I have been recruited for speech and debate judging since last year. I am a firm believer that my judging will be based on the merits of the speech without any predisposed bias. I would like for each competitor to present sufficient evidence to support their speech. I would like to tell all competitors that I consider speech and debate one of the most difficult and also most rewarding things that a student can challenge themselves to be part of. A big congrats and best wishes this weekend!

1. Debate is fundamentally a public speaking exercise, not an essay-writing and speed-reading contest. If I can't hear or understand what you're saying, I won't flow it. Too many people are using friends, parents, or AI to write their essays. I need to know that you comprehend what you're reciting, and that you can clearly articulate the strengths of your position and the weaknesses of your opponents'.
2. If you insist on reading as fast as you can and with truncated sentences, then you'd better signpost frequently. I also highly recommend slowing down and adding emphasis at least for your contentions and primary justifications. If you don't, then please don't complain later about the result. I won't vote for someone I can't understand. It is your responsibility as a debater to make me: (1) understand your argument, and (2) understand why your argument is more important than your opponents'. The point of debate is to persuade.
3. I'm a lay judge with experience at only a handful of tournaments. Running theory, kritik, spikes, or tricks will probably be wasted on me. Unless you can explain VERY clearly what you are doing and why that should supersede a traditional debate, I will not vote for you. (I'm willing to consider anything, and I'm admittedly a little curious to hear you try, but I'm telling you in advance that it will be a seriously uphill battle.)
4. A card alone is not enough to get my vote. Sources of those cards can have ulterior motives and may outright lie or strongly bend the truth. For example, in a debate on fossil fuel subsidies someone might use a card from a think tank funded by a major oil and gas company. A card doesn't necessarily equal the truth. On the flip side, if you don't have a card to back up your argument, I'm not going to just take your word for it. In other words, you won't win without cards, but they need to be believable too.
5. I will only vote off things that you warrant (i.e., you have to justify what you are claiming). If you have better stats but your opponent justifies their argument better, I will vote for them.
6. Be realistic with impacts. If your impact is human extinction, then you'd better be very clear about how this is a realistic and likely outcome.
7. Weigh your arguments. Multiple things in a round can be true, but they are usually not equally important. In the absence of alternate weighing, I will default to "which side causes the most benefit/least harm to humanity as a whole". However, I am ready to be swayed towards other ways of judging the debate.
8. It is imperative that you treat the debate and your opponent with respect. As an example, I understand and appreciate the need to cut off an opponent who is dragging out cross responses to burn your clock, but I find it disrespectful to ask a question and then cut off your opponent before they can provide even a single sentence response.
9. Regarding cross, I know we are not supposed to decide based on cross, but I am hoping to learn during cross that you understand your own arguments and that you can go "second-level" deep. In other words, I expect that you can articulate a clear response to both an initial question and a deeper follow-up during cross. Often it isn't until cross when I can see whether you actually understand your own arguments or whether you were just reading cards and arguments prepared by someone else.
10. In my admittedly limited experience, I've found that the strongest debaters are not the loudest, not the fastest, and not the most aggressive. They are those rare individuals who can respectfully and clearly articulate their contentions, explain (and justify with evidence) the value derived from those contentions, and respond calmly and thoughtfully to their opponent's arguments.
11. Finally, please take the debates seriously but try to have fun as well. It's ok to smile. This is an amazing experience that will benefit you throughout your life. Thank you for participating!

I am in my 26th year as the head debate coach at Strake Jesuit College Preparatory. Persuasion, clarity, and presentation are priorities for me. While I have a working knowledge of many progressive arguments, I prefer traditional, topical debate. Since I do not judge frequently, it is crucial to speak clearly and articulate the points you want me to focus on. If you go too fast and fail to follow this advice, you risk losing me. I will not vote on arguments I do not understand. Make your path to my ballot clear.

I will accept certain theory arguments, such as topicality or disclosure, and will vote on them if there is demonstrated abuse. However, I firmly believe debates should center on the assigned topic.

I also believe in pre-round disclosure, as it helps level the playing field for all participants. I value well-supported arguments backed by evidence. Drops matter, as does impact calculus. Providing clear, compelling reasons why you are winning on offense is the simplest way to secure my ballot.

For all email chains, please send to both:
jcrist1965@gmail.com and strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org

Greetings debaters! As a parent judge in Public Forum and Lincoln-Douglas debate, I approach rounds with an emphasis on clarity over speed. While I understand the importance of time management, it is crucial that debaters prioritize clear and articulate communication. Here are some key aspects that guide my judging philosophy:

1. **Clarity is Paramount:** I value clarity in speech and argumentation. If I cannot understand your points, it diminishes the effectiveness of your arguments. Articulate your ideas with precision and ensure that your delivery enhances comprehension. Casepoint: if your gonna spread, just know that i won't be able to fully understand your points.

2. **Quality over Quantity:** I appreciate well-developed arguments and thorough analysis over a barrage of quick points. Focus on the substance of your arguments, providing in-depth explanations and clear reasoning to support your case.

3. **Theory.** As a parent judge I do not like theory. if the opponent makes a notable violation, call it out, but otherwise I won't vote unless theirs zero defense to the theory.

4. **Logical Structure:** Organize your speeches in a logical manner. A well-structured case, with clear signposts and a coherent flow, makes it easier for me to follow your line of reasoning. Remember that clarity extends beyond individual arguments to encompass the overall structure of your case.

5. **Signposting and Cross-Application:** Clearly indicate where you are in the debate by using effective signposting. Additionally, don't hesitate to cross-apply arguments between contentions, as this demonstrates a deep understanding of the issues at hand.

6. **Effective Rebuttal:** In the rebuttal, focus on the most salient points of clash. Prioritize the key issues in the round and explain how they interact with your case. Quality responses and strategic weighing of arguments will be more impactful than sheer quantity.

7. **Questioning:** I encourage debaters to engage in strategic and respectful questioning during cross-examination. Effective questioning can reveal weaknesses in your opponent's case and strengthen your own position.

8. **Impact Analysis:** Articulate the real-world implications of your arguments. Clearly explain the impact of winning key contentions and demonstrate how these impacts should weigh in the overall evaluation of the round.

9. **Respect and Decorum:** Maintain a professional and respectful demeanor throughout the round. Be mindful of your opponent's arguments and engage in a constructive dialogue. Respect for your fellow debater is crucial to fostering a positive debating environment.

missydaigle@gmail.com

Debate Judging Paradigm

I bring experience as a former collegiate debater and a coach with four years of experience. My focus is on clarity, logical argumentation, and strategy. Below are the key points that guide my judging:

1. Clarity over Speed: I value clear communication. While speed is acceptable, spreading that sacrifices clarity may hinder your ability to persuade me. If I can’t follow your arguments, I won’t be able to evaluate them. If you spread, ensure your tags, authors, and warrants are clear.

2. Tech > Truth: I default to technical debate; I will evaluate the round based on the flow and the arguments presented. However, arguments must still have warranted impacts—assertions without explanation won’t carry much weight.

3. Framework and Role of the Ballot: Clearly establish the framework and articulate how I should weigh the round. If no framework is provided, I’ll default to a utilitarian weighing mechanism unless the debate persuades me otherwise.

4. Evidence and Analysis: Evidence quality matters but so does how you use it. A well-explained analytical argument can outweigh poorly warranted card dumps. Highlight critical evidence and explain its impact in the round.

5. Weighing and Impact Calculus: I appreciate strong weighing mechanisms and comparative analysis in rebuttals. Explain why your impacts matter most and how they outweigh your opponent’s arguments.

6. Cross-Examination and Respect: Cross-examination is an opportunity to showcase strategic thinking, but it should remain professional. I value respect and decorum throughout the round.

7. Dropped Arguments: Dropped arguments are important but must still have an explanation of why they matter. I won’t evaluate an unwarranted point, even if it’s dropped.

8. Miscellaneous: Please slow down on theory or dense philosophical arguments. I appreciate creativity but explain how niche arguments function within the round.

Speech Events (Interp & Platform)

General Philosophy:
I approach speech events with an emphasis on performance, clarity, structure, and emotional impact. Regardless of the event, I reward speakers who are passionate, polished, and purposeful in their delivery.

What I’m Looking For:

• Interp (HI, DI, Duo, POI, etc.):

  • Strong characterization and clear transitions.
  • Emotional depth (especially in DI and POI) and humor that lands appropriately (in HI and Duo).
  • Cohesive blocking that enhances the story without being distracting.
  • Clear thematic intent and purpose, especially in POI.

• Platform (OO, INFO, etc.):

  • A clear, original thesis that’s well-supported.
  • Strong use of credible sources with proper citation.
  • Effective delivery with vocal variety, gestures, and eye contact.
  • Creative or unique perspectives that avoid generic topics.

Things I Value:

• Memorization without sounding robotic—natural delivery is key.
• Purposeful movement that complements, not distracts.
• Strong intros and outros that frame the performance.

Pet Peeves:

• Overly exaggerated acting or gestures in Interp.
• Reading too much from visual aids in Info.
• Relying on shock value without depth.

Limited Prep (Extemporaneous & Impromptu)

General Philosophy:
In Limited Prep events, I value organization, analysis, and confident delivery. Speakers should showcase their critical thinking and ability to construct clear arguments under time constraints.

What I’m Looking For:

• Extemporaneous Speaking (USX/IX):

  • Direct answers to the prompt with a clear thesis.
  • Structured speech (typically 3 points) with logical flow.
  • Strong, credible evidence that supports your arguments.
  • Insightful analysis—don’t just state facts, explain significance.
  • Confident, engaging delivery without over-reliance on notes.

• Impromptu:

  • Clear structure (commonly point 1, point 2, point 3) with a strong intro and conclusion.
  • Creative, insightful connections to the prompt.
  • Use of personal anecdotes, historical examples, or cultural references to support arguments.
  • Engaging, natural delivery that balances humor, reflection, or insight.

Things I Value:

• Strong hooks and memorable conclusions.
• Speakers who adapt to the audience and make the topic relatable.
• Confident, fluid delivery that doesn’t feel rushed.

Pet Peeves:

• Failing to directly answer the prompt in Extemp.
• Rambling or disorganized thoughts in Impromptu.
• Overly scripted delivery—Limited Prep should feel natural and adaptable.

Congressional Debate

General Philosophy:
In Congress, I reward eloquence, strategic thinking, and engagement. The best debaters balance strong arguments with active participation and respectful discourse.

What I’m Looking For:

• Content:

  • Well-reasoned arguments backed by credible evidence.
  • Clear clash and direct refutation of opposing arguments.
  • Impact analysis—explain why your argument matters.

• Delivery:

  • Persuasive and confident speaking with good pacing.
  • Vocal variety, eye contact, and clear articulation.
  • Professionalism and decorum in speech and conduct.

• Strategy & Engagement:

  • Effective use of parliamentary procedure (motions, questioning).
  • Active and respectful participation in questioning.
  • Balance between speaking, questioning, and chamber engagement.

Things I Value:

• Clear frameworks and roadmaps in speeches.
• Questioners who ask probing, non-leading questions.
• Strong analysis over evidence dumps.

Pet Peeves:

• Grandstanding or dominating the floor.
• Reading entire speeches word-for-word with no engagement.
• Overly aggressive or hostile questioning.

I am a first year college student. This is my 3rd year judging at debate tournaments and it will be my first time judging LD. I am a former debater. I participated in Congress, Extemporaneous Speaking, and Original Oratory.

Speech delivery: I have experience judging various speech events such as Original Oratory, Duo Interpretation, and POI. Because of this, I have a great appreciation fordelivery and framing of the argument. Understanding that LD is an event focused on the actual debate, I don't expect spreading or overly quick delivery. I also frown upon fluff or needlessly verbose lines. If you trust your argument, you shouldn't need to rush through it or add a lot of fancy-sounding language. I like eye contact and clear enunciation. You can have the best argument in the world, but if you don't deliver it well, it takes away from its strength.

Speech content:LD should not be a war of information. Sources should be used to back up your point of view, but your speech should not be a list of sources and data that prove you are right. I appreciate when you use sources during your refutations, but it is not a requirement. LD is an ethical and philosophical debate that uses sources to back your beliefs up, not the other way around.

Cross-examination and rebuttals: I am human, and I might miss if your opponent fails to refute one or more of your points. It is your duty to let me and your opponent know if this is the case. I am expecting you to at least acknowledge all of your opponent's main claims and try to refute them. I consider not doing so as an admission of defeat against that particular point. Cross-examination is your chance to directly call out the faults in your opponent's logic, and I consider it the most key aspect of LD. Your rebuttal speech should also seek to strike down your opponent's arguments, but you are constrained by having to elaborate on your own and refute your opponent's refutation. Cross-ex and rebuttals are also the moments where you can showcase your debating skills and ability to think on your feet. Good question responses and refutations will be greatly beneficial towards your score. Likewise, lackluster responses and refutations will take away from it.

General notes: I understand that you are human. I do not punish you for stuttering or spending some time thinking just as long as it doesn't disrupt the speech or debate. Similarly, I do not take your physical appearance (clothing, hair, tone of voice, etc) into account, only your delivery and body language.

I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly and do your best.

Sadly: Truth>Tech.

Most important is to follow decorum (no ad hominem fallacies) and follow the simple flow of argumentation. We are here to debate so debate and convince me that your position is the stronger argument.

1. Key arguments of quality with sufficient and ideal sources of evidence that provide relevant support - Logos and Ethos
2. Clarity and organization with proper flow from one argument to another. If I cannot follow you or you do not counter an argument presented, you have conceded your position.
3. Decorum! You are here to debate on the argument, NOT the debater. Allow for a debate by allowing the speaker to have the floor.
4. Please do not introduce a new argument, however tempting, in the final rebuttal!
   
   

Let’s have fun debating!
email: rima1374@yahoo.com

I was a traditional debater on the regional circuit in Florida. I debated for 3 years in LD, but I did so in the traditional sense. Don't spread. If you send me your docs and keep me on the email chain, however, I will be able to follow the round and judge accordingly.

You can run theory, but it must make sense and be a coherent argument. Counter-plans and K's can be ran as well, but I also need these to be coherent as well. I can understand these arguments pretty well overall, but you need to be able to properly run these arguments if you are going to execute on them so that is my only stipulation for doing so.

Don't be rude and please don't repeatedly refer to me as "judge" during the round since LD debate is based on the fact that the entire round is catered to the judge.

I participated in debate in high school, and it is my pleasure to continue to support this amazing opportunity as a judge. I believe strongly that learning debate skills early in life leads to success.

As a judge, I look to see that all arguments are clear, thoughtful and articulate. I will not bring in my personal beliefs in any of my events.

Please be respectful to all participants.

Most importantly, I'm looking for a well researched and articulated argument. You'd probably call me a lay-judge.

As this is a speaking event where your goal is to persuade me to side, good pacing is key and I am not a big fan of spreading. I'd rather you drill down into your contentions rather than throw out a ton of different points to try to make it hard for your opponent to address everything you said.

Theory generally won't impact my decisions, unless you are able to clearly demonstrate that you have a good understanding of it. I am not a fan of Kritk.

I want to hear you demonstrate through your debate the work that you have put into your prep and am looking for quality over quantity. More than you "scoring" the most "offensive points" I'm concerned that you are able to defend your contentions with clear links and prove how your impacts outweigh those of your opponents. At the end of the debate I want to feel you are more right than wrong.

1. General Philosophy: As a judge, I prioritize clarity, organization, and engagement across all speech and debate events. I value respectful communication, strategic thinking, and creativity in argumentation or performance. Regardless of the event, competitors should focus on delivering well-reasoned arguments or performances with clear structure and compelling content. I respect diverse debate and speaking styles but will always consider whether they are appropriate to the context and goals of the event. --- 2. Debate Events: #### Lincoln-Douglas Debate (LD): - **Framework:** I consider the framework crucial, as it sets the foundation for how arguments are evaluated. I expect debaters to clearly explain their value and criterion, and show how their case aligns with them. - **Philosophy/Argumentation:** I prefer well-reasoned philosophical arguments over purely technical debate. Clash is important—debaters should engage directly with their opponent's case and offer clear weighing mechanisms. - **Speed:** While I am familiar with progressive debate, clarity is key. If I cannot understand an argument due to speed or unclear delivery, I will not consider it. - **Evidence/Analysis:** I value strong analytical reasoning. Evidence should be used to support claims, but a debate full of card-reading without explanation will not be persuasive. #### Public Forum Debate (PF): - **Clarity and Structure:** Public Forum should be accessible, and arguments should be communicated clearly. I appreciate a conversational, persuasive tone, and well-structured arguments with clear impacts and weighing. - **Evidence vs. Persuasion:** A balance of evidence and effective persuasion is important. I value debaters who explain their evidence in a way that’s accessible and relevant. - **Framework/Weighing:** I expect teams to provide clear weighing mechanisms for their arguments. Comparative analysis between impacts is necessary for me to make a decision. - **Crossfire:** I enjoy a respectful yet rigorous Crossfire. It’s an opportunity to clarify points and create clash, but it should not devolve into a shouting match. #### Congressional Debate (Congress): - **Speech Quality:** The quality of speeches, in terms of structure, delivery, and argumentation, is paramount. Speeches should be well-organized, address the issue clearly, and offer unique perspectives. - **Engagement:** I value proactive participation in questioning and rebuttals. Debaters should be responsive and respectful, aiming for meaningful clash and engagement. - **Legislative Strategy:** Competitors should offer thoughtful amendments or arguments, demonstrating a deep understanding of the issues at hand. --- 3. Interpretive and Speech Events: Timing and Signals: For IEs, wherever applicable (and upon request from debaters), I will provide standard time signals (2 minutes left = 2 fingers, 1 minute left = 1 index finger, 30 seconds = making a "C" shape with one hand, Time Up = Fist). I will not verbally stop competitors if they cross the -30sec mark, but will count it against them in giving points and ranking. #### Declamation: - **Delivery:** I value strong delivery, emphasizing vocal variety, pacing, and clear enunciation. The speaker should convey the original speech’s intent and emotion. - **Engagement:** Competitors should engage with the audience and demonstrate command over their material, making the speech feel fresh even if it’s an interpretation of someone else’s work. #### Original Oratory (OO): - **Content and Persuasion:** Originality and depth of content are important. I look for speeches that not only inform but also persuade. Competitors should present a clear, well-supported thesis and build towards an impactful conclusion. - **Delivery:** Persuasive delivery is key. I value speakers who use vocal variety, eye contact, and physical presence effectively to enhance their message. #### Extemporaneous Speaking (USX/IX): - **Structure:** Speeches should be well-organized with a clear introduction, body, and conclusion. I appreciate clear roadmaps and signposting throughout the speech. - **Evidence and Reasoning:** Competitors should demonstrate strong reasoning and analytical skills. Evidence should be integrated smoothly and used to support the speaker’s overall argument. - **Engagement and Poise:** I expect speakers to engage confidently with their topic, even if they are unfamiliar with certain aspects. Poise under pressure is essential. #### Interpretation Events (DI, HI, Duo, POI, Prose, Poetry): - **Characterization and Emotion:** In interpretive events, I look for strong characterization and emotional authenticity. Performers should embody their characters fully, creating a clear distinction between different roles. - **Pacing and Delivery:** I appreciate performers who control their pacing and delivery to build tension, humor, or emotional impact. Transitions between characters or scenes should be smooth and purposeful. - **Connection to the Material:** Performers should show a deep understanding of the material, using their performance to highlight the underlying themes and emotional arc. #### Program Oral Interpretation (POI): - **Structure and Theme:** In POI, I look for a cohesive program with a clear thematic arc. Each piece should contribute meaningfully to the overall narrative. - **Performance:** As with other interpretive events, delivery, pacing, and characterization are key. I value performers who make strong emotional connections and demonstrate versatility. --- 4. Other Considerations: - **Respectful Conduct:** Respect for opponents and the activity is a priority. I will not tolerate rudeness, condescension, or unsportsmanlike behavior. - **Adaptability:** I encourage competitors to adapt to their audience. Competitors who are mindful of their audience and adjust their approach accordingly will leave a strong impression. - **Overall Impression:** Ultimately, I evaluate based on the overall impression the competitor leaves. How compelling were their arguments or performances? Did they effectively communicate and engage with their material and audience? --- 5. This judge paradigm provides an overview of my judging style for various Speech and Debate events. I encourage competitors to focus on clarity, depth, and audience engagement in all aspects of their performance or argumentation.

Hi, I am an experienced PF judge (since 2020) and will be a new to LD format starting in 2024.

Here is what I like for Debate:

Clarity, organization / signposts and flow are critical - remember that I have not heard your particular construction of support for your position before so in order to follow along it needs to be woven together tightly.

PF Debate implies . . . debate - your ability to continuously support your position by really listening to, processing, analyzing and responding (professionally) to your opponents' arguments while demonstrating a very deep and nuanced understanding of the issues will be a key differentiator.

Please be professional to each other., and respect boundaries.

Please speak at a normal pace. If you are fast I will not be able to understand you and flow properly.