Hey everyone!

I will keep my paradigm rather simplistic. I appreciate creative, clear arguments. Avoid spreading and respect your opponents.

1.Your background in debate (did you debate in high school or college? If so, where, when, and what events?)

I have taught communication/rhetoric for 10 years. I have coached debate for six.

2. How many years have you been judging? How many rounds do you typically judge each year?

I have been judging for 5 years. I normally judge 5 tournaments a year.

3. Do you have any argument preferences or speaking style preferences that debaters should be aware of?

I do not like spreading. I prefer straightforward arguments, but I do not mind more meta-arguments.

4. When the debate is over, what process do you use to pick a winner (use of evidence, direct clash, speaking style, impact calculations, layers of the debate, etc.)?

I assess the arguments laid out, consider evidence, speaking style, impact, and presentation.

Other thoughts:

-Don't be rude. I do not respond well to aggressive CX

-Signpost. I will be flowing and without clear signposting, I will have a difficult time doing so without those signposts.

-I like to see congenial debaters who are respectful of their opponents.

-Generally, arguments that devolve into debating the worth of a single piece of evidence or contention drawn out across multiple speeches do not interest me. Of course, this is not true if the evidence or contention is integral to the overall argument.

-I like seeing passion and emotion. I dislike dull recitals of speeches with a monotone voice. However, I equally dislike zealous, over-the-top speaking.

-Eye contact is important. I understand looking down to remind yourself of your points and structure, but do not like it when speakers stare at a piece of paper the whole time.

I am a new judge, I have read a little bit about the topic in which you are debating today. As a new judge, please no spreading, weigh your impacts, and time yourself. 

I flow rounds. Alerting me to clear contentions and off time road maps assists me in completing my flows. I am absolutely not capable of flowing if you SPREAD, in fact, if you choose to SPREAD, I will stop flowing and listen. I prefer to hear you present your arguments verses reading your prepared material. The documents will provide me the name of your source when I review before making a final decision. I favor up to date resources as changes happen daily, when presenting your argument I focus on the year of the evidence to include in my flow. Cross fires should be civil. I generally look to typical speech characteristics when determining speaker points, such as speaking with clarity and articulation. I also consider the general characteristics of giving a speech such as how you present yourself through your demeanor both individually and as a team, as well as with your opponents.

I am a novice judge who has been judging for year and a half. I believe delivery is important but will prioritize evidence based arguments. Speaking fast, spreading, is ok as long as you are enunciating and speaking clearly.

***No prior debate experience (lay judge), however, been judging Individual Events and occasionally Public Forum for the past 4 years

- state your framework (if you have one) at the beginning of your debate

- when you state your contentions, make sure you state them clearly

- off-time roadmaps are helpful

- prefer no spreading, but keep in mind I can't flow towards you if I can't understand/hear you

- prefer you keep your own times

Willing to give progressive a chance.

Hi! My name is Patrick and I'm currently a student at Auburn University!I am a lay judge who usually prefers to stick to Big Questions and Public Forum. I don't judge often and I don't intend to ever make it a frequent hobby, but for the time that I am here I do my part to try to make sure my rounds go smoothly and are decided as fairly and reasonably as possible.

I'm strictly a flow judge. I render a decision based solely upon the strength of your constructed argument/position and how well you are able to adapt that position to account for or respond to issues or counterpoints raised by your opponent. If you present a stronger case than your opponent while adequately acknowledging and responding to their arguments, you will win my ballot. You could get up to the podium and argue that the sky is, in fact, red, and as long as your case is well-built enough to withstand both your opponent's case and any counterpoints they may levy against you, you would come out as the victor.

That being said, I consider the environment of competitive academic debate to be just as important as the rhetoric itself. I do not tolerate disrespect between competitors; if you behave in an obviously disrespectful manner towards your opponent during the debate, that will be noted on the ballot, and that will affect how you score. If your argument is founded upon ideas or statements that can be interpreted as racist, misogynistic, or otherwise flagrantly bigoted or intolerant in any manner, you will lose the round and your behavior will be noted on the ballot. Meaningful debate, by its nature, should not be a place where we shy away from discussing sensitive or controversial topics, but there are very clear lines and limits to that philosophy that I expect all competitors to follow.

As a primarily Big Question and Public Forum judge, I am not a fan of spreading. Being a flow judge, if the method by which you choose to present your case actively hinders me from being able to understand your overall points and contentions, you are putting yourself at a disadvantage on my ballot. I understand the need to be quick in delivery in time-limited formats such as these, but if you can manage to present a solid, well-founded case without speaking at 300 WPM, that will buy you points in my estimation (so to speak). Also, please be specific in your rhetoric! When you get up to that podium, say exactlywhat you mean to say. Flow judging is inherently incompatible with implicitly-stated impacts, so if your case depends on you arguing that a certain resolution would have a specific, detrimental impact, please name that specific, detrimental impact. Failing to be specific in this manner also plays right into your opponent's hand. I have seen good cases lose a round because the competitors arguing them allowed their opponents to warp their argument into a much weaker case simply because the impacts in the case were not stated concretely or specifically enough for them to be unambiguously known to a judge or audience. If you articulate exactly what you mean to argue, that will work in your favor on the ballot.

Overall, remember to try to have fun and learn something new. There's no point to any of this if the debate process is not also treated as a learning experience and a way to broaden your own horizons.