I am a parent judge, and I have primarily judged the Lincoln Douglas Debate and a few Speech events- but my real expertise is in the Congressional Debate. Don't be fooled that I'm a parent- that doesn't mean I'm easily persuaded. I have experience working in public policy, government, and political fields, so I like hearing the community impacts of a specific piece of legislation.

This isn't required, but in Congressional Debate, if the P.O. can fully state the name of a bill in the legislation docket before we move on to debating legislation, I would greatly appreciate it :)

I appreciate being passionate in debate, but please don't be rude to your opponents and maintain a fair and equitable game in debate.

Make sure you have evenly paced speaking and can offer good warrants and impacts for your claims, otherwise, I will likely prefer you less. I also prefer consistency with your arguments, so keep up with that- additionally, please make sure you actually know the context of the data you bring up in the debate and that you can explain your evidence well to other Senators in the chamber. Not everything that happens in the world and is analyzed is simply a point to further your argument- these are real-life events and implications that actually affect people. Bigotry is a big turn-away for me- please don't base your arguments on racist or misogynistic ideas.

Good luck to all! I trust that you are all well-versed competitors acting in good faith, and I have enjoyed seeing various Speech & Debaters grow over the years :)

Hello! My name is Amarah, and I'm a freshman at Appalachian State University. I'm currently studying Political Science on a Pre-Law track.

Last year (my senior year of high school) I competed in Congressional Debate for the first time. I competed in several DSDL tournaments, the JV and Novice Championship, and the NCFL Grand National Tournament. This is my first year judging. I am so excited to be on the other side of the debate and see what you young debaters have to offer.

A few important factors I will take into consideration while judging: reliability of sources, respect, quality > quantity, and confidence is key.

Above all else--have fun!

What I'm looking for is a clear, concise argument. Humor is appreciated, but all jokes should be in good taste. I want to see good preparation from competitors as well asadaptability- if you don't have something written, and the splits are bad, switching sides shows dedication. Questioning is an essential part of debate, so you should do that. Zoning out and only speaking when necessary will not do you any favors. Decorum is also an essential part of debate. You should be not just courteous but kind to your competitors. PO's should not just be charismatic but quick as well. The most consistent issue I see across tournaments is PO's taking too long to find the next speaker, whether it be during questioning or actual speeches. Other than that, do your best and pay attention.

Hey everyone! I'm Caroline. I have four years of nat circuit congress experience, a year of NFALD, and currently do PF in the Collegiate Public Forum League. I debated at Pinecrest High School in NC, and currently debate at the University of Kentucky. I also have some judging experience at other tournaments, which I did under a different Tab account so it's not showing up in my history.

Congress

I have experience as both a speaker and presiding officer. I agree that the best legislator, not simply the best speaker, should get ranked higher. Ask questions! With that being said, I rank on quality, not quantity of speeches. If you are speaking late-round, respond to claims from earlier speeches. Don't be afraid to ask questions. And please, please, do not have more than three speeches in a row on a single side. After the third speech, I will begin to score you lower. I don't necessarily like to see the chamber discuss the split mid-round, but after 4 speeches I think it's probably necessary. I do know that you've all also probably discussed the docket and split beforehand though, especially in varsity, so please be cognizant. No one likes a stale debate.

PF

Tech>Truth

I will be flowing the round, so please give order at the beginning of speeches after the constructive

If you have an email chain, please include me. Email is carolinedebatestuff@gmail.com

Don't be exceptionally combative in cross. A little tension is fine- good actually- but actively attacking your opponents will get you voted down. Be civil.

Have fun.

LD

Tech>Truth

If you are spreading, I'm fine, just send speech docs

Please include me on the email chain if you have one. Email is carolinedebatestuff@gmail.com

Please tell me your value criterion in your constructive. I know I shouldn't have to say it but I've seen stuff like this happen before.

Please understand the author you are basing your criterion on if you are citing an author. 

For progressive LD, I'm better at evaluating policy v policy or policy v K than K v K. For the love of all that is good in this world, do not use tricks if you want the ballot.

I will be flowing the round. Please give order at the beginning of speeches

Be civil to your opponents. Actively attacking someone will get you voted down.

Have fun.

Policy

If I am judging your policy round, something has gone very wrong. 

This is my third year judging - I judge Congressional Debate and Lincoln-Douglas, and occasionally have the pleasure of being entertained with speech performances. I have been a practicing attorney for 26 years, both in the trial, transactional, and appellate worlds. While in public practice I spent significant time drafting model legislation for use by the multiple states and testifying on its behalf in the Maine Legislature. I love policy. I love the art of persuasion. I value the ability to argue both sides of any issue. I enjoy pointed and concise argument. Be professional, be kind, and, most importantly, have fun.

I have been judging all forms of Speech and Debate for 5 years. I competed in Congress during my time as a competitor

I prefer to have a structured debate that has a progressive flow on both sides of the argument. Aggressive debate is fine but competitors should remain cordial to each other throughout the debate. All debate is point structured, so the win or loss is allocated to the competitor who both makes the better point and defends best against their opponent.

Organization is key for me as a judge. Your debate needs to follow a logical order with cohesiveness, if I can't understand the argument than I will have a much harder time judging it.

The most important aspects of a debate in terms of wins and losses is an evidence based approach that addresses all arguments in a manner of completeness. Leaving an opening within the debate is a sign of lack of preparation and will be judged accordingly. I expect all competitors to be aware of NSDA rules and regulations within their debating structure.

[February 23, 2024] Quick update, more later: I have primarily judged Congress and World Schools for the past 8 years. I was preparing for a Congress event tomorrow. I will return after that to update my CX/Policy Paradigm and add paradigms for other formats.

Relatively speaking, I am a old school Policy judge-Stock Issues, Slower Presentation (if you are gulping for air, especially the double gulp, you are speaking far too fast) and most importantly Topicality (PLEASE debate the Resolution in its entirety, don't pick one of 2 words and head off to left field). CPs are welcome, Ks not so much (always interesting but MUST relate to the topic and ultimately result in a policy/solution. Closed CX please.