When judging, I have a few things that I keep in mind when choosing my ranks and scores. I've included a rough breakdown below.

Interp Categories (HI, DI, HDuo, SDuo, Prose, Poetry, Storytelling)

Humorous Interp was the category I competed in when I was a competitor, so I have fairly intimate knowledge of it. A lot of fundamentals remain the same across the various interp categories- I pay close attention to characterization in voice, facial expressions, and physicality. While you perform, I should be able to believe you are your character and interacting with a world that is real to you. If you have multiple characters, you keep them consistent and can "snap" between them cleanly. For duos, you and your partner have chemistry with one another and are able to play off one another in a way that's engaging to the audience. While I do believe a winning performance should be entertaining above all, I believe solid fundamentals are the most important aspect of judging.

Speech Categories (Extemp, Impromptu, OO)

In these categories I look for those who are able to present their thoughts and arguments in a way that is clear and understandable as well as engaging to the audience. In these categories I will be engaging with your speech where you are coming from, but I will point out if your argument isn't thought out or well explained. Beyond spoken performance, I also look at physicality- you should appear comfortable and confident on stage, and take advantage of the space provided as appropriate. I especially enjoy seeing passion for the topic you're presenting on- when you're into it, I'm into it.

Above all please be kind and courteous to your competitors. Be an attentive audience member, and offer them the same respect that they are ideally showing to you. I can and will take off points if I see you on your phone during a round or talking while another competitor is presenting. Likewise I can promise that any behavior that demeans the race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc. of ANYONE will ruin your score and be reported to the tournament authorities.

Basically, above all respect is key!

I've been involved in the debate community for twenty years, as a student and as a coach. I've judged the following kinds of debate: policy, Lincoln-Douglas, and parliamentary debate (and also all forms of individual events). I am an assistant professor of Communication Studies; my area of speciality is rhetoric, focusing on argumentation, public controversies, rhetorics of health and medicine, and gender. I regularly teach public speaking and argumentation.

In all forms of debate, my philosophy is to judge the arguments and evidence as presented to me, rather than stating "xyz" form of debate/argument is off limits (for example, I am open to: counterplans, disads, kritiks, topicality, performance arguments (on either/both sides) -not an exhaustive list). I also do not judge based upon what arguments I wish were in the debate (but if relevant will offer those as suggestions for improvement in my ballot/feedback). I view debate as enabling students to find their voices, positions, and to engage in advocacy--thus, I am interested in hearing what YOU want me to hear within the debate. I support inclusion and diversity, in a variety of forms (such as gender, race, class, first generation) and will not tolerate behaviors which actively go against inclusion/diversity.

A note on speed: Although I have participated (both as a student and a coach) in speed debate (I did NDT/CEDA debate for 6 years), I have not done so in quite a while. It would be best to be more moderately paced for me to judge the debate.

I look forward to engaging debates!!

Not a lay judge, PF state title holder. Lots of CX and LD experience, so speed is fine with me. To me, clash is very important for all debate types, so make it strong.