I did LD debate for 3 years in High School. I have a daughter in debate which has brought me into the judging scene.

What I look for most of all in LD debate is persuasion, and there are many ways to do this: speaking style and delivery, pacing to be sure the judge gets all your points you expect to flow-through later, logical comparisons/stories that clarify your argument, information/quotes from authoritative sources, challenging/comparing your sources vs. opponent for greater authority, etc. If you talk fast and I miss your points you expect to "flow-through" that is on you.

I expect reading for opening statements, but after that you should know your case well enough to make lots of eye contact during rebuttals. Use prompts, not wholly written statements for rebuttals. Make eye contact.

Use your cross-examination wisely. Many debates can be won with well-chosen questions that get unintended answers from opponents. I expect a bit of "fire" during cross-examination, and your confidence in your case, or lack of confidence, will usually show here.

During rebuttals, I try to put my pen down from note taking. All the notes you expect me to take should have already been made in your opening statements and cross-examination, so I will not be writing down "new arguments" during rebuttals. I believe it is during the rebuttal where a debate is won. During rebuttals I am looking for a knowledgeable debater who understands their case and has understood their opponents case and can make a comparative and persuasive argument as to why they should win.

I will allow new quotes, stories, or comparisons during rebuttals as long as it is reaffirming previously made points during opening statements. "New Information" that tries to establish a point not made during opening statements will not be considered. Trying to clarify your own points during rebuttals is part of the process, and can also be a response to an attacking argument made by an opponent.

In the end, the burden is on the Affirmative to uphold the Resolution. If Negative just succeeds in knocking down the Affirmative case, that would be a win. I do not deem it necessary for Negative to have a case to present for the win, but it helps if Negative has at least 1 argument they can carry all the way to the end. Affirmative is given the final rebuttal because they have the burden of carrying the resolution, and I expect them to do so for the win.

Background:

I was a debater in High School and did policy but have been out of the game for a long time I judge a few times a year but mostly policy.

Top Level:

Speed - Don't do it too fast but as long as I can understand you then it doesn't matter to me

Tech > Truth - If an argument is flowed without an answer I presume it to be true

Don't read offensive arguments ie - racism good etc... I will vote you down for that

Arguments must have a claim, warrant and an impact without a warrant or an impact the argument is there but it has no value as far as weighing mechanisms within the debate

Engage with the aff the affirmative gives an argument and the negatives job is to dispute that follow your burden

Don't use a ton of debate terminology it is just a bunch of filler words explain your argument

K Affs:

Don't read defend the topic you have to be topical

Kritiks/Phil:

Okay if you explain it well and the links have to be strong to the affirmative

Don't read Kant or other weird LD things they destroy debate

Theory/T:

Don't read small theory arguments that aren't true read only if you can explain how it is cheating

Speak slow when going for a shell

Impact out T

DA:

Go for them

CP:

I love a good CP debate

Case:

My favorite type of debate have it and don't just drop it it's a huge part of debates

I debated in high school in Lincoln Douglas for 4 years. I competed mostly on the local NC circuit, but I did travel to several national tournaments. I can keep up with quickly paced speeches, but please do not spread. I prefer a more traditional form of debate, but I do love a good framework debate, and I can appreciate progressive styles. Do not drop your frameworks. Engage with them. Tell me how I should evaluate the round, why, and why I shouldn't use your opponent's framework. Please make sure you explain the abstract concepts in your case clearly. If I do not understand the concepts in your case, I cannot vote for you.

I respond more to empirics and studies with solid methodology than individual stories designed to provoke emotional responses. However, when you cite statistics, you need to be able to defend those statistics logically (such as with the methodology) to prove why your statistics are more applicable/more reliable than your opponent's. I do flow rounds, so feel free to refer to cards by authors' names and please signpost.

I am a lay judge and have been judging for two years. My personal areas of interest are politics and current events. If debaters speak so quickly that I cannot understand their arguments, that will affect the weight I give to them.

Fourth season as parent judge; practicing attorney (19 years).

I did LD debate for 3 years in high school at Cary Academy. Now I'm at UNC and where I continued competing for a brief time period.

For LD- I tend to value in-case points over value structure points so I wouldn't spend too much time making solely value structure arguments, though I understand it is necessary to address.

For all debate- I will pick a winner based on who best communicates the most logical arguments. When judging communication, I take into account speaking pace and organization. I will flow with you to keep up, but appreciate sign posting.

Other than speed, I have no strong preferences about cases and am open to listening to all arguments.

Short Version:

I debated in high school (very traditional policy) and college (parli, just one year). I teach English. While I coach LD, l prefer a good traditional-style Lincoln-Douglas debate. This is not Policy. I look for solid clash of values throughout, and would prefer that you avoid jargon as much as possible. A thoughtful and well-supported value structure is more important to me than individual cards, and everything you discuss should be related to your framework.

Full Version:

Judging Style:

I really like to see good clash. I find it easiest to vote for you if you have a thoughtful, solid framework which is well supported by all of your contentions and evidence. Impacts are extremely important to me. While I think the best debate is traditional in style, I'm open to seeing creative approaches, but only to a limited extent. I have a B.A. in Philosophy, so I'm very comfortable with any philosophical arguments you might want to run. Feel free to be complex, but I will be able to tell if you misrepresent or misunderstand the philosophy.

Speaks:

I generally stick to a range of 26-29, with 26 being average or slightly below, 27 being decent, 28 being good, and 29 being excellent. I typically reserve 30 for persuasive, perfect speech. If you are being truly unnecessarily rude, or use racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. language, then I will rank you lower than this range.

Speed:

For me, this is related to speaker points. I'm fine with speaking quickly, but believe that spreading has no place in debate and is, at its core, abusive. If you spread, I will drop you.

Flashing:

I'm fine if you want to flash your case, cards, whatever to your opponent, so long as there is mutual agreement. I'm not interested in reading your case, though. I will only evaluate you on what is spoken during the round. This is not an essay contest. The only material I will ask to see during or after the round might be specific cards, if questions about them become relevant to the debate.

Regarding time, just don't waste it. I don't typically count the time taken to flash toward prep, unless you're clearly taking advantage.

Ks

I don't generally love these, but I'm happy to entertain a really well constructed K. You'll have an uphill battle, you really need warrant, and I won't typically default away from the resolution, but you could still convince me that you deserve my vote with a good K.

DAs

I'm OK with these, but they need to be impacted. I tend to treat these as just another argument.

Theory:

I have a pretty low tolerance for these, but will accept a thoughtful theory shell, especially if there is a potentially clear instance of abuse. You need warrant, and should carefully explain interps.

Flex Prep/CX:

I will not allow the use of flex prep.

General Comments:

I've probably left out my thoughts on some aspects of debate, so please ask questions if you have them. I'll do my best to answer. What I'm really hoping to see is a sportsmanlike debate that is thoughtful. While there are some strategies that I believe are inherently abusive, I will at least hear you out if you make an earnest effort to have a good academic debate.

I prefer clarity and the ability to understand the speaker over speed. I will allow BRIEF off-time road maps before speaking. I do not appreciate steam-rolling of opponents. I do not disclose at the end of rounds.

Update for Strake: I haven't judged online before, and I haven't judged anything in ~2 years. Please adapt accordingly.

I debated as Hunter College SC for 4 years (2011-2015) in LD, debating on the national circuit but primarily in the Northeast. I reached some bid rounds and taught at camp the summer before college. I'm no longer coaching so don't assume familiarity with topic lit. That also means I'm not in practice with flowing/listening, so slow down.

I like framework debate. I like a well-crafted shell. I like listening to a wide range of arguments; this is your round, not mine. Don't try to tailor what you do to what you think I'll like. Do what you like and commit to it.

I'm of the opinion that people aren't nearly as aggressive/strategic/creative/clever as they should be. Here's an example: you're neg and you know aff is afraid of theory debate. The 1N should be abusive as hell; 40 extempted condo CPs, 3 shells, millions of NIBs, you get the idea.

Nina Potischman is good and smart and wrote this about extending args:

• I have a high threshold for extensions if your arguments are contested or if you're doing any interaction between the arguments you're extending and your opponents. It’s not enough to say “extend the aff” or “extend advantage one” — you need to articulate some warrant so I know what specifically you’re extending. If you don’t explicitly extend offense in the last speech, I won’t vote for you.

Do this ty. Say the word "extend."

I am VERY expressive when I judge. I will emphatically nod if you're making a good point, will look puzzled if you've lost me, etc. If you don't see me flowing, it's because I don't know where to: signpost.

Things that are cool and will win you speaker points: being sassy, setting up strategic traps for your opponents to fall into (strategically playing dumb in CX to get concessions is always fun), anything that demonstrates you're a smart person who can think on your feet, framework hijacks, weighing that makes it easy for me to sign my ballot.

I'm nice!! Ask me questions before/after the round, always happy to elaborate :)

PS I don't default drop the arg or drop the debater, if you don't read an implication to theory then there's no implication.

I am an experienced debate judge, an engineer by training, a teacher by occupation and a proponent of clear communication. I value speech that is clear and understandable at a pace that a normal human can follow and using words that any layman could understand. If you see my put my pen down, that means that you are speaking too fast and I am no longer flowing your arguments.

About me: I debated at Ardrey Kell for 4 years for at the high school level (1 year of PF, 3 years of LD). I focused more on traditional LD due to the nature of the LD circuit in NC, but went a more progressive route my senior year when travel was more an option for our team. I'm currently a senior econ and public health double major at Chapel Hill going into consulting post-grad.

General: IM HELLA RUSTY but still believe in my capabilities to judge well. I very much think debate should be a space where everyone is free to express ideas in any manner they please, and am open to basically any type of advocacy. Case positions that are out of the norm on your particular circuit, deviant styles of argumentation, interpretive dance cases- you do it well and I'll judge it. I really admire people who debate the way they feel they can do the best despite backlash from their circuit/other debaters. That being said, being outwardly racist, sexist or homophobic does not constitute self expression and I have no tolerance for any sort of rudeness that I think would make someone uncomfortable within the debate space. You do you, but know the line.
*DISCLAIMER: Parts of my paradigm are shameless stolen from Joe Bruner, we agree on a lot of things*

Email for email chain: gd09cms@gmail.com

Specifics-

Gestures- So nobody freaks out, here's what these things usually mean.
Nodding vigorously- This usually means I'm a) following the argument well or b) Recognize/like the card or evidence you're using. It does not mean I think you're right or you're automatically about to win.
Smiling- I smile at almost everything, it's nothing special, I'm just a fairly happy person. Please keep making your argument.
Straight Face/Unreadable expression- I understand this point and speaking about it more is probably a waste of your time, please move along with your refutation/arguments. Only exception to this is probably during final speeches when you're reiterating args for crystallization.

Speed- Slow down for tags/author names. Please don't start off full speed, you can work your way up to whatever speed works for you. I am not averse to yelling clear if you are being unclear, but after 2/3 times I will probably stop flowing. If you are going fast, I expect you to case flash your opponent if they ask though the trend of emailing cases is pretty prevalent so I'd rather you do that for them if you're emailing it to me too.

V/VC- I hate the Value/Value Criterion so much. I have yet to meet a single individual on earth who weighs arguments under a single standard, and personally I feel like this adherence to a single standard takes away from the debate more often than not. If you take it out of your case and just weigh impacts or argue that you analytically prove the resolution true, you'll probably do better in front of me. If you want me to explain this more, ask me, but this is what it is. I'm going to explain it more here since I get asked so much: I do not think it is either philosophical or realistic to appeal to only one criterion to the exclusion of all others when making decisions, and I don't think most authors think so either. So I have a strong preference against hearing you claim stuff like "only explicit violations of categorical imperative matter" or "any miniscule risk of extinction causes you to vote aff if I solve at all.

At the same time, I'm not trying to be prejudiced against traditional LDers who are used to relying on this heavily, so if you DO decide to use it, please be extremely clear on what the link between the Value and Value Criterion is, and especially what the link between your contentions and your value criterion is. Even better would be if you actually supplied a good reason the truth of the resolution hinges on your value above all else. If this isn't clear and you're using a V/VC and spending tons of time talking about your framework, I'll have a really hard time voting for you, even if you appear to be winning.

Theory- I CAN understand theory arguments, I know the parts of a shell and have engaged in theory debate once/twice but since I debated in North Carolina I'm not a "theory hack". If your strat involves multiple shells for time suck OR for avoiding engaging with more foreign substance level args, you will not have a fun time in front of me. THAT BEING SAID- in cases of actual abuse I don't mind evaluating theory. ALSO NO THEORY THAT IS NOT IN A SHELL FORMAT (other than in case spikes)- I don't care to figure out where your magical blip theory argument applies towards your opponents case in a high power round.

Topicality- I don't have as much of an issue with this, and actually don't mind it as much as theory. But I also find it fairly tedious- run it if you need to.

Substance:Coming from NC, I really felt pigeonholed a lot of the times in terms of argumentation, purely because of the clash between what I wanted to run/ what worked in front of the judging pool. As a result of having to write more traditional cases, I ended up really enjoying philosophy that isn't just PoMo, so any case that utilizes philosophical elements well will do well in front of me. Util is cool, I have grown to become a larger fan of Kant, and any spins on traditional Deon are appreciated. I'm also a big fan on ancient greeks (Aristotle, Plato, etc).

~Moral Skep: No thank you~ *This is mostly because I got sick of hearing people butcher, misinterpret/shit on Nietzsche*

I don't like it when people say they don't have to prove solvency- If you don't understand what this means/think it's unfair PLEASE ask me to explain, this is something I feel fairly passionate about.

K's/CPs/Disads/Performance/K affs- I ADORE Kritiks and Kritik literature. I spent a good amount of time reading K lit my junior/senior year and really found myself expanding my horizons of thought. I think they help improve critical thinking, are valid forms of argumentation and I used them more my senior year as I traveled. I do expect the K to have all the parts of a K, but those parts do not have to be explicitly stated, I can follow the structure well. A strong yes to K affs as well- I've had some of my most enjoyable debates using K affs. If the K is something more obscure (Lacan, DnG, whatever), more explanation is good.

I would like debaters to better explain what the real-world impacts and solvency of voting for the K are. My ballot is probably not actually preventing extinction or ending neoliberalism. I would like debaters to better articulate what REALLY HAPPENS when I vote for either side in K rounds as opposed to reading "cap causes extinction" or "structural oppression first duty to oppose" cards. Neoliberalism and Capitalism are probably bad and Racism and Sexism certainly are, but I the trend of debaters not clearly articulating what the PRE-FIAT impact is on an argument that is supposedly PRE-FIAT is alive and well so please don't contribute to it.

CPs and Disads are great tools in the proverbial toolbox if they are relevant- except politics Disads. I have never seen a good politics disad, if you really think you can change my mind, I won't stop you from running it but no promises.

I have literally only ever debated against one performance/narrative debater, but if that's your style go for it, I think the perspectives that these types of advocacies bring are really nice and make for interesting debates.

Evidence: I am generally very trusting of the evidence that people bring into round, in the sense that I believe anyone who is serious about competing and not an utter douchebag would not falsify evidence. If you are accused of messing with evidence, reading a card the way a way it's not supposed to be read, etc. AND I call for the card and see your opponent is right about that accusation, expect that to be reflected in your speaker points. I will call for cards that are very important to your advocacy if they are heavily contested, otherwise I trust that your stats are true.

Voting Issues: These are critical in how I make a decision, and I prefer them to be a more or less line by line. Tell me what arguments you think you are winning/are extending, why they matter more than your opponent's and the impacts coming off of them.

Speaker points- Expect fairly high speaker points unless you're insufferable in round.
That being said, surefire ways to get 30's include
- Using Eastern philosophy in case (except Mozi, I hate Mozi- someone I had beef with on the circuit used to run him a lot)
- Using Nietzsche/ Paulo Freire in case
- Quoting Childish Gambino at any point during the round, including CX

I'm a huge YuGiOh buff- if you take out your opponents case in 5 points (can be turns, blocks, whatever) and then say 'I HAVE SUMMONED EXODIA THE FORIBIDDEN ONE" that's basically an automatic win with a 30 unless your 5 arguments are not good. Take the gamble if you're a real one.

Other judges seem to dock excessive points from aggressive women and minority debaters, so if you are a woman or a minority and debate especially aggressively, I will give you additional speaker points as long as you still remain polite and don't engage in personal attacks. I appreciate sass :)

Surefire ways to get me to hate you
- Look down on an opponent for the style of debate they do in round
- Completely destroy someone past the point that is necessary for victory simply for the LOLz

That's about it. I look forward to judging rounds, if you have any other q's feel free to ask me in round, happy debating!

About me: I competed in Lincoln Douglas Debate for 3 years for Northwest Guilford High School. I’ve qualified to NCFL Grand Nationals and reached Semifinals at Durham Academy My senior year. Currently a senior at Duke University. My pronouns are he/him/his

Conflicts: Northwest Guilford High School

Speed: I can handle a pretty brisk conversational pace, but keep in mind that the pace you choose to speak at directly trades off with me (and your competitor’s) ability to truly understand and write down what you are saying. I have zero experience with fast, nat-circuity type debate, so spreading is probably not the move. Slowing down at tags/authors/any important point you want to emphasize will go a long way towards making you more understandable and persuasive, and your speaks will show. If you speak fast in front of an inexperienced debater, expect speaks to suffer. If you are competing in an activity that focuses on engaging with competing ideas, why would you want to shy away from clash? Hiding arguments is not fun and makes debate a waste of time.

Framework: Framework matters as much as you’d like it to. Being marginally ahead on the V/VC Debate only matters if you explain the implications of your framework, and why it should inform my ballot. Your impacts should relate back to your framework, if they don’t Then I’m gonna be confused. Franework debates were my favorite as a competitor, yet it feels like almost nobody cares about framework these days. With that thought in mind, A well though out, creative framework that effectively advances your position will go a long way towards earning my ballot. Stock philosophies are great and have a lot of educational value, but I’d challenge you to think of something original and put your own creative spin on these philosophical issues. Debate is an educational activity after all; show me that you’ve really contemplated the topic and not just read about how 400 year old Englishmen thought about the topic.

Theory/T: I understand how theory/T works. That being said, I rarely ever engaged in this type of debate in high school. If you feel your competitor is being abusive, feel free to read it; I’ll do my best to evaluate it. However, keep in mind I’m definitely not the most experienced judge in these types of matters. If there’s clear abuse, I’m down to listen. Frivolous theory will just make everybody sad.

Plans/CPs: Unless your plan is whole-rez, you’re probably going to be fighting an uphill battle trying to convince me. CPs probably need to be VERY mutually exclusive, and it’s the Neg’s job to establish this from the 1NC. This is a very fundamental issue on a CP debate, so if you fail to explain how your CP is competitive and the Aff calls you out for it in the 1AR, I consider your extra spicy cards explaining how it’s conpetitive in the 2NR to be new. It’s not fair for the Aff’s first chance at responding to these issues to be the 2AR.

Kritiks: Not necessarily opposed per say, I just happen to have zero experience with this type of argumentation. Proceed at your own risk and be sure to be extremely detailed in your explanations because I probably haven’t read the literature

Tricks: No. just No

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round! I’m excited to hear what you have to say :)

I have been a coach and consultant for the past 28 years and done every debate format available stateside and internationally. I also have taught at Stanford, ISD, Summit, UTD, UT, and Mean Green camps as a Curriculum Director and Senior Instructor. I think no matter what form of debate that you do, you must have a narrative that answers critical questions of who, what, when, where, why, how, and then what, and so what. Debaters do not need to be shy and need to be able to weigh and prioritize the issues of the day for me in what I ought to be evaluating. Tell me as a judge where I should flow things and how I ought to evaluate things. That's your job.

If you would like for me to look at a round through a policy lens, please justify to me why I ought to weigh that interpretation versus other alternatives. Conversely, if you want me to evaluate standards, those need to be clear in their reasoning why I ought to prioritize evaluation in that way.

In public forum, I need the summary to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the stark differences exist and what issues need to be prioritized. Remember in the collapse, you cannot go for everything. Final focus needs to be a big pic concept for me. Feel free to use policy terms such as magnitude, scope, probability. I do evaluate evidence and expect you all to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. The more complicated the link chain, the more probability you may lose your judge. Keep it tight and simple and very direct.

In LD, I still love my traditional Value and VC debate. I do really like a solid old school LD round. I am not big on K debate only because I think the K debate has changed so much that it becomes trendy and not a methodology that is truly educational and unique as it should be. Uniqueness is not the same as obscurity. Now, if you can provide a good solid link chain and evaluation method of the K, go for it. Don't assume my knowledge of the literature though because I don't have that amount of time in my life but I'm not above understanding a solidly good argument that is properly formatted. I think the quickest way to always get my vote is to write the ballot for me and also keep it simple. Trickery can make things messy. Messy debaters usually get Ls. So keep it simple, clean, solid debate with the basics of claim, warrant, impact, with some great cards and I'll be happy.

I don't think speed is ever necessary in any format so speak concisely, know how to master rhetoric, and be the master of persuasion that way. Please do not be rude to your opponent. Fight well and fight fair. First reason for me to down anyone is on burdens. Aff has burden of proof, neg has burden to clash unless it is WSD format where burdens exist on both sides to clash. If you have further questions, feel free to ask specifics.

In plat events, structure as well as uniqueness (not obscurity) is key to placing. Organization to a speech as well as a clear call to order is required in OO, Info, Persuasive. In LPs, answer the question if you want to place. Formatting and structure well an avoid giving me generic arguments and transitional phrases. Canned intros are not welcome in my world usually and will be frowned upon. Smart humor is always welcome however.

I want you all to learn, grow, have fun, and fight fair. Best of luck and love one another through this activity!!

I competed in Congress during High School. I want to see actual debate and persuasion, with real argumentation. Give clear arguments, don't just talk without saying anything substantive. Progress the debate.

I have been the sponsor of the Speech and Debate Team at Apex Friendship High School for the last eight years. This is my eighth year judging. I have taught English for 20 years and Speech for five.

1. Framework is critical. If you don't connect your evidence to your framework, you haven't succeeded.

2. Do not spread--I value quality over quantity.

3. I value strong CX skills--being able to think on your feet and attack an opponent's case is key to winning the round.

4. Civil discourse is expected.

I have judged several debates over the last two years. I don't have a background in debate, but I always enjoy the intelligence and energy I see in our teams.

I have judged several debates over the last two years. I don't have a background in debate, but I always enjoy the intelligence and energy I see in our teams.

I am a first year student in college and have four years of Congress experience.

I am a traditional LD judge that will be looking for you to connect your arguments back to your framework throughout the round. I will evaluate how well you explain how and why your evidence supports your contentions and overall narrative. I will flow the round. Please do not spread, and signposting is very important. I generally value empirical arguments over philosophical. Be respectful, attack the argument not the debater, don't shout please.

I will disclose if I am allowed. Low-point wins are possible but don't count on it. Good luck and have fun.

Background:

I was a collegiate NPDA debater for four years, a middle school parliamentary and high school LD, Policy, Public Forum, and Speech coach for three and a half years, and a debate judge for three years. I also served as the debate league co-coordinator for the Crescent City Debate League in New Orleans for three years.

Things I Look For:

As a judge, two things are important to uphold the integrity of a debate round: education and clash. Due to this, my paradigm is rooted in these two concepts.

1. Organization is important: I like when the speaker has a clear and concise roadmap for me to follow as a judge. Points and subpoints are appreciated as well as well explained links when defending argumentation.

2. Sources- if the idea was informed by research, then site your sources.

3. If an argument is not addressed, then it flows through. Unaddressed argumentation can lead to low point wins- be sure to address main points and refute them as much as possible.

4. Humans are fallible, BUT the flow is infallible- it is important that debaters take sound notes in debate rounds to be aware of the arguments of their opponent. This assists with point 3 and ensures that no one's arguments are misrepresented in favor of an attempt to get a cheap win.

5. I despise cheap shots- uphold the integrity of debate and show respect of your opponent by not making egregiously false and easily refutable, overarching claims. This includes, but is not limited to: claiming your opponent has said something they clearly did not say (i.e. "Even my opponent agrees with me" when they did not agree with you), saying something unfounded or refutable (i.e. "There are more people in prison than college"), grand and sweeping generalizations (i.e. "Everyone agrees with me"), disrespectful speech (i.e. "If my opponent were smart, they would know..."), discriminatory speech toward persons due to race, gender identity, religion, cred, belief system, political affiliation, sexual orientation, or sexuality.

6. That being said, I WILL NOT remind debaters of argumentation nor will I correct misrepresentation of points. I expect debaters to identify and respectfully defend their points in round. I will only step in as a judge if discriminatory or blatantly disrespectful speech is used.

7. Feel free to speed within reason. If you cannot be understood, then you risk losing points because I cannot understand your argument. Keep a good pace and I will be able to understand most speaking speeds.

8. While eye contact is not necessary, it is appreciated. Reading off of a paper without looking up takes away the gravity of your speech. Speaking is most effective when the speaker captivates the room through eye contact.

*** Most importantly, have fun and breathe. Debate is a wonderful forum to express ideas and consider differing points of view. While wins are great accomplishments, it is what takes place within the debate that truly transforms us. Debate equips us with the ability to engage with arguments that are different than ours intelligently and respectfully. Respectful oratory discourse is an invaluable skill.

I am in my second year as a parent judge. The Cavalier Tournament will be the 10th tournament that I have judged. As a parent, I get to see first hand how much work goes into preparing for a tournament; therefore, I respect you immensely. Debate wasn't offered as an option where I went to high school; so I continue to perfect my judging craft each round of every debate. I will flow the round to the best of my ability (therefore not a fan of spread). I listen for the contentions, but expect to hear more of the details and perspectives of them during cross-X and the rebuttals (ie. the WHY of the contentions relevance).

I prefer LD over PF; while DI makes me cry. I enjoy the head-to-head clash. I appreciate debaters that listen closely to their opponents and incorporate the points raised to convince me that their case makes the most sense.

In the end, please keep it respectful and do your best to convince me that your case outweighs your opponent's case.

Email: caitlynajones1@gmail.com

Pronouns: (she/her)

I have done no topic research. Assume I know nothing

I debated PF for 4 years

• If you want me to vote on it, it needs to be in the summary and the final focus

• Please don’t just yell cards at me. Some analysis please

• If there’s an evidence misconduct problem, I’d rather you point out the issues with your opponent’s interpretation of evidence during your speeches, but I’ll call for a card if you tell me to.

• Any concessions in cross need to be in a speech for me to flow it

• Don't Spread at me. If I need a case doc to follow you, it's too fast.

• I'm not flowing anything after the 10-second grace period

I have been judging for about 3 years. I expect you to demonstrate your knowledge and depth of the content as well as the ability to make a confident argument towards your stance. Clear and logical communication is key. Fast conversational speed is acceptable.

Carmen Kohn’s Paradigm

I have been judging speech and debate events since 2016. I am also currently the Director and Head Coach for Charlotte Catholic HS in NC.

Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum:

I enjoy both the ethical component of the discussions in LD and the current topicality of most PF topics. I appreciate the informative nature of these debates, especially in the current political climate.

I am a classic flow judge for both events and am looking for good clash between opponents. In LD, I place more emphasis on contentions rather than value, however, that evidence must clearly link back to the VC. I am also more interested in the impacts. A dropped contention is not automatic grounds for a win. It depends on the relevance of the argument. When rebutting, don't just extend the author's card. I am not writing down all of the authors. Please remind me of the evidence that was presented. I prefer the well-thought out, well-paced arguments. While debates are won based on evidence presented, I do find a direct correlation between technical speaking abilities and evidence offered. I also make a note of how professionally debaters present themselves and behave towards myself and each other.

I would classify myself as a advanced traditional lay judge. I am not a progressive judge. Do not run theory shells or any other "progressive" argument with me. While I do appreciate the occasional non-traditional argument, especially towards the end of the topic time frame, all cases should be realistic and applicable in the current environment in which we find ourselves. Please debate the current resolution.

Absolutely No Spreading!!! I cannot follow it, especially with online tournaments. You will lose the round. This is probably my biggest pet peeve. I feel there is no educational value to that in a competitive environment. You run the risk that I will not have caught all of your arguments and may miss a main point in my flow. Please keep technical jargon to a minimum also. Throwing around debate jargon and just cards identified by author gets too confusing to follow. And if you ask a question during cross-ex, please let your opponent answer and finish their sentences. It’s unprofessional to cut someone off. Signposts and taglines are always appreciated. I generally do not disclose or give oral RFD. I want time to review my notes. Debates where opponents respect each other and are having fun, arguing solid contentions, are the best ones to watch.

Congress:

I've just started judging Congress. My "comments" are usually summaries of your speeches. Occasional commentary on the delivery and/or content. Please interact with previously given speeches (by Rep name also) and don't just rehash a "first speech". If you can bring a new point to the discussion 6 speeches in, that is awesome.

I will give points to POs. I appreciate what is involved in POing. During nomination speeches, it can be assumed that a PO will run a "fast and efficient" chamber. No need to state the obvious. However, if that actually doesn't take place, a lower rank will result.

Good luck to all!!

This is my 3rd year judging high school LD. I judge based on what I can understand, so that is bad news for those who "spread" because I cannot evaluate the merits of your argument if I cannot follow the words in spite of my best effort. I prefer logically consistent arguments, supported by evidence. In real life, demagoguery often wins debates, but I have not yet met anybody polished enough to pull that off in any of the LD events that I have judged. It is a high bar but I have great expectations and respect for everybody who is brave enough to engage in a public verbal duel.

I debated for Ardrey Kell for four years and did traditional LD and PF (like for two tournaments lol). I've judged only two other times this year so I'm a bit rusty and you might wanna chill w jargon and speed lol. Below is an overview of my preferences lol.

Framework:

-I like fw and unique ones will be rewarded as long as they actually do something for the case or give you a competitive edge otherwise I won't care.

-If neither side gives me a reason to prefer their fw ill probably default util.

-I'll probably vote for you if you give me numbered warrants to prefer your fw and they flow through the round even if I don't find them persuasive.

-yuh

Style/Speed:

-Don't care if u sit or stand.

-SIGN POST PLs

-Can handle speed but it isn't pleasant for me lol (I'm rusty) - if I miss something cause u were going fast I'm not gonna sweat it.

-If you wanna read something progressive thats fine I'm not saying ill understand it tho - I do like counter plans tho read those all you like.

Content:

-I like anything that has a warrant lol.

Extra Notes:

-I will probably drop you or severely dock speaker points if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or like just a terrible person in general.

-Being funny will probably raise ur speaker points.

-Have fun cause if u don't why are you even doing debate.

This is my first year judging so jargon and modern shorthand will be lost on me. I was a competitive LD debater in HS - and while that was before today’s students were born - I parlayed my debate experience into a career as a homicide prosecutor; I can flow an argument.

Spreading - I can listen as fast as you can speak clearly. I won’t reduce marks for quantity of contentions and points, but I likely find fewer arguments which are logically sound and clearly communicated to be more persuasive.

I demand professionalism and courtesy. Condescension, derision or ad hominem will serve you ill.

I am a Latin teacher who is helping coach the new Speech and Debate team at my school. Although I am new to the forensics world, I have invested time in learning about LD debate and have judged multiple tournaments this year. I have experience judging at both the Novice and Varsity level. I will flow your debates and am able to follow complex arguments. I think that spreading is bad form. I am able to follow students who speak quickly but remain articulate. Otherwise, I will not be judging based on style but on argumentation.

I am a former LD coach and camp instructor who is now assisting with the Charlotte Latin School (NC) team. Though I will listen to kritiks, plans/counterplans, disads, etc., I prefer a good standards debate. If you choose to offer theoretical approaches, just be sure to explain and impact them clearly. NEG, avoid trying to win the round by spreading; instead, give substantive responses to the AFF case in addition to your case.

I do flow carefully and will make my decision largely based on coverage, argument quality, clash, and impacting. When you address standards, you should actually explain your argument rather than simply cross-applying arguments that don't necessarily fit your point. I can handle speed as long as you signpost and enunciate; if I cannot understand what you are saying, then your point won't be on my flow, and I won't vote on it. Please make CX count by asking substantive questions. Remain civil. You will not impress me by being arrogant, condescending or rude to your opponent. When tournaments allow, I am happy to offer a critique at the end though I generally do not disclose.

If you are a novice, please know that I am a friendly and accessible judge. I work with primarily with novice LDers and really enjoy that process. Feel free to ask me questions if you are confused during the round. I will write specific and constructive comments that you can later use in practice, and please don't hesitate to speak with me outside of the round about your performance. Above all, remember that your round should be a learning experience! It's NOT all about the "win." You should take something valuable from the round regardless of a win or loss.

I debated in NPDA/NPTE for three years. I view debate as a game, which means that every strategy is a game piece. Use it as you see fit, and play as you prefer. Speed is great, though there’s also a difference between speeding out a team and bullying novices. It probably won’t lose you the round, but your speaker points may reflect overt abuse. I haven’t judged a team that can talk faster than I flow, but I’ll clear you if that happens so you don’t have to try to guess my threshold. Similarly, I value content over presentation. Kritiks are my favorite piece in debate, but if a policy affirmative wins framework or a perm, I have no problem voting there. I’ll listen to non-topical affirmatives; win the flow. Run T, theory shells, etc. as much as you want- again, win the argument. Don’t assume that if an argument is common, I will fill in the warrants for you. I also acknowledge that the debate world tends to have different realities than the real world- whatever is said in round will generally be assumed true unless argued otherwise. I view ink as the wall between arguments- so points from the 1AC shell can be pulled as support for the 2AR if not discussed throughout the round. Likewise, a drop in the 1AR doesn’t get to be answered in the 2AR.

I'm not schooled in judging or the fine points of debate, so I approach my role as a truly neutral, unbiased decider open to the best argument.

As a judge, I am seeking first to see how strong of a command of the subject debaters exhibit. This almost always manifests itself in cross and as the debaters proceed through the round and get away from reading their scripts. I saw few teams this fall that cared about, much less understood, the details of UNCLOS.

Secondly, I'm looking for the soundness of their supporting evidence, especially the sources cited. Are their key points adequately supported? Are the sources solid? Does the evidence they cite actually support their contentions?

After all that, how does the debater respond to the opponent's argument? Can they pivot and argue effectively the deficiencies of their opponent's argument or show the superiority of their case? Or do they get derailed by an argument they didn't anticipate? I saw this at George Mason. It was like watching a balloon deflate.

Lastly, how do the debaters carry themselves? Are they respectful? Professional? Do they know the rules? Are they fidgety? Talking too loud during the other team's prep time? Clicking pens or fiddling obsessively (usually at least once per tournament)? Do they shake hands with the opponents? With the judge? Are they respectful of the judge? These last things rarely turn a round, but they can influence overall impressions.

KAVITA PERSAUD
Judge Paradigm TRADITIONAL JUDGE

Background:
Current Debate Coach at Cape Fear Academy
Coaching High School Debate 2008-2013, 2015- current
Former High School Debater, Parliamentary Debate
Physician.

Philosophy:
Debate is an educational activity.
Debate is about communication.

Likes:
1. Debating the resolution
2. Advocacy of a position
3. Framework
4. Structure & Organization with clear sign-posting
5. Clash
6. Strategic Cross-Ex
7. Engaging Speaking Style
8. Courtesy
9. Crystallization and Weighing
10. Voting Issues

Dislikes:
1. Spreading
2. Non-topical Debates
3. Generic Kritiks
4. Theory unless clear abuse
5. Tricks
6. Rudeness
7. Extinction Impacts when not truly topical
8. Poorly selected evidence or improperly cited evidence
9. Jargon
10.

Please ask additional questions before the round.

I have judged Speech, Public Forum, LD and Congress debates. I participated in speech in High School long back and support speech and debate activities. My kids are active participants. I do not bring my own opinion while judging on the topic. I am very analytic and objective in my decision. I enjoy judging speech the most.

I like to consider myself a big picture judge, so I won't be too harsh in the flow if you fail to respond to subpoint or something. However, dropping a full contention wouldn't be a good idea, so make sure to respond to those. I don't mind spreading, but if you fail to enunciate and I have to struggle to understand what you're saying, I'm gonna dock points. Otherwise, go off.

I am a school coach, and I primarily work with competitors in speech events. This is my fifth year judging. When I judge a round, I look for the following:

1. I value signposting and explicitly stating the number of the contention that you are addressing throughout the debate.

2. If you don't clearly connect your evidence to your overall argument, I will not be convinced.

3. Do not spread--I value quality over quantity. I also need to be able to easily follow your logic, which is harder if a competitor spreads.

4. I value strong cross examination skills--being able to think on your feet and attack an opponent's case will help you win the round.

5. Be confident but courteous in the round.

Background

I'm a 3 time NSDA/NCFL qualifier and now coach LD. I like this stuff - fun, isn't it?

General Preferences

If you won this round, you probably 1. gave me a coherent lens through which I can gauge what is important and 2. weaved a story of the round using that lens. LD is about creative weighing, much like how we interact with complicated ideas in the real world - we don't just do an in-depth cost-benefit analysis each time we make a decision, we apply multiple standards and evaluative measures to reach a conclusion (often totally subconsciously).

Basically - I should be doing as little work as possible. I don't want to intervene or even really think when judging an LD round. If you make the story clear to me, I'll vote for you.

Speed

I can handle any speed, but nobody can handle you being incoherent - I'll give you a good ol' fashioned "clear" if you're attempting to go faster than you're capable of going. Good rule of thumb: if you feel like it's necessary that I read along to understand you, it's probably because you're unintelligible, not because I'm too old and slow.

Rounds being competitive really matters to me. This means that stylistic alignment between the two debaters is necessary to create good LD. Seeing as traditional LD is by far the more common and accessible style, if your opponent is only capable of traditional LD, that is the style I expect to see in the round. I will never punish a locally active debater for not being competitive against the increasingly inaccessible and abstract style found at national circuit tournaments.

Theory

Point out the abuse (assuming it's real) and move on. Do not make it the crux of the round. Win on substance.

I will never vote for time skew theory or anything that accuses your opponent of some form of prejudice (unless they've openly and intentionally said something prejudiced).

Kritiks

I'm actually stealing this directly from one of my all-time favorite NC LDer's paradigms because it was so perfectly written - thanks to Derek Brown of Durham Academy.

"Kritiks, like theory or topicality, are a way of questioning the pre-fiat implications of your opponents' position. As a result, Kritiks must link to a practice your opponent performed, and there must exist a relatively predictable/reasonable way your opponent could have anticipated or predicted that this practice was bad. For example, I will not vote on an argument saying "the aff doesn't address black feminism", because it is unreasonable to expect the aff to read black feminism every round."

I will add that I generally do not enjoy Kritiks that you read every single tournament (and yes, I'll know if you do) - think Cap Ks, Colonialism, etc. - they aren't competitive and generally rely on tenuous links back to the topic. If you didn't have to write it specifically for the current resolution, don't run it. I have to listen to like...6 LD rounds every weekend. I don't want to hear the same stuff every Saturday.

Bonus

Make this fun for me. Be entertaining. Be funny.I get so excited when I see good LD - if you've got a distinct style, good coverage, and I leave the round feeling like I did very little work...I'm a happy camper.

I am a Parent Judge from North Carolina, this is my 3rd year judging LD. I have judged quite a few local tournaments, States last year and at Durham Academy tournament

Although I've been judging for quite a while now, I began as a lay judge, with no background in debate. After 3 years of judging and parenting a varsity LD debater, my technical knowledge has expanded tremendously, but still has limits. Know that I will judge you technically to the best of my ability. But ultimately, as judges, we are to award the round to the most convincing debater(s). You might have a technically perfect case, but you also have to convince me that your argument is the RIGHT one on a macro level.

I have a low toleration for speed; however, this does not mean one should speak at an exponentially slow rate and insult my intelligence. In addition to speed, I detest people who mumble or speak softly or otherwise lack clarity to their speech. I will simply stop flowing your speech.

Paradigm:

I am a Traditional Flow Judge. Please give me a clear way to vote for you. I will not intervene in the round unless you give me a reason to. Other than that remember to have fun and ENJOY the experience!

Demonstrating respectful behavior is huge for me. Sighing/eye-rolling behaviors are rude and disrespectful to your opponent. Be very cognizant about coming across as verbally abusive or condescending. Simply having the courage to come into the room and participate in the challenge of debate makes you worthy of MY respect, and your opponent's.

Typically I won't disclose at the end of the round, but will enter RFDs and speaker notes in Tabroom where I can better organize my though.

Hi! I debated LD for Ardrey Kell, graduating in 2018, both traditional and circuit debate. I'm a recent grad from UNC-Chapel Hill with a background in statistics & business, and I currently work in technology consulting. I (generally) know what I'm doing, but I haven't been involved in debate for a while now. Please keep this in mind when choosing your style and strategy! My email is juliannesinclair@gmail.com if you need it to send cases/evidence.

• I'm not opposed to spreading, but I don't feel confident in my ability to understand extremely high levels of speed being out of debate for such a long time. However, you can speak at a very quick conversational pace in front of me, especially if you are using speed for effective argument coverage.

• In a traditional round, read whatever you'd like! I'll use the V/VC debate in my decision, but I honestly care more about the topic-specific arguments you make. Please don't make me hear a debate on morality vs. justice as a value - it's not going to sway my decision! Consider how important the framework debate is in relation to both cases; winning FW isn't always necessary to win the debate.
• Please weigh arguments throughout the round, not just in the 2AR!
• I'm all good with topical Ks, policy arguments, and any traditional arguments.
• I'm probably not the judge to read theory in front of. Or tricks. I simply don't have the background to evaluate these debates.
• I also don't really have the background to be evaluating a very dense phil debate. I do enjoy unique frameworks, but I'm gonna need some extra background if it's not something that would be taught in Philosophy 101.
• Humor executed well will raise your speaks. Snarkiness can be great, but do not be mean to your opponent, especially if they are less experienced than you.
• On a similar note - do not read progressive arguments to confuse a less experienced / traditional opponent. I'm totally fine evaluating progressive debate arguments, but the round should be educational and fair for everyone involved.
• If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me before the round! :)

I competed in LD all four years in high school on the NC circuit and traveled to national tournaments such as Harvard and Emory. I qualified and competed at the NCFL national tournament both my junior and senior year.

I am a recent graduate from Duke University and have remained active in the debate community by judging at local tournaments over the past 4 years.

I am not picky about what you run as long as it is clear and logical. Don't make assumptions that I know something because if I don't understand it, I won't vote for it. No theory unless there is a clear abuse in the round (someone ran theory against me for using paper so not a fan) and honestly you could probably just explain the abuse and save all of us some time. I also judge how you treat your opponents. It may not ultimately affect my decision, but it definitely will impact your speaker points.

Any specific questions feel free to ask me in round.

Hi! I used to be in your shoes, a little high school debater just trying to get by while people older than me scrutinized my every move and wrote down all of their critiques for me, my opponent, and the whole world to see. But as a wise man named Michael Scott once said, "Well, well, well how the turntables...." Now, I'm the judge. Prepare to be scrutinized. I'm just kidding. Don't worry. I'm the judge, but I'm not gonna judge you or anything, wait that's not true, I kinda have to... oh well, sorry.

Quick Things:

Speed/Style: I'm fine with whatever you're comfortable with. Just don't be abusive. I can flow whatever speed that's coherent (aka not spreading) as long as you remember to SIGNPOST!

Framework: Have one.

Content: Anything with a warrant. Also, please link to the framework.

Other things you might want to know about me:

1. I did LD for four years.

I loved speech and debate in high school and I'm happy to return to judge.

2. For LDers: My favorite value structure to run was justice with any Rawlsian criterion.

I love Rawls. If you run Rawls, I'll probably get noticeably excited in round.

Also, gotta say, not a fan of util. Because Rawls. But also, it's so boring. There are so many other possibilties for value structures to make the round way more interesting and you're just gonna run util? I mean you might as well be doing PF.

Don't worry, I will still vote under a util framework if I have to.

3. For PFers: I didn't do PF, sorry.

Yeah so I'll probably be looking like one of those lay judges checking the times for the speeches on the ballot every five seconds. How many speeches are there again? 47? Really? Okay.

4. I will not vote for abusive arguments.

(A) Burdens.

The affirmative's burden is to uphold the resolution as a general principle, not just in one isolated example, so don't run abusive plans, observations, arguments, etc. I will not vote for them. Note: I'm fine with plans if they uphold the resolution as a general principle, but if they narrow the scope of the resolution too far (i.e. if they're abusive) then they're not okay, and I will not vote for them. Please please please don't run abusive plans, observations, or arguments, I really don't want to hear them. Also, I will not vote for them.

The negative's burden is to disprove the affirmative. Simple as that. If you disprove everything the affirmative says, I will vote for you. There's no need for counterplans, unless you want to use the argument that the negative has some mutually exclusive AND competitive alternative to the resolution to undermine the affirmative's position. That's fine. Whatever. Just don't be abusive.

Pro and con burdens in PF? *shrug* I dunno. Go nuts.

(B) Spreading

Spreading is abusive (to my brain). So please don't do it. Also, the point of speech and debate is to persuade your audience with clear, concise, and coherent language, not to defecate in all of our ears. So don't spread. Note: talking fast if fine. I talk fast. I can listen fast. I can flow fast. Just make sure you signpost so I know where to flow. Spreading is completely different from just talking fast; it's flashing me your case and expecting me to do all the hard work reading it while you stand there vomiting out noises that don't sound anything remotely like words and every thirty seconds gasping for air as if you were just drowning when really you on the dry land acting a fool. Don't spread.

5. I think speech and debate is supposed to be fun.

If you're not having fun then why the heck are you even doing it? So please, have fun in round. Whatever that means to you. To me it means make jokes. Humor is a very persuasive tool so use it! Also, I'll like you more if you're funny.

I hope this helps. If you have any questions please feel free to ask me. I don't bite. Except when my orthodontist tells me to.

Disclaimer: as of February 2023, this paradigm is under construction.

TL;DR: keep it clean, keep it fun, make the round exciting. I will actively listen and work hard to develop my understanding of your arguments as the debate progresses regardless of whether or not I am familiar with your style of debating or type of argument.

Add me to email chains: cnikhil.vytla [at] gmail [dot] com

Background: I debated Policy for 4 years at Lynbrook High School (1 year JV, 2 years Varsity, 1 year coaching) in San Jose, CA, and coached PF and LD for 4 years at Lynbrook's annual summer Speech & Debate camp. I recently graduated from UNC Chapel Hill ('21) majoring in CS and Stats.

Style: I am open to all kinds of debate. F/W and Solvency are the most important things in round. Clarity, organization, and signposting are important.

T: I'll default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. Make sure to impact out why your model for evaluating topicality is good. The same goes for the competing interpretations debate; don't forget to walk me through why it's important that your interpretation has better/different limits than theirs.

Disads: I strongly prefer specific links (and specific disads) over generic ones. Before getting to impact calculus (very important), you also have to make sure you win the internal link chain to be able to reach that impact (just as important). I'm relatively open to frameworks w.r.t. evaluating the impact debate.

Ks: I'm open to critiques of engagement practices, the resolution, the debate community, or whatever else you can come up with. Please explain very explicitly why the links are disads to the perm and provide tangible examples of what your impact/alt actually is. Also please specifically link the K to the aff/neg. I need to know why I should endorse it as a method to combat whatever impact you present. If I can swap your K out with last months' topic or a topic from 2 years ago, I'm probably not giving you the benefit of uniqueness.

K Affs: Fair game! Same as above, be specific with your argument and explain to me why I should care about it.

Value Prop: If either side provides a value prop, and there is a proposal against said value prop for another value prop, please explain uniqueness and argue for it properly. Why should I choose one over the other?

Framework/Theory: Generally prefer education, and strongly prefer impact calculus at the end of the round. Regardless of what F/W (ex. alt solvency, state engagement, etc.), impact it out.

Sides/Topics: All side-choice, speech-choice, and topic choice will be subject to tournament rules.

CX: I do not flow CX. I listen, but if you want it to count toward an argument, make a point in your constructives.

RFD/Comments: Yes (withstanding specific tournament rules).

I am new to LD, but look forward to judging. I am a parent of four, and an avid reader with an interest in a variety of perspectives. I am also a fan of politics, (old school) and have experience in the journalism profession, (also old school). As an LD judge, I will value strength and consistency of a well researched argument. I’m sure I will be impressed by those who best demonstrate clarity of position, and perception in discerning and refuting opponents’ assertions.

Heather Weisz

I have judged LD at the high school level for 2 years. I would guess that 30% of the teams I have judged were Novice and 70% have been Varsity. Many years ago, I did debate LD has a high schooler in Ann Arbor MI and have fond memories of the events and my coach.

I am a mathematician/statistician by training, although my career has morphed into sales and marketing in the last decade. My mathematical background does steer my judging more towards the logic and organization of arguments rather than merit. With that said, if I cannot hear a debater or if they mumble and I cannot understand them it can impact my ability to follow their arguments and logic.

I tent to start each debater with 30 points and take points away for items like not addressing opponent arguments, etc. I do not give points for strength of an arguments. So, if a debater makes an argument and their opponent does not address that point, even if it is not a strong point, I tend to subtract points.

I love hearing smart young people make well researched, informed, arguments in LD. It makes me hopeful for the future.

I really like a properly ran cap K. Down with capitalism!!

Feel free to run anything in front of me, but I would ~prefer~ that you not run frivolous theory.

I believe disclosure is very good unless you give me a reason to believe otherwise.

Topical puns in you speech will increase the speaker points you get.

I have previous LD and PF and Policy experience but I was not a tricks debater.

I won't vote on the K if the alt is unclear - same goes for policy advocacies. Clear solvency please.

awelton001@gmail.com for questions

After attending a summer debate workshop at Wake Forest University the summer before my high school senior year, I discovered what would become the focus of my extracurricular activity as a WF student. My freshman year, I joined the debate team and debated throughout my college career.

Debate opened my mind to topics beyond my immediate studies and environment; I learned to think more fully, explore resources more broadly and present more clearly and persuasively my thoughts in writing and speech. I enjoy the intellectual stimulation of exchanging ideas with colleagues willing and ready to challenge assumptions and assertions.

The value of debate's intellectual exercise and practical discipline is inestimable. My collegiate debate experience continues to benefit me in every aspect of my life. Debate training paid huge dividends while I served the City of Winston-Salem for 16 years as a councilperson and mayor.

While new to the high school circuit, I am honored to encourage and support young debaters as they learn and grow their thinking, writing and speaking skills.

This is my second year judging Lincoln-Douglas. I am an analytical thinker - clarity and straightforwardness tends to work best for me. I evaluate the debate as a whole and am very detail oriented.

I understand the need to talk fast to get the information into your case. However, I strongly encourage slowing down and clearly speaking your value and value criterion for me to hear it. Finally, if something is important to your case once again, speak clearly to make I hear it.