Hey y'all

I'm a fourth-year debater from Vestavia Hills High School.

Stanford LD update:

I'm pretty lay when it comes to LD but I'll evaluate any arguments except Trix.

PF paradigm:

Case: Make sure your case has impacts. It is hard for me to vote on an argument that doesn't tell me how or which population is affected by their impacts. However, make sure you also have warrants. Even if your case has big numbers, I will not evaluate any of your impacts if you don't give me any explanations as to how you get there. Don't worry if your case does not get to 4 minutes; I still evaluate all arguments presented in that timeframe.

Speaking: Speak clearly. For me, you can go a little bit fast and I will still be able to understand your argument. However, I will indicate for you to slow down if you are going too fast. Most importantly, mumbling is gonna negatively affect your speaker points and make it a lot harder to understand. Send speech docs if you plan on spreading. Email is aaryaaluri143@gmail.com

Prog: By all means go ahead and do it. Just beware that my experience with progressive args is pretty limited to theory. I'll evaluate it to the best of my abilities.

Rebuttal: Prioritize offense over defense. In 1st rebuttal, do not go back onto your case unless it is an absolute necessity and you believe you have no other way to fill the 4 minutes. Weighing is not a necessity in 1st rebuttal but it would be good if you started weighing early in round. Weighing should be in 2nd rebuttal. No talking between teammates in rebuttal or any speech for that matter. 2nd rebuttal must respond to all offense that 1st rebuttal brings. 2nd rebuttal would be good to collapse but it is not required for me. Defense is not sticky.

Weighing: WEIGHING IS NECESSARY. I must know why your argument is more important than theirs to be able to vote for you. Additionally, weighing can't be one-sided. You must weigh COMPARING your impact to theirs as opposed to just restating their impact. It can start in rebuttal but IT MUST START IN SUMMARY.

Summary: 1st summary MUST COLLAPSE ON ONE ARGUMENT. Summary must also respond to all offense presented on ALL of their contentions. Summary must also have clean extensions of their case and turns in order for them to stay on my flow. 2nd summary is largely a reactive speech that must respond to the points brought up by 1st summary.

Final Focus: Largely resembles summary. NO NEW INFORMATION IN FINAL FOCUSES. Weighing, case extensions and turn extensions must be present.

Have fun with this activity. It gives back what you give it. You make connections the more you stay in the activity. I will do my best to ease your nerves and help y'all grow in this adventure.

YOU'RE GONNA KILL IT!!!!

Jordan Berry - Loveless Academic Magnet Program High School

Hello!

I have been a coach and judge since 2015. Most debaters over the years categorize me as a traditional L/D judge. My chief weighing mechanism is usually framework (my undergraduate degree is in philosophy), but I can be persuaded to the contrary. I have no value hierarchy. I strive to keep personal views and ballot intervention away from my RFD. I will evaluate only those arguments brought up by the debaters.

Speed is an issue for me. This is primarily an education and communication activity. I highly doubt either Lincoln or Douglas themselves were spreading, and I've never seen spreading in any real-life situation aside from episodes of "Storage Wars." I do flow the round (though not cross), but "winning the flow" isn't the same as winning the round in some cases; this event is supposed to be persuasive and accessible, not a checklist of responses and replies. Thus, I always roll my eyes when one of my own debaters complains about "lay" judges: in crafting a case/round, they should receive as much consideration as that ex-policy debater.

Other issues for me: do be respectful. Do engage meaningfully with the resolution. Do be honest. Do have fun.

Break a leg!

jordan.berry@mps.k12.al.us

Hello There! If you are reading this page before the round I would ask that you please adhere to the things I have listed below. As a former debater I am familiar with most events (with a couple of exceptions) so if you are not respectful of the rules for the event or for your fellow competitors you will be downranked. Also - I do not discriminate on basis of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. I employ a zero tolerance policy for discriminatory and/or disparaging conduct. Such language or actions will result in a ranking of last and a note on your ballot. I will sort my paradigms by event below starting with Interp/Speech events.

Interp/Speech:

Default time signals are 3 down & fist. Just have fun and be yourself!

Extemp:

This is simple - Follow the Unified Analysis Format and you will be fine!

LD/PF:

I prefer traditional debate, so please follow the traditional debate structure. Don't cut off your opponents during questioning (unless they're rambling.) Give them an opportunity to answer the question. I generally don't flow questioning, so bring up the point in your speech. Please go a little slower during your speeches. If I can't understand you, I will say "clear." If I can't understand you after that, I won't be able to flow the rest of your speech.

Congress:

A disclaimer - I was a two-time national qualifier in Congress, so I know this event very well. Watch where in the round you place your speeches. If you are rebutting an argument in your speech, make sure you also introduce a new argument. Just rehashing old arguments does not contribute meaningfully to the debate. I give POs a fair bit of leeway to run things, but if you're egregiously breaking the rules or the chamber is in chaos, that will reflect poorly on you.

In closing, I judge fairly based on the merits of everyone's performance. If you have any questions for me don't hesitate to ask.

Hey, I'm Catey Rose!

- I am pretty trad and I really do not like spreading, or theory. Plans are fine, just make it clear. Disads that lead to extinction should have a strong link chain!

- Collapse!! Give Vorters!! Make sure you weigh impacts and answer framework!! :)

- I don't care if you stand, sit, or whatever in round. I am good with most speeds, I have a background in LD, BQ, and congress but I do prefer slower talking.

- I believe debate is a training field-- it has a competitive nature as a game, but should remain ethical and truthful as an educational activity.

- You guys are gonna do great!

As a lay judge with a background as a history teacher, I prioritize credible sources, thorough research, and a well-structured debate. Make sure to use clear introductory statements, smooth transitions, and frequently connect your arguments to the resolution. If your argument is not clear to me, I won't be able to support it. Assess the significance of your impacts, explain why your evidence is superior, and justify why your argument should prevail. Avoid spreading your arguments too thin, and please refrain from wasting time during evidence calls—it leaves a negative impression. Be respectful towards your opponents, enjoy the process, and present your best work.

Primarily, I am a coach and educator. I have always felt strongly that debate is a contest of ideas and communication skills. I have no preferences in the round; however, if you speak so quickly that your ideas are diminished, I will have a hard time voting for you, especially if your opponent is more articulate (even with weaker arguments).
I vote on whatever I found to be effective in the round. The more specific your arguments are to what happens in the debate, the greater your chances of earning my ballot. I’m looking for clash and reward debaters who work to ensure it is achieved.

I am philosophically opposed to disclosing my ballot at the end of the round. I will only offer oral critique if I saw something that I think I could share to help you with the remaining rounds in the tournament (adjusting your case, how you could have argued more effectively, etc.). Everything else I am thinking during the round I will note on the ballot.

1.Your background in debate (did you debate in high school or college? If so, where, when, and what events?)

I have taught communication/rhetoric for 10 years. I have coached debate for six.

2. How many years have you been judging? How many rounds do you typically judge each year?

I have been judging for 5 years. I normally judge 5 tournaments a year.

3. Do you have any argument preferences or speaking style preferences that debaters should be aware of?

I do not like spreading. I prefer straightforward arguments, but I do not mind more meta-arguments.

4. When the debate is over, what process do you use to pick a winner (use of evidence, direct clash, speaking style, impact calculations, layers of the debate, etc.)?

I assess the arguments laid out, consider evidence, speaking style, impact, and presentation.

Other thoughts:

-Don't be rude. I do not respond well to aggressive CX

-Signpost. I will be flowing and without clear signposting, I will have a difficult time doing so without those signposts.

-I like to see congenial debaters who are respectful of their opponents.

-Generally, arguments that devolve into debating the worth of a single piece of evidence or contention drawn out across multiple speeches do not interest me. Of course, this is not true if the evidence or contention is integral to the overall argument.

-I like seeing passion and emotion. I dislike dull recitals of speeches with a monotone voice. However, I equally dislike zealous, over-the-top speaking.

-Eye contact is important. I understand looking down to remind yourself of your points and structure, but do not like it when speakers stare at a piece of paper the whole time.

Hello,

I have judged Speech and Debate for 1 year now. This is my first year as a Coach and I look forward to watching you compete!

While judging Lincoln-Douglas I keep personal views and opinions separate from judging, so I will judge purely off your framework. While I understand the personal benefits to spreading, I do not find speaking extremely fast to be in the spirit of true debate. As long as you speak clearly and it is comprehendible, I am fine with your choice of speed throughout the round. I will flow the round to ensure I understand each contention and how it relates to your value/value criterion. Please remain respectful and have a great time debating!

All the best!

Public Forum:

I debated PF 4 years in high school. I have judged for PF for the past 3-4 years.

Round procedure:

Try not to spread. Your points are important and it is crucial that I catch what you are saying.

Address dropped arguments throughout the round.

Make sure you use authentic evidence because I will call for cards.

Stand for speeches, but what you do for cross is up to you.

Make sure you signpost.

Speaker points:

In addition to being able to carry out arguments, I will weigh in confidence, projection, ability to remain assertive and not become aggressive or hostile.

Respect is super important in a round. DO NOT cut off your opponent. While I do not flow cross, it can play a role in the speaker points.

As a new judge, I have read a bit about today’s topic but ask that you refrain from spreading, weigh your impacts carefully, and time yourself. As a business education teacher, I value credible sources, logical reasoning, and a well-structured debate. Please use clear introductory statements, transitions, and consistently connect the resolution to your contentions. If I can’t follow your argument, I won’t vote for it. I find that many PF debates are just evidence clashes, so don’t just present facts—tell me why they matter and why I should vote for you. Avoid spreading; clarity is key. Please don’t waste time when calling for evidence, as it disrupts the debate. Above all, be respectful, have fun, and present your best self.

Hi! I'm Anmol, and I'm a sophomore at UAB right now!

My background is in speech, so I really value being able to actually understand your argument. Please do not spread!!

Remember that I have not spent the last month researching your topic. Please explain and expand upon your points, and weigh impacts. We can find pros and cons for most topics; decisions arise from weighing those pros and cons.

Good debate can still be polite and respectful. No sexism, racism, homophobia, or personal criticism.

Have fun! I know you have worked hard on your debate and I look forward to hearing it!

Hi I am Camp. I graduated at Montgomery Academy. I have done LD, PF, and WSD but mainly LD for 3 years. I prefer tech over truth. More than less, I was a trad debater, but do whatever you want as long as it is 1) topical 2) well explained. I can handle speed but do not spread unless you drop the doc to me and your opponent. I will vote a lot off of the framework debate. In your last speech please collapse on the arguments I should be voting off of. I prefer using speechdrop.net but my email is cmj0068@auburn.edu

Notes:

I prefer topic debate. I am not a fan of theory or meta based debate (time/prep skew or burden-based arguments). Disclosure is the debater's choice, and it is your choice to post your stuff on the wiki. That being said I have run theory and understand it at least a little. If there is something clearly concerning that has happened in round, go ham with a theory arg.

Crossfire and rebuttals can get heated, but it is an instant loss if you are derogatory toward your opponent’s character or identity that doesn’t impact cases.

Keep your own time

I don’t flow cross, bring up anything important in the next speech

I probably won’t disclose unless I have to

I love extinction but in truth it is not an end all - be all argument. I will not vote up a 1% extinction scenario with very few warrants vs a very well fleshed out structure violence case despite what you say about the “greater good”. Rounds are won on evidence and clash

I am a lay judge and have been judging speech and debate for about 8 years. I believe that debate should include a clear presentation of your arguments and evidence. I also believe your speeches should be well organized. In the end, I will value argument over style, but the way you present your arguments is important to my understanding of those arguments. If you call for evidence, please have a legitimate reason for it. I don't like spending a lot of prep time on it. I expect you to time yourselves, but I will be timing too. I like clear, organized flows with clear voters at the end. I weigh heavily on impacts so compare your impacts and convince me that yours are stronger. Please be civil and respectful to your partner and competitors.

My background is in theatre and speech. I love judging speech events and will typically vote for the presenter who has the strongest emotional connection to their piece and the audience. There must be an effective balance of design, style, and presentation. The pieces that showcase who you are as a performer as well as communicating something new and fresh are welcome.

MY EXPERIENCE & SKILL LEVEL: I coached PF for one year back in 2008-2009. I never did debate in high school, and have no competence for keeping up with technical debate or a rigorous flow. I know that the words flow, cross-apply, turn, etc… exist and have something to do with debate, but if you use them in the round, you will probably lose me. While I would like to be able to flow fast speech, I simply lack that ability, so if you decide to go with a technical, policy-like style, just know that I will not be able to keep up. You might make the best argument that has ever been seen in the history of the world, but I will miss it.

MY PREFERENCES: I want to hear a conversational debate that comes down to the important core issues at the heart of the resolution. I want to see that you have not only researched and learned a million facts about the topic, but that you understand what you are talking about. When I take notes on your case, I'm writing down key ideas, not author names and publication dates. Therefore, if you tell me in a speech that "Smith 21 refutes this" "Just look to Williams 22," I will have no idea what you're referencing. For me, the evidence and ideas you use in a debate aren’t mere cards to stack against other debater’s card stacks like a game of political magic the gathering; these are real issues with real impacts in the real world you really live in. I want to see a sincere, good-faith debate that takes the issues seriously. Most of all, I want to see everyone learn from the round, get better at dealing with difficult topics, hone their speaking skills, and feel good about doing their best.

Laurel Pack (she/her) Varsity PF debater 2020-2023. Current varsity policy debater at Samford University

Email: laurel.a.pack@gmail.com (use this email for any questions before round and for the email chain)

Policy Thoughts

Condo: Condo is good. I think having ~3 conditional options is good strategy for the negative. Here's where I have some issues:

Contradictory conditional options: 1-3 counterplans and a K is fine, gold standard. More than one K/theory of power, or contradicting counterplans and I start leaning aff on condo.

Multiple un-carded counterplans: Not a fan. I think any counterplan should have at least one solvency advocate. Unless you are hitting a new aff, I am very sympathetic to condo bad args if you are reading 2+ counterplans in the 1NC that's just the counterplan text. Additionally, if you're the 2A, I don't think you should have to read cards on these counterplans in the 2AC. A 1NC uncarded counterplan definitely justifies new 1AR responses/cards.

CP Theory: I will not judge kick the counterplan unless I am told. I will be unhappy judge kicking the counterplan even if I am told. The 1AR should absolutely make a no judge kick claim.

If you're going for a perm, I will most likely need you to slow down if you're doing a lot of theory.

Topicality: I lean aff on topicality. This is not to say it's impossible to win topicality in front of me. I think the negative should be very explicit about what the violation is, and how that results in an explosion of limits. I'd rather topicality not be card heavy following the 1NC/2AC. I think a good 1NC T card goes a long way and I really don't want to spend time post-round scrolling through mediocre 2NC evidence that say the same thing the 1NC said. Not saying don't read evidence on T, but be very intentional with the ev you do read.

I think if you're debating T, you should be rehighlighting all of their evidence to prove your limits/ground args. This goes a LONG way, especially for late-round evidence comparison. You should also pretty please send these rehighlightings.

K Debate: I prefer to judge debates that are grounded in the topic/topic literature.

If you are reading a K on the neg: Love to see it. I generally prefer to think about Ks as a counterplan with a massive internal net benefit. This should frame the way you explain the alternative. I like when the alternative defends a substantial, material change from the status quo (i.e. I don't like when the alternative is just to "reject the aff.")

Framework debating on the neg: I generally default to weighing the aff against the impacts of the K (unless instructed otherwise). As such, it's super duper smart for you to leverage root cause arguments or serial policy failure.

If you are reading a K on the aff: I will pre-req this with I am not a good judge for performance related affs nor am I a good judge for affs that do not affirm the resolution. Generally, I think the aff should defend a material change that is in the direction of the topic (which means your first response to a DA should not be "no link"). Otherwise, I'm very willing to vote on T/Framework (fairness is an impact, and switch side debate probably solves your offense).

Other Notes:

I flow on paper and try to follow along in the speech doc to check for card clipping/evidence ethics. Take into account that I need pen time when you're flipping between papers. ~1 second should be great.

I highly recommend you start at about 70-80% of your top speed. It takes all judges a second to get used to the sound of your voice. If you don't want me to miss arguments at the top/at the beginning of the debate, accelerate to your top speed by about the 3/4 card.

Willing to give progressive a chance.

The best way to my ballot is to weigh. Weighing is inherently comparative. Warrant your weighing and compare links/impacts to your opponents'. If both teams have offense left by the end of the round, I need to know why yours matters more. This is also true with weighing mechanisms themselves (I appreciate meta-weighing). The earlier you start weighing, the better. I don’t get why teams say, “I’ll weigh at the end if I have time.” This makes no sense. Weighing is a crucial aspect of the round.

Run whatever you want. Theory should be used to check abuses. I won't auto-drop the K, but I wouldn't call myself the most qualified in K-debate. I don't see this a whole lot in PF, so the more progressive your debate becomes, the more you need to explain it to me.

Any speed is good, just be clear.

Please don't give me a soliloquy for your "off-time roadmap." Just tell me which side of the flow you're starting on.

Signpost in every speech following the constructive. If I look lost, I probably am.

I don’t pay attention to cross. If something important happens, then bring it up in your next speech.

For the love of god, give me warrants and extend the warranting throughout the round. Literally everything needs warranting (case, responses, weighing, framing, evidence weighing, theory, etc.). I do not understand why more teams do not spend more time at the warrant-level.

Offense needs implications.

Evidence clash is good. Tell me why your evidence is better/more important.

Collapse. The. Flow.

If you don't frontline, it will be incredibly hard to win my ballot. Not impossible, just very difficult.

If you want it in the final focus, it needs to be in the summary. This is true for extensions, weighing, framing, etc. If you drop it, you will be hard pressed to find me evaluating it by the end of the round.

If we are on a virtual platform, please don’t spread. Some speed is okay, but I really value clarity when online.

Add me to the email chain: crhoades2002@gmail.com

Jay Rye - Head Coach - Montgomery Academy

Experience- I have been involved with L/D debate since 1985 as a former L/D debater, judge, and coach. I have been involved with Policy debate since 1998. I have coached Public Forum debate since it began in 2002. I have served as part of the CAP for World Schools Debate at the NSDA National Tournament for the last 3 years, and I have judged, while limited, some Big Questions Debate over the past 6 years. While at many tournaments I serve in the role as tournament administrator running tournaments from coast to coast, every year I intentionally put myself into the judge pool to remain up to date on the topics as well as with the direction and evolving styles of debate. I have worked at summer camps since 2003 throughout the United States.

Philosophy

I would identify myself as what is commonly called a traditional L/D judge. Both sides have the burden to present and weigh the values and/or the central arguments as they emerge during the course of the round. I try to never allow my personal views on the topic to enter into my decision, and, because I won't intervene, the arguments that I evaluate are the ones brought into the round - I won't make assumptions as to what I "think" you mean. I am actually open to a lot of arguments - traditional and progressive - a good debater is a good debater and an average debater is just that - average.

While for the most part I am a "tabula rasa" judge, I do have a few things that I dislike and will bias me against you during the course of the round either as it relates to speaker points or an actual decision. Here they are:

1) I believe that proper decorum during the round is a must. Do not be rude or insulting to your opponent or to me and the other judges in the room. Not sure what you are trying to accomplish with that approach to debate.

2) Both sides must tell me why to vote "for" them as opposed to simply why I should vote "against" their opponent. In your final speech, tell me why I should vote for you - some call this "crystallization" while others call it "voting issues" and still others just say, "here is why I win" - whatever you call it, I call it letting your judge know why you did the better job in the round.

3) I am not a big fan of speed. You are more than welcome to go as fast as you want, but if it is not on my flow, then it was not stated, so speed at your own risk. Let me say that to the back of the room - SPEED AT YOUR OWN RISK! If you have a need for speed, at the very least slow down on the tag lines as well as when you first begin your speech so that my ears can adjust to your vocal quality and tone.

4) I am not a big fan of "debate speak" - Don't just say, cross-apply, drop, non-unique, or other phrases without telling me why it is important. This activity is supposed to teach you how to make convincing arguments in the real world and the phrase "cross-apply my card to my opponents dropped argument which is non-unique" - this means nothing. In other words, avoid being busy saying nothing.

5) Realizing that many debaters have decided to rely on the Wiki, an email chain, or other platforms to exchange the written word, in a debate round you use your verbal and non-verbal skills to convince me as your judge why you win the round. I rarely call for evidence and I do not ask to be on any email chain nor will I accept an invitation to do so.

6) I do pay attention to CX or Crossfire depending on the type of debate. Six to nine to twelve minutes within a debate are designated to an exchange of questions and answers. While I don't flow this time period, I will write down what I believe might be relevant later in the debate.

This will be my 5rd year serving as a judge (12th tournament). I have a child who is involved in debate with a focus on PF. I have judged mostly PF but also a number of LD rounds. I understand that speed is important to presenting all of your ideas on the topic, however, speed without clarity may lead to confusion or my inability to evaluate the argument. I also feel like all competitions should reflect good sportsmanship and be civil in nature. I prefer to have factual information to substantiate your case and support your argument. Please weigh in summary and final focus and make sure to present all of your arguments and analysis prior to the final focus. Finally, while many of these topics are serious discussions, remember to have fun. See you in round!

Former high school speech & debate kid. Qualified in extemp and informative. Did extemp and extemp commentary at nats. Have been coaching speech & debate events since graduating in 2017.

Looking for good speakers that I can understand. I did policy so I can follow spreading, but if I can't understand you I can't flow and if I can't flow I can't vote for you.

The basics: I’m a former debater. I primarily competed in policy throughout high school, (although I have done LD, PF, Congress, and Improv). I graduated HS in 2013, and did Model UN in college. As such, I am familiar with the basics of each format, and can understand spreading, but I am not coming into the round with an in-depth knowledge base or set of preconceptions about the topic.

I am open to any form of argumentation. It is the job of both sides within the confines of the round to give me a paradigm by which to evaluate them, and to explain how/why they prevail within that paradigm.

If you have specific questions, feel free to ask before we begin.

EMAIL CHAIN: jsydnor@altamontschool.org

Former policy debater in HS and College (2012). These days I judge a lot of LD and PF because of my local area, but primarily influenced by this policy background.I am open to most arguments and will always try to meet halfway, but unwilling to vote on arguments I don't understand enough to give a coherent RFD. I generally don't vote on things that happen before the debate or at least announcement of pairings.

Speed is usually fine at 7/10 but need to be clear. Debate is a communication-based activity and my hearing is not as great as it was a decade ago. Sending speech docs is not a substitute.

Lay/PF: I'm most likely fine with whatevver you're doing, just prioritize offense and impacts.

===Tech LD===

Cheat Sheet - 1 = I feel comfortable judging these judging this; 5 = yikes!

Policy - Plans/DA/CP - 1

K - 1

K Aff - 1

Impact Turns - 1.5

T - 2

Theory - vs CP's/K's - 2

Theory - Disclosure/Wiki Norms - 4

Phil - 4.5

Theory - Friv - 5

Tricks - 5

-CP: I default sufficiency framing and will judge kick unless told otherwise. Would rather hear args about solvency deficit, perm, and issues with NB than rely on theory to answer.

-K: Most of my debate career and graduate work was spent in this literature base, but you shouldn't assume I know your specific lit or that I am willing to fill in explanatory gaps when making a decision. I like close readings of the 1AC to generate links, even if your actual link evidence is making more sweeping claims. I'm interested in what the alternative resolves and what it means for my in-round decision-making if you win framework.

-K Affs: Generally believe the Aff has to advance some testable method beyond "res is bad, reject the res." More interested 1ACs whose engagement with the res already features nuanced, built-in answers to common neg args as opposed to overly relying on generic preempts. I am fine with kicking the advocacy and going for theory of power + offensive voters against the Neg's position, just as a traditional Aff can kick the plan to go for condo or discourse K's.

- T vs K Affs-- Much more persuaded by clash, skills, topic education, and trickier offensive reasons for why the model is good than fairness. I generally believe most standards on T are internal links that the Aff is probably impact turning. Best 2NRs on T will still neutralize case and any theory of power arguments that help with the disads to T/exclusion.

-Theory : Not my favorite debate but I know it can be important/strategic. Go a little slower on this if you want me to get follow the intricacies of the line-by-line. I don't care for disclosure and wiki procedurals unless Aff won’t disclose the aff when asked before round. As for friv theory, I have never voted on it, and it usually results in low speaks, so proceed with caution.

-Phil : You should assume I know 0 of the things necessary for you to win this debate and that you have to do additional groundwork/translation to make this a viable option. I've only seen a few phil debates and my common issue as a judge is that I need a clear articulation of what the offensive reason for the ballot is or clear link to presumption and thus direction and meaning of presumption. I don't mind saying "I didn't get it, so I didn't vote on it" even if I think you're rhetorically or technically winning on the flow.

For most of my judging/coaching tenure, I have not included a paradigm, and that is because I do not believe my personal opinions are particularly relevant to the way you argue your case or present your program. You do you. But kids seem to want paradigms, so here it is:

1) Be logical. Impacts that don't link up are illogical. I probably won't believe it. Not every action leads to nuclear war, kids. Thankfully.

2) Speak clearly. If you love to spread, ok. But if I can't understand you, I can't evaluate you. It's like you didn't say it.

3) Be professional. Aggressive tactics are fine; rudeness is not.

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

-Lay judge, retired teacher and librarian.

-I usually judge PF and am new to LD. Understand your assignment!

-I insist on credible sources, quality research, and a well-organized debate.

-Please use introductory statements, transitions, and make frequent connections between the resolution and your contentions. If I cannot follow your argument, I cannot vote for it. Because debaters are so familiar with the case, they often think many connections are obvious and go without saying. But for a judge to make the same connections, you need to spell them out. Front load background information and explain acronyms, names, etc. I'm trying to listen, flow, evaluate at the same time. Help me out.

-I find that nine out of ten times a debate could go either way. So don't just spew your evidence; tell me why it matters and why I should vote for you. Repeat your important points.

-Avoid spreading. I need to understand you.

-I understand the need to burn your opponent and try something cool in the debate, but that will not help you win my ballot. I don't even know what a K is.

-PLEASE do not waste time when calling for evidence; make it efficient.

-Be respectful of your opponents, have fun, and present your best self. I really dislike any kind of condescending behavior toward your opponent or your partner.

-I admire you for taking part in this activity. You are putting yourself out there to be judged, and that takes a lot of guts. For many of you, debate may be your first experience with "losing" or not being the best at something academic. Know that you are amazing just for trying because debate is HARD. Do your best to put your ego aside and learn from this experience.