I was a successful high school and college debater, and I believe in clear, accessible, well-paced, and well-organized argumentation. I flow debates. I value debaters who listen carefully to the opposition’s arguments. I am not impressed by any kind of esoteric debate jargon. I hate spreading and other approaches to debate that deprioritize basic public speaking skills. I am a professor of political theory, so I get cranky when people misrepresent philosophers or cherry-pick quotations from them. I believe that humor, decency, vulnerability, and creativity—not just reason and evidence giving—make better debates and debaters.

Hello! My name is Noah, I'm a college student at Cal Poly Pomona and a recent speech and debate alumni. I was primarily a congress kid, so my judging specialty lies in there and speeches, but I also did some parli, and have a good amount of knowledge about all the other debate types as well. Some of my Judging Particulars are as follows:

In general

Be polite, courteous, and respectful to your opponents, or other people you are in the round with. I will not hesitate drop tank your speakers and/or ranking if it is a consistent problem. At the end of the day, debate is supposed to be a challenging and fun, albeit competitive activity, and snobs that treat their opponents as beneath them take away from that a lot, and I don't really appreciate that.

When possible, be prompt and timely when going to your rounds. This won't actually affect my rankings and is more a pet peeve but it may affect your speaks. Obviously sometimes being late happens, but try to avoid wasting your opponents time and my time by having us sit without you for 5-10 minutes after the round was supposed to start.

In all events, I value organization and clarity very highly. The easier it is for me to see how your speech/case develops and progresses, the more detailed notes and flow I will have on it, which makes the ballot or ranking easier for me to give in your favor.

Congress

In congress, the most important factor for me is how well you advance the round. Early on, that usually is bringing in new arguments and laying the foundation for your side, but as the round progresses it should instead be rebutting the other side, crystalizing the round, or adding analysis to the round in some other way.

Questioning

In direct questioning, the time belongs to the questioner. I can understand being firm in an answer, but be polite and courteous when asking and answering. Cutting each other off and yelling incessantly accomplishes nothing and wastes questioning time. If you are repeatedly rude in questioning, especially if the PO has warned you about it, I will probably drop your rank for it.

In indirect questioning, keep your questions short so as many questions can be asked as possible. I don't particularly like answers such as "I don't understand the question", or "That isn't relevant", as without follow-ups they are really just transparent question dodgers, and I will treat them as you being unable to answer the question

Speaking

When judging speeches, I weigh both content and speaking ability pretty equally, as congress is a sort of speech and debate hybrid event. You can have great content, but if you deliver it poorly, you won't rank terribly high, and vice versa. Come with good content that is relevant to the round, and deliver it in a concise and digestible manner. If you start spreading in congress, you are doing it wrong.

Keep the content of your speech relevant to the portion of the round you are in. If it's early in the round, spend your 3 minutes bringing new ideas to the round, expanding on previously mentioned ideas, and doing some brief refutations to what has already been said. If it's the end of the round, don't waste your very precious speaking time repeating things that have already been said, or bringing up new arguments, unless those new arguments blow everything else out of the water. Focus on crystallization, rebuttals, and making yourself stand out as the final hurrah of the round. The best congress rounds are like really intense tennis matches, where each new speaker puts the ball back in the other sides court by either countering their arguments or developing new ones that need to be responded to. All members of a chamber should be trying to encourage this dynamic as it creates not only the most interesting rounds to participate in, but also allows for the most opportunity to shine as a speaker and debater.

I, as a judge, am a big fan of second speeches, but only if they are done well. If you can go up there again after you have already spoken, and give a full 3 minutes of rebuttals and crystallization, I can guarantee you will rank pretty highly. The flip side of this, is that if you go up and give a solid minute and a half of half baked responses and end up not doing anything new, I can't say it'll hurt your ranking but I doubt it'll do it any favors. If you aren't confident enough for a second speech that's alright, you can still do just fine or even win the round without one.

POs

I don't have a lot to say about POs honestly. Track your recency and speaking order right, be fair, be efficient. Don't be afraid to occasionally keep the mood of the chamber light, and communicate with your chamber about how you would like the chamber to be run. Congress is a very long winded event, and a lot of the possible time saved falls to how quickly you can keep things moving, so try and do so as much as possible.

I do Public Forum and have lots of experience in spontaneous events. I've also done many originals, especially OA.

in prepared speech I look for:

• Strong eye contact and posture
• content!! memorization is key.
• Good etiquette and attitude!!!
• Signposting

in spon:

• Strong eye contact and posture
• content!!
• Good etiquette and attitude!!!
• Signposting
• connection to the topic and overall theme

in debate:

• LOGIC. evidence doesn’t mean anything if you can’t explain why those numbers matter!!!
• good etiquette and attitude!!! Be polite. esp during cross.
• debate is a discussion, not a battle. I value meaningful clash and discussion over yelling.
• don’t ask silly questions lol. “What do you look for in a Debate?” Read the paradigm.

I am very experienced in the world of Parliamentary Debate, World Schools, Extemp (IX and DX), Congress, interps, and impromptu. I have also done some PF.

Be kind to others in round, stay within the rules of your event, have fun!

I am a lay judge who enjoys a compelling, logically sound argument. That said, I am a former high school English teacher and current school administrator, and I would like to believe this has prepared me a bit more than the typical lay judge.

I respect arguments that are well-organized and thoughtful and, though I can keep up with a quick pace, I absolutely prefer a natural pace and speaking style, and I value speakers who genuinely know and have internalized their content so that they are able to naturally adapt to the flow of the debate, demonstrating the ability to formulate poised, well-articulated responses on the fly.

Please keep policy discussions and counter plans out of LD debates, as I respect the philosophical focus and original intent behind the LD format. Competitors who condescend or who feel the need to be offensive to their opponents will not earn points from me.

Note that I philosophically do not believe in those who "run Ks" or spread.

I am a parent volunteer who feels very honored to be able to take part in judging these Speech and Debate tournaments. I’m proud of each and every one of you, almost as if you were my own children. Relax and enjoy. You are already a winner just being involved!

I am a college professor with a background in public policy and international relations.

I enjoy judging both speech and debate. With debate, I have a strong preference that debaters speak in a conversational style. Try not to speak super fast - it is often distracting and hard to follow your arguments. In my experience there is ample time to make your points in the time allowed with a conversational style.

Hi--thanks for looking me up!

I'm a parent, a career English and Ethnic Studies professor, and a former member of the USC Debate Squad. My events were duo interp. and the "After Dinner Speech" (a talk with goals to entertain and instruct). This is my 4th year judging (2nd kid on the team).

Debate: I will flow your case and vote on the strength of it as a whole (not line-by-line). I like good evidence and precise word choice; overstatement, for me, is intellectually sloppy, annoying, and sometimes a critical error (looking at you, extinction-level arguments!). The best debaters will use superb sources and be vigilant about their opponents' blocks for the same. Cross is a strategic opportunity to open holes or create a path for your own case, so "repeat this" questions that offer your opponent more airtime reflect poorly on you. Tone matters, so cross can be aggressive but not demeaning or bullying. Logical links should be made often and with crystal clarity. Real-world examples that are not cliche and offer you an opportunity to "make real" your framework and showcase the depth and adeptness of your thinking are always impressive. FYI, I have voted with the majority in 85% of debate elim rounds.

For congress, I rank your speech as well as your questions and interactions.

Don't use common cases. In my field we call itplagiarism and consider it illegal. Therefore, duplicate cases will be judged with great disadvantage. (Opponents are advised to drill down and demand logical links and sophisticated explanations from different points of view because folks who copy cases often cannot provide these.)

Spreading, for me, is a flashy (and cheap) excuse for the harder intellectual work of analysis and concision that debate demands. Please don't undermine the transferable skills at the heart of this amazing program by spreading.

Please don't ask if I want your written case in advance; that follow-on to speading compromises the careful listening and oral argument abilities that debate is designed to cultivate in real time. If you ask, I'll know you haven't read my paradigm.

IEs: I believe in genre categories, so a Dec should sound like a speech and not a DI. HI should be LOL funny instead of weird/odd. Interp speeches should be cut to highlight a clear plot arc with tension, depth, and a satisfying conclusion. Sources matter and should be clearly and respectfully credited. Platform speeches should sound professional and resist drama creep.

I don't profess to be "right," but earnest feedback is a gift, and I will do my best to offer you some thoughts. I learn something from you in nearly every round I hear (thank YOU!).

Most importantly, I'm impressed that you've made the choice to participate in Speech and Debate, and I believe that your hard work here will benefit every aspect of your future. I celebrate you! Many of you are already more advanced than my freshmen and sophomores in the CSU. It's such a pleasure to listen to you and to watch you grow over the seasons! :) Let's go!

Prof. Cassel

she/her/hers

tl;dr - be nice, signpost, pls no kritiks. :')

30 speaks for puns im bored

Judging preferences - Summary

UPDATE: please ask me how many rounds I've judged...If it's more than 5 back-to-back rounds, please ignore the rest of this document and just treat me like a lay judge... (If I ever judge 15 back-to-back double-flighted debate rounds again I may lose it.) Also if i look angry im just locked in im so sorry lol

Always signpost. pls. always. signpost clearly. Always. Literally I can’t judge you properly if you’re not signposting.

Your number 1 job is to debate the topic. I want to hear about the topic. I like arguments about the topic, SIGNIFICANTLY MORE than arguments about the rules and how your opponent is messing up the debate because their arguments "don't hold according to CHSSA or NSDA rules..." I've found that in past years, everyone says that their opponent's case "don't hold." Keep the debate educational, I know enough about the rules by now.

My favorite kind of debate is a slightly fast, intellectual Public Forum debate. If I can't understand you due to speed or lack of pronunciation, your contention will not make it onto my flow. Or, I simply won't care enough to write it down. Far-reaching analyses of improperly used evidence may just result in my perplexion and the audience's confusion. However, evidence-based conclusions that show a deep understanding of the topic are always appreciated. I do NOT like Kritik arguments in high school debate. I'm slightly ok with them in LD bc of status quo and whatnot. Do NOT run them unless you have NO OTHER OPTION.

Congress Preferences:

Be memorable and have good arguments. I used to serve CA-07 in the US House of Representatives. My best friend still works in CA-51. I like it when Congress speeches reflect an understanding of how the federal government works.

Big LD prefs:

I want a value and a value criterion please. Idc if there’s policies in the case itself, but I typically weigh the debate on the values provided bc LD is a values debate, after all. I like theory in LD more than in PF or parli, and will entertain the idea more. I'm more truth over theory unless the theory is rlly good. please don't waste my time and your opponent's time with time suck args.

In-Depth Prefs:

Please - Always signpost.

Speed is whatever. I can handle spreading, but if your competitor asks you to go slower and you ignore them, I will be very annoyed. Furthermore, if you do spread - there better be signposting and pauses/changes in speed to emphasize that you are changing gears/moving onto what part of the road map you’re on. The purpose of the debate is to educate - not bulldoze. If you need to spread to win, I won't vote for you. IMO, three strong arguments are better than 6 weak ones. If you want to spread to spread, become a policy debater.

Flow Style is typically on paper bc I’m old school like that, so if you're speaking so fast/spreading without pauses in a way that I can't shorthand write it and I miss a contention ... you're going too fast.

Plans are fun! I love a good plan! Call me Senator Elizabeth Warren the way I love a good plan. (Emphasis on a good plan.) Just remember that plans aren’t legal in all debate events.

Evidence is the most critical component to me. To me, the best defense in debate is a strong defense. Well constructed arguments should have citations and explain to me why a case should win. However, evidence isn't everything. If you are concerned about recency or methodology, make it ONE point. Don't turn the debate into a squabble over those things because I stop listening. Evidence is concrete and empirically explains the case.

Theory is a stepping stone in debate. It's fun to listen to if it's thoughtful and enhances your case. However, if you're just throwing around debate jargon and my paper starts to look like a million arrows, then the theory point isn't worth it. Because I did LD for a while, I can follow inherency/solvency/topicality/harms. I think they have great potential to either make a great case phenomenal... or to give me a minor headache for the afternoon.

Attitude is key. Be kind or lose, it's just a tournament. Your opponent may be new and trying this out for the first time - don't be the person who ruins public speaking for someone. It’s just not that serious. Don't be a dingus. A dingus is too fast, mean, demeaning, rude, etc. Keep it pleasant, no chair-throwing. :)

Kritiks in HS Debate imo usually waste the hour - not always, and they rarely convince me. As in, out of the hundreds of rounds I've watched - there's only been one time I've voted for it. And that was a practice round. If you want your Kritik to win, ground it in evidence - but for the most part, I don't care for a Kritik. I don't recommend running one unless this is one of the worst debate topics ever generated. Please don't run them. I am slightly more ok with them in LD debate, but mainly because I know the debate has been trending that way for a while and some topics are dependent on them now. So... I'll listen in LD.... but I can't guarantee I'll like it.

Kritiks in College Debate are fine, but I still don't like them very much. They just bore me.

Email for chains: Leamulanc@gmail.com

About me:

Assistant Coach at Los Osos High School
Former Head Coach of Redlands High School
Premier Distinction and 5 Diamond competitor
Donuts D. Roberts Coach
CHSSA Board Member
CBSR VP of Speech
Informative kid yrs ago and other stuff
Frequently hungry and/or sleepy in round

First of all, let me start by saying I HATE SPREADING. And I mention it frequently, and we STILL. SEE. SPREADING. You are not auditioning for an auctioneering job, you are trying to present a convincing argument. Three strong points well presented will be more effective with me than ten thrown out in an indecipherable flurry of syllables strung together. CUT IT OUT.

Good information well documented goes without saying. But there, I just said it anyway.

A presentation that has an arc, where the delivery is smooth throughout but that varies in tone, volume, rate, intensity, etc. will always tend to sway me in your favor. Good signposting is smiled upon.

Finally, look and sound like you're having a good time, or at least that you have something that you're glad you get a chance to present. Have confidence in yourself, and know that even if you stumble, you're going to get through this. And of course, when you find yourself totally lost and the information or words that you had right there two minutes ago have somehow disappeared, stop, smile, regroup and carry on. You will get through this. Probably doing better than you think.

Be mindful of your judging pool. Especially when you have less experienced parent judges, consider taking your time for an extra beat here and there, be sure to signpost well, enunciate and speak up. Some of us are old and not as quick as we used to be. (Not me, of course. I've been doing this forever and am still a freaking force of nature. But the other judges? Slugs. Be patient with them.) Good luck, have fun, and, as we say in my hometown, Don't Forget To Be Awesome.

Please talk clearly and not too fast. Be respectful towards opponents.

I've been judging for a four years and, being the parent of a speech and debater, I understand most events. For every event though, I prefer quality over quantity. I understand you have a lot to say but keep it understandable.

Debate: I encourage you to define acronyms, organizations, or things that a person who is unfamiliar with the topic wouldn't understand. I appreciate the effort you have put in, including time and research into your arguments, but if I can't follow the flow, it makes it more difficult to judge. Along the same lines, I do not appreciate spreading. If I can't follow your thought process, I will have a harder time understanding your argument. Additionally, be respectful to your opponents. I value professionalism especially in cross. If I see the same case across multiple teams/same school, I will devalue the argument for plagiarism. I heavily look at the resolution and compare it with your argument, I want to see topicality. I value a clear outline (clear, separated contentions; off-time roadmaps and directing your debate towards your judge). I appreciate evidence if it is used effectively to add to the debate.

Speech/IE: I've judged all speech events, and I'm fairly experienced with all of them. It should be organized and constructed well. I enjoy impactful conclusions; I listen to speeches all day and I want to see something that will stick with me. Please speak clear and concise. Do not force emotions, represent the proper attitude for your topic or speech event. For unprepared speeches, I can identify "canned" speeches and discourage them. I appreciate a speaker embracing the spirit of the event. Also, tell me what topic you chose. Especially for interps, make your characters clearly separated and characterized so I understand where your story is going. Have a clear plot line as well as believable acting.

Good luck!

I have been judging debate for the past two years. I enjoy LD when the debate stays on topic. I expect students to be professional, assertive and confident in what they are saying. I do NOT like spreading and I will instantly tune out if you start to spread. When judging the argument, I look for who can persuade me and provide research based evidence to support in their argument. I am big on data and research that can be backed up by experts, not personal opinions. Please do not ask me who won at the end of the round! I do not make my final decision until I review my notes and you leave the room.

I coach a full team, but I have more experience in Parli and IEs. I do not care about the economy so try not to use arguments that uphold the economy over, say, human lives. Please call me "judge" or "Ms. Garcia." Do not call me by my first name.

I will permit post-round questions but if folks are being disrespectful, I reserve the right to leave.

Try to win fair and square. Evidence challenges don't work on me.

World Schools: I follow the rubric.

Public Forum: I am a speech coach and this should be important to you. Rhetoric > Evidence Dumping, but I will be flowing and taking notes. Don't expect the sheer existence of your cards to win the round for you. You need to explain and analyze how the card bolsters your side of the argument. It would be impossible for me to vote for you, even if you win every argument on the "flow," if you are an incoherent speaker, so make sure to speak slow and clearly. I'm cool with paraphrasing; in fact, I encourage it. You should probably treat me like how you would treat a standard flay, or even a lay judge taking decent flows. No cussing please. I care about morality; your best bet to winning me over is on framework. Once again, I do not care about the economy. If you are blatantly rude or mean to your opponent (verbally insult them, roll your eyes at them, interrupt them during cross unnecessarily, etc.) you will lose my vote.You (the competitors) may reserve the right to share or not share the doc chain with me. I will not penalize you if your opponents choose to share the doc chain with me and you don't, or visa versa.The only Theory shell I know enough about to follow is Topicality. Try not to run any other types of Theory on me. If I'm your judge for the first few prelims, spend some time going over the basics and definitions of the resolution. After that though, try to stick to what makes your case unique.

Policy: I am looking for debaters who don't talk down to me while still clearly hashing out their arguments and plans. I have not and never will vote for disclosure theory. Disclosure is uneducational. If you are a good debater, you won't need the crutch of knowing your opponents' strategies before the round.

-Basic Paradigm: speaking skills > policymaker >stock issues

-Highly value: cx, poise, don't interrupt people, eloquent delivery

-Less Experienced with: Theory, conditional neg positions, Kritiks

Parliamentary: I honestly don't care as much about your evidence. The important thing is that your contentions be centered around common knowledge and that they are cleverly argued. Logic > evidence dumping. The only theory shell I will consider is Topicality. Other theory shells are not educational and defeat the purpose of parliamentary debate.

LD: be creative but not everything leads to nuclear war. I value rhetoric over evidence-dumping. Win me over on framework and you're golden:)

Interpretation: storytelling is most important to me, clearly defined characters are also important, please no screaming, "don't walk through your refrigerator," blocking should be clean.

Platform: puns are encouraged. Visual aids should complement your performance, not distract from it.

Spontaneous: make sure to clearly name the chosen topic multiple times and signpost frequently

Congress: proper parliamentary procedure is encouraged, don't disagree with the PO, I will notice if a particular school/team is prioritizing their own or ignoring recency

I’m a fairly new judge, my speaking preference is simple—speak clearly. As long as I can understand you, I’m happy. I’ll be taking account of both sides argument, but I’m most also looking for how you present yourself as a debater. I don’t hold any bias when it comes to debates, and my vote will be on whoever is the better debater. Besides that, I look forward to judging and watching the debates.

I value clear communication and appreciate a regular speaking speed. Please avoid spreading because if I can’t follow your speeches, I’m unable to judge you fairly as well. I also would really appreciate any and all acronyms to be explained clearly, even if it’s something that might be common, just to make sure I’m on the same page as you. Thank you!!!

For debate:

Do talk to fast that the opponents and judge need to be reading your case with you. I will deduct points for talking to fast.

I do not like spreading and will not give you the win just because you spread and your opponents couldn't counter your spread arguments.

I prefer value or framework debates where both sides are clear on value or framework and build your arguments in the round around the main value or framework of the round.

In crossfire I want courteous speaking and questions. Do not use up the entire time with one question or one answer. This is a time for questioning, not making a speech

Do not belittle or degrade your opponents in final speeches. You can discuss the merits of evidence, but do not lead that into comments about your opponent and the type of debater they are. Those comments will be ignored

For speech:

I look at overall performance when ranking speakers for speech. If you are relaxed and poised, you will be fine. I do not count one flub against you, because you will be nervous. I like seeing intentional hand gestures and movements, but don't try to look robotic.

I look for clarity above all else, so roadmap every speech clearly and walk me thoroughly through all link chains. Beyond that, just have fun!

Hi! I'm currently an undergraduate at Pomona College, but during high school, I competed in Public Forum, British Parliamentary, and Original Oratory in China.

Debate:

• I am good with faster speeds, but please speak at a pace you're comfortable with.
• For PF: I hope to see a balance of logic and evidence. Arguments with lots of evidence but no logic are not going to be persuasive to me, but I also like to see empirical support for your key claims.
• Weighing and crystallization are key. Tell me why your issues are more important and how I should judge the debate. Collapse arguments if you need to, but make sure your time in the second half is allocated well to focus on the most important clashes of the round.
• It's been 2+ years since I've done debate (and I competed in an overseas circuit), so keep in mind that I may not know all of the technical details or theories. If your case is highly technical, please treat me like a lay judge.

Speech:

• I really value signposting and the use of body language/movement to complement your organization. The easier I can follow the structure of your speech, the better. On the note of body language, I also prefer to see intentional, controlled gestures.
• Personable delivery and humor are great! Convey your genuine interest in the topic. Make me emotionally invested.
• Be confident and loud! Make a lot of eye contact (even if I'm staring you down awkwardly).
• TLDR: Clear structure and organization + genuine passion + confident delivery = persuasive

Overall, have fun and enjoy the round! Be kind to each other! You've worked hard and prepared well, and I want to see you succeed. :)

Hey everyone! My name is Fidencio Jimenez, and I am currently the head congressional debate coach for Modernbrain Academy. I have competed in a variety of individual and debate events during my time as a competitor in the high school and collegiate circuits of competition. My general approach to judging follows as such:

Email for document sharing: fidencio.jimenez323@gmail.com

Congressional Debate

Make sure your claims are linked and warranted with evidence. If you don't make it clear how your sources and information connect, you just sound like you are listing sources without contextualizing them in the round. This usually results in speakers presenting impacts that were not explicated thoroughly. I do not flow arguments that fail this basic requirement.

Incorporate the legislation in your arguments. I read the topics before each round, make sure you do too. If your points do not connect with the actual plan (that being I don't buy that the topic viably solves the problems or creates claimed harms), I will not flow them.

Keep the debate topical. If the link between your claims and the bill is obvious there isn't much to worry about here. If you don't think the grounds for the link between your harm/benefit are clear, justify yourself by explaining what mechanisms in the legislation make it so that your claims come to fruition. This makes it so you avoid mistranslation and prevent judges (myself included, it can happen to anyone) from overlooking/misunderstanding something in the topic.

For presiding officers, I ask you to be firm, deliberate, and clear in your instructions. The more a PO demonstrates the ability to take control over the round to avoid complications, the more they will be rewarded.

EX: Round does not have anyone who wants to speak so you call for recess, call for splits, and urge people to swap sides or speak.

Policy/LD/PUFO/Parli

Spreading- I do not mind if you spread. However, if your speed makes it so you become audibly incomprehensible I will clear you. Spread at a pace you can actually handle and perform stably.

Counterplans (for where it is relevant)- I am not a fan, too many times it seems like the plans do not tackle the benefits provided by the proposition. If you can link a counter-plan that establishes a harm, run it, but if it doesn't tackle their actual case, you are better off avoiding it.

K's- Same thing as counter plans. There is a time and place but if the K is not extremely fleshed out or justified, I will not consider it. There has to be substantial real-world harm clearly established. Make sure to weigh why the educational value of the discussion is not worth the consequences it creates.

IE's

I evaluate based on performance and the educational value of a competitor. For instance, if someone has a cleaner performance, but does not have a topic that is educationally substantive or as critical as someone with a slightly less clean performance, the person with the more substantive topic will get a higher mark. This is why for interpretation events I ask your thesis is made clear within your introduction and for events like impromptu and platform speaking to avoid surface-level theses or topics.

I would love if you could say your name and the name of your piece before you begin speaking!

I’m a parent and haven’t judged a whole lot - and I’ve never judged Parli. I think the kids would call me a Lay Judge.

Hi, in terms of speech, I judge based on presentation and content. For the presentation, make sure you are not too fast or quiet; otherwise, I won't really be able to keep up with what you're saying. As for content, I know you can't really change it on the day of the competition, but it just has to flow well and make logical sense. All in all, be confident and enthusiastic. Good luck!

I am a parent of a speech/debate student. I began judging in 2021, I have judged both debate and speech events. Be kind, considerate to all. Speak slowly enough so that I can understand and process what you have to say.

I am a parent volunteer who has judged several tournaments over the past 3 1/2 years. I am also a high school teacher who appreciates a respectful, courteous, and assertive (not aggressive) style of communication. I also prefer quality over quantity, so please don’t speak too quickly, and be sure to include strong evidence backed by credible sources. Thank you.

I value clear, logically reasoned arguments delivered at a comprehendible speed. Signposting is excellent. Pithy and unique turns of phrase are a definite plus. Eye contact, tonal modulations, and a sense of your personality are all important.

An unusual, thought-provoking case is always appreciated provided you can back it up with facts/logical reasoning, and you're not working way outside of the box. Ontological arguments, for example, are often not particularly persuasive.

First time as a Judge. Please be respectful and speak slowly, do have fun!!!

no spreading please :(

I'm a traditional judge who prefers non circuit arguments. Evidence is important, but you should also use logic and reasoning to persuade me. Spreading is a no go with me, if you start I'll tune you out.

Overall, in all events, clarity is extremely important to me. This includes structure of presentation, voice and pace, arguments etc. Outlines help. Speed that is too quick does not help. Clear voice and enunciation are critical.

In speech, I appreciate those that honor the spirit of the event and bring out one's authenticity. Impromptu speeches should be impromptu and truly speak to the topic chosen - though canned speeches can sometimes work, it's often an obvious stretch. Humorous should be humorous. I appreciate dramatic presentations that demonstrate a range of emotions, not only sadness/anger. For OO, I love a presentation that shows me who you are, is clear and brings things full circle by the end.

For debate, I appreciate clear arguments and well-researched data/statistics as evidence. I do NOT appreciate dismissive/arrogant behavior - head-shaking, eye-rolling, huffing, commenting under one's breath, "OK, whatever" - all appear very disrespectful and do not work in proving one's point. It is important to learn how to powerfully argue one's point while also being gracious - especially in today's world!

I am easily distracted! Avoid hair-twirling, extra movements, looking around the room and the like because I may start to do the same. ;)

Hello,

I have been a parent judge for 5 years. Please speak slowly and coherently. Do not spread.

ALL DEBATERS:

▪ Lay judge, usually no flow

▪ Please signpost your arguments

▪ Please speak slowly and clearly

▪ Make your arguments easy to understand

▪ Link your arguments to your impacts

▪ In the final speech, make it very clear why you win (signpost!)

Question 1 - XDB, LD, DI, HI, STO, IMP, PF, INF, OO,

Question 2 - Experienced Judge and former College Educator.

Hello!

I'm a mom of four and love seeing everyones preparation and hard work. I'm a novice judge but enjoy persuasive arguments that I can follow. It helps when you let me know which argument you are referring to. Good Luck!

I like to see a lot of clash between arguments. I like it when competitors explain their argument and the impact of their arguments. I weigh heavily on the value criterion and voting issues expressed in the first constructive speeches, extending to the last rebuttal speeches. I do not like fast reading or spreading. I am OK with value debates, policy debate and philosophical debates.