I have been judging various events for 2 years. I always try to bury any personal knowledge or belief about topics and judge solely on what is presented in the round by the debaters.

I look for well-defined arguments that are educational and don't assume previous knowledge. I prefer hearing fewer well-defined arguments than a litany of arguments that are spoken at a rapid pace to deliver as much information as possible. I strongly prefer a debater to not use spreading as a method of debate, it sounds like jibberish to me.

I look for respect toward opponents. I like a natural flow of speech and a tone that is passionate but not shrill.

Hi I'm Isabel!!

Speak well and have fun :)

.
I have previously judged debate, primarily Congress. In general, I prefer a reasonable to fast rate of delivery. I am comfortable with jargon and technical language if it is appropriate for the topic. I take notes during rounds, though I generally limit notes to writing down key arguments (and if relevant any immediate reactions). I value argument over style, in particular argument that emphasizes logic and supporting evidence. I do not react well to statements that are unsupported by evidence. I expect debaters to be thoughtful, respectful, and careful in listening to arguments from the other side. I am particularly impressed by debaters who distill the opposite side's argument fairly and accurately but nonetheless offer strong responses.

Traditional PF judge. Not a fan of progressive debate or excessive calling for evidence. Speed is fine but must be intelligible. Same holds for LD. For speech events, no special requests. Willing to give whatever time signals helps.

Hello and good luck! I’m data-driven and rational person. I will look for a logical flow and prefer you stayed on topic or only include relevant information. I enjoy diversity of thought and opinion. I make every effort not rely on my own beliefs but focus on the evidence presented.