I keep time silently but do honor the 30 second grace period. While you shouldn't take advantage of it frequently, just don't feel the need to abruptly stop when the timer goes off in the middle of an impactful closing thought. Don't worry so much as speaking up to the bell as giving a clear, cogent argument or rebuttal. Although I myself am a fast speaker, I'm not as keen on hearing rapidly paced, densely packed verbage ("spreading"), but rather a convincing and eloquent train of thought. Don't interpret my silence badly -- I'm just adhering to judging protocol. I do give detailed feedback in Tabroom. Good luck and enjoy yourselves!

As a practicing lawyer for many years, I appreciate arguments that are logical and supported by credible evidence. I realize there are many sides to a story and therefore will focus on whose arguments are logical and the most persuasive. Develop your case and clearly articulate your points in a concise manner.

I appreciate traditional debating and probably value arguments over style. I find arguments grounded in real-world impacts to be the most persuasive. I prefer debaters who speak at a conversational pace (ok to talk fast) compared to spreading; too fast of a rate of delivery has made it difficult for me to understand all the arguments in the past. This is the same when too much jargon is used.

I try to keep a rigorous flow - taking notes and mapping arguments so I can recall and access the points made by each side.

I will try to be tabula rasa; however, if something seems to be blatantly false, I may make connections myself or research something I do not know. If your opponent raises such arguments, I expect you to challenge it. I may disagree with something you say – but I will keep an open mind on solid arguments.

I am an experienced speech and Congress coach, and a former competitor.

In Congress, I value respect and courtesy, delivery, an analysis of real-world impacts, evidence and clash - so unless you are the first speech, you need to show me that you are listening and responding to the other speeches in the round. I don't want to hear the same arguments restated and rehashed at the end of the round - give me some new ideas, or some summative analysis. Even if you give a fantastically delivered and well cited speech, if you aren't trying to ask good questions at every opportunity throughout the round, I'm not going to rank you highly. It is, after all, a debate event.

In Lincoln Douglas and in other styles of debate, please don't treat debate like a game. I am very traditional, and treating it like a game with progressive argumentation, performance Ks, K Affs, and RVIs harms those in small schools who don’t have the advantage of many team members to teach them the game, and it creates more inequities in debate. I listen carefully, write down excessive amounts of information and I vote off my flow so if you want my ballot, give a strong final speech that addresses, crystallizes and weighs the key arguments in the round. Show that you were listening to and have evidence to counter arguments presented by your opponent(s). These speeches demonstrate your ability to think and interact with your opponents’ case, much more so than your ability to read a prepared case, that you may or may not have written yourself. Don’t spread. If I can’t understand what you are saying, I can’t flow your case. And no one spreads in real life. Off time road maps are a waste of time. Just as a good extemp speaker should not have to read me the prompt before they start the speech, I should be able to follow your road map within your speech.

In all debate events, and in life, the most important thing is to be kind.

I am a parent/lay judge and heavily value creativity and strong points raised between teams in debate. No kritiks and no spreading. Looking forward to a great debate!

I am a parent judge. I will give higher speaker points for debaters that maintain professionalism and are calm and respectful. I am looking for a nice flow of thoughts in your opening speeches, Logic and justification in your rebuttals. All the best!

Debate: I am a lay judge, please speak at an appropriate pace and explain why your side is more important for me to vote on. Define any terms that you don't think a non-debater will know. For clashing arguments, try to tell me why your side of the argument is more clear and probable. Please explain how your arguments work and also explain your evidence rather than just saying the name of the author. Please time yourselves and your opponents, as I will not keep track of time. Be respectful and enjoy the debate!

For speech: I value your presentation skills like body language, eye contact, and clarity. For interpretations, I like to clearly see many different characters and connection with the audience through your expressions and theme of the piece. In oratory, I enjoy good humor and stories that make your speech seem more personable.

For impromptu/extemp: using your full time to the best of your ability is one of my top judging mechanisms. I will look to see how much you can develop your content and not be repetitive.

One thing I've noticed having judged semi/final rounds at the TOC in Kentucky, the best speakers have a great connection with the audience, whether that's humor in extemp/info/impromptu, incredible expressions and gestures in interp, and personal stories in oratory, they really make an effort to make their speech be memorable.

I keep a rigorous flow, but I'd still consider myself a traditional judge. I reject speed for its own sake, but I can follow it somewhat. I would only vote for theory on topicality grounds or for actual abuse. Theory breaks debate, so you will need to convince me that the debate is impossible because of a real violation. Just because your opponent drops or mishandles your thin T shell does not mean a concession has occurred: tread carefully. A K will need to be explained very well. Your opponent dropping a poorly linked K is not an auto-victory.

I am the head speech and debate coach for my school. I keep a rigorous flow, but I'd still consider myself a traditional judge. Speed for its own sake is something I disdain, but I can follow it somewhat. I would only vote for theory on topicality grounds or for actual abuse. Theory breaks debate, so you will need to convince me that the debate is impossible because of a real violation. Just because your opponent drops or mishandles your thin T shell does not mean a concession has occurred: tread carefully. I suppose I'd vote for a K but you will need to explain it very well. Your opponent dropping a poorly linked K is not an auto-victory.

In LD the Negative must refute the Affirmative case in the first speech. An unaddressed argument in this first speech is a drop/concession. I would allow Neg to cross-apply arguments from the NC in later speeches if they naturally clash with the aff case.

P.S. I have decided that most circuit-style debate is pretty embarrassing from a performance standpoint. I think it gives competitive debate a silly aspect that undermines its credibility and therefore undermines the value of the activity. I would probably say linking into this argument would get my ballot most of the time so long as one side is not also engaging in silly debate stuff. If both sides are super silly in performance and/or argumentation. I will decide based on the most outrageous dropped argument.

I'm a Lay Judge.

1. Speak clearly with good enunciation for me to best understand what you are talking about.
2. If you speak very fast, I may not catch your actual intention.
3. Try to SPEAK CLEARLY and LOUDLY, but not FAST!Do your thing.
4. Just keep your flow going and do your best; Keep track of time and maintain formality throughout the round.
5. Make strong weighing arguments and explain clearly why your contention is better than your opponent's contention

6. Stay polite and civil to your opponents and only speak when it's your turn

I am looking forward to judging your debates. Good luck debaters!

I have a couple main preferences:

- Do not talk too fast. Make sure I can clearly understand what you are saying, and slow down if you need to.

- Make sure you give reasoning/warranting for your claims along with evidence to back them up. Do not only read off cards.

This is my second year as a speech and debate judge (2024-2025). I have a background in medicine and business. I prefer a moderate rate of delivery and am comfortable with technical language. I prefer clarity and structure in analyzing an argument. I appreciate brevity, creativity, and humor. I favor the strength and depth of argument over stylistic elements.

For Policy,

I am largely a policy and stock issues judge. While I am not an absolutist (meaning if you're not 100% on these I reject your case) I do largely want your case to fulfill the burdens of the topic within a reasonable plausibility or ability. This means I want clear eloquent presentations and do not like arguments that are NOT related to the actual topic. I have learned that in this topic I am a "truth" over "tech" judge. This means that you can use theory but it had better have standing.

I then focus on the policy itself looking at the advantages and disadvantages of a case and the impact of these. This means that if you like to throw in "game theories" those will be entertained if they accept and help argue the topic and the team can prove that "blowing up the moon" will have a net positive impact on the case. This also means that I am not a fan of "K"s as the students that have come to the tournament have learned, prepared for and are ready to argue the case not some attempt to "not compete". If you don't want to argue the topic, go to LD. If you are going to use a K it should be topical.

If you are going to spread, then you should email me a copy of your case so that I can look for the issues you are arguing.I can keep up.

I truly try hard to ensure that I only flow and weigh what the competitors have brought to the round and not my own knowledge or understanding. Having said that, a good policy team clearly drives what they want their judge to see.

For Public Forum, an event I have judged for nearly ten years now, I find that I am an impact-focused judge.

A team can win on impact and values, but since its PF , values alone will not yield victory. I have found I vote based on the following criteria:

• Significant Impacts:
  I want to hear why your arguments matter in the bigger picture. Whether you’re debating policy, philosophy, or critical perspectives, explain the magnitude, timeframe, and probability of your impacts.

• Value-Based Argumentation:
  In value debates (e.g., Lincoln-Douglas or Public Forum), I want to see how your arguments align with the value or value criterion. If no value framework is established, I will default to evaluating which side provides the greatest overall benefit to society or individuals.

• Clarity in Comparison:
  If both sides have strong impacts, tell me which one matters more and why. Is it more urgent? Does it affect more people? Is it more probable? This kind of comparison makes your case stronger.

I appreciate when teams know their subject matter and can adapt their case "on the fly", are able to be specific about numbers, locations, names etc.

Disclosure theory: I am not a fan of disclosure theory. I believe that it distracts from meaningful discussion about the resolution or important issues. Students coming to the tournament know that some schools have many coaches and large teams to help them and some schools are small and of limited resources. They arrive anyway and compete. They did not come to debate the socio-economics of high school debate, but rather the topic they have worked on all month.

I extend my attitude about disclosure theory to "K"'s. While there are some K's that are applicable to a topic, most a distraction from the debate.

Lastly, NOT EVERYTHING leads to NUCLEAR WAR. Please use this threat and outcome as lightly as possible (unless it applies) as I will be naturally skeptical that you have chosen the largest morality and most dire outcome to create the largest impact no matter how probable.

I am a parent judge. I look forward to a professional debate. Do not spread and use a lot of jargon. I judge based off the flow and the content of arguments as well as clash. I also value weighing in the debate. I value speaker points based on presentation style.

Other info: If you are sending cards add me to the email chain before the round starts.

Hi Students -

I have judged high school/ middle school debates for 4yrs and this is my second year judging HS PF. Consider me a lay judge.

Thanks

Amit