I prefer to be a tabula rasa judge, presenting as a blank slate, and allowing debaters to frame for me what the decision making criteria should be. I have plenty of familiarity, but feel that you are at your best when you seek to write the ballot for me.

In the event that stock issues create a convincing discussion, then make that argument. If you think you are the better model of polished presentation, then highlight the need for a decision based on communication and delivery skills. If you feel that your kritik is of utmost importance and should carry the round, then I'll need you to make that clear. If no judging direction is given to me by the debaters, I am likely to adopt a policymaking approach, as though the Aff and Neg are providing me two different paths from which to choose, and that decision will be shaped in large part by the comparative advantages and disadvantages.

I will flow the arguments, but will not pull significant dropped arguments from the opposing team without at least a brief mention. In competitive speech, the issues do not speak for themselves, but require you to process them.

I appreciate and reward not only the use of evidence, but particularly the analysis and comparison of evidence sources, relevancy and bias.

One of the great benefits of debate is the ability to understand issues from each point of view. An important manifestation of this ability is the respect shown to your opposing peers, even as you seek to be more persuasive.

I appreciate the skills of research, organization, mental processing and presentation delivery that are developed through debate, and would like to reward those abilities.

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!

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.

I’ve coached debate in a fairly rural school for three years, but had no prior debate experience. I’m an English Major with an Emphasis in Rhetoric and composition. In other words, I know a lot about argument and organization, but I’m still learning a lot about the world of debate. As a result, I tend to judge based on argument, organization, and presentation over technicalities. If you’re communicating clearly, though, I can keep up with whatever you throw at me, and will not hold my preferences against any team/speaker who truly advances the better argument/case.

For Everyone: Be respectful toward all opponents/speakers.

Lincoln Douglas:

I prefer traditional arguments that are primarily focused on the resolution.

I will weigh my decision heavily on who is able to consistently uphold a moral argument.

Evidence is important for backing up theoretical/philosophical claims, but LD is less concerned with what is practical and more concerned with what is moral/ethical/right. In other words, if an argument is plausible despite difficulty, it still holds value so long as it progresses the moral agenda connected to the value. Your evidence is important, but only so far as it supports your moral line of reasoning. Moral claims DO need concrete evidence, though, to demonstrate applicability in the real world. Otherwise we are engaging in purely philosophical and hypothetical debate.

A good argument is one that is clear and easy to understand. I prefer a clearly established value and criterion, but a clear argument will sometimes sufficiently imply one or both.

Delivery is important, but the argument itself is more important for advancing your case.

I prefer clear speaking at a reasonable pace, but will not hold speed against the debater with the stronger case as long as I can understand it.

Don't rely on me to read your case to understand it. I should be able to understand what you are saying by listening to you in the round.

Speech Events (Oratory):

I’m looking for your overall purpose and your ability to engage an audience via your performance. My priorities are:

1. Clarity of argument’s purpose.
2. Clear line of reasoning/structure.
3. Stage Presence/Command
4. Importance/Relevance/Impact of Topic

Speech Events (Dxtemp):

I look for your ability to clearly and efficiently address the prompt. Judging priorities:

1.Clarity of answer to question

2. Structure/organization of argument

3. Quality/specificity of evidence

4. Presence/Delivery

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.

Philosophy:

I believe debate is not only a competitive activity but also a powerful educational tool that sharpens critical thinking, public speaking, and research skills. My primary goal as a judge is to create a fair and constructive environment where all debaters can learn and improve.

What I Value:

1. Clarity and Organization: Arguments should be clearly articulated and well-organized. Signposting and road mapping help me follow your case structure and argument progression.
2. Evidence Quality: I prioritize well-researched, credible evidence and expect debaters to explain its relevance and impact on their arguments.
3. Engagement: Direct engagement with the opponent’s arguments through refutation and rebuttal is crucial. I appreciate when debaters systematically address and dismantle opposing points.
4. Speaking Style: While persuasive and clear communication is important, I prioritize substance over style. However, debaters should strive to be understandable and engaging.

Topicality and Framework:

I expect the affirmative team to present a case that is topical and adheres to the resolution. Framework debates should be clear and directly impact how I evaluate the round.

Argumentation:

I am open to a wide range of arguments, including policy proposals, critical arguments, and kritiks, as long as they are well-explained and directly relevant to the debate at hand. Logical consistency is important to me.

Cross-Examination:

Cross-examination periods should be used effectively to clarify, challenge, and set up arguments. Respectful and strategic questioning is valued.

Decision Making:

My decision will be based on the flow—whichever team more effectively advances their arguments and negates their opponent’s points will likely earn my ballot. I consider dropped arguments as conceded, but their impact on the round must be articulated.

Feedback:

I provide detailed feedback focusing on strengths, areas for improvement, and the reasoning behind my decision. I aim to offer constructive criticism that debaters can use to enhance their skills.

Conduct:

Respectful conduct towards opponents and judges is mandatory. I will not tolerate any form of misconduct or disrespect.

Final Note:

Debate is a learning experience. I encourage debaters to take risks, be creative, and most importantly, enjoy the process. Feel free to ask me any questions before the round starts.

Written in collaboration with ChatGPT.