I do:

*shake hands.

*let you keep your own time, although I will keep time as well.

*like eye contact and demonstrative body language. (Hint: You can't do this as well when holding a Chromebook.)

*like it when you stand. It shows respect.

*like sources. There is such a thing as too many sources, but usually I don't see enough.

*like good evidence and easy-to-follow logic.

*like you to stay on topic.

*like easy, everyday sort of examples that help make a big topic more understandable. I particularly like personal examples.

*like open minds.

*like respect of all in the room. This includes respect for your opponents(s), topic, classroom objects, and judge.

*like ethical, professional behavior.

*like old fashioned good manners.

*like to call "time" on cross. That is the judge's job.

*like it when your contentions/topics are relatively few (with few or no subpoints) and VERY easy to identify. Repeat them many times to ensure I know what they are. I can't flow contentions that I can't easily identify.

*like when you allow your opponent a chance to ask a question during cross. (Please don't hog all the time for yourself.)

I do NOT:

*like spreading. Please slow down. I have never heard anyone go too slow.

*like when you read your content word for word from your notes. Wean yourself from your notes! Usually presentation is better when you speak from your mind and on your feet.

*like animosity, disrespect, or obscenities.

*like when you abruptly cut off your train of thought simply because your time is up. I am fine giving a grace period of 10 to 30 seconds so you can wrap it up nicely.

*like when you talk over another individual (although it can be minimally expected during cross).

I am new to judging debate and speech.

In debate I like sources to back the debate, I flow based off contentions taking into account which contentions hold.

For speech I like when the speaker engages the audience.

Experience: I have competed in every debate event, as well as most speech events over the course of 3 years in highschool. I qualified to Nationals twice as well. I'm currently an active NSDA Alumni and I offer hired judging for various schools, mostly in Utah.

General for Speech Events
I will be timing you, but you are also free to time yourself when appropriate. I dislike when speakers try to fill all the time by repeating themselves or talking in circles. Quality over quantity.
If you are double entered, I will alter the speaking order if necessary to make sure you can give both speeches timely. Please speak up if you need this, since Tabroom doesn't always tell me.

General for all Debate Events:

If evidence asked for in-round does not exist or is being blatantly misused, I will not vote for you. If there are claims of evidence being misread or used in an abusive way, I will ask to look at it myself. Most importantly, looking at evidence counts as part of your prep time, unless it gets into rule-breaking disputes.

I like seeing assertiveness during cross, but don't be over the top. A good cross to me looks like advancing a conversation and making points, not just clarifying. If your opponent asks a reasonable question and you are being intentionally vague with your answers or stalling the clock, I will count it against you. Please also look at me and not your opponent as much as possible.

I am perfectly okay with progressive debate (kritiks, philosophy, plans, counter-plans, etc) and know how to judge it, but I am strict with the rulebook on how/when it can be used.

If you plan on spreading, please have your cases ready to share with your opponent(s) or me as necessary.

Email for evidence/case sharing: maeve.k.hall@gmail.com

Lincoln-Douglas:

I weigh most on the Value/criterion debate. If I see it from one debater and not at all from another, my ballot is easy to write. If neither engages, I will have a hard time picking a winner. If both engage, then we all have a fun round.

I do believe having a Value/criterion is necessary. If you don't provide a framework, it's really hard for me to vote for you. If you're unprepared or wanted to do that level of progressive debate, I'm sorry.

Policy:

Please ask for specifics in round

I come from a Lincoln Douglas debate background and I apply a "classic" LD paradigm to most events. Speech and Debate are communication events. The better communicators of ideas will win rounds. In debate that means making, substantiating (with credible evidence), and defending rational claims.

I believe value - criteria cases make for a good framework of debate, and if you fail to present a specific value and related criteria, I will 'assume' one for you and flow voting points around how well you defended the (possibly assumed or inferred) value/criteria. Even for things like Policy Debate, Congress, and of course Public Forum, I can't help but apply a 'value - criteria' mindset to why I'll give a win. The debater who shows supremacy in defending WHY their argument 'matters more' (offers value), and offers HOW their case fulfills specific value(s) better than the alternative position will win the debate (or spar or public forum or name the event).

I believe good communication is the ultimate goal of all speaking and debate events. If you bring spreading to a level that is incoherent, you lose. If you fail to support logical claims with credible evidence, you lose. If you intentionally seek to offend the judge, your opponents, or others with overt and malicious attacks on belief structures, cultures, preferences, or other demographic or psychographic factors, you lose and are reported to authorities for recommended censure.

While NSDA guidelines allow for 'critique' cases, per MY paradigm I maintain that they are pronouncedly lame. I've never seen one executed properly. Per NSDA guidelines I see only ONE viable approach for a successful critique case. It must:

1. represent a demonstrable ethical concern with the assigned topic of the debate from the perspective of the specific position (aff. or neg.) represented by the individual offering the case.
2. limit the arguments to a distinctive critique of the specific topic at hand. I will not consider or evaluate any conversation about the viability of 'debate in general' or other non-resolution-related 'critiques'. Without a demonstration of absolutely pristine logic and unquestionable ethical interest in why the critique is more important than the resolution, the critique case will receive an automatic loss from me every time. It would be a very rare situation where, in order to win, the opponent of the critique case would need to say anything more about the critique than "my opponent has failed to address any of my arguments about the resolution, I therefore win the debate on the resolution."

Once a round begins, I do not afford time for "off-time roadmaps" or anything, really. If you're standing there speaking, then you're presenting and except for very brief checks to confirm your audience is ready, you should be logging time (either towards your speech or your prep time). If you're desperate to squeeze every second of time for your arguments, the classy way to sneak the "extra" speaking time would be to say something like, "please deduct the following off-time roadmap from my prep. time".

This is my second year judging and I am a parent judge. I have judged PF, LD and oratory rounds.

Please don't spread I won't be able to understand.

Please give voters at the end just so everything is completely clarified and the decision is easier for me.

Please be respectful during round and don't say anything discriminatory.

I won't flow cross so if something happens please bring it up.

I will do my best to leave constructive feedback.

Have good rounds!

Ultimately I expect you to communicate persuasively and move the arguments forward. In policy I expect you to move the argument, explain the flow, and advocate for voters. I will vote on stock issues, topicality, solvency, counterplans, etc. based on where you push the argument and where your opponents push back. You can spread but realize I will likely ask for you to provide me the key cards so that I can read them in context--ensure you are properly using the text.

In LD realize that value and criterion will be key from which I will evaluate your persuasiveness of how you lay out the case. Do not ignore what your opponent says, rather address their arguments to refute them.

Debate: When I debated in high school I mainly did pf. With that in mind if you are in policy or ld I may need some hand holding it’s your job to make the debate clear for me. I am fine with any argument you throw at me even if it is stupid as long as you’re able to prove it. I do value weighing, evidence, and links more than anything but if you don’t do that you can still win you just have to be better. Framework is also important.

Speech and Congress: I value organization, passion, flow, and uniqueness most. I do find that speech events do tend to be heavily biased based on content matter so I will try my best to judge objectively.

Speak loudly and clearly, and understand the basics of your event. That's all!