Debate is a game that's most enjoyable when two teams clash in-depth over a well-prepared topic. Succeed at engaging your opponent and I'll want to judge you and vote for you. If it looks like you don't care about the round, I won't either.

Persuade me with your excellent public speaking skills and a some empirical evidence. I am looking for a classic style debate with clear roadmap and contentions.

Speed: Be clear. I’m not good with speed. You need to articulate every single word you say. Speed is a strategic tool only insofar as I can understand what you are saying and transcribe it, in some form, onto my flow.

General

Respect your judges and competitors.

Follow the rules, as I read them and will ask Tab staff if there are any issues.

Be timely to your round.

Debate

I judge mostly on the content you provide and how you approach your opponent's speeches. However, your delivery is important in order for me to hear and understand you. I do flow the debates and will use my flow to do a majority of my own deliberation. Please use signposts, it will make it far easier for me to focus on your content, rather than where you are in your speech. I will prioritize certain points if you provide evidence or backing as to why they should be prioritized.

DO NOT SPREAD! I will not be able to keep up, it will not be an instant loss, but your points are far more likely to slip off (or not even appear) on my flow.

If you are to use theory, rather than evidence, please make sure you have adequate support as to why I should care (it’s the same for the vice versa). You may discuss general points, but show me impact. No non-topical kritiks.

For LD, your CV and VC are incredibly important as to why you win. However, you can win through other means if the values and criteria are a wash.

Online: Normally I would use a check and x system on my ballots. But due to online functionality, I will use :) and :( .

Congress

I judge your score based on a combination of how well it is written, the content of the speech, the delivery of the speech, and how it applies based on what has happened thus far in the chamber. I will rank you based on your scores, your questioning, and what your impact was on the chamber.

I want to see rebuttals and new content.

I do not want to see repetitious points or speeches with all words, no content.

I want questions that influence the flow of debate.

I don’t want gotcha questions that are only for making your opponent look bad (If it otherwise influences debate it is okay, but don’t do it maliciously).

Some level of purposeful blocking and vocal inflections during your speech would be recommended.

Speech

I will judge you based on a combination of vocality, movement, and content (these will weigh differently based on your respective event [this is not to say the ones weighed lower are unimportant]).

Please stand out in your event, it will make you more memorable when I am ranking you. Do not be monotone or use minimal blocking. Appropriate vocal pacing and emphasis are key to making it high on my ballot.

Please be respectful of other speakers, when they are presenting. Please stay attentive (or at least act like it). I know many of you will see the same script up to 4 times a day, but remember you want your judge and audience to give you attention, so do the same for them.

Your event has recommended guidelines for the judge, but they are also for you. Make sure you excel in each of them and you are more likely to rank higher. If you are unable to locate this, please read your league’s website or ask your coach, not your judge.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Good luck and have fun! :-D

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 come from a Policy Debate background. You can spread...or not, but if I can't flow it, I can't know it.

I probably won't be impressed with arguments that attempt to circumvent discussion on the actual resolution, so you may be better served scrapping your K affs (or negs) or topicality negs (unless, of course, you are responding to a K aff with a topicality neg). If you choose to run one or more highly philosophical and/or theoretical argument(s) and proceed to read cards that say things like: "Having one’s experiences obscured and rendered unintelligible due to herme-neutical injustice is an infringement upon the epistemic agency...," or "Particularly the Cartesian dualism between the extended physical world and the nonphysical world of thought was seen as the definitive completion of the pre-Socratic turn from mythos to logos, when myth finally became synonymous with the subjective and the irrational. From this point onward, myths could neither serve as cosmological narratives of the universe, nor as valid allegories of nature, for they were now fully associated with the inner realm of subjective experience and not with the outer realm of the objective physical world," you should know that I will NOT understand them. I am a highly educated former debater, but I cannot possibly digest any of this in the few minutes of time I get to do so. I, unlike you, do not have the benefit of being able to think through these types of arguments in advance of the round. Frankly, even if I did, I am quite certain I still would not understand them standing alone let alone in the context of the debate. In fairness to you, you should know that.

I think that debate on matters unrelated to the resolution fundamentally stifle fairness for several reasons. In the first instance, they impede a competitor's ability to adequately prepare by creating a universe where one side dictates the narrative of the debate, or, alternatively, the debate consists of two people talking past each other. This strategy creates a world where there is absolutely no point in even having a resolution. The rules tell me that the competitors are to debate a particular resolution, and the debater tells me I can't until we first talk about ageism or ableism or the relative value of dogs over cats or whether french fries are proof of a higher being (they are). Secondly, they heavily favor schools and students with copious economic resources who have the privilege and luxury of being able to expand their preparation into this infinite universe of argument. Let's level the playing field a bit better (maybe we should debate that instead?).

On that note, I value responsiveness to your opponent's arguments, and I love a good common-sense position. However, if you are going to rely on factual/empirical arguments, please make sure they are supported by evidence. Most importantly, I do not tolerate unsportsmanlike conduct. I was a litigator for many years and stared down many an adversary, but I was always respectful, polite, and kind. Since I am judge and jury in this debate, I will not be impressed by the debater that yells louder or whose tone is more indignant. Rather, the debater that makes the more compelling arguments will win the round.

Other things: I don't love pics or piks. If you run one anyway (which is completely fine) do not extend disads that your pic/k would equally trigger AND the pic/k into your rebuttal. If you give me contradictory arguments, I won't know which to vote on, and they will likely cancel each other out in my decision calculus.

If I cannot hear or understand what you are reading during the allotted time you are given, I will not consider it in my analysis of the round. Sharing your constructive should not be an end-run around time limits by emboldening you to speak so incoherently that the content is indiscernible based on your belief that I can simply read the case on my own.

Also, a note about tech troubles. I think the best debater should win and not the one who had a better WiFi connection (unless, of course, they are one and the same). I understand that technology is not infallible, and I will NOT punish you if your connection is lost or you cut out. I believe that an important tenet of fairness and sportsmanship is the right to be heard. That means that I will show you grace and patience if you have tech troubles. I will ask you to repeat things and add time as necessary.

Good luck everyone!

General

Respect your judges and competitors.

Follow the rules, as I read them and will ask Tab staff if there are any issues.

Be timely to your round.

Debate

I judge mostly on the content you provide and how you approach your opponents speeches. However, your delivery is important in order for me to hear and understand you. I do flow the debates and will use my flow to do a majority of my own deliberation. Please use signposts, it will make it far easier for me to focus on your content, rather than where you are in your speech. I will prioritize certain points if you provide evidence or backing to why it should be prioritized.

PLEASE DO NOT SPREAD! I will not be able to keep up, it will not be an instant loss, but your points are far more likely to slip off (or not even appear) on my flow.

If you are to use theory, rather than evidence, please make sure you have adequate support as to why I should care (it’s the same for the vice versa). You may discuss general points, but show me impact. No non-topical kritiks.

I have been judging since the beginning of the 2021-2022 school year. I have judged both Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum Debates as part of the Florida Gulf Coast Catholic Forensics League. I have judged in local and regional events including 8 in-person tournaments and 1 online tournament. I had the privilege of judging the Final Round of the National Lincoln-Douglas Debate last year. I do not like spreading. If I can not understand an argument, then I can not give credit to the points of that argument.

I feel that a few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. In addition, arguments should each be addressed individually.

Rebuttals should provide voters answers to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches. Rebuttals should also extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive speeches.

Citations after article introduction are preferred.

Oral prompting won't affect my decisions.

Build the value that is not overly complicated and should be relatable, and criterion should not be over technical.

I prefer empirical arguments over philosophical and theoretical to support a value position.

Critical arguments should provide substantial evidence for their support.

Debaters should make sure that all claims are supported with specific, defined examples with no paraphrasing.

Off case arguments should have a purpose or illustration for the case at hand.

The focus should be winning the debate, not just attacking a person's style or flaws of method. Winning on technicalities is not winning a debate.

Remember that in order to win a round, respect towards your opponent is paramount. It is hard to find in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent in or out of round. Graceful winners are as important as graceful losers.