Having adjudicated a handful of congress speech debate competitions as a parent judge, here are a few factors I generally consider for evaluating participants:

* content and delivery (equal weightage)

* thoughtfully laid out and well researched arguments with strong analysis

* refutations in every speech after the first affirmative

* participation in CrossX and raise valid logical questions to challenge opposing arguments and strengthening their own argument.

Good luck and thank you for your time and effort!

I prefer participants introduce themselves, maintain as much eye contact as feasible, and enunciate.

I am a parent judge whose son competes in Congressional debate. I have judged a few tournaments, specifically in congress.

Below are some things I want to see:

1. confidence and clarity when speaking

2. do not be rude to your fellow competitors

3. make your argument as clear and easy to understand as possible

Hello Debaters,

I have about a little more than a year’s experience judging LD debate. I’ve judged 4 tournaments in that time. Prior to that, I was a judge for Congressional debate.

Tips:

I will use the value/value judgement criterion you propose so you’ll want to make sure these are clear. “Morality” by itself doesn’t mean much until you clarify (with a value judgement) what this means. The less clear your value/value judgement is, the more you’re leaving it to me to make the call for myself.

Constructions: “My time starts now…” Don’t race! Don’t spread! Landing your points well is more important than cramming in a large number of points. Let it show through that you thoroughly understand the contentions you advocate (vs. reading off a sheet of paper where I wonder if you prepared the arguments yourself!). Please do not do “off-time” summaries-- shouldn’t your points be apparent during the debate itself?

Cross-Examinations: The skill is in asking questions which clarify weaknesses in your opponents’ argument, or strengthen yours. Thoughtful questions substantive to the debate are important.

Rebuttals: I will be looking for how well you directly engage your opponent’s argument. Too many rebuttals simply focus on re-emphasizing one’s construction without taking into account the opposing side’s argument. The level of engagement is a prime way I distinguish how effective one’s rebuttal is.

Technicalities and Demeanor: Use of technicalities, e.g. pointing out your opponent did not address contentions you made, and so, you win on those points enhance debate but are not its substance. Particularly in novice LD debate, I favor you focusing on the key skills of construction/cross-X/rebuttal. Winning on the substance of your arguments is the prime judging point. Similarly, debaters confuse being aggressive and adversarial as qualities which convey confidence. While demeanor certainly contributes to effective communication, being aggressive without effectively using it to enhance the delivery of your message is merely just being aggressive.

I’ll be flowing your arguments in the judge’s notes so you’ll get to see where I followed you well, and where I didn’t.

Lastly, enjoy! I’m looking forward to hearing you speak!

I am a flow judge. If I don't understand you, I won't put it into my flow. That said, there is a difference between speaking fast and spreading. You can speak fast but if it is incomprehensible (spreading), I will miss the argument and it didn't make it onto my flow. Also, do not expect me to understand the topic; it is up to the debaters to allow me to understand the round. Please clearly state your impacts in your final speeches.

In LD, there are 4 minutes of prep and I generally don't allow for flex prep. There's cross-x time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep but not clarification (again, that's what cross x is for).

I weigh on framework and impact analysis. I look for arguments that are both logically sound and that have proper evidence to support it. I would probably describe myself as leaning traditional but I am comfortable with progressive arguments.

I have judged Congress, Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and Parli, but I am most familiar with LD.

I would also request that there should be a non-aggressive and friendly cross-examination and class. Be respectful to each other. Keep track of your own time and your opponent's.

Director of Forensics at Bentley School, Lafayette
High school and college experience

I flow the round, but I promise there is a high probability that I will get lost if you go too fast or jump around with your arguments. You’ll benefit from signposting and staying organized. I prefer fleshed out arguments and not blips. Don’t assume I know theory. If something is a voting issue, explain it to me. Always tell me "why".

I’ve spent many years coaching speech events and I appreciate quality public speaking skills, along with respect towards your teammate and opponents.

By the end of the round, you need to tell me why I should be voting for you over your opponent. What are the voting issues and how do your impacts outweigh your opponent's impacts?

This is my fourth year judging. I have experience judging in different debate and speech types. While I do not deduct if time management is within a few seconds, if you go on for 30sec or more beyond the time limit, I will deduct significant points.

The most important element for me is the strength of the presentation, conclusions are logical, and the story is compelling. I believe in maintaining good eye contact, making arguments not just reading cards. Please keep your "spreading" in check. I would like to have a clear and effective delivery. I appreciate clever wordplay and well-done appeals to emotion.

Please think about the weighing mechanism, what is the impact and why I should vote for your side.

Debate and speech should be exciting and fun. Please enjoy the experience. I expect professional behavior by all participants, and look forward to a great session.

TLDR: You do you. I do what you tell me.

Disclaimer

I strive to judge like a "blank slate" while recognizing that I will never actually be one. Keep this in mind as you read the rest of this paradigm.

Email

carterhenman@gmail.com

If there is an email chain I will want to be on it. I would be glad to answer any questions you have.

Accommodations

Disclose as much or as little as you want to me or anyone else in the room. Either way, I am committed to making the debate rounds I judge safe and accessible.

Experience

I competed in LD in high school (2009-2013) in Wyoming and northern Colorado with some national circuit exposure.

I competed in policy at the University of Wyoming (2013-2018) and qualified to the NDT twice. I loved reading complicated courts affirmatives, bold impact turns, and Ks with specific and nuanced justifications for why they are competitive with the aff. I wish I had had the courage to go for theory in the 2AR more often. I studied (mostly analytic) philosophy and some critical disability theory to earn my bachelor's degree.

Style: agnostic.

All debate is performative. I can be persuaded that one performance is contingently more valuable (ethically, aesthetically, educationally, etc.) than another, but it would be arbitrary and unethical on my part to categorically exclude any particular style.

That being said, I am not agnostic when it comes to form. An argument has a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I do not care how you give me those three things, but if you do not, then you have not made an argument and my RFD will probably reflect that. This cuts in many directions: I hate K overviews that make sweeping ontological claims and then describe implications for the case without explaining why the original claim might be true; I equally detest when anyone simply asserts that "uniqueness determines the direction of the link".

Organization matters. However, I do not think organization is synonymous with what a lot of people mean when they say "line by line". It means demonstrating a holistic awareness of the debate and effectively communicating how any given argument you are making interacts with your opponents'. Therefore, when adjudicating whether something is a "dropped argument" I will parse between (a) reasonably predictable and intelligibly executed cross-applications and (b) superficial line-by-line infractions. Giving conceptual labels to your arguments and using your opponents' language when addressing theirs can help you get on the right side of this distinction.

Evidence matters. A lot. Again, I do not mean what a lot of people mean when they talk about evidence in debate. It is about a lot more than cards. It is also about personal experience and preparation, historical consciousness, and even forcing your opponents to make a strategic concession (by the way, I flow cross-examination). I read cards only when I have to and tend to defer to what was said in the debate regarding how to interpret them and determine their quality. Thus, I will hold the 2NR/2AR to relatively high thresholds for explanation.

I flow on paper. This means I need pen time. It also magnifies the importance of organization since I cannot drag and drop cells on a spreadsheet. Because I flow the "internals" of evidence (cards or otherwise), you will benefit enormously from clarity if you are fast and will not necessarily be at a disadvantage against very fast teams if you are slow but efficient with your tag lines.

Substance: mostly agnostic.

Hate and disrespect are never conducive to education and growth. I presume that the need to disincentivize abusive speech and other behaviors overrides my desire to reward skill with a ballot, but it never hurts for debaters to remind me of why this is true if you are up to it. This includes card clipping and other ethics violations. In general, I will stop the round if I notice it on my own. Otherwise, you have two options: (1) stop the round, stake the debate on it (you may lose if you are wrong, but they will certainly lose and receive no speaker points if you are right), and let me be final arbiter or (2) keep the issue alive throughout the debate, but leave open the option to go for substance. I think this is the most fair way for me to address this as an educator, but please do not think option two gives you license to go for "a risk of an ethics violation" in the final rebuttals or to read a generic "clipping bad" shell in every one of your 1NC/2ACs. That's icky.

There is no right way to affirm the topic. There are wrong ways to affirm the topic. I can be sold on the notion that the aff did it the wrong way. I can also be convinced that the wrong way is better than the right way. It may yet be easiest to convince me that your counter-interpretation of the right way to affirm the topic is just as good as, or better than, theirs.

Theory is mis- and underutilized. You get to debate the very rules of your debate! Current conventions regarding negative fiat, for example, will inevitably make me smirk when you read "no neg fiat." Still, if you invest enough thought, before and during and after debates (not merely regurgitating somebody else's blocks at an unintelligible rate), into any theory argument I am going to be eager to vote on it.

This is my first year as a parent judge for Parliamentary Debate. Please be respectful to your peers at all times and speak with a clear, reasonable pace. I will be judging based on what happens in a round and not based on my personal opinions. Things I will be looking for is how confident you hold yourself when speaking and how prepared you seem to be. It would be great if you were able to define some terms regarding debate as I am still unfamiliar with the format of Parliamentary. Good luck!

I have experience judging middle school speech and debate (PF & LD) for last two years.

Speech Format :

I prefer debaters to deliver speech with consistent pace and clarity. Also i prefer debaters to keep track of the time for each round.

Good Luck!

Hello all,

I am a parent judge. I have been judging the student congress debate for last three years.

For the contents of your speech, I would like to hear the debate about the harm and benefit analysis of the bill based on the flow of the chamber arguments and your data. I also look at the type of speeches you present during the round. I expect an argumentative speech if you speak later. If you bring an applicable real-life impact to your speech, that also counts for a good ranking. For the delivery, it matters to me if a student speaks with a clear sound, a persuasive tone, and a natural talking style. I give a favor to a student who participates in the debate actively with critical questions to weigh the side of the bill. I rank PO well if the PO runs the chamber efficiently. Good luck, and have fun!

I judge on how well you are organized, how well you support your points, how well you refute your opponent's points, and your speaking skills.

I value analysis in a debate with supporting facts. It is also important how you deliver the facts. A good debate is a combination of facts, arguments and delivery. I also equally discourage made-up facts. You need to show the credible sources for your facts.

Tell me why I should vote AFF/NEG, it helps if you:

- Present a clear link story

- For Kritiks, give me a reason to prefer your role of the ballot

-For Perms, is it mutually exclusive

Be respectful to your opponents, in regards to spreading.

Hello,

I would like to extend my best wishes to all debaters. I understand that many hours of research and preparation have gone into this before this actual event. That is incredible.

These are the things that I would like to see from a debater

1) Speech delivered clearly and slowly.

2) Precise and effective arguments on negative or affirmative side.

3) Respectful conduct with judges and other fellow debaters

4) Respect the rules and follow them

5) Good eye contact with the audience

Overall impactful speech that hooks audience to the topic. Please have fun. Getting this far is a milestone achieved in itself !

I am looking forward to being a judge and listening to the speeches and cross examination. Good luck !!

As a parent judge for the LD tournament, I would like the participants to be respectful, and behave in a cordial manner. This means not interrupting or talking over your opponent, along with using a strong, commanding voice. I value the research of the topic and evidence, as well as facts to support your arguments, however I want the participants to use credible sources for gathering information.

I would like participants to center their arguments around the value and define the value criterion. Arguments should be well organized and rebuttal should be well constructed. Lastly, I want the participants to be mindful of the time provided.