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 not a lay judge. I participated in speech and debate when I was in high school. I qualified for nationals in both NSDA and CFL for Lincoln Douglas debate. Flow judge. I also participated in extemporaneous speech as a double entry at the national tournament. I have done congress (which were done on Friday nights before main tournaments on Saturday), impromptu, policy, and an abandoned category called Group Discussion.

In dramatic events I like to see a wide range of emotions and voices. I also like to see times close to perfect and great audience engagement. Your characters must be clear and unique and I need to see the scene you are conveying to the audience.

Hello! My name is Gi Colby. I have been on the speech and debate circuit for over 6 years. I competed in Extemp and Congress in high school, and now I compete in IPDA at the college level. Congress was my main event in high school, and I competed at the likes of Harvard and TOCs and was a finalist at GMU, Sunvitational, and Princeton. I am currently an assistant coach at Tierra Linda Middle School in California, and I work under Marty De to coach events like PF, Parli, Congress, World Schools, and informative events. My former school affiliation was Western High School, and my current university that I attend is the University of Florida.

But enough about my debate career, I would like to emphasize what I like in events.

For interpretation events such as HI and Duo, I like to be entertained. I am not so much of a technical judge with these events as I do not have much experience with them, but I do know the basics, and in general, I just want a well-polished piece that makes me feel something, and a speaker who is great as using gestures and their body language to put a piece together. I do not coach in these events, so I am not as experienced.

With informative and OO, which I do coach in, I like a piece that is meaningful and has a topic with depth. I also value organization and excellent speaking; in fact, I would go as far as to say that I value speaker quality over topic choice. I want you to change my opinion on something or teach me something new; that is the point of these events.

With impromptu, extemp, and Parli, I like a speaker who can think on the fly and is casual about it. All of these events are centered around a lay judge, meaning that the judge has no clue what you are talking about, so I want you to be able to convey and explain the topic and its points effectively. I want to go out of a round as a judge and understand what you are saying. Specifically Parli, I value a team that can "have a conversation" with the other teams' points, meaning that they refute all of the other team's points while staying clear and concise. I also am more of a flow judge in Parli if we are speaking technical terms. Again, I value a good speaker in all events, but in general, I will rank high if you are put together, speak well, and have excellent linkage.

For Congress, SPAR, and PF, the topics that I know the most about, I value refutation. These are called debate events for a reason; if you debate well, have clash, and interact with other speeches in the round well, you have my vote. If you are the first negation in Congress, I expect you to have a basic refutation if you are on the high school level. I want a person who can argue well but also remain collected and composed. I will drop you if you yell at someone else in round. Specifically for Congress, I do not give the winning rank to POs, however, I do respect them enough to give an in-between rank. For PF, I want a well-structured Final Focus, and specifically in this event, I will consider individual performance as well as team performance.

For World Schools (as it is an exception to everything here),I do tend to value the things that you are judged on, like style, content, and strategy. I like a team that is put together, and works well together as a unit, but also has great refutation and a solid framework to the round. I also value speaking more here than at other events because a team that enunciates and has pauses in the right areas is a team for me that speaks great. Like Parli, I am more of a flow judge, but more accommodating to what is going on in the structure of this event. But overall, if you speak clearly, have great points that go with my flow, and you all work cohesively as a team, you have my ballot.

In general, what I value is a good speaker who is polite and fair, but also suited to their event, meaning debate events can argue well, informative events inform me as a judge, etc. Also, I don't particularly appreciate spreading in any event, so I will not tolerate that. I am not scared to drop you if you are rude because regardless of the event, everyone should have respect for each other as basic human beings. But, just to wrap things up, I want you to be passionate about what you are talking about and convey that passion to me. Best of luck!

Name: Alexander Corzo

School Affiliation: South Plantation HS

Number of Years Judging Public Forum/LD: 6 years

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: None

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 6 years

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: None

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? All except policy

What is your current occupation? Debate Teacher/Coach

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery: Should not be spreading in PF, Ok in LD ( although I don't enjoy it) Edit for FBK2020:

Spreading is hard for me to follow and will more than likely affect my judging ( in a negative way) because I will be reading instead of listening to you speak. So, do yourself a favor and don't spread if at all possible! you can still run non-Traditional LD, as long as it's not abusive and gimmicky. (you're trying to trick and confuse your opponent)

Format of Summary Speeches Line by Line

Role of the Final Focus: Weighing

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: Required.

Topicality: Very important, don’t stray too far.

Plans: Not a PF thing, LD ok.

Kritiks: How could a lay judge follow this? So, no.

Flowing/note-taking: Essential

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Definitely argument over style.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes, I don’t flow cross, if you want credit, it needs to be in a speech.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? It’s not mandatory, but extremely helpful. Sometimes, time doesn’t allow.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Grand Cross, only under extenuating circumstances, FF, never.

I value weighing over mindless card reading. Good luck!

For LD, many of the same comments apply. I'm more of a traditional judge in LD, meaning that although I understand theory and K strategies, unless there's a really good and compelling reason to resort to these progressive strategies, I enjoy traditional LD. In other words, I find many of the "progressive strategies" to be gimmicky.

I'm a former LD and Policy debater at the college level. I'm currently a coach. I'm fine with spreading in Policy, but don't want to see it in LD. If I can't understand exactly what you are saying in LD debate, I won't consider it. Secondly, be courteous during the debate. I will deduct speaker points for rudeness.

Experience: I am a senior at the University of Iowa where I study political science, international affairs, and philosophy. I was a competitor in public forum for 6 years and was the collegiate national champion in 2018. I have experience and working knowledge with all speech and debate events. I have previously coached in Des Moines, Iowa, and for NSDA China. I am currently unaffiliated with any team, school, or individual competitors.

PF: I value accessibility. Public forum ought to be an event that is able to be understood by any member of the public. Clear, concise communication at a reasonable speed is expected ie conversational. I WILL DROP YOU IF YOU TRY TO SPREAD. Each team will be given one warning on speed in the form of a dropped pen or calling out “Speed.” If spreading/speed persists after the warning I will immediately drop the team with the most violations. (If both teams accumulate one violation in their respective constructive, the next team to violate will be dropped.) I will flow cross-examination if you make important points. I value complex arguments and respectful clash. Being rude in my rounds is a great way to lose speaker points and a round.

Important things:

- If at all possible, I would like to start rounds early. I understand that's not always possible or teams need to prep, so I'm just appreciative if we do start early. No problem if you need to take your time though.

- While in evidence exchange, I expect all students to have their hands on screen and mics unmuted to ensure that time is not used for prep.

- Summaries should SUMMARIZE the round.

- FF should Crystalize not line by line, give me impact calculus and weighing. Impact calc within every speech is most persuasive.

- Summaries and FF should have voters not line by line.

TL;DR, Be respectful, conversational, bring solid evidence and analysis to my rounds and you’ll do fine.

LD/CX: Pretty much anything goes. I absolutely prefer arguments that are directly resolutional (ie not a fan of certain Ks, love me some T and theory though) but if the debate goes a certain way, it is not my place to wrangle it. LARP is chill. On the rare occasion, I may ask you to slow down a little bit or clear you, but that will not be weighed against you. I'm almost always good with speed. I prefer competitors disclose to ensure flow clarity. I will flow cross-examination if you make important points.

Critical arguments should provide substantial evidence for their support. Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples, no paraphrasing. Make sure arguments have a purpose or illustration for the case at hand. The focus should be winning the debate, not just attacking a persons style or flaws of methods. Remember that in order to win a round, respect towards your opponent is paramount. It is hard to find in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent.

uf student

lay judge

Debated all four years of high school but way back in the day.

Email chain: michellemally@ufl.edu

Bluekey edit: I’m not familiar with the topic. If you’re one of the first rounds, please explain the topic and don’t use jargon.

**All preferences are negotiable. I’ll use my best judgment, and you should too.

Particular preferences:

• PF is not Policy. Don’t treat it like Policy. I want warrants, thorough arguments, and solid impacts. Don’t throw out taglines or big numbers, I see right through it.

• No spreading. I can follow speed easily, but if you’re gasping for air in between your sentences, run another case.

• DO NOT FALSIFY EVIDENCE. I will call for the big ticket cards at the end of the round. I will intervene if your evidence is dodgy. However, I expect you to be hyper-vigilant and cautious about what your opponents are running. Call for evidence you don’t trust. I have high respect for indicts; I have little respect for false evidence.

• I’m not a fan of theory or Ks. I think it disadvantages teams who prepared for this topic. I am not the judge to run it on, unless it’s funny in which case go for it.

• I like a good crossfire. Definitely will help speaks, and use it to your advantage.

Other than that, I’m pretty straight forward. Please weigh. If it’s not in summary don’t bother adding it in FF. Don’t extend through ink, I won’t flow it. Explain the arguments you extend. Use summary to collapse and don’t go for everything. Communicate with your partners on strategy and use your prep wisely. If there’s defense on your evidence and you don’t respond, I’m dropping it. Don’t be rude to your opponents. Don’t say anything offensive or flagrant. Signpost because I'm not perfect and I will get confused. Straightforward stuff.

Speaker points:

I’ll give 30 speaks all around for a good ole Emory Shift.

+1 speaker points for adding in a UF/miami reference. If it’s bad, I’m docking 1. Proceed with caution.

I’m pretty generous with speaks, but a perfect 30 is going to have to be flawless.

Hey guys! I'm a freshman at the UF double majoring in Neuroscience and Data Science. I did PF for all four years in high school.

A couple of things:

• I'm flowing and I can handle speed but don't spread and make sure you're clear.
• I don't usually call for evidence but I will if you ask me too

• Please collapse and extend warrants and links clearly (especially in summary and final).
• Comparatively weigh your arguments starting asap in the round and have that extended through speeches. If you don't weigh, I'll have to do it for you and you prob don't want me to do that.
• I don't flow cross so if something happened in cross that you want me to evaluate, put it in your speech
• tech>truth but no prog debate please

If you make me laugh and make Taylor Swift references, you get 30 speaks

Also, be nice to your opponents!

If you have questions, ask me in round or email me at manzatovictoria@gmail.com

Please add me to the email chain:firstseeker@gmail.com

• I've never debated. My experience in PF comes from coaching my son and judging over the last year.
• Please don't spread. Conversational speed is appreciated
• Signposting and off-time roadmaps are encouraged/appreciated
• Be respectful in cross and don't interrupt/talk over each other.
• Cross is very important, so I will definitely be listening. However, please weigh/extend during summary/FF so I can be sure to put it all together.
• Please keep your own time. I will be timing as well.
• Body language, eye contact, and enunciation are important
• Relaxed, light-hearted, and even humor if the situation calls for it is all good.
• Please collapse on your arguments.

If you have any specific questions, you could ask me before the round or email me at firstseeker@gmail.com

I am always amazed by how smart you all are and how well you debate. Thank you for allowing me the privilege to be here.

Tldr:

Good =conversational speed, collapse, signpost, weigh/extend, good form/body language/enunciation

Bad =Spread, disrespectful, ignoring time, bad form/body language/enunciation

Hello, my name is Cynthia and I am a parent judge.

I am looking forward to hearing your arguments and being persuaded by them. Always enjoyed a good debate!

Please be creative, use strong sources and above all be respectful and courteous. I am a scientist by trade and strongly believe in a well-constructed argument based on clear evidence. I will look for logic, but also for conviction and passion in your delivery.

Please go slow and speak clearly – Debate is a great form of communication, but if I cannot follow you or understand you well, then I won’t be able to appreciate the strength of your argument.

Have fun!

If you're reading this before a PF round consider: skip to the bolded "this is a note for PF" which is about my views on evidence. Otherwise do what you want in round; have fun, go crazy. Read the rest of the paradigm if you have time, but it's mostly about LD/Policy.

General Thoughts:

1. I encourage you to ask me specific questions before the round. Asking me general questions (EG: "How would you describe your paradigm", etc.) before the round won't prompt me to give you very helpful answers. Just be specific with your questions and we'll be good, I'm happy to answer any questions I can. If you have questions that are going to determine or guide your strategy in round then ask them! But I'm not great at summarizing all my thoughts for you on the spot.

2. Tech over truth in nearly every regard, I want to see your arguments and responses to opponents'. Give me clear, evidenced links to support impact scenarios and narrativize them well. I will avoid judge intervention in almost all cases and to the extreme. That is to say, to put yourself in the best position to win I want to see you clearly defend and weigh your points because I will not weigh them for you. I will not automatically default to one position over another when given no reasons to prefer. From a strategic standpoint, it is in your best interest to give me a framework by which to evaluate your impacts even if that framework is localized to weighing your impact.

3.Extensions through ink are usually okay- if it's something critical to your round strategy, especially if it interacts with your opponents' case (e.g. a turn) you shouldprobably be doing at least a little more than this. If you're making an argument that I should invalidate or eliminate entire components of what your opponent has read/said in round, it makes sense to give me at least a brief warrant for why each clust of arguments should be dropped- why does your defense apply toall the things you say it does? Why would I group those arguments that way? Make sure you're implicating and warranting effectively here.

4. I'm always happy to answer questions and listen to concerns/criticisms of my decisions afterwards. I want to get better and so do you, why not help each other. However, I will not change my decision, even if you convince me I've made the wrong one- the best you'll get is a "huh, you're right."

5.THIS IS A NOTE FOR PF. If it takes you longer than 15 seconds to find a card that you claim to have, I will ask you if you want to run YOUR prep time to find it. If you say "yes" then carry on, but maybe consider familiarizing yourself with your evidence so you can find it quicker. If you say "no" then that evidence won't "exist" until you demonstrate that it's real (which could include reading it in the next speech, though that might be too late if your opponents speak between when you cite it and then). Obviously I will be understanding if there are technical difficulties (IE internet cutting out, computer crashing) which I have been made aware of.

Also, while we're on evidence in PF, sending just like, a link to a website isn't great. If your opponent doesn't interact with it I will probably take you at face value, but know that there is a chance (slight) that I will, unprompted, click your link and read the article and if it says something other than what you claimed then I will intervene to vote against you because of this. I won't do this with a cut card unless someone in the round makes it an issue. TL;DR: If you're sending just hyperlinks to articles make sure they say what you claim.

Speed: Sure. I can keep up as long as you are able to maintain clarity. I will call speed if you go too fast, and I encourage you to call speed on your opponent if they are going too fast for you. I will begin docking speaker points on the third time I have to call speed, and if your opponent calls a third time you should expect a good hit to your speaker points. This isn't necessarily a voting issue for me (unless your opponent makes it a voting issue). I definitely want to be on the speechdrop/email chain (though I prefer speechdrop). mightybquinn@gmail.com.

AFF: I prefer topical AFFs. I am open to listening to an engaging K AFF (or if your opponent doesn't call T then I guess run whatever you want, obviously), but I would still prefer to listen to a topical AFF. I strongly prefer AFFs that include a plan text of some sort (even if it's a vague/open-ended plan text). I don't like the idea of "reserve the right to clarify" but I understand it's functionality given time constraints. Don't clarify in an utterly unreasonable way (my threshold is pretty high here).

T: Topicality is a stock issue, and as such I will vote on it if it's won. I don't particularly enjoy listening to T arguments, but who really does. I don't particularly love definitions (I.E. "substantial"), unless the original definitions are completely misrepresenting the words of the resolution/rule/etc. That being said, competing interpretations has been doing well in front of me recently so I would hardly call it unviable. Upholding your standards is pretty much the most important thing to do to win T in front of me. You can make your voter "NFA-LD rules" if you want, but there needs to be an articulated voter on T for me to vote on it. I default reasonability, but really I strongly prefer one or both debaters to give me a FW. I will evaluate T on whatever FW is given to me by the debaters. NOTE: My threshold for voting on T is lower than it was my first two years judging, if you happen to remember/have heard that I would not vote on Topicality.

Theory: Pretty much the same as my T paradigm. I'll listen to theoretical positions, just give me some clear standards if you want to win that position in front of me. I default drop the argument if you don't read a warrant for why I should drop the debater, but I believe fundamentally that theory comes first, so it doesn't need to be a great warrant. Clear in-round abuse stories tied to theory arguments, especially those focused on research burden and unfair ground have been successful in front of me in the past, but I don't perceive myself as being uniquely drawn to them. I don't mind Neg debaters running Disclosure Theory against Affs, but unless the Neg runs a CP or an Alt I don't think Affs running Disclosure Theory against Negs is a viable strategy in front of me if the Neg DOES run a CP or Alt then suddenly Disclosure is a viable aff position. (NOTE: this is for LD, for PF aff's can run disclosure theory, it is viable in that realm).

Disclosure in PF is a fine theory position to run in front of me, but I will not vote for it on principle alone. I DO generally think disclosure is a good norm that should be adopted into PF, but that being said, you need to have clear standards, voters and weighing on a theory argument to win. My desire to not intervene in a round far outweighs my desire to punish teams for not disclosing. A role of the ballot framing is also a good strategy in any context if you're going for theory and if you're defending against a position like this then having a counter framework is also a good idea.

I will vote on conceded RVI's but the threshold for voting on an RVI that's been effectively defended against is probably fairly high. "Don't vote for an RVI" is not enough defense. Explain to me literally any reason to not vote for the RVI.

CP: I don't have a strong personal predilection to voting on conditionality one way or the other, but I conceptually dislike conditional CP's a lot- that being said, it's not a strong enough dislike for it to matter unless someone in round forces my hand. "Condo Bad" arguments are viable in front of me but by no means will they always win. Perms of the CP need to be actually explained to me. Just hearing "both" won't be a winning position in front of me. I will evaluate the plan vs. CP debate in pretty much the same way that I evaluate the SQ vs. plan debate unless one side offers a different FW. I am okay with the Neg going for CP and SQ in the NR, but I feel like the strategy is risky given that you have to split your time between both positions.

K: I love critical arguments and I was a critical scholar professionally, but don't necessarily expect me to be read up on all of the literature (though I may surprise you). I'm okay with generic links to the AFF, but I definitely like to see good impact calculus if your argument is reliant on a generic link; I need one or the other to be strong for your K to have a chance in a round. I need to know why the impacts of the K outweigh or precede the impacts of the AFF. I prefer Alternatives that have some type of action, but am open to other types of Alts as well. I don't particularly love hearing alts that say we need to theoretically engage in some different type of discourse unless there's a clear plan for what "engaging in X discourse" looks like in the real world (which can include within the debate round at hand, but might have more). Particularly, I enjoy hearing alternatives that call for the debaters in the round to engage in discourse differently (I think this is the easiest type of Alt to defend). Even if the Alternative is to simply drop the AFF in-round, that is enough "real world" implementation of a theoretical Alt for me.

Clarification: K debate is not the absence of tech- you still need to demonstrate a link an impact even if those things take a different form or are about different things than they would be in a more traditional arg.

DA: Not much to say here. Give me a good DA story and if you are winning it by the end of the round then I'll probably vote on it. Definitely remember to do weighing between the DA and the AFF though because there's always a good chance that I won't vote on your DA if you can't prove it outweighs any unsuccessfully contested Advantages of the Aff. DA's with no weighing are only a little better than no DA at all.

Solvency: A terminal solvency deficit is usually enough of a reason for me to vote against the aff BUT I need this extended as a reason to vote. You can always say that it's try-or-die, tell me there's a risk of solvency and sure, I'll still grant you that begrudgingly (unless you've really lost the solvency debate). If you're getting offense somewhere else good for you, I'll still vote on that; so like, if your case falls but you have a turn on a CP or an RVI on T or something those are still paths to the ballot. This note is here because I've seen a few rounds where the aff just sort of says "they have at best a terminal no solvency argument" and like- that's enough for them. That's what neg needs at the minimum to win the round.

I am a parent judge of a 7th and 9th grader at American Heritage school in Palm Beach Florida. I have never competed as a student, however I've judged debate since 2019 when my first child started middle school.. I judge pretty much every month for our school in Palm beach County and I enjoy contributing to this amazing after school program. I am able to judge speech as well as congress, PF and LD.

I am observant and tend to be impartial based on evidence presented. I listen carefully and try to refrain from imposing my own perspectives, beliefs and philosophy. Note taking is a tool I use readily when judging congress, PF and LD. Oratory speeches can be determined as I go and usually placement ranking determined easily during sessions. Debate skill is highly valued by way of a student's creativity vs truthful arguments. However, truthful arguments, if they outweigh should be supported by referenced materials, statistics , quotes etc. to provide credibility and hard substantial relevance. The evidence and counters are used as tools to cure positions of opposing sides.

Open to Policy making legislative model, weighing advantages vs disadvantages. Hypothesis testing of any social science model where a negative position can put the affirmative position to the test.

Political topics, environmental problems or concerns, Economic shifts with strained relationships with the US, Free trade policies, Human Rights, Terrorism, etc. are some heavy and controversial topics I welcome..

Evaluating solvency arguments of Counterproductivity, Insufficiency and Impracticality are some types of arguments I have been challenged by and many times enjoyed the discourse students provide in their arguments.

Points are generally awarded on skill, but conduct, rudeness, offensive commentary, prejudicial statements and lack of respect will generally impose point deductions. Allowing consideration for opposing teams to complete thoughts is generally considered in awarding points.

Hi friends! My name is Rhea Nandwani. (she/her) I am a sophomore at UF studying psychology, criminology, and sociology. I competed on the national circuit for 5 years and coached for my high school's debate team last year.

With that being said, here are a few things I like as a flow judge:

• first and foremost, please do your part to make debate a safe, educational environment. don't be sexist, homophobic, islamaphobic, xenophobic, racist, ableist, etc. If you are, I will drop you and tank your speaks. this is a zero-tolerance policy.

• as an extension of the first bullet point, you must read trigger warnings for any sensitive arguments related to identity, mental health, or structural violence. this is basic human decency. If not, I will evaluate tw theory- this is the only time I’ll invite theory. For non-graphic arguments, you just need to read a TW. For graphic arguments, you need a TW and an opt out. Opt out through anonymous google forms.

• I do not believe that theory or non-topical kritiks belong in Public Forum. Please do not run it with me as a judge. I will, however, always evaluate topical frameworks/ks. Again, tw theory is fine to run with me when there has been a violation. You can also read IVIs with me.

• make sure everything you want me to vote on is in summary or final focus. tell me why you are winning.

• please implicate and weigh turns

• please collapse

• I would like to see all the evidence shared in round. I will only consider it in my decision, however, if you tell me to in your speeches.

• I can handle speed, but if you spread I can't promise that I will catch everything you say; send docs for accessibility purposes if you are speaking over 950 words in 4 minutes.

• weighing is the key to winning rounds. please interact with your opponents' weighing.

• second rebuttal must frontline.

• defense is sticky for the first speaking team (just extend it/talk about it in final)

• postround me all you want. I want to answer your questions so that I can be a better judge

• i am never going to factor cross into my decision. if something significant happens in cross, please point it out to me in a speech if you want me to consider it in my decision. lowkey probably gonna be on my phone during cross.

• i default to first speaking team absent weighing or any path to the ballot

• I think speaker points based on presentation are stupid. I will never evaluate speaker points based on how 'well'/loud you speak or how 'clear' you are. What you are wearing/how you look does not matter to me either. Literally, in round, feel free to take off your blazer/heels/tie. Be yourself. Instead, I will evaluate speaker points based on strategic decisions made in round and quality of responses/arguments.

• please let me know if there is absolutely anything I can do to make debate a safer/more fun/more educational experience for you. I am happy to talk to you before/after rounds to support you in any way I can. Debate is scary and hard at times, but talking about it can make a difference. Feel free to contact me with questions or concerns at rheavnandwani@gmail.com

• Lastly, I know it is difficult, but TRY to HAVE FUN! At the end of the day, this is just a debate round. Your intelligence or worth is not dictated by your success at tournaments. In addition, regardless of your records at tournaments, you are learning and growing just through the time you put into preparing topics. You are doing great!

• i would love it if you include a reference to music artists or tv shows hehe

• Good luck:) you got this:)

Quality over quantity. Less is more.

I prefer to hear a few studied arguments presented within a developed story delivered with passion and confidence while being backed up with statistics rather than a barrage of statistics and narrative quotes.

It is encouraged to be yourself and allow your convictions (developed or personal) to show in your presentation.

I am a lay judge. I try to vote off the flow, but I am not well versed in technical or meta-theory debate (I also just don't respect that game). Please avoid debate jargon. If I don't understand what you are saying, it is harder for me to vote on it. Don't spread or talk too fast (200 wpm is the max where I can still catch everything you say). Be respectful in cross. I will not tolerate Ad Hominem attacks (attacks against your opponent and not their argument). I do not like theory arguments that are off topic and trying to be "clever" to win on technicalities. I will likely not vote on it, especially if you are abusing it.

LD: Please make your value and value criterion clear and carry them throughout the round. I prefer more traditional LD arguments. If you are going to try to tell me that mass extinction is good, for example, it better have some hard evidence and strong logic backing it up.

PF: Make sure your arguments all make logical sense. I probably will not vote on kritiks or weird theory. I prefer you have evidence to back up your claims, but it is not always needed for logical arguments. I want you to sign my ballot for me. If I am left with a confusing round and have to infer things for myself, it will likely not go in your favor. Please present me with clear impacts and carry them throughout the round.

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 was a debater throughout college (3 years) and now work as an assistant coach (2 years) so I am very familiar with debate terminology and rules.

I don't mind a fast pace to the debate but make sure you are talking slow enough that I can follow and flow your arguments. No spreading.

Impacts matter to me. Make sure to demonstrate why your argument is significant. Give me clear reasons to vote and why those reasons are preferable to your opponents.

I prefer a clear, evidenced-based debate.

Don't let my experience fool you into thinking I like fast, jargony debates.

Use an email chain - include me (lizannwood@hotmail.com) on it, and be honest about the evidence. Paraphrasing is one of my biggest pet peeves. (Post-rounding and making me wait for endless exchanges of evidence are the others).

I will leave my camera on, so you can see me. You can trust you have my full attention, and if connectivity issues affect any of the speeches, I'll audibly interrupt you and stop the timer till connections improve (within reason, of course).

If the timer is stopped, no one is prepping.

Avoid talking over each other online -it makes it impossible for your judges to hear either of you.

Don't be rude or condescending. You can be authoritative while also being polite.

Experience:

Mountain Brook Schools Director of Speech and Debate 2013 - current

Mountain Brook High School debate coach 2012-2013

Thompson High School policy debater 1991-1995