Lay Judge

Limited experience judging PF. No experience judging LD.

Speak slowly and clearly.

Hey everyone, I'm Ely.

In high school, I primarily competed in traditional LD and championed NCFL. Now I debate parli for Yale.

Please include me on the email chain: elyaltman@gmail.com

I agree with pretty much everything Anthony Berryhill says.

GENERAL:

Run what you want. I'll do my best to evaluate it. Communication comes first though. If I can't understand your arguments and warrants, that's on you, and I have no problem making that my RFD.

I like it when debaters collapse effectively on arguments. Crystallizing the round goes a long way with me. I also like to see debaters cede the true parts of their opponent's case but give nuanced analysis on why they outweigh.

Humor is always appreciated and will boost speaks.

Short Prefs:

traditional debate - 1

Ks and phil - 2 if explained well but 4 if it's incomprehensible. always better to err on the side of explaining.

LARP- 2

T/theory- 3 this is generally boring to me, but I'll certainly vote on well-warranted/egregious violations. Also fair warning: I'm inexperienced with T. Run it if you need to, but make it easy for me to understand/vote for you.

Tricks - 4/strike.

Traditional LD:

Here's how I will vote: I decide debates through layers. Framework, observations, burdens, etc are all crucial to structuring the debate. I look to what operates at the highest ground, decide who won that point, and move to the next layer. Thus, it would benefit you to try to structure the debate in such a way that you have a win condition.

Here are some things that’ll make voting for you easier for me.

1. ENGAGE WITH FRAMEWORK. Weigh frameworks against each other. Even better if y’all haven’t agreed on a FW yet, tell me how you win under both your FW and your opponents (if you do this, I’ll boost your speaks).

2. Weigh. Weigh. Weigh. If you don’t weigh offense, I have to guess at the end of the round whose impacts are more important. You don’t want that because it makes the round very subjective on my end. Instead, go the extra mile, avoid that, and tell me explicitly why your offense is more important than your opponents.

3. Please do extensions correctly. Do not just say "extend my second contention" or "extend Warren 13" and then move on. Extend the ev or arg, rebut any arguments they made, explain the impact of the extension, and THEN move on. If you don't do them correctly, I won't feel comfortable voting on them. The only exception is that because the 1AR is more time-pressured, I'll be a bit more lenient there.

4. I like numbered responses and overviews. They make the debate easier for me to flow/understand.

5. Round narrative is very important. Don’t lose sight of what this debate is really about because you’re too busy focusing on an irrelevant tangent that won’t factor into my decision. Tell me overall why your world is better than your opponents. Tell me who you help, why they need help, why you’re the person that best helps them, and why that matters. That’s how to win in front of me.

6. Voter issues. Do them. It makes evaluating the debate much easier. A bit of advice. Negative, if you correctly predict what the Aff voters will be in NR and tell me why I shouldn’t vote for it, that’s a great strategic move, and I’ll boost speaks. Affirmative, in the 2ar, interact with the Neg voters, and I’ll boost speaks. They literally just handed you on a silver platter the arguments they’re hoping to win. So attack or (better yet) turn their voters! Outweigh their voters with yours!

Progressive LD:

I can evaluate circuit debate but don't enjoy it.

Things I like: warranted out link chains & probability>magnitude weighing. Also, I will always prefer logical analytics over poorly contextualized evidence. Lastly, please weigh.

Things I dislike: when debaters read literature they don't understand and can't make comprehensible in round, shady disclosure, friv theory, etc.

Speed: I probably wouldn't be able to flow finals TOC, but with that said, I can handle decent levels of speed. We should be good if there's a doc.

PF:

Tech > Truth. Speed is fine. Don't drop links. Run whatever you what--if it's done well you'll win. All my thoughts on traditional LD apply to PF.

Your job is to persuade me, and that requires effective communication. I strongly disfavor spreading, pressured speech, and fast-paced speaking characteristic of the progressive debate style.

You know your arguments. Put the computer down and speak to me like a normal person. Do not read your case to me. Make eye contact. Educate me on your worldview using the speaking style you would with a real person and persuade me!

Coach for 20 years- judged all events. Important- link of claims back to value structure, moderate speaking pace is very much appreciated. I flow rounds and use the flow to guide my decision but do not drop debaters just for not extending all arguments cleanly. I like to hear logical fallacies called out as much as I like to hear logic employed in a round.

Current Experience:

Co-Advisor for Marvin Ridge HS Speech & Debate Club

Parent of Cuthbertson HS Speech Student

Have been judging as a parent and an advisor for 2 years now (LD, PF & Speech)

Spanish & French Teacher, National Honor Society Advisor

Previous Experience:

Directed HS theatre program & taught a speech course (also HS level)

Managed a business for 15 years

Values:

DEBATE: I value good delivery and awareness of the audience for debate events. No "spreading" please. Make good use of your cross-fires, be respectful. Interesting and innovative contentions can be stimulating, but make sure that you have good citations to ground in reality, not speculation.

SPEECH: For speech, I have no hold-ups for possible "triggers" in material. I will react as an audience member. I value good use of evidence and organized delivery, especially for info, extemp, impromptu, etc. Random movement and pacing is a distractor. Always happy to enjoy a great speech or performance!

I take contemporaneous notes, so they will flow in the order of your speech, from execution comments to suggestions, and analysis of structure. I am happy to give immediate verbal feedback to all competitors to help with any improvements that can be made, if time allows.

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Charlotte Latin School. I coach a full team and have coached all events.

Email Chain: bbutt0817@gmail.com - This is largely for evidence disputes, as I will not flow off the doc.

Currently serve on the Public Forum Topic Wording Committee, and have been since 2018.

----Lincoln Douglas----

1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.

2. Am ok with speed/spreading but should only be used for depth of coverage really.

3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks

4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:

----Public Forum-----

- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater but don't use speed unless you have too.**

- I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that, with some humor and panache.

- I have a high threshold for theory arguments to be valid in PF. Unless there is in round abuse, I probably won’t vote for a frivolous shell. So I would avoid reading most of the trendy theory arguments in PF.

5 Things to Remember…

1. Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.

2. Framework

I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.

3. Extensions

Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense extensions to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech which may include early defense extensions.

4. Evidence

Paraphrasing is ok, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. Make sure to extend evidence in late round speeches.

5. Narrative

Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

I am a relatively new parent judge. I ask that you speak slowly and clearly. No spreading please. If I can't understand what you're saying, I won't be able to judge the merits of your case.

Good sportsmanship will also be appreciated. Good luck and have fun!

I would prefer everybody to be respectful, and enjoy information driven arguments over being fast and overly persuasive

Hi!

My paradigm is pretty standard to what I believe congressional debate should be so feel free to ask me any questions before a round.

Background

I competed in congressional debate for 3 years in the Carolina West district. I made it to quarters at Harvard, finals at Duke, fourth in my district in senate, and finals at the North Carolina state tournament. I also made it to triple octas at Nationals in World Schools debate in 2019 and double octas in 2020. I currently attend North Carolina State University (go pack!) and I'll be attending Duke Law in the Fall so if you can fit in any silly or snarky comments about UNC (where appropriate!!) it'll be appreciated.

Constructive Expectations

First and foremost, your job is to walk me through the piece of legislation. Assume I have no knowledge of the bill itself.

-First Aff: I expect that you give me an explanation of the problem and how advocating for this piece of legislation solves this issue. I don't expect (but I'm not opposed to) refutation from your speech.

-First Neg: I do expect refutation from you and every speaker to come after you. I will have the expectation that you will walk me through the problem with advocating for this bill and how not doing anything to solve the problem the affirmative introduces will be better.

Refutation

-Every speech after the 1st affirmative should have refutation. I don't care how you organize it into your speech as long as it is clear that you are interacting with what other speakers have said in round.

-I don't, however, consider just listing the last names of previous speakers refutation. If you are going to tell me that what Representative/Senator ____ said is wrong, I expect that you tell me why it is wrong.

-I prefer more refutation from later round speeches as this prevents you from giving rehash points. You have also heard more speeches before you so you should have more to refute.

Impacts

-Impacts are huge. You need to go beyond a cause and effect and explain to me why that effect is so critical whether it be bad or good.

Evidence

-I love a good piece of case destroying evidence as much as the next judge but I do expect you to go beyond just your evidence. I don't care if you spent all week hunting for as many pieces of evidence as you could find. I'd much rather you give me one or two and give me an in depth analysis of that evidence and follow it up with an impact.

Delivery/Rhetoric

-I will not fault you for stumbles in your speech. Fluency comes with practice but I do expect that you will be able to maintain your composure and continue speaking.

-I'm a fan of cheesy intros and jokes throughout your speech as long as it is appropriate with what your speech is about.

-I do not recommend spitting out rhetoric that everyone uses. If I hear you telling me that affirming this bill is like putting a bandaid over a bullet hole expect a heavy eye roll. I've heard it before and I'm sure I'll hear it again. This is not creative and, more often than not, feels more like filler words in between what you're really trying to say.

-Just because you are capable of shouting your entire speech does not mean you should. Your speech should have an ebb and flow of emphasizing what is important and backing off on what is not.

Questioning

-I expect to see interaction and involvement in the chamber but asking 10 shallow questions just to ask a question isn't worth it. I would rather you ask 4 or 5 difficult to answer questions. That being said if no one is asking questions and you stand to ask some I will appreciate it. This is a debate event. Not a speech event.

-While I do prefer you don't begin to scream or yell over the other speaker, if it is clear they are dodging your question or trying to give an extra speech feel free to cut them off. However, I should not feel like I'm watching a cage match.

-Avoid prefacing. The NSDA has not explicitly banned this but I personally believe that disadvantages the speaker and is simply a lazy way to ask questions.

Presiding

-I expect that you do keep a correct precedence and recency chart and may ask to check it if I feel like something is wrong. I will leave you alone otherwise.

-I will not drop you for the occasional slip up as long as you correct it. Honestly, if you don't majorly screw up, you'll get my top eight, maybe even six.

-I will be keeping my own time, as well as precedence and recency. If I notice an issue that is not called out I may not say anything but I will mark it on your ballot. Unless it is a repeated issue or I notice a pattern it probably won't affect your ranking too much.

Misc.

-Do not rehash.

-I won't drop you if I see you were trying to get called on but didn't. I will judge you on the speeches you give.

-While I understand there will not be an even split on every bill, after a while there are only so many speeches I want to hear on the same side. I'd much rather you give me a slightly less prepared aff rather than the 4th neg in a row.

-Above all, have fun with it. Some people may be able to debate in college but not all so enjoy the time you have. Don't take yourself too seriously and be open to the possibility of not everything going your way.

WSD Paradigm General

-In my experience, WSD is not meant to be very technical. It's not PF or Policy and I expect you treat it as such.

-Keep a world view when making arguments. Don't make your entire case about this US.

-Don't spread. If you start to spread I will put my pen down and just stare at you until you finish. WSD is meant to be more conversational.

-Try to avoid debate jargon? I may understand some of it but maybe not all of it so try to avoid using it.

-Careful with POIs. I've seen rounds where people will take either too many or none at all and it can absolutely break your case.

-Provide clear road maps before you begin your speeches please. It helps me to flow and keep track of the round.

Quickest way to be dropped

I have enjoyed my career in debate for the four years I was able to participate in it. However, I as well as many others, have had their fair share of rude remarks thrown my way. I have absolutely zero tolerance for this. Racism, homophobia, xenophobia, sexism, ableism, and transphobia have no place in Speech and Debate and any of this will put you on the very bottom of my rankings. I expect that everyone is treated with equal respect and dignity.

Speak calmly and clearly: Take a deep breath at the start and deliver your arguments clearly. If you go too fast and I cannot understand what you’re saying, it’s the same as you not saying it. Quality is better than quantity. Thank you!

Do not interrupt your opponents: Debate is about each team having the opportunity to present, ask questions in cross, and respond to the questions asked in cross.

I am the Speech and Debate Coach at Carolina Day School in Asheville, NC.

Our program at Carolina Day focuses on Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, and some speech events. In competition, I primarily judge Lincoln-Douglas.

I will always be flowing debates and will be familiar with the topics. I hear a lot of debates and can handle speed, but speed cannot come at the expense of clarity. If I can’t understand what you are saying and get it down on the flow, I won’t be able to weigh it later in the round.

I value frameworks in PF. If you don’t have a framework in the constructive, I will assume we are employing a cost-benefit analysis.

I judge primarily on a traditional local circuit. I'm open to progressive argumentation, but it will need to be clearly explained and clearly connected to the topic.

Each team will be in charge of timing the round. I will not time.

I will flow; make sure you are providing links/warrants/impacts. If I'm not making eye contact it's because I'm making sure the flow enables me to be unbiased in my decision.

Speaker points will not only be based on how well you argue your case, but how you conduct yourself in terms of professionalism and the courtesy you show to your opponents.

less is more: spreading makes you look desperate. Hammer your key points and extend. I'm not a fan of the direct pleas or demands to the judge: ie "judge you must vote for us because of..."

I will always give feedback in my RFD so there is a clear understanding of the decision.

most of all: have fun! I admire all of you so much for your commitment to an extremely advanced and demanding extracurricular.

Me
I have been teaching and coaching speech and debate for 13 years, and I currently help coach the AHS/SILSA Speech & Debate team. I am a lover of the written and spoken word who fell hard for forensics. I received my BA in English from Florida Atlantic University, and have judged local and national debate tournaments including out-rounds at Harvard, The Glenbrooks, Emory, The Tradition, Bronx, Sunvite and The Cal Invitational (Mostly LD, but also scores of speech and other debate event rounds).

General Paradigm
I am open to whatever kind of position you would like to run, but clarity and weighing is essential in fleshing-out arguments and my decision-making process. That being said, I do appreciate when debaters explain complex theory arguments. I grasp and enjoy K debate. I also do not retain details of all the obscure literature I've heard about. Just because it is a commonly used concept in competitive debate, don't assume that I understand how it interacts with your position. Explain stuff!!!

Speed/Delivery
I can follow most speeds.
I flow. Please slow down on authors and tags.

Speaker Points
I think that speaker points are unnecessarily arbitrary; I also know that giving every debater in a round 30s skews results. As such, I use speaker points as a rank. If you are the best debater in the round, you will get 29 points(30 will be reserved for a truly stunning performance), second best, 28.5 points, etc. I will only give you below a 26 in a round if I am offended about an argument or action in the round.

Policy Debate: I have only judged a handful of national policy tournaments. I understand the structure and basic principles, but much of the jargon is foreign to me, and explanation may be necessary to obtain my ballot.

I've been judging LD debate since the fall of 2000. I prefer more conversation delivery as opposed to spread. I still put a lot of weight into framework arguments vs my card is better than your card arguments. Speaking of that it is possible to persuade without a card if using a common sense argument it then falls upon the opponent to use common sense to rebut the argument rather than just: "My opponent doesn't have a card for that." This does not apply to specific amounts. For example, if you were to claim that Mossism has 50,000 adherents, I'd need a card. Common sense arguments follow lines of basic logic. Also, please please please please Signpost as you go down the flow.

Good luck with your rounds. I look forward to a fair and friendly debate. Keep the following in mind:

-Avoid technical terms -provide guidance through your points and explain your case clearly.

-Please expand acronyms at least once

-No spreading and make sure to sign post

-Avoid running Theory or Ks. If you chose to, be as clear as possible or just explain

-I will vote for the side that provides the best logical arguments with warrants to back it up!

Please be polite during the rounds. Any inappropriate arguments (racist, sexist) will get you dropped.’

Email is den.85085@gmail.com

Hello, my name is Jack and I participated in LD debate at Ardrey Kell ('20). I mainly competed in traditional LD rounds, but progressive/circuit LD was always something I found interesting. That being said, I'm probably not the best judge to have for a progressive given my lack of experience competing and judging the event.

Speed: Talk fast or talk slow, I'm not really fussed about it as long as it's coherent enough for me to follow. For debate events (especially LD), if you do choose to spread:

a) Be mindful of your opponent (if applicable) and how they feel (pretty douchey to run a 7 off against a novice), it could become a problem.

b) You must speak coherently or I'll stop flowing after a warning or 2

Presentation: Show some energy! Presenting a monotone speech may not leave the best impression, so use inflection where you see fit as it'll likely enhance the message you're trying to get across.

Other Stuff:

1) Warrants and Impacts. Don't bother dumping a bunch of cards into a case if you're not going to explain their importance. Help your judge help you. If we can't assess the impacts of your evidence, it may be hard to give your arguments the credit they deserve.

2) Weighing.Please weigh arguments. Without weighing, a debate can easily just sound like a bunch of issues and statistics scrambled into short speeches. This makes a debate hard to evaluate objectively. Make your judge's life easier by explaining why your arguments hold more weight relative to your opponent's

3) Framework. Personally not the biggest fan, but it can make for very interesting debates. Run util until your brain explodes if that's your style, but run it right. I'm not well versed on super dense philosophical arguments, but if that's your style then go for it (as long as you can make it make sense to me in the relatively short time you'll have in the round).

4) Be respectful and mindful of your competitors and judges. Any racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, etc. is a no-go and you'll auto-drop.

5) Feel free to hammer plans, counterplans, disads, etc. if you have me as a judge. But please do it in a way where it's not super abusive toward the aff/pro. If you run a super, super specific counterplan (i.e., ban a certain policy in every country except Tuvalu) and respond to every aff argument by saying it fits under your counterplan, it does feel like you're disengaging from the debate. So be careful.

6) Run fun arguments! Judging can get dull when you hear the same 2-3 arguments every round, so don't be afraid to mix it up if you feel like you found something interesting that others might've missed. Briefs cover a lot of topic ground, but please don't limit yourself to that since it's lazy and uninspiring.

Background

I'm a 3 time NSDA/NCFL qualifier and now coach LD. I like this stuff - fun, isn't it?

General Preferences

If you won this round, you probably 1. gave me a coherent lens through which I can gauge what is important and 2. weaved a story of the round using that lens. LD is about creative weighing, much like how we interact with complicated ideas in the real world - we don't just do an in-depth cost-benefit analysis each time we make a decision, we apply multiple standards and evaluative measures to reach a conclusion (often totally subconsciously).

Basically - I should be doing as little work as possible. I don't want to intervene or even really think when judging an LD round. If you make the story clear to me, I'll vote for you.

Speed

I can handle any speed, but nobody can handle you being incoherent - I'll give you a good ol' fashioned "clear" if you're attempting to go faster than you're capable of going. Good rule of thumb: if you feel like it's necessary that I read along to understand you, it's probably because you're unintelligible, not because I'm too old and slow.

Rounds being competitive really matters to me. This means that stylistic alignment between the two debaters is necessary to create good LD. Seeing as traditional LD is by far the more common and accessible style, if your opponent is only capable of traditional LD, that is the style I expect to see in the round. I will never punish a locally active debater for not being competitive against the increasingly inaccessible and abstract style found at national circuit tournaments.

Theory

Point out the abuse (assuming it's real) and move on. Do not make it the crux of the round. Win on substance.

I will never vote for time skew theory or anything that accuses your opponent of some form of prejudice (unless they've openly and intentionally said something prejudiced).

Kritiks

I'm actually stealing this directly from one of my all-time favorite NC LDer's paradigms because it was so perfectly written - thanks to Derek Brown of Durham Academy.

"Kritiks, like theory or topicality, are a way of questioning the pre-fiat implications of your opponents' position. As a result, Kritiks must link to a practice your opponent performed, and there must exist a relatively predictable/reasonable way your opponent could have anticipated or predicted that this practice was bad. For example, I will not vote on an argument saying "the aff doesn't address black feminism", because it is unreasonable to expect the aff to read black feminism every round."

I will add that I generally do not enjoy Kritiks that you read every single tournament (and yes, I'll know if you do) - think Cap Ks, Colonialism, etc. - they aren't competitive and generally rely on tenuous links back to the topic. If you didn't have to write it specifically for the current resolution, don't run it. I have to listen to like...6 LD rounds every weekend. I don't want to hear the same stuff every Saturday.

Bonus

Make this fun for me. Be entertaining. Be funny.I get so excited when I see good LD - if you've got a distinct style, good coverage, and I leave the round feeling like I did very little work...I'm a happy camper.

Good luck with your rounds. I know you put in a lot of prep. To ensure efficient use of your prep and our time together -

1. Please include me in the email chain: sathish.muthukrishnan@gmail.com

2. Avoid spreading and always provide an off-time road map

3. Stick with policy affirmatives. Disadvantages, counterplans, and case debate is preferred on the negative. If you want to run kritiks, theories, or topicalities, make sure to explain the warrants and the link story well.

4. Please signpost during your speeches.

5. Be prepared to be dropped if you are not polite or read any offensive arguments.

Thank you!

I debated for Charlotte Latin School and qualified to the TOC twice and NSDAs once, where I made it to quarters. I was a finalist at Yale and Durham Academy and made semis at Sunvite and quarters at Harvard.

I’m now a junior at Duke and am pretty far-removed from debate. I wrote this paradigm when I was a high school senior so I’m probably less strict about all of the below now, but same ideas apply.

Please pre-flow before the round!

If you incorporate "riddle me this" into a speech, I'll boost your speaks by 0.5

If you incorporate a Taylor Swift lyric into your speech, I'll boost your speaks by 0.5

Humor and passion are encouraged! If I think you're funny, I'll boost your speaks by 0.5

I consider myself a flay judge

- Truth vs. tech is not a zero-sum game (credits to Sauren Khosla)

- I like narrative debate

- To win my ballot, have a clean link into an argument and do persuasive, comparative weighing on it

- Probability > magnitude. I’m not a fan of extinction framing

- Card dumping and blowing up the one argument that your opponents don’t respond to is not a good idea. The more squirrely/blippy the argument, the lower my threshold for responses are. I will not evaluate new or different explanation in later speeches if the argument was not clear to begin with

- I buy logical analytics over unwarranted evidence

- If neither team has offense at the end of the round, I default neg

Speeches

- Frontlining and collapsing in second rebuttal are strategic but not required

- No independent contentions in rebuttal, but DAs and advantages are fine

- Summary and final focus must extend the entire argument (claim, warrant, impact). You don’t have to extend card names, but it’s helpful

- Final focus and summary should mirror each other

Speed

- You can speak relatively fast if it improves the quality of the debate. Talking fast to talk fast is not impressive

- The faster you speak, the less I will catch, and I will not call for speech docs

Progressive Args

- I will not evaluate them (Ks, theory, topicality, etc.). Not only do I have little experience evaluating these kind of arguments, but I don't think they should exist in an event uniquely designed to be accessible

- Reading identity-based or K-like framing/weighing (without the ROB) is fine

- Paraphrasing is fine (as long as you can produce the corresponding cards) and disclosure is optional

- I will call for evidence if I think it’s misconstrued or it’s important for my decision. I will drop you if you egregiously misconstrue your ev

Inclusivity

- Please try not to talk over each other in cross (but if your opponents turn cross into a speech, it’s ok to interrupt them)

- I will drop you if you are sexist, racist, homophobic, excessively rude, etc. Please be nice, it’s not hard

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round. Most importantly, have fun!

I am relatively new to judging high school debate so will take my time to really think about the scoring and it would be most helpful if you can speak clearly and concisely.

I will take a lot of notes and arguments that cause me to think about the topic in a unique or new way will stand out to me as long as they are credible and well-supported. Any cockiness or rudeness to your opponent will detract from the merits of your argument so please be kind and speak respectfully. I have appreciation for the debater that can take a deep breath and proceed calmly when the debate is getting heated.

You should be polite, but you should also know that being obsequious will not gain you extra points.

Please don’t use debate-world jargon. The people judging are not debate team members, so using words that mean something totally different in their world (the real world) is not effective.

Don’t be overly pedantic. If your argument is premised on a word game (e.g. "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.") it just seems silly.

Hyperbole (e.g. "Half the human population will die if you don't vote for AFF!") can be viewed as insulting to a judge’s intelligence.

As a judge I can't see your cards, so getting into an argument with your opponent about cards is kind of meaningless to me.

The best debates are about articulating ideas and presenting evidence to back up those ideas. Focus on persuading your audience—in this case, the judge—not each other.

Make it a debate that would impress Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas.

Mostly a LD judge, have judged PF . Not a fan of spread debate, will not discredit anyone who does though.. No biased in my judging, who ever holds there value & case with the resolution wins the round.

This is my third year of Judging.

I judge PF and LD debates. I prefer you speak slower. If you speak too fast I won't keep track of what you say on my flow.

Being polite is important to me. Don't bring up new evidence during final focus.

Parent judge. No spreading or sliming. Explain to me why you win. Have realistic impacts, not everything leads to nuclear war. You can be aggressive while not being rude.