Quality over quantity. This means do not just try to give as much as possible as quickly as possible. I prefer to have fewer arguments that are better supported with real world examples and references to include quotes, data, and valid research references. Yes, I am open to being in the email chain. Detail and support are key. Be sure to address all areas of your arguments and counter in a way that really addresses what your opponent brought up. This attention to detail can make a difference.

In speeches and other associated areas be sure you remember the original audience in addition to the actual audience when speaking. Be clear, concise, and use the appropriate voice in all instances. Keep me interested. It should be as if I am hearing your speech for the first time.

If it is impromptu speaking, still try and be organized, creative, and clear.

Be sure to attack the arguments and concepts not the individual.

We are given a judging rubric and I will stick with that above everything.

I competed in Policy for two years in high school. I've been away from debate in general for about two years. I am not familiar with the common arguments in this topic, however I am familiar with general policy debate arguments.

POLICY PARADIGM

SPEED: Send me your case. Clarity over speed. I am not a big fan of spreading. By slowing down, I think it allows for a more intricate well-thought out debate. However if you choose to do so, it is then your burden to ensure your speech is clear and understandable. Slow your taglines. If I miss a argument or a tagline, then it was not made. If I have to say clear more than three times in a speech I will stop flowing.

Flowing: I will flow all arguments I hear. Please tell me how many arguments you will have before you start as I will be flowing on multiple pieces of paper (this applies mostly to the first negative speaker and on. I reiterate, IF I have to say clear more than three times in a speech I will stop flowing.

CX: I will listen to CX, however I will not flow it. You have to bring it up in your speech for me to flow it. Be professional and be polite.

T/Theory: If developed correctly, these arguments can make for an intriguing debate. Please make the violation and impact very clear.

CP: Be specific. Solvency is very important in this argument. Prove the argument that the CP is better than the aff.

DA: Yes. Impact calc and the link, are the two most important things in a DA argumentation. Be sure to explain the impact calc, why should I care? BUILD OUT YOUR LINK. I should not have to guess the link or why it matters. That is your job.

FW: Framework. Framework. Framework. Tell me what arguments should matter the most to me, as the judge and why. I will not fill in the gaps.

Kritiks: I was not a K debater in high school, as such I will very RARELY vote on a kritik argument. If you are going to run one, build out the link and do not assume I know your argument. Explain it well. Do not let it become a theory debate.

K affs: Make sure your framework is clear.

I like Solvency, inherency, and impact arguments, however as long as you build out and explain other arguments well enough I will vote on basically anything. Structure your rebuttals, don't jump from AFF to NEG to DA back to AFF. Signpost in your rebuttals. I will not time you unless you tell me you need it. Keep track of your own time.

Hi! I'm Keri (she/her); put me on the file share: keri.j.brown@gmail.com

Overall in every event, I'm looking for a round where debaters are respectful of each other and clearly outline every argument. If you are rude or I can't understand you, your speaker points will drop dramatically.

Policy: Please, make your speeches clear. This means do not spread. If I can't understand your argument, I won't flow it, and you very likely will lose. You should favor good, fleshed-out arguments over a hundred nitpicky things that your opponent can't respond to in time.

I want a lot of judge instruction - it's not my job to remove or extend arguments for you. This means I want impact calc and explanations of why your arguments outweigh your opponents'.

I have judged policy before, but techy jargon (especially in more theoretical arguments like kritiks) is relatively unfamiliar to me so please give thorough explanations for all the nuances of your arguments.

The more progressive, the higher the bar. If you're going to run a fancy, complicated argument about capitalism, you're really going to need to flesh out why I should vote for it over the actual topic.

LD/PF: Progressive debates are not my thing. Traditional arguments would be best; pick a couple of good arguments to go with and clearly explain them. I will not tolerate spreading, and complicated jargon must be thoroughly elaborated upon.

Do not speak too quickly as it does not allow me to fully grasp what you are saying. I understand that sometimes a lot of information needs to be shared, but not at the expense of understanding for those listening.

Pretend that I know nothing (but I do, I have a lot of judging experience) about your topic, which sometimes may be true, and explain what you think I may not know for clarity (i.e. abbreviations, acronyms, jargon, etc). Then convince me why your side should win.

I am a parent judge. I judged over 100 competitions.

I will rate the competitors based on two main parts:

-Composition:

If the content is effective writing or not.

Does the competitor's speech organize clearly and easy to follow?

Does the speech contain ample solid reasoning and logic

Is the speech too general or does it focus on specifics?

Does the speech make too many generalizations or assumptions about the audience?

Does the speech contain evidence and examples?

Does the speech have good rhetorical choices?

-Delivery:

I would like competitors to use effective oral presentation skills. I will check if the competitor is comfortable with delivery such as having a clear voice, good intonation, or a nice tone.

I will also check if the speaker uses effective body language or not such as hand gestures, facial expressions, and eye contact.

I did policy and extemp for two years in high school and LD and HI my third year. I have been judging ever since then. Because of my experience, I flow like a policy debater.

I do not accept topicality arguments. There is never a good reason to have a topicality argument.

If you want to run a K, go for it. That being said, YOU HAVE TO RUN IT WELL. I have only seen a K run well in LD once, and a handful of times in Policy. So beware.

I am okay with speed, though I do not prefer it. You should be able to do everything without spreading though. If you look at past NSDA winners, they do it without speed. I know you want to go to the TOC, but listen, is it really worth it? The TOC comes at what cost?

I will prefer any arguments that have to do with leisure theory and workforce safety (OSHA). This is due to my education at the University of Utah studying Parks, Recreation, and Tourism, and Occupational Safety and Health.

In LD, there is nothing I hate more than a Value of Morality. You are smart kids, you can come up with something else. Morality is too ambiguous and everyone has a different view of morality.

I don't flow cross examination. If something happens in cross and you want it on my flow, bring it up in your next speech. THIS DOESN'T MEAN THAT I DONT LISTEN TO CROSS, just that I don't flow it.

Please time yourselves. Y'all are adults, and I don't want to babysit. I trust you. That being said, if you clearly abuse this, I will stop flowing.

In all debates that I watch, I want to see civil discourse. That being said, I do want to see clash in the debate. Just be polite to each other, and we will all have a good time. If I don't think that you are being polite to each other, I will take away speaker points (even if you are clearly the better speaker).

I like logical arguments that make sense and are easy to follow. Originality is great as well. Please do not spew, I cannot follow it. You can still talk fast, just make sure I can understand what you are saying. Try to avoid filler words as much as possible .Eye contact is also important. Voters/impacts are also great. Tell me why you win the round. For LD, I enjoy a good traditional round, don't lose the framework (value/criterion).

About Me- I did Policy all four years I was in high school, I graduated class of 2021.

I do tend to fidget; I promise I am still listening.

I am currently coaching the policy teams from the school I graduated from.

Overview-

My biggest philosophy is you can be aggressive without being rude, I think aggression is good, especially in debate, however if you are rude I will doc you speaks.

Please don't do the thing where you individually ask if people are ready, just say "is anyone not ready?" give it a few seconds and then start your speech, if someone is not ready, they will say something, asking everyone individually takes so much unnecessary time. I'll just cringe, this won't affect my judging though.

Please include me in email chains, if I can see the evidence and arguments I will have a more unbiased opinion, this goes with pretty much all judges.

I won't judge you differently if your camera is on or off, however psychologically you are more likely to win if the judge can see your face (I try my hardest not to let this sway me though)

Don't look at each other during cross. Just don't do it, ever. I'll just cringe this won't negatively affect you

If a question is asked before cross is over, still answer it.

If the timer goes off while you're answering a question still answer it.

If the timer goes off in your speech, finish your sentence.

Don't forget to tell me your name before we start.

I flow like a policy debater so please sign post and emphasize your authors and taglines

I will vote on what you tell me to vote on.

When referring to your opponent please just say "my opponent" or "them" if pronouns are necessary

If you're in policy I will vote on what you tell me to vote on, or flow if you don't tell me.

If you're in LD I will vote on what you tell me to vote on, or morality if you don't tell me.

If you're in PF I will vote on what you tell me to vote on, or Cost Benefit Analysis if you don't tell me.

Please tell me what you want me to vote on, as a judge I should not have to draw any conclusions myself.

Speaker Points-

<27- You did something wrong, you were rude, discriminatory, disrespectful, etc.

27- You were an okay speaker but have room to improve

28- You were an average speaker, good but still could improve (average in debate)

29- You were very good, very little room for improvement

30- You were exemplary, I was very impressed with your speaking (I don't give out 30's very often but it does happen)

My average speaker point given out is a 28.5, lowest I have given is a 23, I give out an average of one 30 a tournament.

Those Policy Questions-

Tag team cross- Yes you can do this, if one partner is dominating the other partner will get lower speaks, you should talk about the same amount of time.

Prep Time- I have been told 8 minutes, that's what I will go with unless the tournament states otherwise

Is cross binding- Yes, if you say it in cross, it is the same as saying it in a speech

Is the neg block one speech- Yes this is the reason it is back-to-back

Tabula Rasa- I try my best to be a blank slate and let you convince me of your arguments without outside bias, however I cannot guarantee no bias, but I will try my hardest. I believe I should have to do little to no thinking myself and I should just be able to look at my flow and see who won.

I believe in no new arguments in the rebuttals, but you can bring up new arguments if it is your first chance to answer your opponent's arguments

If you are going to be talking about sensitive topics (especially ones that can be trauma related) please give a trigger warning (this should go for every round, we want everyone to be comfortable)

I love theory and kritiks (you don't have to run them, but I do appreciate them)

I am okay with swearing but ask your opponents

I prefer no spreading, don't worry if you just talk quickly but anything extremely fast is definitely not preferred since that will make it harder for me to flow and that does not help you win my ballot

Please don't use a large amount of technical jargon as that only makes the debate harder to follow and therefore harder to judge.

I do not prefer Kritiks and I will probably drop them, i might consider them if they are very clearly explained and you are not doing something that makes no sense(like saying that nuclear weapons are not bad using Nietzsche K or something) but don't bet on it

Cards should be clearly cited and it should be easy to follow it through the flow, any exchange of cards should be done in under 2 min otherwise i will penalize you for being disorganized.

You live and die by your value; if you do not link your arguments to the value, it does not matter in the flow. Also a response to an argument that is not sufficient to turn, negate, or refute its impacts is not enough for me to drop the original argument, even if the opponent drops it in the next speech.

At the end of every speech i want impacts/weighing, I should be able to clearly understand why you believe you are winning the debate and why the other team is losing. I vote off of flow and impacts and unless you win both I will prioritize impact over flow unless the difference in flow is dramatic. Essentially I want you to convince me that your argument is stronger than your opponents and the impact that you are proving is more substantial as well.

I'm a first year head coach at Skyline High School. I have three experience as an assistant coach. I've mostly worked with speech events, but also congress and Public Forum with limited experience in Policy and LD.

Policy:

Overall: I don't believe I'm experienced enough to understand theory or be able to strongly evaluate Kritiks.

Speed: I'm OK with speed as long as you email me your speeches (tfhenry@granitesd.org) , but please slow down for your taglines.

RFD: I typically base my decision on the the stock issues of the plan on the Affs ability to defend it and prove that it is better than the status quo. The NEG wins if they can prove the plan is worst then the status quo or the status quo is better than the plan.

I like talking about your value and tieing that back to the debate, not just evidence arguing. Also, if you can pick a logic hole in your opponent's argument to show why their evidence wouldn't work, I like that a lot.

Name: Jo Leary

Pronouns: She/her or they/them

Experience: I first judged debate 7 years ago, but have only judged regularly as a parent volunteer in the last 3 years. Usually I am assigned to speech events to avoid conflicts of interest.

Please use logical and respectful arguments. Be kind to each other. You can win the round even if I completely disagree with you if your points are better supported and more logical than your opponents'. I can understand people speaking fairly quickly, but slow down and enunciate the points you want to be sure I understand.

I am a CPA, so I do have an above average understanding of tax policy and have studied finance and economics. Also, I have lived and worked outside of the US, so I have some experience with how things like health care and social contracts can work in other countries.

I’m an experienced parent judge. I’m unfamiliar with progressive arguments so run k’s and theory at your own digression. I value clear, logical arguments and appreciate solid clash. I’m ok with speed but please keep spreading to a min. If I have to refer to a document in order to understand what you’re saying, you’re probably going too fast.

Currently a sophomore at Vassar. I did pf and ld for 4 years at summit, but I've competed in every debate event including BQ, as well as numerous IEs.

Tech > truth

As a general, I don't care about speed but or general aggression but be respectful. I will not tolerate rude behavior, slurs, racist or homophobic statements, etc. Also, please read a trigger warning for sensitive topics such as sexual assaut and other forms of violence.

For PF:

Evidence and analysis is what I look for most in a public forum round. I look for clear, correct citations combined with solid analysis. Don't just spew out cards, I need the reasoning behind it as well. I personally don't have an issue with speed or anything progressive, so you can do whatever you want in terms of that. I will flow. However, I will not flow cross examination. If there is something said in cross that you want to be on the flow, make sure to let me know.

For LD:

Similar to PF, I like to see a lot of evidence and analysis. However, I am okay with less evidence and more philosophical based arguments when it comes to LD. In terms of theory, I love theory and enjoy judging it but make sure your shell isn't abusive. Also, if you run T be sure to commit to it, don't just drop it mid round. I'm also good with Ks, counterplans, etc. Anything you want to run is fine by me.

For Policy:

You can do whatever you want when it comes to policy. I'm comfortable with you running everything, so just enjoy your round. However, as stated above, I am a very evidence heavy judge. At the end of the day however, I will take good analysis over evidence but please don't make me come down to that decision.

If you have questions after the round you can email me at mae.long.2016@gmail.com. Have fun!

I did debate a long time, just have fun! I actively encourage (respectful) pushback and disagreement with your opponents, and don't lie about anything. Feel free to ask any questions about anything specific.

I start my speaker points at 23 and move up, please don't spew/spread and speak loudly so I can hear you.

Kristy Oblad Paradigm

I participated in Speech and Drama in High School. I have a Bachelor's Degree in Socio-Cultural Anthropology. My brother was a state champion in debate and placed in Nationals. My oldest son debated all through HS and I currently have a son in his third year in debate. I enjoy judging all types of speech and debate. I am the most inexperienced with Policy and Congress. Speaking skills/communications is my predominate style of judging. You must be consistent from start to finish with your hypothesis to conclusion. Contradiction will hurt you. I do not mind if you go fast but if you do you must still be articulate. Speed as a tactic does not impress me. Filler words such as "like" and "um"--I tend to dislike these.

I feel tournaments are a place to practice and get better. That is an important part of participating in debate. If you are well-prepared and I can see your effort and desire for improvement, yet you aren't a top-notch speaker--yet...Your preparation and participation combined with a well researched, reasoned argument will sway me. Make sure you are civil. I can see through tricks/tactics to confuse. I do not appreciate condescension. I do appreciate explanations with the premise that I am intelligent and will be able to follow your argument/presentation if you are well prepared and have a good flow of reason.

Well, I had a much more detailed paradigm here but it has somehow disappeared.

I´m tabula rosa and a policy maker. Competed in policy in HS and coach now. Make sure you have clear impact calc. and clash. I don't like tag teaming during cross. Some speed is ok but don´t try to spread the other team out of the round you will likely lose clarity in the process and some arguments may be missed on my flow. Remember to persuade me, analyze your evidence and explain its meaning within the round clearly do not assume your evidence speaks for itself.

I am a coach of over 15 years for policy, pf, ld and all speech events at North Sanpete HS, Mission San Jose, Alta and Summit Academy, at Westlake High School and currently an Assistant Coach for Salem Hills High School.

In HS I competed in Speech events, LD and coached policy teams (there was no pf then).

I am the Chair for the NSDA Sundance District and former president for the UDCA. I have judged IE and debate events at the Nationals Level and have served on the pf wording committee. In other words, I know what I'm doing and know speech and debate very well!

I believe that you should give a well organized logical argument in any debate or speech. Topicality is imperative to a debate, and supporting and explaining your position on that topic is vital to a clear argument construct. If you don't say it, I didn't hear it. Don't assume I will know what your evidence means the same as you...

Policy debate should be relevant, and well understood by the competitors otherwise it will not be understood by the judges. I do not mind speed, but if it is so fast that I can no longer understand your words, then I can no longer understand your argument to judge it. K's and theory are fine as long as they go toward the overall value of the debate and topic. They should in no way demonize or devalue any individual or group of people asa part of the K. Analysis and connection of evidence/cards to the plan and solvency is imperative in making a good argument and being a good debater. Cards do not a case make, the debater does. Know your cards, know your plan, and know how they work to support and solve the inherency of the issues involved.

Public Forum should be a thoughtful discussion and not overly repeat questions and answers. Don't just read evidence and think it will make your argument for you. PF IS NOT just policy light....it is its own event with no plans and merits. Treat it well. Weighing and analysis of the topic, evidence, and oppositions arguments are imperative.

Lincoln Douglas should have a clear value and criterion from which to work from, and stay focused on topic and argument. Don't just read evidence and think it will make your argument for you. CARDS and EVIDENCE DO NOT A CASE MAKE...the debater does. Analysis, rebuttal, and connections to the value criterion are paramount in an LD round Plans are ok, as long as they are relevant, on topic, and are shown how they connect to the value criterion like any other argument in the case.

IEs should be unique, appropriate, and follow all structures outlined in their respective events. I look for organization, relevance, creativity and thoughtfulness as well as the presentation being engaging, and suitable for piece and audience. Remember when trying to engage an audience, one should want to help them understand, be brought into the conversation, and allowed to learn another perspective while still maintaining their own in the end. Try not to preach, demean, or ostracize your judge in your piece or presentation---even when controversial topic---they can be great, if done right.

Prefer traditional, and slower speech. If I can't understand what you're saying, I'll give you a cue (noisily dropping my pen).

Debated Lincoln Douglas a LOT in high school.

Love clear sign posting and voters!!!!

Happy with most arguments if explained, linked, and defended well. I don't follow Ks, theory shells, or other progressive arguments as well, but you're welcome to try :)

My name is Jonathan Spencer. I would like to applaud you first and foremost for dedicating the time to such a useful and enriching activity. I am a proud member of generation X and don't believe in voting straight ticket in any election. I have a graduate degree from Westminster College of Utah and I work in the financial services sector. Some of the items I will be looking for when I am evaluating your round or event:

1-Preparation. Chance favors those who have spend the time to prepare and put in the hard work to have a successful round.

2-Passion. I want to be moved to feel why your point of view is relevant and valid even if I may disagree with you.

3-Decorum. Its important people are treated with respect and show validation even when a point of view is not in alignment with your own perspective.

4-Be concise. I am not counting words & I'm not overly sensitive to the time you use (however some judges may be).

5- Politics. It is not important to me what political slant you bring into your topic. As stated earlier I want to sense your passion and energy from your presentation. My assessment of you is not swayed by your political views and this does not factor into my evaluation. However I am very interested to learn & become informed from your perspective. Please do not alter your words or content by compromising yourself on the grounds of trying to pick up points by appealing to what political lenses you believe I want to hear.

I'm looking forward to hearing what you have worked so hard to prepare and eager to be a part of your adventure in your next round.

JS

I am a high school English teacher and know how to write effective essays and speeches. I do not, however, have formal debate training. As a high school English teacher, I value the writing of the speech itself. As a debater, you should go into each round assuming that I know nothing about the topic at hand. Give definitions, explain concepts, speak clearly and explicitly. You can’t convince me to choose your side if I don’t understand your side. Please teach me before you convince me. If you choose to speak quickly, be warned that you need to still speak clearly. If I cannot hear you I cannot judge you.

I typically choose debate winners based on the success of their claims, including those made in crossfire, as they are presented with rhetorical strength, including effectiveness of logos, ethos, and pathos.

I am looking for a respectful, well-managed, and well-organized debate. Overuse of jargon or talking too fast will result in a loss. The point of a debate is to argue a point so that the public can understand it, not to overindulge in terms your opponent or judge may not know or to speak so fast that your opponent cannot possibly clash your points. I want to be able to understand and enjoy your debate.

Overall, I vote on what you tell me to vote on. Pure and simple.

I ran Policy for two years in high school, with an additional year of National Extemp and other events. Within that time I ran almost every event. I went to Nationals twice, once in Policy and once in Informational Speaking. While running Policy, I ran decently traditional, but I have run K's, Theory, Procedurals, just about everything. In LD I ran traditional as well but know K's well enough as well. Generally, I have experiences with most parts of debate. I am now the assistant coach for Viewmont High School.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask.

GENERAL:

Argumentation:

Evidence is king. Make sure you have evidence to back things up. I am very partial to line-by line analysis of the links and evidence of the debate. If you are able to convince me that an argument does not link, I will drop it. Likewise, if you do not address arguments, they stand without questions. However, these arguments will still be weighed against all other arguments in the round, it is not an immediate win. Lastly, in all debates, telling me what is or isn't abusive (except for in-round debate arguments in policy) is a waste of your time. I've done debate, I can tell.

Cross:

Tag Team Cross is okay, but it will negatively effect your speaker points. No flex prep. I don't flow cross, but am aware of what happened, so if something is important, you will need to tell me.

FLASHING/PREP:

NSDA standard prep times. Period. Flashing does not count (as long as you don't abuse it), and neither does getting up to speak and off time road maps, but talking to your partner, typing etc. are prep and I will start counting.

SPEECH SPEED:

Slow down! Although speed can be fine to an extent, if I can't understand you, I'm not going to vote for you. Slow Down, Enunciate, and ensure I understand, especially on analysis, overviews, and tags.

SPEAKER POINTS:

I'm not going to give a 30 to anyone who can't enunciate and speak well. I know speech quite well, and I evaluate you for speaker points as SPEAKERS not by how fast and well you debate. Good speaking skills are imperative for all events.

LD:

FRAMEWORK DEBATE (Value / Value Criterion / Some Observations):

Framework is how I view the round, not how I vote. If you end up with an uncontested value and value criterion, don't expect to win the round by default. Unless you give me a compelling reason to vote on the framework, I will use it as a way to frame your arguments to decide a winner. Therefore, it is imperative that you tell me why your arguments fulfill the Value or Value Criterion of both you and your opponent, unless you know which one will be the framework for the round.

NON-TRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS:

No. Just no. You will lose because you are not sticking to what this format is about. I understand that there are good arguments that could be run this way, but all of them that can add to the debate can be run in the LD framework without needing policy invasion.

PF:

I am going to vote how you tell me, pure and simple. Clean, simple, easy to follow debate is the way to win in PF. There is no need to tell me that the framework is cost-benefit analysis, as this is a given unless otherwise shown in round. Also, all arguments in the round are potential reasons to vote, dropping arguments does not mean I do not weigh them, so debating on all the issues is your best bet. Make sure you do the analysis and give me voters, and you will do ok.

POLICY:

AFF ARGUMENTS:

Traditional affs are my favorite, Kritical and Performative affs are ok as long as they link and add to the debate. With this, however, it is imperative you tell me why these are a good idea in the face of the topic and debate in general. Performative especially needs to tell me why the performance adds to the round. In my experience, traditional affs are the best way for us to have a good discussion about policymaking. No matter how you run, a harm to solve and some sort of solvency is needed. Without this, I will not vote for you.

TOPICALITY/THEORY/PROCEDURALS:

Topicality and Theory are awful and should not be used unless abuse is present and you are going to go for it. This is IMPORTANT. I HATE TIMESUCK ARGUMENTS. If you decide to run this, it had better have substance, a reason, and impacts. Also, once you introduce it, it is a voting issue no matter whether you drop it or not. Except in very specific situations where T is needed to define the Aff (which doesn't happen very much), if you run T and the aff is topical, no matter what else you run, you will be dropped. For theory, you can expect a bogus theory argument which is trying to timesuck will also get you dropped. Topicality and theory are important to check abuse, but don't expect to run them abusively and get away with it.

DISADS/COUNTERPLANS:

Disads and counterplans are the fundamental way for the Neg to talk about policymaking (what we are there for) in the round. I pretty much like everything but make sure your links are solid. Don't give me a floating counterplan though, it must have a disad it solves. Also, a perm is a test of competition, not a change of advocacy. Just a tip.

K'S:

Kritiques are acceptable, but are situational and only should be run if there is actually an issue. K's are very cool, and they allow great discussions within the debate space, but they should not be used as a win-all but as a discussion about an issue in the aff mindset or the resolution writ large. Don't expect me to vote for you just because you ran a K. Framework is important, and if none is provided, your K will be measured against the 1AC. I'm not going to vote for this A Priori unless you tell me why and there is an impact (in other words, why it is any more than a disadvantage). Also, don't expect me to get your K just because I was a policy debater. Slow down on these.

I have judged Policy yearly for the past 15 years. I prefer LD and PF, but I am familiar with the ins and outs, but I don't know them intuitively as I have never competed in Policy. I am willing to try and follow whatever you present. However, I expect you to communicate with me. I am the judge, not your opponent. What that means is this, you need to tell me what you are doing and why. Slow down and communicate with me. When I say slow down, what I mean is this:

1. I don't follow speed. I try, but I won't get most of what you say if you are going a million miles an hour. However, I understand the strategy and need. If you spread, you need to slow down and tell why I should care about what you just said. Give me a quick, slowed down summary of what you said, and why I should care.

2. Make taglines very clear! Don't assume I heard your 'next DA' when you're going a million miles an hour. If you want it on my flow, make it clear what it is and where to put it. Spread the rest, but slow down for taglines and summarize what you just said! This is especially important for the 1AC and 1NC.

3. Email chains are helpful, but not. It is nice to have an email chain, but if I have to read the email to understand what you are saying, why give speeches? Also, trying to follow evidence because I can't understand you makes it difficult for me as a judge. I will refer to reference, but will not pour over it after a round to determine a winner. Doing that means I don't need to hear from you. I could sit at home and read your evidence to determine a winner. Don't rely on chains.

Lincoln Douglas

I prefer traditional LD Debate with a Value/Criterion. I have voted for flex-negs, and other more progressive type arguments, but I prefer debates that use Value/Criterion. Don't spread! If you spread in LD, I won't flow. You can go at a crisp pace. In fact, I prefer a crisp paces, but...spread and you will most likely lose.

I have been judging NSDA tournaments for a few years now. I have experience teaching, researching, and writing. I look for debates and speeches that include sound arguments with a beginning, middle, and end. I know you may be stressed, just do your best. Your coaches and judges believe in you!

I'm looking for the strength of your argument. How well do you defend your framework? How well do you attack the argument of your oppponent? A well-constructed argument should stand up well against cross-examination and be backed up by strong sources.

I'm a lay judge

Policy: I'd prefer you don't spread, but if you do, add me to the email chain ehbzhu123@gmail.com

Try and make everything understandable for lay debate (traditional debate)

PF/LD: Clear concise and talk well. Good arguments