1. Clarity and Organization:

• I expect speakers to articulate their arguments clearly and concisely, ensuring that their points areeasy to understand to a generally educated and informed person.
• Organization is crucial; I look for a clear structure in speeches, with a logical progression of ideas and smooth transitions between points.

2. Content and Argumentation:

• Substance is paramount. I evaluate the strength of arguments based on evidence, logic, and reasoning.
• I appreciate originality and depth in analysis, as well as the ability to anticipate and respond to counterarguments effectively.
• Arguments should be relevant to the topic at hand and supported by credible sources where appropriate.

3. Delivery and Style:

• Delivery encompasses both verbal and nonverbal communication. I pay attention to vocal variety, tone, pace, and gestures.
• Engaging the audience is essential. I appreciate speakers who exhibit confidence, passion, and charisma while maintaining professionalism.
• Style should complement substance; eloquence and creativity can enhance the impact of an argument, but should not overshadow its substance.

4. Rebuttal and Refutation:

• Debaters should demonstrate active listening and critical thinking skills during rebuttals.
• I value the ability to identifyweaknesses in opponents' argumentsand provide cogent responses supported by evidence or reasoning.
• Rebuttal should be respectful and focused on the substance of the argument, avoiding personal attacks or irrelevant tangents.

5. Adaptability and Flexibility:

• Competitors who can adapt their arguments and strategies based on changing circumstances or opponent tactics demonstrate versatility and agility.
• Flexibility in adjusting to time constraints, format variations, or unexpected challenges reflects maturity and preparedness.

6. Ethical Conduct:

• Integrity is non-negotiable. I expect competitors to uphold ethical standards, including honesty, respect for opponents, and adherence to the rules of fair play.
• Plagiarism or any form of cheating will result in severe penalties.

7. Overall Impact:

• Ultimately, I evaluate each performance based on its overall impact – the effectiveness of the argument, the persuasiveness of the delivery, and the engagement of the audience.
• While technical proficiency is important, the ability to inspire, provoke thought, or evoke emotion can elevate a speech or debate from good to exceptional.

For debate: Quality of the argument and evidence is paramount, but presentation and confidence can add to the quality of the argument. Make sure to support your arguments with evidence, and respectful debate is always a must.

For speech: Presentation and flow is important. Make me feel something by using good examples in an impactful way. It should feel organic and natural, not rehearsed.

The Debate section:

I’m a fairly relaxed judge.

I prefer professional round etiquette because it shows that you don’t rely on cheap tactics to give you the win. I will judge the round on your main speeches so don’t solely rely on crossfire to make yourself seem cool. Organized argumentation and explanations for evidence are the most effective way to sway me to your side. I’m not a big fan of straight BS. I prefer you to tell me why your BS matters.

Tell me what I should judge the round on.

Don’t rely on me to time for you, give you time signals, or provide an accurate flow. I will try my best to give time signals if asked but I most likely will forget so please don't rely on me. I can provide better critiques overall if you let me just judge you.

SPEED! I am NOT a huge fan of speed talking, I will be ok if you do talk fast. just know that I am not here for it. I want to understand what your argument is.

Grace periods are fine as long as you don’t abuse them. Just finish your thought and stop.

I won’t mainly judge on crossfire, but I can’t stop my ears from hearing your BS (so, please don’t make them bleed).

The Speech section:

This is something I love. So I am very excited for your performance.

I love stories and acting. JUST HAVE FUN and share the message of your story. Act confident when you are on stage. It helps, trust me. I just want to know what I should take away from your speech. please blow me out of the water with your acting and topic.

I believe that having a memorized script is more important than any other aspect. After that, I value characterization and then the cream on top is choreography.

I will let you know if you are almost out of time so you can have your grace period.

About me:

I was a captain of my high school debate team for 3 years ;)

I competed primarily in speech my first year and took home lots of super shiny HI, POI, and DI trophies. I’ve heard and said a lot of BS in my years so if you’re going to rely on it at least make it worth hearing.

In my second year, I ventured into the realm of debate. I could’ve done better. But in the end, Congress stole my heart...and my patience. I also tried LD.

In my third year...everything changed! I leveled up in Congress. Awful —> Mediocre. I dropped LD in the trash and never looked back but BS will always be my closest frenemy.

The part that is of the utmost IMPORTANCE.

Be nice. It’s ok to destroy your opponent but please do it nicely. Also, have fun. Debate isn't the most important thing in the world, so just enjoy it.

If you have any questions about the round or want to tell me I’m an awful/hilarious judge, go ahead.

p.s. If you read the whole thing before round come tell me what you think I could change about my paradigm to make it better.

I'm new to judging so I probably won't be impressed by crazy tactics. Don't be rude to your opponent and help me understand your case and you'll do well. Speak up, don't fidget and have fun!

I have only judged twice mostly speech, but I have judged a few PF's. I am new to debate and I hope to learn from my experiences judging.

My judging paradigm aligns most closely with the Stock Issues paradigm, but with a nod toward the Appearance paradigm. Logically reasoned negative arguments can singularly defeat reasoned affirmative arguments. Presentation is also important, so clarity of speech and projection is paramount, whereas speeding/spreading should be avoided.

My judging paradigm aims towards speaking skills and communication. I want to observe an organized presentation that is well structured and flows with a beginning, middle and end. Persuasion should be articulate backed up with references and reliable data, and presented arguments need to be appealing. Pace should be at a level that the listener is able to follow along and understand speech.

Above all, I appreciate civility. Respect your opponents and maintain a positive attitude. I don't mind a little aggression, but if you start to get snarky or roll eyes, I will start deducting speaker points. I'm not a fan of spreading or spewing. I will flow as best as I can, but if I can't follow, don't expect to win. Please keep your case appropriate for today's practical application. Clash well, speak clearly and persuasively, and have fun and you should do well.

I participated in speech and debate in high school and have been judging for a few years. My paradigm comes from Aristotle. I am looking for pathos, ethos and logos. Pathos- Is there an emotional connection? Is it personal? Why should I care? Ethos-Are there reasons to support your credibility? Logos- Do you have a logical and reasonable argument?

More specific to Debate: I understand that debaters have a lot of evidence to present, but if you speak so fast that I do not know what you are saying than you will very likely rank lower. It is important that you know how to pronounce words, otherwise it doesn't seem like you know what you are talking about. It is vital that you cite sources to support your case. I will be flowing and trying to give weight to arguments that best carry through. Please avoid personal attacks. ln LD, your case is stronger if the value and criterion line up with contentions.

Dislike: nitpicking about rules.

I expect everyone to be respectful of one another, in speech and in action, during speaking and listening. Please be quiet when it is not your turn.

I prefer shorter more concise arguments, versus trying to cover every point possible. Debate jargon can often be difficult for me to follow. Treat me like a smart 12 year old and walk me through your argument's logic. If you think your point is obvious, it is probably not. I try to keep track of logical conclusions, and usually those with more convincing logical conclusions will win. For me it is about strong, thorough, high quality arguments over Gish Gallop style. Please communicate with me if you need clarity or special consideration, and I can usually accommodate you with your competition's consent.

I value the use of logic and credible evidence. I do not like spewing or spreading. Instead, I value clear speaking and explaining of points with strong impacts. A strong offense (refuting the opponent's points, etc.) is always very persuasive, and having clash on these points makes a good debate.

1. Clarity and Organization:

• I expect speakers to articulate their arguments clearly and concisely, ensuring that their points are easy to understand to a generally educated and informed person.
• Organization is crucial; I look for a clear structure in speeches, with a logical progression of ideas and smooth transitions between points.

2. Content and Argumentation:

• Substance is paramount. I evaluate the strength of arguments based on evidence, logic, and reasoning.
• I appreciate originality and depth in analysis, as well as the ability to anticipate and respond to counterarguments effectively.
• Arguments should be relevant to the topic at hand and supported by credible sources where appropriate.

3. Delivery and Style:

• Delivery encompasses both verbal and nonverbal communication. I pay attention to vocal variety, tone, pace, and gestures.
• Engaging the audience is essential. I appreciate speakers who exhibit confidence, passion, and charisma while maintaining professionalism.
• Style should complement substance; eloquence and creativity can enhance the impact of an argument, but should not overshadow its substance.

4. Rebuttal and Refutation:

• Debaters should demonstrate active listening and critical thinking skills during rebuttals.
• I value the ability to identify weaknesses in opponents' arguments and provide cogent responses supported by evidence or reasoning.
• Rebuttal should be respectful and focused on the substance of the argument, avoiding personal attacks or irrelevant tangents.

5. Adaptability and Flexibility:

• Competitors who can adapt their arguments and strategies based on changing circumstances or opponent tactics demonstrate versatility and agility.
• Flexibility in adjusting to time constraints, format variations, or unexpected challenges reflects maturity and preparedness.

6. Ethical Conduct:

• Integrity is non-negotiable. I expect competitors to uphold ethical standards, including honesty, respect for opponents, and adherence to the rules of fair play.
• Plagiarism or any form of cheating will result in severe penalties.

7. Overall Impact:

• Ultimately, I evaluate each performance based on its overall impact – the effectiveness of the argument, the persuasiveness of the delivery, and the engagement of the audience.
• While technical proficiency is important, the ability to inspire, provoke thought, or evoke emotion can elevate a speech or debate from good to exceptional.