I am a parent judge and this is my first year judging. I have limited knowledge in speech and debate as this is my first time being in contact with it.

Clarity and articulation is appreciated over speed. Please don’t speak too quickly. I’ll probably understand logic more than advanced techniques. Be respectful and don’t be offensive. Have fun.

I'm a lay judge and a social studies teacher from East Lake High School.

I am looking for good sportsmanship, respectful interactions, courtesy, good evidence and a strong argument. Best of Luck and HAVE FUN!

I have over 3 years of judging experience of various events including Congress, IE, PFD and LD (traditional) in regional and national level. Lately, I have been judging LD and PFD events.

I have a few preferences that need to be followed during a round in order to persuade me:

· Speak clearly, I understand speaking fast is necessary at times, but I should be able to comprehend everything you are saying.

· I expect civility and respect within the round, there will be no racism, sexism, misogyny, ethnocentrism, belittling of your opponent, or personal criticism of your opponent. If you display any of these actions I will no longer listen to you or your arguments.

· The debate will be weighed and judged on clear and consistent arguments on the framework, which are carried throughout the round.

· Evidence must be presented throughout the round. If your opponent doesn’t negate your evidence, emphasize on it to get the advantage.

· Framework is very important. You must have a clear value and value criterion. You must apply it to all of your arguments made in the round and uphold it at the end. I should be able to relate to the contention you’re speaking about and all of your supporting points.

· Please keep your pace to a conversational speed so I can flow. If I miss something on the flow, I can’t vote based on it.

· Having confidence is a key to effective debate. If you sound confident and bring your arguments clearly, you’re more than likely to convince me.

I typically can't hear/follow full speed spreading. If I can't hear you I will yell clear.

I will listen to any arguments I understand. If you are running progressive arguments I expect clear explanations for every part of the case. You can read tricky arguments but if I can't hear them I will not vote on them.

Traditional approach is probably best.

I value tech over truth, once again as long as the argument is explained to me.

During rebuttals I expect clear, heavy impact work. Explain how your arguments interact with theirs and tell me why to vote for you.

Hi, I am a parent judge and have only judged lay rounds so far.

This is how I feel about things in debate:

General preferences:

- Call me Judge

- send me your case

- Speak no faster than 200 WPM so I can understand and follow along with your case efficiently

- Don't use complex acronyms or terms and instead say the full thing so I can understand what it is

- If you don't do the above I may have time understanding you and will not be able to accurately evaluate the round and this may cause you to lose because of it

Policy action debate or topical debate:

- I personally would prefer and understand this best as a parent judge

- I would like clear links and impacts for each policy or topical argument you make

Theory:

- You can make theory arguments but make them accustomed so that a lay judge would be able to see how education or fairness is being contested otherwise I won't understand it or flow it

- I will NOT understand or accept theory arguments stating when theory should be run because it distracts from topic literature and actual theory

Kritiks:

- Refrain from running these, they are too hard to understand and they distract from actual topical debate

Frameworks:

- Explain whether it is consequential or intentions based

- Stress more on making it understandable and relating to topic literature

Other:

- If I didn't mention it then I have no idea what it is and you shouldn't try it

ABOUT ME: Former Congressional Debater/Extemper/LDer and coach. These days, usually a tournament director. JD, no bar. MLS, lots of books. I've been at this for about 30 years now.

Okay, on to more important things:

SPEED: Keep it reasonable—slightly faster than conversational pace is fine. I can flow faster than that, but I won't, as I don't find value in that form of debate. I won't vote against you solely for excessive speed, but I won't flow anything I can't follow comfortably.

COMMUNICATION SKILLS GENERALLY: They matter and will figure heavily into your speaker points. Proper grammar and diction cut in favor of your credibility as an advocate; the reverse is also true. If your nonverbal communication doesn't bolster your words and show me what's important, you've wasted an opportunity to convince me. With the exception of reasonable accommodations, online rounds, and Grand Crossfire, you are expected to stand when speaking.

RULES LAWYERING: DON'T!

BIGOTRY OF ANY KIND: Perhaps the quickest way to tank your speaker points.

APPROACH TO POLICY: Mostly a policymaker. Stock issues still matter. CPs are fine, but Neg must abandon status quo. DAs are great, but don't neglect uniqueness. T is acceptable but rarely compelling. I'm not such a big fan of Ks and debate theory, but I am persuadable; if you want to try to change my mind, you can. Voting issues expected in the 2NR/2AR.

APPROACH TO LD: Traditional; if you want to debate policy, do policy debate. I favor the value clash over the line-by-line. No "status quo" or plans. For a resolution R, Aff must argue in support of R; Neg, in support of ~R. Interpretation of R and division of ground are legitimate issues for the round. Burden of production is a framework (value operationalized through a criterion). Clash is mandatory; this is debate, not dueling oratory. Voting issues expected at the end of the NR and the lion's share of the 2AR.

APPROACH TO PFD: No plans. For a resolution R, Pro must argue that R > ~R; Con must argue the reverse. Interpretation of R and standard are legitimate issues for the round. Clash is mandatory. Prefer fewer well-developed arguments to a long train of tag, card, tag, card. Voting issues desired in the latter half of Summary. FF should distill the Summaries and Grand Crossfire into one reason to vote either for you OR against your opponents (in other words, it should write my RFD for me).

UNDERSTANDING MY BALLOTS: I write ballots that are meant to (1) explain the basis for my decision and (2) help you do better in future rounds. In general, I will not praise you for doing what's expected. If I don't say anything about it, you were fine to very good. I will identify true standout areas, but I'll mostly point out what didn't work well (including things that I think a better opponent would've seized upon).

If I quote or paraphrase something you said: The more exclamation points I put after a statement, the more impressed I was with it. The more question marks I put after a statement, the more of a blunder I thought it was.

A black box (on paper) or ***a ton of asterisks*** (in text) around a comment means something your coach needs to discuss with you. Please don't make me do this.

I’m a lay judge who values common sense and logic over the tech of the debate. It is important to construct a good framework to weigh upon as well as stress your impacts. I don’t really entertain a super unique case with abstract and absurd links that really do not focus in on the resolution.