Debaters should state their arguments and framework clearly, and present their evidence and counter-evidence in a clear and logical manner.

While I have been trained in judging policy - I am still a lay judge.

I would not advise spreading or running theory arguments or K's.

Make it obvious to me what you want me to weigh and what the voting issues are.

I look for well-supported impact & Pathos - I want you to convince me by making me care about the topic. However, I also want you to convince me by backing up your claims with actual evidence.

I research, analyze and write policy for a living. Therefore, I can sense when your argument is BS and your sources are lacking.

I am anti-speed (both the the drug and the debate style) and anti-jargon. I want to be able to give you decent feedback, but I start to lose interest when you're jabbering away at 90 miles an hour. If you are worried about fitting in your argument in the time allotted, don't stress. I would rather hear one very clear and strong argument, rather than a bunch of semi-good arguments spoken too fast for me to understand what point you are trying to make.

*If I raise my hand, you are speaking too fast. I will give you one warning. The second time, you will lose points*

DO:

-Be specific and provide context when you present your evidence, blanket claims and "'cause I said so" are not specific.

-Clearly link your evidence to your argument.

-Clearly identify and state your contention, or your opposition to the other team's contention. Don't make me wonder what you're talking about and don't assume I will remember something from earlier in the round. I am old. I am tired. My memory is not what it used to be. Most likely, it has been a very long week for me and chances are I am also starving.

-Make sure your sources are credible and recent. I can usually tell who has done their research and who hasn't. An article you pulled up on CNN or Fox 20 minutes ago is an example of the latter. As a general rule, sources should be less than 5 years old - unless they are well-accepted in theory or study (This doesn't mean you will lose points for citing an older article, however).

-Speak loud enough for me to hear you! If I grab my ear. You're too quiet.

- I DO pay attention to cross X.

As a Public Forum judge, what I look for and vote on in each round is that your team has effectively shown or told me why you should win. You need to prove to me that the contentions or impacts that are presented by you are superior to your opponents’. When it comes to beginning your speeches, please provide a brief, off-time roadmap that includes the order and name of your contentions, as well as any framework that will be presented. Please do this before every speech.

As a Lincoln-Douglas judge, I want to be shown how you win the round. You should show me this by effectively upholding your own value/criterion AND either by upholding your opponent’s value/criterion through your own contentions/case OR disproving the effectiveness of your opponent’s value/criterion. And most importantly, I want you to tell me HOW or WHY your argument is more important that your opponent’s; do not just simply state that it is more important. Prove it to me. And as per above, please provide a brief, off-time roadmap that includes the order and name of your contentions, as well as any value/criterion that will be presented. please do this before every speech.

•Confident presentation/vocal presence.

•Well sourced arguments/warrants.

•Witty and well thought out refutations/counter arguments

•I am open to a variety of arguments.

•(LD) Counter-plans that can reveal grey areas in an otherwise black and white argument style.

•As with how judges should be, the key to winning my vote ultimately is persuasion.