still a school-sponsored activity, so if you wouldn't raise your hand and say it during school, don't do it here either.

Hi, I'm Sarah! I am a new parent judge, so please keep that in mind when debating in front of me.

Add me to the email chain: sarah.deng.debate@gmail.com

Policy Debate

Strike me if you plan to read a K-aff.

Overview:

• SPEAK NORMALLY AND CLEARLY
• Send all analytics (directly to me or everyone), otherwise you may receive a max of 26 speak points. This is to ensure I flow all your arguments. I will do my best to keep up, but clarity is key.
• Quality > quantity. A well-warranted argument will always hold more weight than a blippy claim.
• I will evaluate all arguments as long as they are clearly explained and impacted out. However, I am not familiar with debate jargon, so avoid unnecessary technical terms.

I am most familiar with judging policy vs. policy (Topicality, DA, CP).

I highly urge you to avoid Kritiks, but if you are reading one, explain how the affirmative is violating, and explain it every step of the way, especially the link arguments and why thealternative solves better than the affirmative's plan.

If you are running theory, explain why your impact matters and why I should vote for it. Elaborate on why these impacts are important in debate.

Better Habits:

• Signpost clearly and keep the round organized. If I get lost, I may miss key arguments.
• Explain interactions between arguments. Don't just extend—explain how arguments interact with each other and what it means for the round.
• Make my decision easy. The more you control the framing of the debate, the easier it is for me to vote for you.

I like to see content backed by sources, as well as clean debate. Do not personally attack your opponent, and I do not like spreading - nor will I vote for your side if I can't understand a word you're saying. Vocal intonation, vocal modulation, dynamic voice, appropriate pacing and pausing, clear enunciation, eye contact, facial expressions, and gestures are all tools that can support your presentation. Spreading and gish galloping in my opinion are NOT tools. Be honest and respectful in your presentation. Focus on framework and the value. Not one to disclose.

Hi Debater,

I am looking forward to judging. I am a new judge for PF and would appreciate if the presentation is clear to assist me in doing the judging.

Appreciate the help.

Thanks

Nehal

I am a fourth year parent volunteer judge. Most of my experience is judging LD. I would appreciate a slower paced delivery. I will be looking for clear points that are maintained throughout the initial presentation, rebuttal and summary.

I believe that debate is a communication event and therefore the participants should use a clear, audible, understandable vocal rate, tone, and inflection in their delivery. A quick rate that is clear, understandable, and respectful to the opposing side may be used. I expect the debater's delivery to create an inclusive atmosphere for those in the round.

I flow on paper. Use clear tags lines. Make sure that you clearly state the resolution, provide clear definitions, interpretation, weighing mechanisms, impacts, voters etc. Do not assume I have extensive knowledge on the subject matter. Explain it to me in your case. This is your responsibility. If I don't understand it from your argument, then you run the risk of losing the ballot. Debate is essentially the affirmative's advantages verses the negative's disadvantages. Make me understand your case. Thank you.

As personal context, I'm a college student in Philadelphia. In high school, I was involved in forensics for three years, the first of which I spent in PF and the latter two of which I committed to trad LD. I have a good understanding of framework and contention level argumentation, and I do flow rounds. I consider myself tabula rasa and my voting is framed by the framework you give me. I accept any arguments, so long as they are neither offensive nor discriminatory. I'm fine with speed but keep it comprehensible.

Keep the round civil and limit the snarky comments.

elliehan1004@gmail.com

jasonjiang.lschs@gmail.com

Hi, I’m Jason (he/him) and I do LD at La Salle.

Quick Prefs:

1- Ks (not high theory), Traditional

2- Policy, Non-T

3- T FW

4- Theory, High Theory Ks

you should strike me for tricks and phil

Debaters should send cases before the start time. I really prefer if we can just use speechdrop because my email can be very slow.

The prefs are in order of what rounds I feel most comfortable judging for the sake of transparency but I've competed both on the local and national circuit so as long as you are able to articulate the warranting, good debating can overcome my preferences. If you get me in the back for phil, I will try my best to understand but err on over-explanation. Good with spreading but slow down on analytics especially in the 1AR to give me some pen time. I will say clear if I cannot hear and will not be flowing off the doc.

I have zero tolerance for arguments that are discriminatory or exclusionary, it is an automatic loss if I deem that the round has become unsafe for debaters to engage.

I know that everyone puts a lot of time into this activity so as a judge, I will try to evaluate the round with the same level of respect. When I am allowed to disclose decisions, feel free to ask me anything or email post-round.

Good luck and have fun!

tl;dr - tech and speed good, but I'm not doing work for you. The resolution must be in the debate. Though I think like a debater, I do an "educator check" before I vote - if you advocate for something like death good, or read purely frivolous theory because you know your opponent cannot answer it and hope for an easy win, you are taking a hard L. I tab more than I judge, but I'm involved in research. Last substance update: 2/22/25

Email chain: havenforensics (at) gmail - but I'm not reading along.

Experience:

Head Coach of Strath Haven HS since 2012. We do all events.
Previously coach at Park View HS 2009-11, assistant coach at Pennsbury HS 2002-06 (and beyond)
Competitor at Pennsbury HS 1998-2002, primarily Policy

Public Forum

1st Rebuttal should be line-by-line on their case; 2nd Rebuttal should frontline at least major offense, you get some leeway in extensions in Summary, but not to dump a bunch of new stuff in 2nd Summary.

Summary should probably be line-by-line and thus I recommend ditching some issues so you can add depth, not just tag lines. If it isn't at least on the flow in Summary, it probably isn't getting flowed in Final Focus.

Final Focus should continue to narrow down the debate to tell me a story about why you win. Refer to specific spots on the flow, though LBL isn't strictly necessary (you just don't have time). I'll weigh what you say makes you win vs what they say makes them win - I like defense.

I have a Policy background but believe that is a different event - if you want to have a Policy round, please do Policy, the speeches are longer for a reason. I am planning to flow this PF round on two sheets of paper. I do not believe counterplans or kritiks have a place in PF. I also have no problem intervening and rejecting arguments that are designed to exclude your opponents from the debate.

You win a lot of points with me calling out shady evidence, and conversely by using good evidence. You lose a lot of points by being unable to produce the evidence you read quickly.

I don't care which side you sit on or when you stand, and I find the post-round judge handshake to be silly and unnecessary.

LD

My LD experience is mostly local or regional, though I coach circuit debaters. I'm comfortable with traditional, value-centered LD and util/policy/solvency LD.I probably prefer policy debates, but not if you are trying to fit an entire college policy round into LD times. As in Policy, I like Ks that have real links, but aff must defend the resolution.

If somehow you are a deep phil debater and I end up as the judge, you probably did prefs wrong, but I'll do my best to understand. If you are a tricks debater, um, don't. Arguments have warrants and a genuine basis in the resolution or choices made by your opponent.

Policy

I almost never judge circuit Policy rounds at this point. I am a little old school in that I still think you should go slower on tags than on card text and would like you to explain your arguments in your overviews (but after the 1AC/1NC) - I'm not going to backflow from your speech doc, and I'm flowing on paper, so you probably don't want to go your top speed.

1. The role of the ballot must be stable and predictable and lead to research-based clash. The aff must endorse a topical action by the government. You cannot create a role of the ballot based on the thing you want to talk about if that thing is not part of the topic; you cannot create a role of the ballot where your opponent is forced to defend that racism is good or that racism does not exist; you cannot create a role of the ballot where the winner is determined by performance, not argumentation. And, to be fair to the aff, the neg cannot create a role of the ballot where aff loses because they talked about the topic and not about something else.

2. I am a policymaker at heart. I want to evaluate the cost/benefit of plan passage vs. status quo/CP/alt. Discourse certainly matters, but a) I'm biased on a framework question to using fiat or at least weighing the 1AC as an advocacy of a policy, and b) a discursive link had better be a real significant choice of the affirmative with real implications if that's all you are going for. "Using the word exploration is imperialist" isn't going to get very far with me. Links of omission are not links.

I understand how critical arguments work and enjoy them when grounded in the topic/aff, and when the alternative would do something. Just as the plan must defend a change in the status quo, so must the alt.

3. Fairness matters. I believe that the policymaking paradigm only makes sense in a world where each side has a fair chance at winning the debate, so I will happily look to procedural/T/theory arguments before resolving the substantive debate. I will not evaluate an RVI or that some moral/kritikal impact "outweighs" the T debate. I will listen to any other aff reason not to vote on T.

I like T and theory debates. The team that muddles those flows will incur my wrath in speaker points. Don't just read a block in response to a block, do some actual debating, OK? I definitely have a lower-than-average threshold to voting on a well-explained T argument since no one seems to like it anymore.

Notes for any event

1. Clash, then resolve it. The last rebuttals should provide all interpretation for me and write my ballot, with me left simply to choose which side is more persuasive or carries the key point. I want to make fair, predictable, and non-interventionist decisions, which requires you to do all my thinking for me. I don't want to read your evidence (unless you ask me to), I don't want to think about how to apply it, I don't want to interpret your warrants - I want you to do all of those things! The debate should be over when the debate ends.

2. Warrants are good. "I have a card" is not a persuasive argument; nor is a tag-line extension. The more warrants you provide, the fewer guesses I have to make, and the fewer arguments I have to connect for you, the more predictable my decision will be. I want to know what your evidence says and why it matters in the round. You do not get a risk of a link simply by saying it is a link. Defensive arguments are good, especially when connected to impact calculus.

3. Speed. Speed for argument depth is good, speed for speed's sake is bad. My threshold is that you should slow down on tags and theory so I can write it down, and so long as I can hear English words in the body of the card, you should be fine. I will yell if I can't understand you. If you don't get clearer, the arguments I can't hear will get less weight at the end of the round, if they make it on the flow at all. I'm not reading the speech doc, I'm just flowing on paper.

4. Finally, I think debate is supposed to be both fun and educational. I am an educator and a coach; I'm happy to be at the tournament. But I also value sleep and my family, so make sure what you do in round is worth all the time we are putting into being there. Imagine that I brought some new novice debaters and my superintendent to watch the round with me. If you are bashing debate or advocating for suicide or other things I wouldn't want 9th graders new to my program to hear, you aren't going to have a happy judge.

I am more than happy to elaborate on this paradigm or answer any questions in round.

I have been judging for over 20 years, mostly LD but also PF and Parli.

Pretty obvious stuff. I'm actually not too much of a fan of paradigms - you should debate in a way that you are confident about, not play to a rubric that different judges have created. In other words, your job is to convince me about what is important, not to affirm any pre-held beliefs I have - a jury in a trial would not be asked about their "paradigm". As a judge I should be able to appreciated the angle you take if it is well argued and holds water. That being said, I do believe the following...

Debate is won through good, well researched arguments, not technical "tricks". Don't claim drops when they didn't happen. Make sure you clash and explain why you won clearly - what did the debate come down to?

I'm not particularly interested in a statistics fight. It is impossible for me to know which statistics are more accurate and I'm not going to spend hours researching them.

Don't spread. It's not fun, not in the spirit of debate and has zero life skill or educational value.

I would like to see you present your argument clearly, concisely, and confidently, with evidence, data, facts, and good reasoning logic. Please explain any acronyms you might be using and avoid too much jargons. No spreading. And respect your opponent. Good luck!

I have served as a judge to this LD debate format, and policy format for 4 years.

I prefer debater not to use acronym that a typical person on the street does not know.

I prefer you speak at normal speed. Speaking too fast is useless because you goal is to pass your idea if you speak too fast, I will have trouble to understand you.

You want stress your key argument or resolution. This helps you to convince your listener. Do not speak like a computer with monotone.

Please define and explain the topic you debate about. The idea, and concept, the logical argument gives your points, and credit, not how fast you go.

LD and PF: Although I list myself as "Traditional," I am open to different arguments as long as they are explained well and related to the resolution. I believe that we are debating the resolution, not fixing society's ills. Yes debate will enable us to fix society's ills but a competition round is not where that will occur. Debate theory can be interesting to judge, but again, needs to still be connected to the resolution. Also, be sure that the theory you're arguing is correct and logical. In terms of speed, to me it's not speed it's clarity. If you are going 97 miles per hour and have to constantly repeat yourself because you trip over words, maybe going 60 is better.

Congress: As a scorer or Parli, I look for good speeches with good evidence and analysis, but also continuous participation. I believe Congress is an overall package, including activity with questioning, motions and amendments. PO's should be able to move the chamber along smoothly, and fairly. However, they must also recognize that sometimes this may be a new experience for someone in the chamber, and be sure that everyone understands how the PO is maneuvering the chambers, not just assume that it's just standard operating procedure for everyone. Be good to each other and you will often stand out from the competition.

she/her

Hello, my name is Ms. Magee. I am an adjunct communication professor, an advanced public speaking teacher, and assistant speech and debate coach.

For LD: Please, do not spread; I value clear and concise speaking. I also expect clear attribution of credible sources.

susanmagee17@gmail.com

Judging Debate: I value a solid, well-articulated argument. I'm not impressed by speed. Although more evidence is better than less, if you don't articulate your positions (value/ contentions) well, all the evidence in the world won't help. In addition, you also have to be able to think on your feet (off book, that is not reading from your prepared text) especially in the X and Summary rounds.

Hi I am the first time parent Judge and looking forward to collaborate with you. I respect your passion towards speech & Debate and all the hard work you have been doing.I look for good articulation and confidence in the participants. I would also like to request you all to make your case with clear connectivity to the case statement , resolution/action items that leads to the value statement. I would like to see the passion in owning the topic , navigating through the topic with clear flow at a moderate pace that I can follow and make notes out of it. Please stick to the time allotted and respect others time. I want to see the action items or assumption backed up by a good evidence and the final value that outweighs the collateral damage. All the Best!

LD/PF:
I prefer trad cases, I listen for structure in argumentation. Make sure your contentions are clearly stated and backed. Link the contentions to your Value/Criterion or Framework. Talk clearly, specify and debate to achieve your value criterion.

No spreading.

I am not very comfortable with progressive arguments. You may try to run prog, but make sure you have a good line of reasoning.

Make sure to give voters and/or impact weighing so I can more easily vote for the round.

Policy:

I usually judge PF and LD, so I don’t have much experience in judging Policy.

I know most of you will be spreading, so I would like for you to share your case with me before round starts so I can follow along.
Don’t assume that I know all of the jargon and abbreviations, so clear them up in your first speech so I can follow along.

All debaters:

I expect all debaters to treat their opponents with respect. Above all, come with a sportive spirit and have fun.

I debate LD at La Salle in PA and I'm a senior right now

tech>truth but both are important

I love trad and Ks and trad Ks and also policy util stuff

Not a fan of weird frameworks just to be weird unless it makes sense

You can spread (speed read) just not like super fast and be clear because I am not the best at flowing

If you have any questions after the round, I will try to give the best feedback possible

As a judge, either in PFD or LD , I am looking for a good respectful debate, and please note I am traditionalist - yes circuit competitors you hate seeing this. However, the structure and format is set for a reason. Please make sure you use sound evidence and impacts should be clear, like in LD your Value should win out, please do not make this a policy round. Thank you and have a great tournament

Couple of key things which I would expect,

• Speak clearly and slowly
• Do not rush through your points
• Be appreciative of your opposite teams and give them fair chance to debate
• Have fun!

I am a new parent judge and would appreciate a clear presentation with the supporting data, facts and logic. Debate with respect for the topic and your opponents. Also, my preference is for debaters to speak in a normal flow and not "spreading". Have fun and best of luck in the tournament!

I am a new parent judge, thus I’d appreciate a clear presentation of your argument, signposting, and respect for your opponent. Please speak slowly and do not use jargon or assume that I have topic knowledge. Thank you and have fun!

Please do your best to state your definitions for the resolution. I've had it happen a couple of times where definitions weren't clear and it became a messy debate. I'm okay with definition debates where a definition in the resolution would significantly change or affect the way a resolution is interpreted. However, if they are excessively nitpicky and wouldn't significantly impact things, please try to avoid it. While definitions are important and should to an extent be debated, the framework, contentions and those impacts I believe should be the meat of the debate when possible.

I'm okay with speaking fast/spreading to an extent. Just be sure you are speaking clearly and loudly enough that we can hear you. Please do your best not to mumble.

Ensure you are citing your evidence correctly in your speeches.

Notes on etiquette:

I will, without any hesitation, give you low points and drop your case if you are rude during and immediately following the debate.

A short list of some things I find rude:

Packing your things up before the last speaker is done

Laughing/talking while the other speaker is giving their speech

Throwing things at a competitor

Just generally being a bully and unprofessional.

Team coach and experienced judge. My strengths lie with judging speech, but I am still a very competent debate judge. I am fine with any rate of speech, provided you aren't stumbling over your words if spreading. I strongly prefer organized arguments backed with clear and cited evidence. I do prefer the use of off-time roadmaps to maintain my own flow.

I am more likely to give you the round based on your ability to find and explicitly point out flaws in your opponent’s case/arguments than on the basis of an assertion that your case is simply better (aka, clearly weigh things, please). I am very good at picking up on dropped arguments/flow and bad evidence, but will not take this into account unless you explicitly mention it in your own arguments. I love clear voters. Tell me why you won! If you do that work for me, it's much more likely that I'll pick up your ballot (unless you clearly lost for other reasons).

olivia.wright@bristoltwpsd.org

I have been debating LD for three years and am a senior at State High. This is my first year judging. I am familiar with traditional LD debate and have little experience with circuit. I will be able to follow along if you speak fast. However, if you are planning on doing so, make sure that you are speaking at a REASONABLE speed and articulating enough that your opponent and I can understand you. If I can’t understand you, I will have no choice but to not count it.

I am familiar with most types of theory, and would prefer if you thoroughly explain your framework. If you drop arguments, I will not count them and will not allow you to address them again. In general, it’s just rude to do so. I prefer debaters with precise and clear impacts and weighing.

I also appreciate signposting and will allow off-time roadmaps.

I will start giving speaker points at 28. Needless to say, if you are rude to your opponent or me, or use offensive(racist, sexist, ableist, etc) language, I will take off points. Please be kind to one another.