Hello Speech and Debate enthusiasts -

I am a parent judge and have been judging Speech (primarily) and Debate events for the past 4+ years.

Summary:: When judging any event, my philosophy for ranking students high or low is subject to the rules / guidelines that are relevant to that event. Aside from that I am listening to your flow, observing your body language and most importantly your attitude towards fellow competitors, judge and audience.

Debate:

• Throughout the debate, you should aim for pinpointing weak arguments. Make it easy for me to flow arguments and be specific. Refer to the flow when covering your opponent's case in rebuttals.
• During rebuttal speeches, do not bring the earlier points, bring something fresh to the debate.
• I prefer to listen to the debate framework and evaluate your warrants and evidence.
• I am not too big on “spreading” (fast speaking), it is hard enough to process your arguments so make sure to slow down and enunciate. I will stop if I fail to understand you.
• A key element of judging debate for me is how you differentiate yourself from the opponent.
• Providing a roadmap will help as well.
• It helps if you tell me how I should weigh the round and explain which key arguments I should vote for.

My judging experience is mostly within speech and when judging debate, my preference is quality over quantity.

Speech:

For Speech, I am looking and hearing you as a Speaker not only as a judge but also as a member of the audience. As an audience member, you do not connect to me, then your speech lacked a certain element - this could vary. So in order to connect, you need to have Clarity, Pace, Organization and Engagement.

Delivery--I am evaluating you on content, delivery, speed of delivery, diction, and speed of delivery. As a speaker, I want to evaluate if you demonstrate poise and effective body language that fits well with your speech. It helps if you are able to relate to the mood and the emotions of the topic, character.

Overall, I want you to have fun and know that you will rank higher if you follow rules, are able to keep me engaged through your delivery and are respectful of everyone.

Do speak clearly (speed is okay, but you must be understandable)

Do enjoy your debates. make it fun

A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments.

Communication, eye contact!

be polite, be confident, be persuasive

I am the head coach at a high school in the Bay Area California. I am a competent judge, but you will take my word for it because I have not had the time to write a proper paradigm. Vote for me!

I am a relatively new parent judge. I enjoy debates that focus on content and flow over rules and details. I am convinced by logical arguments that have a clear structure and cite evidence and supporting materials. Since I am not an expert on the rules of debate, attempting to weaken your opponent’s argument with technicalities will likely not be effective for me. I have a great time listening to all of the debaters and I will be very engaged and will be taking copious notes. Please speak slowly and clearly, and have fun!

There is a first time for everything. This is my first time participating in a speech and debate competition as a judge. As a judge for speech and debate competitions, my primary goal is to create a fair and supportive environment where young students can develop their communication and critical thinking skills. Here's an overview of my judging paradigm:

1. Fairness: Fairness is paramount in any competition. I will evaluate each participant objectively, considering their performance against the established criteria for the event. I will not show favoritism or bias towards any participant or school.

2. Clarity and Organization: I value speeches and debates that are clear, well-organized, and easy to follow. I will pay attention to the structure of speeches and debates, as well as the coherence of the arguments presented.

3. Content and Argumentation: Substance matters. I will look for persuasive arguments that are backed by facts and logic.

4. Delivery and Presentation: Effective communication involves more than just the words spoken; it also encompasses delivery and presentation. I will evaluate participants on their vocal delivery and overall presentation.

5. Respect and Sportsmanship: Respect for fellow competitors, judges, and audience members is non-negotiable. I expect all participants to demonstrate good sportsmanship throughout the competition, whether they win or lose. Disrespectful behavior towards others will not be tolerated.

6. Feedback: Feedback is essential for growth. I will provide constructive feedback to participants, highlighting their strengths and offering suggestions for improvement. I aim to help students develop their skills and become better communicators and debaters.

7. Learning Opportunity: Above all, I see speech and debate competitions as valuable learning opportunities for students. Regardless of the outcome, participation in these events helps students build confidence, critical thinking skills, and the ability to articulate their ideas effectively. My role as a judge is to facilitate this learning process in a supportive and encouraging environment.

Overall, I approach judging with a commitment to fairness, respect, and the educational value of speech and debate activities. I look forward to watching students showcase their talents and grow as communicators and thinkers.

Looking for clear, organized presentation of arguments. I would rather you have a few substantial, strong contentions that are repeatedly expanded on instead of dozens of scattered points. Quality over quantity! On that note, PLEASE no spreading. You will risk me not being able to keep track of your arguments accurately. Like I said, I value quality of contentions over quantity! Above all, be respectful to your opponent(s) (and your judge too!)

I’m a parent judge with a few times debate/speech judging experience, please explain your arguments clearly and avoid overly technical language. Speak at a steady pace and stay organized so I can follow your points. I value logical reasoning, real-world examples, and respectful behavior. Don’t assume I know the topic—help me understand why your arguments matter. I’ll make my decision based only on what’s said in the round, so be sure to address your opponent’s key points and explain why you should win. Good luck!

I teach math and serve as chair of the math dept at Isidore Newman School in New Orleans. I am a frequent tournament administrator (e.g., LD at Greenhill and Apple Valley, Speech at Glenbrooks, Emory, Stanford, and Berkeley). I retired from coaching high school at the end of the 2017-2018 school year. I coached Policy and LD (as well as most every speech event) for over 25 years on the local and national circuit. In the spring of 2020, we started a Middle School team at Newman and have been coaching on the middle school level since then.

I judge only a handful of rounds each year. I don't know trends and norms nearly as well as I used to when I was coaching high school debate. You will need to explain topic specific abbreviations, acronyms, etc. a little more than you would normally. You will also need to go slower than normal, especially for the first 30 sec of each speech so I can adjust to you.

My philosophy is in three sections. Section 1 applies to both policy and LD. Section 2 is policy-specific. Section 3 is LD-specific.

Section 1: Policy and LD

Speed. Go fast or slow. However, debaters have a tendency to go faster than they are physically capable of going. Regardless of your chosen rate of delivery, it is imperative that you start your first speech at a considerably slower pace than your top speed will be. Judges need time to adjust to a student's pitch, inflection, accent/dialect. I won't read cards after the round to compensate for your lack of clarity, nor will I say "clearer" during your speech. In fact, I will only read cards after the round if there is actual debate on what a specific card may mean. Then, I may read THAT card to assess which debater is correct.

Theory. Theory should not be run for the sake of theory. I overhead another coach at a tournament tell his debaters to "always run theory." This viewpoint sickens me. If there is abuse, argue it. Be prepared to explain WHY your ground is being violated. What reasonable arguments can't be run because of what your opponent did? For example, an aff position that denies you disad or CP ground is only abusive if you are entitled to disad or CP ground. It becomes your burden to explain why you are so entitled. Theory should never be Plan A to win a round unless your opponent's interpretation, framework, or contention-level arguments really do leave you no alternative. I think reasonable people can determine whether the theory position has real merit or is just BS. If I think it's BS, I will give the alleged offender a lot of leeway.

Role of the Ballot. My ballot usually means nothing more than who won the game we were playing while all sitting in the same room. I don't believe I am sending a message to the debate community when I vote, nor do I believe that you are sending a message to the debate community when you speak, when you win, or when you lose. I don't believe that my ballot is a teaching tool even if there's an audience outside of the two debaters. I don't believe my ballot is endorsing a particular philosophy or possible action by some agent implied or explicitly stated in the resolution. Perhaps my ballot is endorsing your strategy if you win my ballot, so I am sending a message to you and your coach by voting for you, but that is about it. If you can persuade me otherwise, you are invited to try. However, if your language or conduct is found to be offensive, I will gladly use my ballot to send a message to you, your coach, and your teammates with a loss and/or fewer speaker points than desired.

Section 2: Policy only (although there are probably things in the LD section below that may interest you)

In general, Affs should defend the resolution and propose action that solves a problem. The Neg should defend the status quo or propose a competitive alternative. HOW debaters choose to do that are up to the debaters to decide. Any team may choose to question the method or framework chosen by the opposing team. Although I have the experience with Affs who read topical plans, I will not reject an Aff team simply because those don't do that.

I think K's need a solid link and a clear, viable, and competitive alt, but I best understand a negative strategy if consisting of counterplans, disads, case args.

Section 3: LD only (if you are an LDer who likes "policy" arguments in LD, you should read the above section}

Kritiks. In the end, whatever position you take still needs to resolve a conflict inherent (or explicitly stated) within the resolution. Aff's MUST affirm the resolution. Neg's MUST negate it. If your advocacy (personal or fiated action by some agent) does not actually advocate one side of the resolution over the other, then you'll probably lose.

Topicality. I really do love a good T debate. A debater will only win a T debate if (1) you read a definition and/or articulate an interpretation of specific words/phrases in the resolution being violated and (2) explain why your interp is better than your opponent's in terms of providing a fair limit - not too broad nor too narrow. I have a strong policy background (former policy debater and long-time policy debate coach). My view of T debates is the same for both.

Presumption. I don't presume aff or neg inherently. I presume the status quo. In some resolutions, it's clear as to who is advocating for change. In that case, I default to holding whoever advocates change in the status quo as having some burden of proof. If neither (or both) is advocating change, then presumption becomes debatable. However, I will work very hard to vote on something other than presumption since it seems like a copout. No debate is truly tied at the end of the game.

Plans vs Whole Res. I leave this up to the debaters to defend or challenge. I am more persuaded by your perspective if it has a resolutional basis. There are some topics where a plan may actually be reasonable/necessary to contextually the topic. And even if the aff doesn't read a plan per se, examples of what it means to affirm are often helpful. Whether it's fair for an aff to have a fiat power over a specific plan is subject to debate. However, "plans bad because this is LD, not policy" is a really bad argument as to why plans are bad in LD.

I'm a parent judge, and I'd appreciate it if you could share any materials to help me follow along and understand the debate context. It would also be helpful to maintain a reasonable pace during the debate. Thank you !

• As a judge I prioritize clear communication, effective persuasion, and logical argumentation.

• I evaluate the performances based on well researched arguments, evidence based, keep it clear and simple, and logical.

• Speak clearly and concisely, if you are reading too fast, I will not understand your argument.

• I will give you verbal communication if there are any technical issues during online tournament for example: Audio and video issues, if you are not audible to me.

• I am a good listener and taking notes through out the round.

• Looking for respectful behavior towards opponents.

• I will base my decision on the strengths and validation of your arguments you presented.

• I believe in time management.

• Have fun, to learn something new is exciting, learning is a never ending process.

I like to hear that the students have a connection with their contentions/topics and want to be persuaded and pulled in. Speed talking outside Construction in PF isn't preferred because it is much harder to connect with your points and have a thorough flow. The same is true for me in other events. I don't give extra points for talking faster and find it often makes the content more jumbled for the speaker as well unless they have a firm grasp of the content. I love to see full connection with your body and voice to the purpose of your statements. Variance of tone, speed, volume help keep engagement.

I don’t like hyper speaking “spreading.”

I would like to hear elaboration on your case. Break down your case, so that I can clearly hear the points and analyze them.

Enunciate your points clearly( sub points and contentions)

I debated national circuit PF for Oakwood School (North Hollywood), graduating in 2022.

I try not to intervene, even if I know an argument to be false (e.g., "the sky is green"), but I will not vote on any claim without a warrant (I won't vote on "the sky is green" unless some reason is given for why that claim is true).

Speed: My flowing is not as speedy as it used to be, so feel free to speak faster than conversational pace but don’t overdo it.

Speaker points: As a judge, I really appreciate clear, explicit weighing to make rounds easier to resolve. Points are based on how easy you make my decision. Also, HUGE points for well-executed sassiness and for making me laugh.

Other stuff: Strike me if you have a super long link chain, do not address the topic, or talk super fast.

Feel free to ask any questions before the round. My email is gmostow@college.harvard.edu

I am a parent judge. I prefer clarity in the arguments presented with relevant fact based evidence in making your point. I would like the debaters to be respectful to each other and conduct themselves in a professional manner.

I am a parent judge. Have judged for the past two year, so have some experience.

Please speak slow and clear for online events.

I will look for your quality of evidence, your flow, how you respond to your opponent explaining your arguments clearly. They matter to me.

I will vote on a clear summarization of contentions, evidence and impact.

I am a “Lay” judge. I have 2 years experience judging middle school debate. I will judge
based on logical arguments. I appreciate argument over style. I appreciate clash between teams
however I will vote against disrespectful or unprofessional behavior. I will judge
based solely on what you say. Please speak slowly, clearly and audibly. I appreciate vocal modulation.
I do not care for “spreading” or hyper fast speech. I will write down arguments and flow the debate. I appreciate a clear framework and roadmap.

I am the parent judge and this is my 3rd year judging speech and debate. I value well-structured cases, clear arguments, and explicit weighing. I like empirical evidence rather than emotion. I like a well thought out/planned case that makes sense logically - I like to connect the dots.

I am a parent judge. I participated in Speech and Debate when I was in high school so I am familiar with the events (although many things have changed since I was in high school!).

I am looking for:

• structured speech/debate with sign posting if relevant
• strong and logical arguments with strong evidence/supporting data where applicable. I prefer conciseness rather verbosity
• clear and smooth delivery; loud enough (but not shouting) and confident (but not aggressive)
• Important: do not speed talk at such a fast pace that you are not understandable or the pace doesn't allow you to emphasize key points. If I don't understand you or your key points get lost, it will be to your disadvantage. I'm not a fan of spreading. I prefer a few strong points which are clearly articulated, delivered at an understandable pace and strongly supported with evidence.

EXPERIENCE

2024 New to high school debate. I have been part of middle school parliamentary for two years prior to 2024. I don't consider myself a pure "lay" judge. Currently coaching a high school team.

PREFERENCES: I do not hear soft spoken voices very well. Spreading or hyper fast talk is not appreciated. Fast speech is ok.

FLOW: I flow on paper mostly. Sometimes on my laptop. I capture major contentions and evidence.

CRITERIA FOR JUDGING:

I value strong arguments and sound logic. Challenges to opponent's contentions must be sound and evidence based before I consider that argument "taken down." The speaker / team with the most arguments left "standing" wins.

I appreciate good framework and contentions that are consistent with values / criterion (if given). For LD, I find criterion arguments interesting. If both teams defend their VC, then I will judge based on the importance between the two VCs.

EXPECTATIONS:

I appreciate good clash. I also expect behavior to be professional. You can defend your time in CX / crossfire. But there is a point where tone and treatment of your opponents becomes bullying, rude or abusive. I will mark down based on bad behavior.