My preferences:

• Please speak clearly/slowly (do no spread!).
• I appreciate arguments backed with relevant statistics.
• Make sure you connect your arguments/contentions to your framework.

Kindly request you to go slow during the debate process.

Be respectful to your opponent.

Be positive in your approach.

I have judged Speech rounds from local to Nationals, and I have been included in Debate, Congress, L-D and PF competitions.

The opportunity for me to judge at Nationals several times has been exciting and very rewarding!

I want to be able to understand you, please speak clearly. My expectations for this

event are:

Disrespect is never ok, be fair to each other and treat people as you would like to be treated.

Be kind, to others as well as yourself.

Logical, clear arguments are appreciated!

"Don't raise your voice. Improve your argument." Desmond Tutu

Parent Judge. My daughter has been debating LD for two years now so therefore I have judged quite a bit, but I do not have any experience with debating myself. Please talk at a conversational pace, If I cannot understand hear/understand you I will not be able to decide whether or not you win. Please run a traditional case.

This is my first debate so please do not speak too quickly so I can understand your points. I value sound arguments based on facts and I appreciate speakers who are passionate in their delivery.

Philosophy Overview: In evaluating Lincoln-Douglas debates, I prioritize clear, logical argumentation supported by evidence and reasoning. I value debaters who engage respectfully with their opponents and the topic, showing a deep understanding of the issues at hand. Speaking with speed is fine, but make sure your points are clear and understandable.

Framework: debaters should establish a clear value criterion and framework that logically supports their case. They should use this framework to guide their arguments and demonstrate how their case upholds the value criterion better than their opponent's.

Contentions: Debaters should present well-structured contentions that are supported by evidence and reasoning. I value depth over breadth, so I prefer to see fewer, more developed arguments rather than a large number of shallow ones.

Rebuttal: In rebuttals, debaters should directly engage with their opponent's arguments, pointing out flaws in reasoning or evidence. I value responsive arguments that adapt to the opponent's case rather than pre-scripted responses.

Cross-Examination: Cross-examination should be used to clarify arguments and expose weaknesses in the opponent's case. I value respectful and productive cross-examinations that focus on substance rather than trying to score points.

Speaker Points: I will award speaker points based on clarity, persuasiveness, and strategic thinking. I value debaters who can communicate their arguments effectively and engage with the audience.

Final Thoughts: Overall, I am looking for debaters who can think critically, communicate clearly, and engage with the topic and their opponents in a meaningful way.

Update for Harvard 2024

If you are going fast enough that I need case docs - add me to the chain - Josh.Herring@thalescollege.org

Updated for Princeton Invitation 2022

I am a traditional debate coach who likes to see debaters exercise their creativityINSIDE the conventions of the style. For Congressional Debate, that means strong clash and adherence to the conceit of being a congressional representation. For LD, that means traditional>progressive, and if a traditional debater calls topicality on a progressive debater for not upholding "ought" on Aff, I will look favorably on such an approach. That being said, if someone runs a K coherently, and the a priori claim of the K is not refuted, I will vote for the prior claim. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible, and I like to think I'm tech>truth, but don't ruin the the game with progressive garbage. If you love progressive argumentation, please strike me. I hate tricks, don't like K's, think performative debate is dumb, and really don't like want to see the resolution replaced by this month's social concern. For PF, I want to see strong evidence, good extension, crystallization, and framing. In essence, I want good debate with clear burdens. Write my ballot for me - give your opponent burdens to meet, meet your own, and explain why you win. I think debate is a beautiful game, and I want to see it played well.

Couple of last minute DON'Ts - I don't buy disclosure theory; I think it has harmed smaller schools by pretending to legitimize approaches big teams can deploy, and it has made spreading much more common. I cannot spread, and I cannot hear a case at speed. If your opponent spreads, and you call them out on it in the sense that their speed disadvantages you in the round, I will look very favorably on that as a prior condition of sportsmanship in the game. Don't spread, and don't fuss at your opponent for not putting a case on the Wiki. It's a voluntary system, and does not constitute systemic harm if you actually have to refute in round rather than prep on arguments read 30 minutes before the round.

Original paradigm from several years ago:

I learned debate at Hillsdale College from Jeremy Christensen and Matthew Doggett and James Brandon; I competed in IPDA and NPDA. I've been a coach since 2014. I have coached PF, Coolidge, LD, and Congressional. I judge on the flow. I'm looking for sound argumentation tied to the resolution; if you go off topic (K, etc) or want to run a theory argument, be prepared to explain why your strategy is justified. I am not a fan of speed in debate - convey your arguments, evidence, and impacts without spreading.

Debate is a wonderful game, and I enjoy judging rounds where both teams play it well. Accept your burdens, and fight for your position. Evidence goes a long way with me, so long as you explain the validity of your evidence and the impact that it links to. In LD, Im a big fan of traditional values-driven argumentation. In PF, I want to see the purposes of public forum respected - no plan, no spreading, and publicly accessible debate on a policy-esque resolution.

Hi. I'm Richard Hicks. I'm the parent of an Enloe High School (Raleigh, NC) student who is a junior, and the parent of a former Enloe student, who is a sophomore at NCSU.

FWIW... I have never participated in Speech and Debate, though I do remember many of my early experiences in public speaking.

For anyone wondering, I am fine with students speaking fast. That said, I also think that we can use our voice in many ways to emphasis particular things we are communicating, and effective speech may include speaking slowly, or even pausing, as well a using other qualities such as volume and tone. I will let students know if they are speaking too fast for me to follow.

By education I am trained in both analytic and empirical methods (BS in Electrical Engineering; PhD in Clinical Psychology), and I typically consider both important to consider in speech and debate.

I strive to listen to speech for understanding of the position of each of the students or teams, rather than listening for agreement. I will then stive to use the information provided by students to make any judgements or decisions as a judge.

I commend all of the speech and debate students for their willingness to participate in these sometimes stressful events. I am confident these experiences will serve you, and others, well!

I am a lay judge who did not debate in high school or college. However, I am the Director of Assessment and a faculty member at a nearby university who teaches research methods, assessment design, and public scholarship. My classes are based on research integration and effective argumentation!

Effective debaters:

* are knowledgeable of the rules
* are reliable and arrive promptly
* are able to look up from their prepared, written remarks
* maintain appropriate speed
* are able to roll with technology glitches

I do not reward spreading. If I cannot follow and document your argument, I will not hold your competitor accountable for a response.

Parent judge. Prefer no spreading and very clear statement of Value, Value Criterion,

and Contentions.

Debate is an intelligent game that requires understanding of a problem, research, critical thinking skills, effective communication, time management and intellectual flexibility. It is a learning experience for the debaters as well as judges.

I have an engineering background and the following experience in judging debate: PF (1 year) and LD (1 year). My preferences in speech and debate rounds are as following:

1. Evaluation criteria

· Topical and coherent

· Logically sound with quality evidence

· Interactively engaged with both judges and opponent and being polite

· No excessive jargon or technical language

· All types of arguments are important in my decision-making, roughly framework (30%), contentions (50%), impacts (20%)

2. Argumentation Style

· Clearly delivered with conversational speed in a persuasive style

· Clear logic in a simple way

3. Evidence standard

· From well-qualified sources

· Empirical studies or expert opinions

4. Cross-Examination

· Assertive but respectful

· Cross-examiner in control of the time

Before I judge a round, I normally prepare myself with some context knowledge on the topic. During the round, I take notes on key points and arguments that will eventually help me write my ballot and comments afterwards. It will be great if you can manage your time and opponent’s time with me.

As I mentioned, debate is an intelligent game, and it is a learning experience not only to you as debaters, but for me as a judge as well. Thank you for your participation and giving me the opportunity to learn from you. Good luck in your round, have fun and learn!

Please use this email to disclose - sheezahussain@gmail.com

I am a parent judge and have been judging since 2016.

For the Novice debaters especially : I take this seriously and expect that you have invested the time and energy into doing the same. I am empathetic when I see a speaker has done the prep and is trying...I am not pleased when I see someone who is being flippant about the event or the opportunity to participate/compete.

Debate Preferences:

• I don’t mind fast talking – go for it – but I don’t like spreading. If you're going to talk fast, add me to the email chain.
• I flow….meaning I try to capture your key points and see if your opponent counters them (assuming the point is reasonable)
• If an opponent doesn’t respond to your point, I won’t automatically give you the point. I do, however, expect them to respond to every reasonable argument you put out there
• I know you will likely have a well-developed constructive speech, so I find myself more interested in how you counter and defend arguments
• I won’t tolerate personal attacks, discrimination or academic dishonesty
• I will evaluate your ability to advocate for your side and support it, realizing that both sides are usually not equal
• I enjoy clever arguments. Humor, emotive speaking and illustrative examples – we judge a lot of rounds and it’s nice to hear something creative or a creative approach to making a point
• If you have any questions for me, feel free to ask me before the round

Strike me if…

• You spread.. To me, if you're spreading, I might as well read the case myself while you sit there silently
• You are going to be so off-topic with your case that I wonder if we've changed topics
• You are going to use tricks or theory

=============================================================================

Speech Preferences: I want to get lost in what you're sharing with me -- I want to forget that I am judging and want to be left wanting more.

*For interp events (OI, DI, DUO, POI, DEC, etc), I am looking for characters that are well developed. I want it to be clear when you're building, when you hit the climax and how you make us feel in that moment. I appreciate when speakers use every tool available to them (within what's allowed) - facial expressions, gestures, vocal variety, etc. I want to see that you are so comfortable and familiar with the material that it feels natural, but I also want to feel your intensity and passion.

*For platform events (Extemp, OO, Info, etc), I look for a well-planned speech -- Does it have good structure? Do you have evidence to back up your points? Do you have a strong hook? Is it creative? Did you conclusion tie a bow on the gift that is your speech?

Email for disclosure : hussain.zakir@gmail.com

I'm a parent judge, who has judged debate since 2016.

I'm a flay judge..

My preferences:

• I don't mind fast talking, but don't spread
• Don't be rude -- or you'll lose speaker points, and, potentially, the round. No personal attacks, discrimination, etc.
• Don't call out your opponent's mistakes to me -- debate your opponent and let me determine if they, for example, introduced new evidence or arguments too late in the round. Don't try to help me.
• If you have questions for me, ask before the round

Hi – My name is Aaron Jackson

I am a parent judge; this is my first judgment in an NSDA event. As such, I will not be able to understand spreading, as this debate style is still foreign to me. I need to be able to understand you well enough to flow your case, so I would appreciate a slower speech/tempo so that I can make an informed decision. I want to be told how each point leads to the next. It is not my job to infer what you are trying to argue. You need to tell me each part of the argument explicitly and how that creates your impact. If the impact is not made clear, I have nothing to weigh on, and therefore, voting for you becomes a challenge dependent on your persuasion skills alone. My final decision will be based on the flow and how you interact with your opponent during the round.

I like to see Lincoln Douglas's competitors stick to a traditional value debate, though I do like to see evidence and practical applications to back up your philosophical arguments. Again, I am much more concerned with the quality of the argument over the quantity of words you can fit in. I can only vote for what I can understand.

Please be mature and respectful toward your opponent.

Time is important and should be respected by everyone. I will not flow anything said after the time is up and it will not be considered when voting.

Keep the card calling to a minimum. Doing this excessively wastes too much time and becomes annoying and frustrating. If you cannot rebuttal without seeing every card your opponent uses, that most likely means you need to do more research.

I look forward to judging you. Good Luck!

I have so much respect for all these kids who are brave enough to try debate.

My only comment is that I prefer the clarity of speech over speed. Please do not talk so fast that I cannot understand what you are saying.

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

Lay parent judge. I'd love to see good presentations and hear good argumentations.

Please speak in a pace that I can follow your points. Choose your words efficiently and don't spread.

Enjoy strong arguments, weigh your claims, and a good bail out in the last speech.

Please send your case to yethanlin@yahoo.com

This is my first-year judging LD as a parent judge. (Last year I judged for speech. ) If you do disclose to each other, please also add me to the email chain: yaxing.liu@gmail.com.

I am a lay judge who values clear structures, argumentations, and value clashes. I am willing to vote on any argument that is well-supported and well-impacted. and will not vote off of any theory or progressive arguments. I prefer traditional rounds with weighing and voters. Please tell me what I should vote for. Signpost, give an off-time roadmap, and please speak concisely. I will not vote for any argument that I cannot understand.

Best luck!

I'm flow oriented and prefer that debaters explicitly state and weigh impacts. I like to include authors' names when I flow; please read them clearly.

I am a parent judge and have been participating in local and national high school LD debates since 2018. I prefer sound evidence, compelling arguments and solid voter issues. I enjoy LD debates and hope we all have fun!

Overview

Hi, I am Jacob Palmer (he/they). I did 4 years of policy at Emory. I also did 4 years of LD at Durham and have coached at Durham since I graduated. I mostly judge LD but occasionally find myself in a PF or Policy pool, so most of this paradigm is targeted at LDers. Regardless of the event I am judging though, I will do my best to adapt to you and evaluate the round solely off the flow. TDLR: Don’t cheat. Be a good person. Make real arguments. Do those things, and I will adapt to you.

Add me to the chain: jacob.gestypalmer@gmail.com. I won't backflow off the doc, and I will yell clear or slow if needed. Docs should be sent promptly at the round start time.

Feel free to read the arguments that interest you. If you make warranted arguments and tell me why they matter in the broader context of the debate you will do well. I will evaluate any argument that has a warrant, clear implication, and isn't actively exclusionary. I am tech in that I will keep a rigorous flow and evaluate the debate solely off that flow, but there are some limits to my tech-ness as a judge. I will always evaluate every speech in the debate. I will not evaluate arguments made after speech times end. I think arguments must be logically valid and their warranting should be sound. I think lazy warranting is antithetical to technical argumentation. As a logical extension of that, spamming arguments for the sake of spamming arguments is bad. Reading truer arguments will make your job and my job substantially easier. I won't vote on something not explained in round.

Be a good person. Debate often brings out the worst of our competitive habits, but that is not an excuse for being rude or disrespectful. Respect pronouns. Respect accessibility requests. Provide due content warnings.

Since other people do this and I think its nice to respect the people that helped me in my own debate journey, thank you to the all the people that have coached me or shaped who I am as a debater: Jackson DeConcini, Bennett Dombcik, Allison Harper, Brian Klarman, DKP, Ed Lee, Becca Steiner, Gabe Morbeck, Mikaela Malsin, Marshall Thompson, CQ, Nick Smith, and Devane Murphy. Special thanks to Crawford Leavoy for introducing me to this activity.

Specifics

Policy – Advantages and DAs shouldn’t be more complicated than they need to be. Plan and counterplan texts should be specific and have a solvency advocate. Spec is fine against vague positions but the sillier the shell the harder it will be to win an actual internal link to fairness or education. I'm generally fine with condo, but the more condo you read the more receptive I'll be to theory. To win the 2ar on condo the 1ar shell needs to be more than a sentence. Judge kick is fine, but I won't do it unless you tell me to. The 2nr in LD is not a 2nc. If your 2nr strategy relies on reading lots of new impact modules or sandbagging cards that should've been in the 1nc, I am not the judge for you. To an extent, carded 2nr blocks are fine, e.g. when answering a perm, but all the evidence you should need to win the 2nr should just be in the 1nc.

T – Don't be blippy. Weigh between interps and show what Affs, Advantages, DAs, etc. are actually lost or gained. The worst T debates are an abstract competition over ethereal goods like fairness. The best T debates forward a clear vision of what debates on the topic should look like and explains why the debates based on one interpretation of the topic are materially more fair or educational than others. I think affirmatives should generally be predictably limited. I think functional limits can solve a lot of neg offense if correctly explained.

K – These debates are also probably where I care the most about quality over quantity. Specificity matters - Not all Ks are the same and not all plans are the same. If your 1nc shell doesn’t vary based on the 1ac, or your 1ar blocks don’t change based on the kritik I will be very sad. I generally think I should vote for whoever did the better debating, but y'all are free to hash out what that means.

More often than not, it seems like I am judging K debates nowadays. Whether you are the K debater or the Policy/Phil debater in these rounds, judge instruction is essential. The 2nr and 2ar should start with a clear explanation of what arguments need to be won to warrant an aff or neg ballot and why. The rest of the 2nr or 2ar should then just do whatever line-by-line is necessary to win said arguments. I find that in clash debates more than other debates, debaters often get lost in extending their own arguments without giving much round-specific contextualization of said extensions or reasons why the arguments extended are reasons they should win the debate. You need to tell me what to do with the arguments you think you are winning and why those specific arguments are sufficient for my ballot.

Non-T/Planless Affs – I am happy to judge these debates and have no issues with non-t affs. Solvency is important. From the 1ac there should be a very clear picture of how the affirmative resolves whatever harms you have identified. For negatives, T USFG is solid. I’ve read it. I’ve voted on it. Turn strategies (heg good, growth good, humanism good, etc.) are also good. For T, I find topical versions of the aff to be less important than some other judges. Maybe that’s just because I find most TVAs to be largely underdeveloped or not actually based in any real set of literature. Cap and other kritiks can also be good. I no qualms evaluating a K v K or methods debate.

Phil – I love phil debates. I think these debates benefit greatly from more thorough argumentation and significantly less tricks. Explain your syllogism, how to filter offense, and tell me what you're advocating for. If I don't know how impact calc functions under your framework, then I will have a very hard time evaluating the round. If your framework has a bunch of analytics, slow down and number them.

Theory – Theory should be used to check legitimate abuse within the debate. As with blatantly untrue DAs or Advantages, silly theory arguments will be winnable, but my threshold of what constitutes a sufficient response will be significantly lower. Slow down on the analytics and be sure to weigh. I think paragraph theory is fine, but you still need to read warrants. I think fairness and education are both important, and I haven’t really seen good debates on which matters more. Debates where you weigh internal links to fairness and/or education are generally much better. I think most cp theory or theoretical objections to other specific types of arguments are DTA and really don’t warrant an RVI, but you can always convince me otherwise.

Tricks – If this is really your thing, I will listen to your arguments and evaluate them in a way that I feel is fair, granted that may not be the way you feel is most fair. I have found many of the things LDers have historically called tricks to be neither logically valid nor sound. I have no issue with voting on arguments like skep or determinism or paradoxes, but they must have a sufficient level of warranting when they are first introduced. Every argument you make needs to be a complete argument with a warrant that I can flow. All arguments should also be tied to specific framing that tells me how to evaluate them within the larger context of the debate. Also, be upfront about your arguments. Being shady in cx just makes me mad and sacrifices valuable time that you could spend explaining your arguments.

Independent Voters - I think arguments should only generate offense through specific framing mechanisms. Somewhat tied into this I feel incredibly uncomfortable voting on people's character or using my ballot to make moral judgements about debaters. I also don’t want to hear arguments about events outside of the round I am judging. If something your opponent did truly makes you feel unsafe or unable to debate, then you should either contact me, your coach, tab, or the tournament equity office. We can always end the round and figure something out.

Background

I'm a 3 time NSDA/NCFL qualifier and now coach LD. I like this stuff - fun, isn't it?

General Preferences

If you won this round, you probably 1. gave me a coherent lens through which I can gauge what is important and 2. weaved a story of the round using that lens. LD is about creative weighing, much like how we interact with complicated ideas in the real world - we don't just do an in-depth cost-benefit analysis each time we make a decision, we apply multiple standards and evaluative measures to reach a conclusion (often totally subconsciously).

Basically - I should be doing as little work as possible. I don't want to intervene or even really think when judging an LD round. If you make the story clear to me, I'll vote for you.

Speed

I can handle any speed, but nobody can handle you being incoherent - I'll give you a good ol' fashioned "clear" if you're attempting to go faster than you're capable of going. Good rule of thumb: if you feel like it's necessary that I read along to understand you, it's probably because you're unintelligible, not because I'm too old and slow.

Rounds being competitive really matters to me. This means that stylistic alignment between the two debaters is necessary to create good LD. Seeing as traditional LD is by far the more common and accessible style, if your opponent is only capable of traditional LD, that is the style I expect to see in the round. I will never punish a locally active debater for not being competitive against the increasingly inaccessible and abstract style found at national circuit tournaments.

Theory

Point out the abuse (assuming it's real) and move on. Do not make it the crux of the round. Win on substance.

I will never vote for time skew theory or anything that accuses your opponent of some form of prejudice (unless they've openly and intentionally said something prejudiced).

Kritiks

I'm actually stealing this directly from one of my all-time favorite NC LDer's paradigms because it was so perfectly written - thanks to Derek Brown of Durham Academy.

"Kritiks, like theory or topicality, are a way of questioning the pre-fiat implications of your opponents' position. As a result, Kritiks must link to a practice your opponent performed, and there must exist a relatively predictable/reasonable way your opponent could have anticipated or predicted that this practice was bad. For example, I will not vote on an argument saying "the aff doesn't address black feminism", because it is unreasonable to expect the aff to read black feminism every round."

I will add that I generally do not enjoy Kritiks that you read every single tournament (and yes, I'll know if you do) - think Cap Ks, Colonialism, etc. - they aren't competitive and generally rely on tenuous links back to the topic. If you didn't have to write it specifically for the current resolution, don't run it. I have to listen to like...6 LD rounds every weekend. I don't want to hear the same stuff every Saturday.

Bonus

Make this fun for me. Be entertaining. Be funny.I get so excited when I see good LD - if you've got a distinct style, good coverage, and I leave the round feeling like I did very little work...I'm a happy camper.

I'm looking for clear arguments that have been articulated at a slow pace. I'm also looking for debaters who efficiently counter their opponent's central arguments.

My involvement in debate began 4 years ago when my daughter started in the club. I have a very numbers based and analytical background. Using numbers that you can back up will be the thing that most sways my thinking. I don't mind a fast talker but you need to be clear. If I cannot understand what you are saying you can't convince me of your arguments.

I am a layjudge. Do your best to persuade me!

I really enjoy hearing thoughtful arguments from young people. The talent on display in these tournaments gives me hope for our future!

1) Manage your time well

2) Be prepared with material for evidence

3) Respect your opponent

4) Effective communication rather than speed is key

5) Use logical reasoning to strengthen your points

Please speak clearly and control the speed. A clearly structured case wins points. The logic between your criteria and arguments is the key to me. Your performance of refutation and defense is also important.