I have experience debating Public Forum, and I've judged primarily PF and LD for the past two years.

In terms of speed, I have no issue with spreading so long as you enunciate your words. I can't judge what's incomprehensible.

During crossfire, the education of the round is severely limited if it is just used by a side to list off their contention without allowing for questions. Keep it to question and answer. There is a difference between fully explaining what was asked and running the clock down.

I am a purist when it comes to Public Forum.  It is not policy.  Therefore, policy tactics should not be used.

I am interested in solid clash - logical argumentation.  Teams that move to the level of logic based/evidence based debate will always come out on top. 

I appreciated teams avoiding rudeness.  Do not roll your eyes, raise your voice, or become combative or hostile.  Focus on the argumentation - reinforcing the strength of that - and sticking to the RESOLUTION.

I've been involved in debate since 2007 and have served as judge regularly for Marist School on the local circuit for the past eight years. I am the Registrar at Marist and used to be a Math Teacher.

In terms of the debate, I prefer debaters to speak slowly, make good arguments and be polite.