As a judge, I am personally very big on delivery and the style in which the presentation is done. I am a strong believer that a passionate, engaging form of delivery is crucial for any successful speech. I like to see active participation and I also like when competitors avoid direct-reading like the plague!
I’ve been judging both speech and congress for over 5 years and can say that the experience has been great!

Hi !

As a bit of a background on me: I am currently a Sophomore at Cornell University, I competed in speech (locally and nationally) all throughout my high school years, Extemp for 3 years, and then Dramatic performance as a senior. I qualified for states all four years, was a state finalist in impromptu my freshman year, and qualified for nationals senior year(but it was cancelled due to COVID), this is my second year judging, so I think it's fair to say I have a pretty good background.

Some background on how I run things for everyone:

In any event I judge I will not accept disrespectful conduct, to me or other competitors, this is in any capacity, but some examples are: being discriminatory, flat out rude, or just unkind to the people around you.

I do not announce the results of a round for any event at the end of a round, and I will not give you comments at the end because we have these wonderful things called Ballots that I personally spend a good amount of time on(so they may come a bit later than the end of the comp) and you should read...trust me its great stuff wrote it myself. I will explain what I liked, didn't like, and most of all help pick things for you to improve on! If there is a place to do so, I will tell you how I judged that round. In general I know how to judge different levels(ex:JV Extemp vs Varsity or you're new to this vs you've been doing this for a while). Therefore, your ballots will go along those lines, I am going to give you advice and reasoning based on what that level is, I'm not going to harp on every little thing if it seems to be your first ever round of dec, but if it's finals in varsity Extemp, I'm expecting you to be at a certain level of experienced and I will be more knit-picky. I try to be fair, some compliments, some critiques, and some things to improve on(usually attached with how).

Online tournaments: I really prefer when people stand when presenting but, I know space can be tight sometimes so try your best to at least sit forward, always have some kind of lights on or decent lighting(I can't judge things like facial expressions if I literally cannot see them:), speak loud and clear(I will tell you if I can't hear you), and try not tell everyone around you that you are competing so we don't have something like mom walking into the middle of your speech to remind you to do the dishes:) If we get disconnected I will try my hardest to reconnect and fix the issue, if needed I will contact Tabroom, but, if I can, I will let you know as much as I do, when I do, but, I am by no means a CS major so don't expect me to know everything:) If disconnection occurs, I will let you pick up from the last sentence, or few sentences before the disconnection occurs, if you want I can tell you the last idea/statement I heard you say. I am very understanding of technological issues, and so should you! Remember, this is still a formal competition and everyone should behave as such... I feel like with as much online school as you had this shouldn't be that hard to understand:)That means things like: paying attention when someone is speaking (so don't do things: look off into the distance the whole time like you just saw a ghost, text(I attended online classes for a year so yes, I know when this is happening please don't do it when someone's speaking it's flat out rude I will notice, and tell you so:), make a latte, take a dip in the pool, climb Everest, go skydiving or whatever else should come to your mind:), having your camera on if you can(it's very hard to present to just my little box in the corner and like 5 black screens...not fun, interrupting someone when their speaking, private messaging me when someone is speaking(I promise you I will not answer that message:), etc.

For those who I am judging as a speech judge: I do not(as other judges should) judge on the topic of the piece or content of the work you are performing(unless the event deems I should such as OO or Extemp) but rather on your performance(duh;). I look for fluidity and comfortability with the piece and room. I look at tonality throughout the piece and specifically sections that the emotion is important. There should be a good mix of emotions, even if a piece is generally (ex:) sad, there should be moments of variation of sad throughout the piece. To examine that, I look at diction when it comes to certain words and phrases (ex:)if that is an important line and you muffle it...not a good look. I love someone with a good flow and overall comfortably with the piece who really made it their own! Especially those in OO your speech should really feel like your speech(and if it's OO I will judge the quality of writing as well as performance, at the end of the day you can be a great performer but the speech has to be written well, if it doesn't have the right parts to the speech...why do an OO ?). I will not be judging too hard on movements in online tournaments because it's a bit hard to do(there should still be some present even if it's just your hands motioning as you speak) but, I will consider it if it is important to the piece/presentation. Overall, make me want to hire you for either a movie or for a Ted Talk and you win the round.

If I am judging Extemp: I need to feel as if you are an expert on this topic(if you're not, which is very possible, remember fake it till you make it!). I really look for good structure(I focus the most on this so please, please, try to at least look up how to write a proper speech in the prep time before you present), comfortability, and overall presentability. Sources are always an important part of Extemp but they should be added in with a natural flow into your speech, don't just throw them in there! This should be an essay, with background, that truly convinces me 1)I know what you are saying and 2) I care about what you are saying. Try to include some background on the topic and definitions for words or ideas that people are not commonly knowledgeable about, honestly this will help you for judges that know nothing at all...but I am not one of them:) That being said, make sure that what you say makes sense, because I will call you out for using fancy phrases, or statements about a topic, that make no sense:) I will never judge someone on the side they take if it is presented well, listen if you can convince me to paint the world orange and not pink well enough great, but if your speech makes it sound like there wasn't enough information, you don't know what you are saying, or it is in some way literally offensive(which is another problem in and of itself) I will wonder about why you decided to take that side in the first place. Remember I did Extemp for a while so it's something that I know how to find flaws and positives in well!

For those who I am judging as a debate judge: Even though my background is all speech, I have actually only judged PF so far! I fall more as a flay judge. I like to write most of what is said down, but if you start to spread I like to listen to the overall framework and effectiveness of contentions. You should tell me 1)why I care about the topic and why I care about your side(this is both in terms of your flow and in the actual content of the speech) 2) why I do not care for a single thing the other side said(but please no trash talk! I do not take that well at all!! Please save it for car rides home...or I guess group zoom meetings afterwards:) I will say I'm not someone who is completely unknowledgeable about the world and current events so, I will care for the content you present. It should make sense(very important!), be presented in a logical manner, and engage everyone in the room. In the same sense I should be able to watch this debate not knowing a thing, and be convinced that you should win. I will give ballots based on every part of the debate so I can bring you back to the moments that worked, those that didn't, why and how they did. The team who wins a debate for me is a team that can go against an expert on the topic and hold their own. You can effectively do this is through: a logical and easy to follow framework, a strong crossfire(done by both partners not just one carrying the other!!) that ultimately overpowers the other team, and overall confidence! Even if I hate your viewpoint, if I remember what you said for sometime after, you will win.

I wish you all luck!

Best,

Alex Alex

I am a parent of a congressional debater. When judging, i look for clarity in your arguments backed by strong evidence and sources. Delivery is important to me, hand gestures, eye contact, and strong arguments all go hand in hand. Good luck everyone.

What I would prefer to see in a Speech:

1. Please use sources/references for all the facts that you are mentioning in your speech. This includes all the stats and ideas of the other authors that you are paraphrasing. This is essential for me to believe the credibility of the speech you are the delivering.
2. Please be courteous to all other participants
3. Please ensure the speech that is being delivered flows logically and clear with an introduction, body and conclusion.
4. Ensure the speech is not delivered at very fast pace. Please give adequate pauses so that I can understand the content in a better and clear way
5. Please don't pace very fast across the stage as it will become difficult for me to focus on your speech. I appreciate vocal variety, eye contact and adequate use of gestures during the speech delivery
6. Please let me know if you need time signals for your speech before you start the speech
7. Wherever applicable I would appreciate if real incidents/solutions are referred in the speech to support the topic rather than stating the hypothesis. The real incidents gets to me better than hypothesis
8. Please ensure the audience is engaged throughout your speech whatever could be the topic and ensure that you are staying relevant to the speech topic

I competed in PF debate all four years of high school (NCFL) and I vote based off of the flow. Whatever experience we bring to the table, operate under the assumption that I and every other judge you have knows absolutely nothing: tell us why your opponents' arguments are flawed, don't apply, or if they weigh less than yours. Don't assume that attacking your opponent's contention once in rebuttal automatically drops it. If the opponent addresses your critique well and you don't come back against it, it might likely stand.

I understand that debate can narrow in on a topic or two, but you should also work to extend your own contentions or state that they have gone unaddressed by your opponents. PF doesn't require plans but if your opponent asks something as simple as "how will that work" and you say "PF doesn't require plans" to shut own a line of questioning, I will not consider that a substantial defense; no one is asking for a ten-year plan, but you should still demonstrate an understanding of the card or argument you are advancing. Grand X is supposed to involve everyone, please make an effort to have everyone speak at least once. I'm fine with whatever speed you want to go at, but speak your contention headlines and major pieces of evidence clearly; if you want me to weigh them heavily make sure I can hear them.

I am currently the Head Speech Coach for The Bronx High School of Science. Formerly, I competed in info, extemp, congress, and PF for Apple Valley High School in Apple Valley, Minnesota.

Speech: To get my 1, you will need to do a few things. First, you should be memorized. Being on script often makes speakers less conversational and less able to do convincing tech. Second, your speech should be around 10:00 minutes. You should be using the full time that you are given to tell your story. I will not give the 1 to speeches over 10:30 if tournament rules specify that, but I will not drop you for going slightly over time. Third, if I find your speech to be offensive, I will drop you. This community should be one that is open to diversity and celebrating it, not turning people's identities into caricatures. I will write on your ballot what specific joke or character I found to be too offensive so you can hopefully change it. Next, I will be judging you on both your performance and the other things you do while in the room. I believe that good speakers have good ethos, and it will be difficult to give you a high rank if you were a bad or distracting audience member for your fellow speakers. If you are performing with a binder, feel free to use it as a prop. In fact, I love to see creative binder tech. In OO and extemp, I am looking for solid arguments backed up with research. I want to hear your citations. Outside examples and personal stories are welcome. In interp events, I want to see clean and creative blocking and very distinct characters. Basically, I am looking to give my 1 to good people who speak well.

Congress: Like in Speech, I look for good people who speak well. I believe that good debaters have good ethos, and it will be difficult to give you a high rank if you were a bad or distracting audience member for your fellow debaters. On evidence, I am looking for solid arguments backed up with research. I want to hear your sources. Excessive rehash will be penalized. Congress is a debate event, so I like to see clash. Ask good pointed questions and engage in the debate. That said, overly aggressive speakers will not rank highly. As parliamentarian, I will pay attention to the types of arguments and tactics you use throughout the tournament. I like to see logical consistency. For instance, I don't like to see debaters who advocate for isolationism on one bill and open borders on another.

Public Forum: I'll be honest, even though I competed in public forum for three years, I'm still a pretty lay judge. If you are going to speak quickly, then make sure you are very clear because I cannot vote for an argument that I do not hear. My favorite arguments are niche policy arguments that are impacted with regular people saving money or lives not being lost. I will not consider arguments that are not discussed in every speech up to the final focus. I will give arguments the weight that you do. If you say something is important, prove why. Arguments made in crossfire should be reiterated in speeches because I won't flow it. I base my speaker points mainly on how a speaker conducts themselves in cross-examination. I bring a lot of the mindset I have for speech into the debate space and I am looking to support good people who speak well. If you make clear arguments with impacts that link and are not a jerk, you will get high speaker points and will likely win the round. I will drop any team that I feel is being overtly or intentionally offensive. I don't need to see your evidence unless it is highly contested in the round and the deciding factor. Also, in cross, ask questions. You can't go on a rant and end it with "right?" and call that a question. Not gonna lie, I hate off time roadmaps; just signpost!

Good luck to everyone competing and I hope you enjoy your day!

Hi! I'm an IE/debate judge residing in Chicago and working in finance, and am also an assistant high school speech coach. In high school my focus was persuasive/OO and poetry interp, and in college I expanded my events to include duo, impromptu, POI. You name it, I did it. I lead my college's team as one of the 3 student lead collegiate teams in the country, so I know the hard work it takes to not only put together pieces/write/prep, but to lead a team simultaneously.

FOR SPEECH:

1. Quality over quantity. In written events, sources are great to get your point across, but too many can disrupt your thesis. Delve into your sources more and give me concrete, flowing explanations. Do not put sources in just to "have them" or meet your source quota.

2. Include trigger warnings. I do not have any personal triggers that will affect me judging your piece, but your peers who are watching might. Be respectful of everyone you might encounter.

3. Interp Events - Give Me SUBSTANCE! The emotional range of topics vary greatly. Emotions are valid and should be part of an interp piece. However, too much emotion where it isn't warranted during the performance shows me you may be trying to cover up for not having enough substantial material.

3. Be Yourself. Coming from a speech background myself, I know trying to "butter up" the judges may seem like a good idea, but it does not work with me. I am here for your performance. Show me what you've worked on and the reward follows.

FOR DEBATE:

I also have experience judging Congress and LD. For the purpose of this week's tournament, in LD I look for the following:

1. Let the opponent ask questions in their entirety during cross x. There could be a bit of information in the question that could be very relevant to how you answer, and if you miss that piece of information, that is on you. Make sure everyone has the right to speak and finish their questions.

2. Focus on your opponent's information. Really show me you are listening to what they are saying and add that into your rebuttal and cross x. I know you've been working really hard on your personal research for this topic, but I look for someone who listens to their opponent and use that information to help their argument and cross x. It shows an attentive, experienced speaker in the round.

3. Start out with substance over theory. Starting with theory is a much bigger hurdle to overcome and you may not have enough time in your speeches to enhance, yet alone, prove them.

4. Balance out your recent and past history examples. Too many recent history examples (especially with the November/December topic), leads me to believe you are just searching for the easiest examples, the first ones that come up when researching. Dig deeper, show me you researched the past, say, 70 years or so!

I competed mostly in extemp and have experience in pf, wsd, congress, oo, and info.

Extemp: I judge primarily off of content and analysis. This includes answering the question, providing adequate evidence, using unified analysis, providing succinct background info, and having 3 separate and logical points. I also really really appreciate humor, especially in the introductions. Have fun with it, be entertaining, and teach me something about the topic

WSD: I judge mostly on the validity of the arguments provided and how well you refute your opponents. Speakers should speak clearly and with an understandable speed (nothing over congress-speed). Be respectful with your injections, but don't be afraid of using them. Third and fourth speeches should summarize the round well and provide clear voters

PFD: Exact same as worlds: provide logical arguments and solid refutation of opponents. Ask effective CX questions, but don't be aggressive with it. Don't leave any argument unanswered and start to condense the round by the summary speech. FF should have clear voters.

IEs: Not much experience, but please have an organized and substantive speech. I judge based on what I learned and the entertainment value of speeches.

Congress: Be respectful and keep rounds very efficient - nothing worse than a dysfunctional chamber. Everyone should be polite but PLEASE call out other speakers and engage in clash, especially after the 4th/5th speech. If a PO runs a standard round, I'll rank them 3rd-6th. Be persuasive!

please be nice to me, i am but a simple fool

but for realz y'all, this is early early in my debate judging career (aka the first one was princeton '22) so, in the words of adele, go eaaaaaasssssyyyyy on me

you have free will, but i do not know what a counterplan, a k, a disad, or theory are so don't expect me to understand those. i only know these words because my girlfriend know what they are and told me to write them

for everyone's convenience, please give roadmaps and sign posts as you go and speak at an understandable/intelligible speed. don't expect me to read your mind or do your work for you. that kind of defeats the purpose of this whole "debate" thing

if you're sharing cases, my email is lcoilparampil@gmail.com

if i give verbal RFDs, please write them as we go

Experience with LD and PF

-Good with Speed & spreading

-Looking for opponents who give me full expanded thoughts and examples; excellent POI’s and cross exams

-for me, debates are won during the crosses

-ask thoughtful questions and find holes in opponents arguments

-flay judge: competed in high school (07-09) and have been judging lots of online tournaments since the pandemic. Can flow fairly well, but some of the jargon has gone out the window in the past few years, so laymen's terms are preferred when it comes to technically things. I have a college education, but some speech specific language, I don't remember.

My tip to winning my ballot: WEIGH WEIGH PLEASE GOD WEIGH

also collapse and extend please, write my ballot in final focus

I am in my second year competing in college APDA :)

theovdatta@gmail.com

I did some PF

Here is my full paradigm if you care to read it, otherwise just ask me questions before round

postrounding is good, do it if you feel the vibe is right

update on theory: I default reasonability and won't change that stance. I will not evaluate CIs>reasonability, so if you read theory, don't read it this part of meta-theory, and be prepared for some subjectivity in evaluation. 99% of the time, debates will still come down to who is winning the warrants/weighing, I just want the room to maneuver in RFD. Additionally, No RVIs doesn't mean you can drop offense on your opponent's CIs, so don't try to implicate it that way - I will not buy this implication.

update on communication: I won't STOP you from speaking to your partner while they are giving a speech, but please don't do it. I will dock speaks, and I have never seen it been done well enough to justify both the perceptual loss and the interruption in thought process. Just do what I did when my partner missed an argument – write it big on paper, and hold it up for them to see.

update on speed: I did a lot of debate and I can flow very well. With that being said, I will not flow off of the doc (I think its a bad norm). Take this advice as you will.

I expect all competitors to be respectful, know the rules of their format, and follow the needed order of the debate. I appreciate if people are clear with their arguments and enunciate their words. I appreciate concise, informed debate and will not stand for any disrespect. I am looking forward to judging all of you.

I prefer a traditional style of LD that doesn’t run kritiks or feature spreading. If you do something more circuit style, you have to break it down for me very clearly so I follow you.

As a judge, I prefer for debates to stay on resolution / topic. The formats were formed for a reason and that should be followed. If you get too progressive, well please see what I initially started my paradigm with. As for speed, flow very well, however if it sounds like you are choking and cannot breathe, just dropped those contentions, cards, points, whatever you were trying to establish. In most things, quality outweighs quantity. Please respect each other and have a great debate.

I am an experienced judge in both speech and debate, having coached for 30+ years in all categories offered within the spectrum of S&D. I began coaching Lincoln Douglas and Congressional Debate in the 1990’s, have coached PF since its inception, having coached the first PF team that represented NJ at Nationals in Atlanta, GA. I currently coach the NJ World Teams.

I am a flow judge who looks for logical arguments, a valid framework, and substantiation of claims made within your case. As a teacher of rhetoric, I appreciate word economy and precise language. Do not default to speed and redundancy to overwhelm. Persuade concisely; synthesize your thoughts efficiently. Be articulate. Keep your delivery at a conversational rate.

A good debate requires clash. I want to see you find and attack the flaws in your opponents’ arguments, and respond accordingly in rebuttal. Cross examination should not be a waste of time; it is a time to clarify. It is also not a time for claws; be civil, particularly in grand crossfire.

Disclosure is not a discussion or a renewed debate. Personally, I am not a fan, in large part, because of a few unwarranted challenges to my decision. You are here to convince me; if you have not, that will drive my RFD.

Email: ahhuan25@colby.edu

Personal Qualifications: I was primarily an Extemper for four years but I've almost every event spanning both speech and debate.

General: If you are going to spread then create an email chain with speech docs, I will say clear as much as necessary. If you have any difficulties related to personal disabilities or other issues and are worried about your spreading/speech style/ability to flow and reply to spreading, reach out to me and I’m sure we can work it out. It is really important to me to help accommodate and promote inclusivity in debate. Tech over truth – the round is about what you argue and not what I think (my RFD will likely include my thoughts on each of your case, what would've been a good rebuttal, questions etc, but round judging is based on what you argue again, not what I think). A dropped argument is a 100% true argument unless it is clearly exclusionary and offensive or I have explicitly stated an issue (i.e. Tricks below). Theory is a recourse and I will not vote for cases of absurd abuse that community standards as far as I know don’t support (spreading 6 off against someone who has never progressed beyond traditional debate). This should take care of most issues of abuse that people worry about with tech over truth. I try to be a tab judge with intervention as minimal as necessary. I will judge any argumentation that isn't exclusionary and/or offensive, but my ability to judge it and what helps me best evaluate arguments are better in some parts rather than others.

Policymaking/LARP/Substance: These arguments are usually pretty straightforward and there is nothing I object to. Be explicit in terms of weighing and cross applications, and don’t rely on “implicit” or “embedded clash”. This is true for all parts of the round but especially in this part of debate where I may not have default positions I will stick to should I need to intervene (i.e. reasonability). What is implicit to you may not be the same to me. I will evaluate offense based on the weighing and impact calculus of each argument and only use my own stances if I have to intervene to render a coherent decision. It really is unlikely to come to that but if you are concerned about intervention be sure to prevent that from happening If you are running a plan or counterplan, having a solvency advocate in the topic literature is key. I have a low threshold for extensions but explaining the links between warrants and evidence and impact calc and weighing will improve your speaks and the clarity of your arguments. You don’t need to restate everything, especially on dropped offense, but explain the link between arguments and tell a story.

Phil/Framework: This type of debate isn’t done and appreciated as much, and I am open to any arguments. Just be careful to not devolve into tricks (see tricks section below) and be accessible to your opponent. So long as it is properly analytically warranted (with or without evidence) is valid, just know that I may not be as familiar with arguments outside of util, deontological, or intuitionist frameworks.

I find the impact debate is often taken for granted, and one of the most important parts of debate.

If you are running multiple arguments, explain which comes first and why. If this becomes an issue in the 1AR with new aff arguments then I think a limited scope of responses to what was said by the aff in the 2NR is fine, but don’t abuse this to make new justifications. At the very least, if your opponent asks in CX, make it clear.

Some people will say to vote down theory that is “obviously frivolous” but that is a subjective determination. For me, something such as “you must wear one shoe and a helmet” or a ridiculous or otherwise impossible to meet would count as frivolous.
Tricks I would prefer if you don’t run tricks with me. It is hard for me to remove my bias (I don’t like them) and I find that it makes debate rounds less educational and accessible. If you and your opponent are comfortable with this, I will judge the round but it will very likely result in lower speaks.

I am currently a student at The Bronx High School of Science. I am on the Speech team, and have competed in OO and Declamation in the past.

First and foremost, your speech should not be offensive. Sensitive topics (ex. racism, sexism) are allowed to be addressed, as addressing them is a part of the process to spreading a more positive message/solution. But I cannot stress this more: your speech should not aim to degrade others through means such as racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, etc. Speech is a safe space for diverse identities; do not ruin that. I will not hesitate to drop you for this. I will let you know in your ballots if I found something too offensive.

Second, your speech should have proper timing and content. The preferable time range for me is 9:00-10:30 minutes. Your speech should have sufficient content to at least reach the 9:00 minute mark. If tournaments specify, I will not give you the 1 if you go over 10:30. However, if not, I am not too much of a stickler for time if you go a little bit over. In terms of content, for public address categories, I am looking for proper research to back up your claims and for an entertaining speech. I like to hear personal anecdotes as well, so feel free to do that. What I am not looking for is a 10 minute rant without anything solid to back it up. Public address categories spread messages you find important using information; remember that. For Declamation, I am looking for variance in performance. What this means is that if you are, for example, using a Ted Talk for your piece, it should not be monotone. For interpretation categories, I am looking for the creative use of tech and good development of characters. Feel free to use your binder as a prop for tech.

Third, you should have proper performance both as a speaker and an audience member. As a speaker, I am looking for confidence in abilities. No one in the room will judge you if you slip up a little or for what you say. Be confident in your abilities. As an audience member, I don't want to see disrespectful behavior. This means that I don't want people having conversations or their phone out during performances.

Good luck in your rounds, and remember to have fun!

In Congressional Debate, sources are important (date and source name; author if necessary). Analysis is important. Introducing new ideas to the debate are also important (NO REHASH). I will primarily be paying attention to these things. Participating in CX is important to show consistent engagement and should especially be used to add on to your arguments presented in round! Lastly, I am always in favor of quality > quantity. That is if Senator A has given 2 great speeches and a 1 terrible speech while Senator B has given two excellent speeches, I will most likely prefer Senator B.

For PFD I am a traditional judge, believing PFD is not Policy or LD, please stick the tenants that established what PFD was and still should be. Speed is deterred, if you speak too quickly those contentions and cards are dropped , slower pace and stronger arguments win out. Please be respectful and, when asking for cards or evidence please have readily available, if not, the time will be taken from your prep time, especially if the inability to locate and send is abusive. Thank you and looking forward to a great debate For LD I am a traditional judge, believing LD is not Policy, please stick the tenants that established what LD was and still should be. Speed is okay, I can flow, but if it sounds like you are choking when speaking, you are speaking too quickly and those contentions and cards are dropped , slower pace and stronger arguments win out. Please be respectful and, when asking for cards or evidence please have readily available, if not, the time will be taken from your prep time, especially if the inability to locate and send is abusive. Thank you and looking forward to a great debate

Email: caitlynajones1@gmail.com

Pronouns: (she/her)

I have done no topic research. Assume I know nothing

I debated PF for 4 years

• If you want me to vote on it, it needs to be in the summary and the final focus

• Please don’t just yell cards at me. Some analysis please

• If there’s an evidence misconduct problem, I’d rather you point out the issues with your opponent’s interpretation of evidence during your speeches, but I’ll call for a card if you tell me to.

• Any concessions in cross need to be in a speech for me to flow it

• Don't Spread at me. If I need a case doc to follow you, it's too fast.

• I'm not flowing anything after the 10-second grace period

tl;dr - tech and speed good, but I'm not doing work for you. The resolution must be in the debate. Though I think like a debater, I do an "educator check" before I vote - if you advocate for something like death good, or read purely frivolous theory because you know your opponent cannot answer it and hope for an easy win, you are taking a hard L.

Email chain: havenforensics (at) gmail - but I'm not reading along. I tab more than I judge, but I'm involved in research. Last substance update: 9/18/22

Experience:

Head Coach of Strath Haven HS since 2012. We do all events.
Previously coach at Park View HS 2009-11, assistant coach at Pennsbury HS 2002-06 (and beyond)
Competitor at Pennsbury HS 1998-2002, primarily Policy

Public Forum

1st Rebuttal should be line-by-line on their case; 2nd Rebuttal should frontline at least major offense, but 2nd Summary is too late for dumps of new arguments.

With 3 minutes, the Summary is probably also line-by-line, but perhaps not on every issue. Summary needs to ditch some issues so you can add depth, not just tag lines. If it isn't in Summary, it probably isn't getting flowed in Final Focus, unless it is a direct response to a new argument in 2nd Summary.

Final Focus should continue to narrow down the debate to tell me a story about why you win. Refer to specific spots on the flow, though LBL isn't strictly necessary (you just don't have time). I'll weigh what you say makes you win vs what they say makes them win - good idea to play some defense, but see above about drops.

With a Policy background, I will listen to framework, theory, and T arguments - though I will frown at all of those because I really want a solid case debate. I also have no problem intervening and rejecting arguments that are designed to exclude your opponents from the debate. I do not believe counterplans or kritiks have a place in PF.

You win a lot of points with me calling out shady evidence, and conversely by using good evidence. You lose a lot of points by being unable to produce the evidence you read quickly. If I call for a card, I expect it to be cut.

I don't care which side you sit on or when you stand, and I find the post-round judge handshake to be silly and unnecessary.

LD

tl;dr: Look at me if you are traditional or policy. Strike me if you don't talk about the topic or only read abstract French philosophers or rely on going for blippy trash arguments that mostly work due to being undercovered.

My LD experience is mostly local or regional, though I coach circuit debaters. Thus, I'm comfortable with traditional, value-centered LD and util/policy/solvency LD. If you are going traditional, value clash obviously determines the round, but don't assume I know more than a shallow bit of philosophy.

I probably prefer policy debates, but not if you are trying to fit an entire college policy round into LD times - there just isn't time to develop 4 off in your 7 minute constructive, and I have to give the aff some leeway in rebuttals since there is no constructive to answer neg advocacies.

All things considered, I would rather you defend the whole resolution (even if you want to specify a particular method) rather than a tiny piece of it, but that's what T debates are for I guess (I like T debates). If we're doing plans, then we're also doing CPs, and I'm familiar with all your theory arguments as long as I can flow them.

If somehow you are a deep phil debater and I end up as the judge, you probably did prefs wrong, but I'll do my best to understand - know that I hate it when debaters take a philosophers work and chop it up into tiny bits that somehow mean I have to vote aff. If you are a tricks debater, um, don't. Arguments have warrants and a genuine basis in the resolution or choices made by your opponent.

In case it isn't clear from all the rest of the paradigm, I'm a hack for framework if one debater decides not to engage the resolution.

Policy

Update for TOC '19: it has been awhile since I've judged truly competitive, circuit Policy. I have let my young alumni judge an event dominated by young alumni. I will still enjoy a quality policy round, but my knowledge of contemporary tech is lacking. Note that I'm not going to backflow from your speech doc, and I'm flowing on paper, so you probably don't want to go your top speed.

1. The role of the ballot must be stable and predictable and lead to research-based clash. The aff must endorse a topical action by the government. You cannot create a role of the ballot based on the thing you want to talk about if that thing is not part of the topic; you cannot create a role of the ballot where your opponent is forced to defend that racism is good or that racism does not exist; you cannot create a role of the ballot where the winner is determined by performance, not argumentation. And, to be fair to the aff, the neg cannot create a role of the ballot where aff loses because they talked about the topic and not about something else.

2. I am a policymaker at heart. I want to evaluate the cost/benefit of plan passage vs. status quo/CP/alt. Discourse certainly matters, but a) I'm biased on a framework question to using fiat or at least weighing the 1AC as an advocacy of a policy, and b) a discursive link had better be a real significant choice of the affirmative with real implications if that's all you are going for. "Using the word exploration is imperialist" isn't going to get very far with me. Links of omission are not links.

I understand how critical arguments work and enjoy them when grounded in the topic/aff, and when the alternative would do something. Just as the plan must defend a change in the status quo, so must the alt.

3. Fairness matters. I believe that the policymaking paradigm only makes sense in a world where each side has a fair chance at winning the debate, so I will happily look to procedural/T/theory arguments before resolving the substantive debate. I will not evaluate an RVI or that some moral/kritikal impact "outweighs" the T debate. I will listen to any other aff reason not to vote on T.

I like T and theory debates. The team that muddles those flows will incur my wrath in speaker points. Don't just read a block in response to a block, do some actual debating, OK? I definitely have a lower-than-average threshold to voting on a well-explained T argument since no one seems to like it anymore.

Notes for any event

1. Clash, then resolve it. The last rebuttals should provide all interpretation for me and write my ballot, with me left simply to choose which side is more persuasive or carries the key point. I want to make fair, predictable, and non-interventionist decisions, which requires you to do all my thinking for me. I don't want to read your evidence (unless you ask me to), I don't want to think about how to apply it, I don't want to interpret your warrants - I want you to do all of those things! The debate should be over when the debate ends.

2. Warrants are good. "I have a card" is not a persuasive argument; nor is a tag-line extension. The more warrants you provide, the fewer guesses I have to make, and the fewer arguments I have to connect for you, the more predictable my decision will be. I want to know what your evidence says and why it matters in the round. You do not get a risk of a link simply by saying it is a link. Defensive arguments are good, especially when connected to impact calculus.

3. Speed. Speed for argument depth is good, speed for speed's sake is bad. My threshold is that you should slow down on tags and theory so I can write it down, and so long as I can hear English words in the body of the card, you should be fine. I will yell if I can't understand you. If you don't get clearer, the arguments I can't hear will get less weight at the end of the round, if they make it on the flow at all. I'm not reading the speech doc, I'm just flowing on paper.

4. Finally, I think debate is supposed to be both fun and educational. I am an educator and a coach; I'm happy to be at the tournament. But I also value sleep and my family, so make sure what you do in round is worth all the time we are putting into being there. Imagine that I brought some new novice debaters and my superintendent to watch the round with me. If you are bashing debate or advocating for suicide or other things I wouldn't want 9th graders new to my program to hear, you aren't going to have a happy judge.

I am more than happy to elaborate on this paradigm or answer any questions in round.

I coach SPEECH! Do not spread. If I cannot follow the speech you are giving because you’re speaking too fast, you will not win my vote. I must be able to follow the argument; if you speak in a way that prevents me from hearing your argument, how could I possibly vote for you? Moreover, evidence should relate clearly to your argument and resolution. Most importantly, HAVE FUN!

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Clash is LIFE: Don't avoid clashing. Get in there and don't be afraid of responding to your opponent's argument. It is what makes this DEBATE, otherwise, it's dueling Oratories.

2. What is a good piece of evidence? Your evidence should connect your arguments to a clear purpose in the round. "Why are you telling me this info" should never be a thought I have. Just saying there is a link does not mean there is one. Prove it with your evidence! Connect all the dots, don’t leave me guessing or trying to piece your argument together for you.

3. Speed: I NEED TO HEAR THE WORDS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF YOUR MOUTH! Speed for speed's sake is as if the UPS guy drives by my house at 90 mph and throws the package at my head. I'm mad, the package is broken, and UPS just lost a fan. So, if you have a lot to say, I recommend slowing down to make the tags and analysis of your arguments clear so I can write them down. I would hate to see a good argument die on the lips of a speed demon.

4. Reminder: Speak loudly and in a conversational manner. So, make sure to emphasize your points clearly and effectively.

5. Confidence is key! Exemplifying a confident attitude not only makes you a stronger debater, but an overall stronger competitor.

6. Finally, be kind. The worst thing in a round is when a bully decides their opponent is inferior. I am immediately turned off.

I look for a clear argument with real, meaningful evidence. More evidence is not better evidence. Talking fast means does not give debaters a victory. If I can't understand what you said because you are talking too fast, then essentially, you didn't say it.

Competitors must speak clearly: volume, speed, and defined content. Spreading will result in deductions.

Congressional Debate Paradigm:

While congressional debate is most certainly an argument, this debate event takes the form of one long and continuous coversation that is more akin to a socratic seminar than to a structured debate. Entering the conversation where it is is the most important skill for any congressional debater. It is from that point that I expect each speaker to begin and then to advance the argument. Referencing the speakers who came before and their contributions to the conversation is integral to fully placing new points or extensions of points already made. While summary and crystalization has its place later in the debate, rehash has no place in a well presented congressional speech. I also look for gracious behavior at all times focusing on the strengthes and weaknesses of other arguments but no the speakers themselves. I have no patience for speakers who try to elevate themselves by putting down others.

Individual Events Paradigm:

I have coached speech and debate since 2010, but in recent years my coaching is focused on speech. I see every speech event as an argument, so I am in search of an important message, explicit or implicit, in every performance or speech I judge. Beyond message, I look for a coherent argument whether you have crafted this with your own words with original oratory, responding to a question in extemporaneous speaking, or making your argument in a program or performance in interpretation. In Informational speaking, I am looking to be exposed to relevant informaition around a topic of importance in society but without a position, an advocacy, or solutions. In all of these forms, I expect to be engaged and compelled to listen to what you are saying. This is speech where how you say it matters just as much as what you say. And, while I love creative and edgy pieces that take me from my comfort zone, every single word should work to convey and elevate your message and do so at no one's expense. I will not reward hurtful, harmful or thoughtless words or actions.

I have judged speech for 3 years, and always go by NSDA rules. My critiques are known to be positive, and also share helpful information that can be of service to you.

I have competed in or coached various debate formats for over 20 years. Namely, I competed in policy debate for 7 years and competed and coached public debate for another 12 years. Ultimately, I value being a tabula rasa judge at the core.

For PF in particular, my desire is to see debate focus predominantly on persuasion and reasoning. Evidence should be a guide to the debate, not the debate itself. Impact calculations should be obvious, explained, and well defended by logic and reasoning. Debaters should not depend on evidence to speak for itself, nor should they be unable to explain basic warrants when prompted. Kritical argumentation and topicality should only be used if it is applicable, provides needed negative/con ground, and should not be used as a time suck. Finally, debaters should be well rehearsed with signposting and telling me where they want arguments on the flow; I shouldn’t have to make that judgment for them.

For email chains: jbagwell05@gmail.com

TL;DR:

· Make it clear and easy for me to see why you won and you'll probably win.

With More Words:

I've judged and coached extensively across events but at this point spend more time on the tab side of tournaments than judging.

If you want the ballot, make clear, compelling, and warranted arguments for why you should win. If you don’t provide any framework, I will assume util = trutil. If there is an alternate framework I should be using, explain it, warrant it, contextualize it, extend it.

Generally Tech>Truth but I also appreciate rounds where I don’t hate myself for voting for you. That being said, I firmly believe that debate is an educational activity and that rounds should be accessible. I will not vote for arguments that are intentionally misrepresenting evidence or creating an environment that is hostile or harmful.

I am open to pretty much anything you want to read but, in the interest of full disclosure, I think that tricks set bad communication norms within debate.

General Stuff:

Most of this is standard but I'll say it anyways: Don’t extend through ink and pretend they "didn't respond". In the back half of the debate, make sure your extensions are responsive to the arguments made, not just rereading your cards. If they say something in cross that it is important enough for me to evaluate, make sure you say it in a speech. Line by line is important but being able to step back and explain the narrative/ doing the comparative analysis makes it easier to vote for you.

Weighing is important and the earlier you set it up, the better. Quality over quantity when it comes to evidence-- particularly in later speeches in the round, I'd rather slightly fewer cards with more analysis about what the evidence uniquely means in this specific round. Also, for the love of all that is good and holy, give a roadmap before you start/sign post as you are going. I will be happier; you will be happier; the world will be a better place.

Speed is fine but clarity is essential. Even if I have a speech doc, you'd do best to slow down on tags and analytics. Your speaks will be a reflection of your strategic choices, overall decorum, and how clean your speeches are.

Evidence (PF):

Having evidence ethics is a thing. As a general rule, I prefer that your cards have both authors and dates. Paraphrasing makes me sad. Exchanges where you need to spend more than a minute pulling up a card make me rethink the choices in my life that led me to this round. Generally speaking, I think that judges calling for cards at the end of the round leads to judge intervention. This is a test of your rhetorical skills, not my ability to read and analyze what the author is saying. However, if there is a piece of evidence that is being contested that you want me to read and you ask me to in a speech, I will. Just be sure to contextualize what that piece of evidence means to the round.

A Final Note:

This is a debate round, not a divorce court and your participation in the round should match accordingly. If we are going to spend as many hours as we do at a tournament, we might as well not make it miserable.

Sure, I'd Love to be on the Email Chain: AMurphy4n6@gmail.com

I'm a tab judge, I'm never going to intervene or complete arguments for the debaters in front of me. What's made important in the round is what I'll make important on my ballot. I'm fine with speed, as long as the debaters articulate. I understand K and rhetorical arguments, and am willing to vote for whatever makes the most logical sense in the round, regardless of morals (i.e., I'll vote for an argument that kills more people if the debater can tell me why that makes the most sense).

I know debate theory and will always point out an error in link chain, though I won't vote there unless opponent also points it out.

I like voters, clash points, and world comparison.

Welcome back and I'm glad to be back for another year.  Here is my updated paradigm.  This has general information and then items specific to LD

PERSONAL:

I have been a coach for 22 years and I have judged all forms of speech and debate.  This means I am pretty open to any time of argument. I will go with what I hear in the round and will not input myself into the debate.  I am a judge, not a competitor so I will not inject myself into the debate.  You don't need to send me your case.  I only want to judge what I hear, not what I can read.  So while I am okay with speed and I can handle spreading, only use spreading in Policy.

DEBATE:

Don't be condescending in your cross ex. Acting like you don't care about the answer the other person gave or interrupting them before they get the answer out is not okay. If you wanted a shorter answer then ask a more succinct question. All debates need to clash. I don't want to only hear prepared speeches on both sides. Show me that you are listening to what the other person/team is saying and advance the debate.

LD

I am definitely more traditional than progressive but I will listen to progressive arguments IF they still fall under the philosophical ideas of LD. I do not want to hear a plan or use the motion as the plan text. That doesn't do anything for me. Don't use a K to avoid debating. That's not what debate is about.  I WILL NOT vote on disclosure theory so don't take the time to run it.  That is not debating the topic but finding a way to not have to debate.  Otherwise, I will listen to Ks, Ts, Disads, etc if they are relevant to the debate. If you don't have a V and a VC, you won't get the win from me!  

Also, I am creating this paradigm for you so don't ask me about other items before the round. Everything else is fair game as long as it is done well! Address the resolution and give me reasons for your claims. I don't need to be on your email chain. Also, I do not disclose unless required to and it will be brief. As a coach, I want the coaching to come from me and not the judges.  As I said earlier, I am not here to relive my competitive days so I won't explain all that I am thinking.  

Good luck!

Background: I am a physician and also the head coach of a Speech and Debate team. I was a former high school policy debater, but that does not mean I like spreading or progressive arguments. I'm a dinosaur. See below.

PF

General: The team that is able to support their offense with strong logic and good evidence while having effective defense against their opponents' case will win the round. Duh.

Speed: I am okay with some speed. You will see me flowing during the round, but this is a no spread zone.

Cases: I like strong links to your impacts, which is why I usually find stock arguments to be the strongest. However, I also like squirrels, but only if your links are convincing. I don't believe in tabula rasa judging. If something doesn't make sense or the link is weak, I will be less likely to vote on it. I am a judge after all and that's what I get paid the big bucks to do. Actually, I don't get paid, but if I did get paid, I'm sure it would be big bucks.

Progressive arguments: Please, for all that is good in the world, do not bring progressive LD nonsense into PF. OK? PF is the last bastion of debate purity left. My ROB is to drop progressive arguments and don't try to RVI me.

Crossfire: Be courteous. If someone is trying to be a time hog, I am okay with polite interruption. I sometimes vote on something that comes up in CF, but you should mention it in your speeches if you want me to not forget. Word to the wise: I've dropped many debaters because CF sometimes reveals their lack of knowledge and/or incoherent warranting. That's why I will flow CF.

2nd Rebuttal: You should probably start frontlining now. Starting frontlines in 2nd Summary is a little late in the round and puts too much of a burden on the 1st FF to backline for the first time. Luckily this is a rarity in PF.

Summary: You should extend all offense and defense. I don't believe in sticky defense. If you don't extend in Summary, don't expect me to vote on it if it suddenly shows up in FF. You should start weighing in Summary. In fact, you could start weighing in rebuttals. Don't wait until FF. For Rebuttal, Summary, and FF, please give me logical warrants beyond just reading the cards. In other words, explain the card with logical analysis. I frown on debaters who rely solely on card reading.

Grand CF: This should have balanced involvement of all debaters.

FF: When rounds are close, I will use the FF to write my RFD, so I hope you are a good writer. Weigh impacts, cases, links, evidence. Metaweigh if needed, although I often find metaweighing too subjective unless you can convince me that you outweigh on prereqs. Make sure to extend at least your most important if not all offense. I'm fine if you drop a contention and collapse on one or two, but be careful. I have dropped debaters because they chose the wrong contention to drop (it was actually their best offense).Offense is what wins rounds. But to make sure your offense is better than your opponent's offense, your defense better be legit. It doesn't matter to me when you weigh and give voters...after each issue or at the end...it's up to you.

Evidence ethics: I HATE power cutting where you pull single words from one sentence and attach to a single word two sentences later and think that is a legit way to cut. If the two sentences are logically linked, then okay. But most power cut cards are atrocious. They often end up being straw arguments or horribly paraphrased. I won't necessarily call for a card myself. This is where I need teams to be proactive. If you suspect bad evidence, call for it in round. Call it out in your speech and request that I look at it at the end of the round.

Calling cards: Yes, include me on an email chain when sharing evidence. When requesting evidence, I will consider prep time to begin once the evidence is received. Please announce when that happens and that you are taking prep. Don't be sneaky.

LD

Although I am a former policy debater, I am not a fan of Kritiks, Theory Shells or ROBs. I prefer debate on the substance of the resolution. So in that respect I consider myself more of a traditional LD judge. However, I am okay with plans and CPs because that totally appeals to my policy debate background. However, if you run a plan or CP, make sure you check the boxes on solvency, topicality, uniqueness, and inherency. Even if your opponent doesn't identify all the problems with your plan/CP, I won't be able to weigh your impacts if I don't believe that your plan is going to get you there.

Please don't just read cards. This is a definite problem I've noticed with progressive debaters trying to adapt to a traditional round. You need to give me some solid warranting so I can effectively weigh your arguments and also so I know you know what you are talking about.

In terms of framework, I will go with whoever makes the best case for theirs. But what I've often found is that the contention level debate ends up fitting many frameworks, so it really comes down to your arguments. However, if you go all in on something like util, make sure you have some terminal impacts for me to see exactly how you benefit the majority or maximize pleasure/minimize pain.

Crystallization and more extensive analytics and voters in the 2AR and 2NR is helpful, especially when the round gets muddy. I don't care as much if you drop an opponent's argument as long as that argument is not effective offense.

I don't believe in tabula rasa judging. If I did, then we could use computers to determine the winner of a round and we wouldn't need human judges. So I WILL cast my own opinion on an argument if I think it makes zero sense or is not well warranted. After all, I am a judge and that's my job. I am going to judge your arguments on their merits. I will extend a solid argument unless your opponent applies some good defense or turns.

I am not a fan of spreading. I am okay with some speed, but if I can't understand you, then it is not going on the flow. Even if I get your case via email, I'm not going to be reading it while you spread. This is a verbal activity and, therefore, I will only flow things that are verbally communicated and what I can hear and understand.

At the end of the day, I'm going to give the win to whoever I think had the most offense at the end of the round.

World Schools

I will judge based on traditional World Schools debating i.e. proper terminology, appropriate use of POIs, persuasive style and rhetoric, good logic and argumentation, and most importantly examples and statistics from around the world if appropriate. You will not win if you try to debate using PF or LD technical arguments, squirreling, or spreading. Do not try to burden opponents with limiting definitions or frameworks.

My 4 years on the speech team in my high school in Illinois (HDA, DDA, Info, OO, Radio Speaking) led me to become a speech coach for 3 years in Bethesda, MD (because I missed it so much). In performances, I look for passion and energy in delivery, along with articulation and logical piece cuts/writing structure, but mostly that passion and energy! Stumbles will only be factored into my ranking if they are significant. My comments may seem nit-picky sometimes, but worry not - I only do this to help speakers improve!

I have limited knowledge of debate (I've only judged a few rounds), so please take that in consideration when you read my critiques for debate events! Email to add to the chain: Rybak.nicole@gmail.com

I was a policy debater in high school and college, but have been coaching other formats for the past 17 years. I would prefer that you don't speak too fast, as my ear is no longer able to catch everything like it once was. This doesn't mean you have to speak at a conversational pace, just that if you go too fast, I am likely to miss things on my flow.

I will only read evidence after a round if there is a debate about what it actually says. This means you are responsible for articulating the warrants within your evidence throughout the debate if you want those warrants evaluated. Author name extensions are useless in front of me, as unless you are debating about someone's qualifications, it won't matter in my decision calculus, and a name on my flow is nowhere near as useful for you as using that time to articulate the argument itself. Quality of evidence only factors into my decision if there is a debate about why it should.

I will vote in the way I am told to. If there is no debate over the method for deciding between competing claims, I will usually default to voting for the team that wins more arguments overall.

I'm not very fancy with my language, so put simply, here's some general things I look for across the multiple debate styles:

-Clear articulation of arguments with evidence

-I not only like to see how you substantiate your claims and ideas, but also I like to see how you make them interact with those of other members of the round (this just really engages me).

-I was not a debate competitor when I was in high school, so I don't know all the terminology, but I'm familiar with most. Therefore, it's not really the terminology that impresses me, but rather your knowledge and comprehension of the topic.

-I like for you to give context to your arguments. I like to know that you fully comprehend what you're presenting. I love a deep level of analysis to the topic, especially during cross ex (although I'm guilty of getting lost with the unfamiliar- so what). If you know what you're talking about, then you know.

-I like to see competitors advance the debate; don't stick around to the same points unless you have something new to offer.

-Lastly, I'm not a brainiac (although sometimes I try to be), so I always feel like it's the competitor's job to help me understand the topic as much as possible, without watering down the content. Relating the topic as much as possible to someone who doesn't necessarily keep up with all the current events is key.

I have 7 years of both debate and judging experience combined, ill go into deeper detail before an actual debate round (feeling lazy)

I consider myself to be an all around judge, in the sense that my sole purpose in the debate round is to evaluate it and vote on who made the most convincing argument. 

Simple Paradigm, I am a traditionalist when it comes to LD so I know, when judging on the circuit I will be blocked, but this is LD not policy.

So with that is mind, life is simple, right? Your value should simply win out and your VC better convince me that all those contentions and sub-points make sense, especially since your slowed down so I can hear you clearly. :-) Yes, I like smiley faces, life is fun, take a step back and enjoy it!

and remember, this is not policy!

Hi, my name is Victoria and I am an assistant coach at my HS alma mater, where I competed in dec, OI, and OO.

That said, I have experience judging some debate at the local level, but I am more often judging speech. I am a flow judge to the best of my ability, but spreading is not in your best interest. At over 250 words-per-minute, I will not longer be able to flow the round. It is likely better that you don’t run any high level theory in front of me: straightforward, well-warranted arguments with clear impacts, good clash in rebuttals, and ample weighing are your best path to victory, not convoluted theory and technicalities. Tech over truth won’t win me over. In PF, write my ballot for me in summary and final focus, clear voting issues and framing of the round are a must. In LD, clear brightlines in the value criterion are a must, and clear weighing in the rebuttals and delineating the lines of clash will be helpful in writing my ballot. If you go over your allotted time, I will stop writing and raise my pen. If I didn't write it down, it wont be judged.

Lastly, good luck to everyone! You guys are incredible for choosing such a difficult categories and I have nothing but the utmost respect for all of you. I look foreword to hearing some great debates!

I expect all competitors to be respectful, know the rules of their format, and follow the needed order of the debate. I would categorize myself as more of a traditionalist versus progressive. I appreciate sound, well-researched arguments and dislike hyperbolic statements. Additionally, I am okay with fast conversational speed, but not faster than that.

As a judge, I expect the debaters for each round to:

1. Have mutual respect to one another. Do not try to dominate the crossfire.
2. If you present a framework, I'll look for you to warrant your arguments to it.
3. Manage time well - it is an important element and quality that I look for, so use your time well. Please be sure to keep track of your own time.
4. Prepare to give quality evidence and explain them well - once you have stated it, follow through with it. Please be clean: signpost, extend the warrant (not just the card), and weigh impacts and links.
5. Support your claims with warrants - when you throw a claim out without a warrant I will disregard it.
6. I appreciate the creative approach and use of theory or other strategies but be sure you have enough time to follow through with it. Often time I see many great unconventional approaches, but the majority of them failed to deliver the full effect.
7. At the end of the day this is a communication event -- it's your job as the debater in the round to persuade me that the arguments you're winning are important, not just that you're winning the "most" arguments.

Please add me to the email chain if one is being used in the round.

E-mail: purplewenqiying@gmail.com

Four years of International Extemp at Hawken School in Cleveland, OH. Two-time state champ and TOC finalist. Currently a student at UPenn occasionally volunteering on the local Philadelphia debate circuit.

Solid presentation and clear organization of your arguments are definitely a bonus for me, but at the end of the day, the better argument will win the round.

Focus and weigh impacts, thoroughly explain your framework, and make sure you really understand your case. Evidence always helps, but I like to see a strong foundation of logic on why your argument should win. Turns are great too.

Not a big fan of spreading or K's in PF. Save that for Policy.

Be respectful, good luck, and have fun!