I debated for a number of years during the late 1980s in policy and extemp. I currently am a college professor that coaches students on effective presentations and evidence based research.
I prefer clear arguments that are well supported by credible sources.
Delays due to unorganized cards are discouraged. Decorum and respect for others is important.

Congress: rehash is discouraged, respect for others is important, balanced debate is always possible, acknowledging other competitors by name when responding or extending arguments is a nice touch.

I have experience judging since 2022 and have judged about 7+ rounds. Judging is based on looking for following criteria:
Content: organization of speech, evidences, language used

Pace of speech: very important

Projection and Posture during speech

Pronounciation

Eye contact with audience (not glued to the paper)

NSDA endorsed speech coach.

For speech: I view judging speech events the same way that I view casting a play or musical. I have a problem: determining who is the best competitor in the event. The competitors have the solution. Be confident. Make a choice - even if it's not a great one. Present the best of yourself and your skills in that moment. Much like theatre, I want to see a well rehearsed piece with the "illusion of the first time."

I will strive to provide you with positives and areas for improvement.

For debate, I am looking for a clear, logical argument and line of reasoning, well supported with unquestionable sources. Deliver with the skills and confidence of a speech competitor. Solid counterarguments and a good defense/response to questioning moves you ahead in the rankings.

I haven't competed in this event in almost 10 years. But spreading is heavily discouraged. If I can't understand your argument, it doesn't matter.

PF - I like arguments that are clear and concise. I haven't researched this topic before, don't open your first speech by spreading and inferring I already know what's going on, help me out. Try to have some character in your speeches, I don't want to judge robots, I want to judge competitors. I truly appreciate a team that can explain their whole side and tell me why their side wins over the other team. As a World Schools Debate coach, I love their world vs. our world schemes.

Above all, be nice and have fun! I will dock points if you are unnecessarily rude to your competition. They're kids just like you, it's just a tournament!

Congress - In terms of speeches, I appreciate speeches that aren't clearly 100% prewritten (besides first speeches, obviously). Incorporate the other sides arguments into your speech, saying "As Rep./Sen. said..." will earn you respect on my end. Just like PF, however, I don't like spreading and I certainly don't like preachers. I don't want a speech full of rhetoric that mirrors Katniss Everdeen, I want a speech that has character, sure, but also a speech with numbers and facts.

In terms of questioning, give the person you're questioning time to answer, and don't talk over people. Make sure your questions actually add something to the debate and aren't just there to give yourself speaking points. Iwill add extra speaker points based on how you do in questioning (if you give a speech), so keep that in mind as you debate.

As I mentioned in my PF section, I care more that you have fun, so be nice to your fellow competitors, please! Being unnecessarily rude will dock points!

Hello, I'm Shoma Kalikkot Veetil, a high school teacher who teaches Physics and Chemistry. It's my first time judging a debate. I'll be looking for clear and strong arguments supported by good examples. It's important to speak clearly and be respectful to everyone. A well-organized speech with a clear plan will help me understand your points. Remember, everyone is learning and growing, so do your best and have fun!

I have over twenty years experience working for the NC Department of Public Safety. I teach a Law and Justice elective at Cuthbertson HS. I enjoyed working in the criminal court system and appreciate those of you that have the skills to make good oral arguments. I place a value on respecting other opinions and proper decorum. It is much harder to make a good point about an unpopular opinion, therefore I take notice the level of difficulty. Lastly, I feel it is very important to be able to adapt to the current debate.

I am the Director of Forensics and head LD coach at Cary Academy. I would describe myself as a neo-traditionalist. I follow a traditional approach to LD with some notable exceptions. I am a typical traditionalist in that I prefer a debate centered on a common sense, reasonable, good faith interpretation of the resolution; and I believe speakers should emphasize effective communication and practice the habits of fine public speaking during the debate. I differ from many traditionalists in that I am not a fan of the value premise and criterion, and that I do not believe that LD arguments have to be based on broad philosophical concepts, but rather should be as specific to the particular resolution as possible. If you want to win my ballot you should focus on developing a clear position and showing how it is superior to the position put forth by your opponent. You should not attempt to make more arguments than your opponent can respond to so that you can extend them in rebuttal. In my opinion most rounds are not resolved by appeals to authority. The original analysis and synthesis of the debater is vastly more important to me than cards. For further insight on my views please consult these following articles I have written for the Rostrum:

http://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/ld%20Pellicciotta0202.pdf,

https://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/Luong%20RJ%20PresumptionNov'00.pdf

I am a former High School and College competitor in both speech events and congress. I have 4+ years of judging experience and love being a part of this process.  I appreciate thoughtful, respectful competitors.   I do not appreciate competitors that speak too quickly or who are dismissive of other competitor's questions or comments.  I appreciate creativity and generally don't reward formulaic or overly choreographed presentations.

Congress: Speeches should not just be read. Ideal is performed without reading except for statistics. Each speech should add to the conversation, not just rehashing. Perspective should be of a representative not a speech and debate participant. Try to give specific examples of people or events when possible. Stats should add credibility and value to the speech. Use the space you are provided, don't just stand in one place. Voice should be clear, audible and most importantly, confident. Questions should be direct and relevant. Approach to questions should be assertive but professional. Participation is key.

Debate: Focus on clear points that support your argument. Voice should be clear. Clarity over speed. Rebuttals should show understanding of the issue and dissect the argument. All arguments should be tied back to value premise.

SPEECH: Clarity above all. Clear voice. Clear transitions and clear story. I want to be immersed in the presentation. Create imagery using your voice, posure, and pantomiming (Where applicable).

I appreciate poise, confidence and intentional movement.

Please be prepared.

I appreciate statistics and they must be cited with source and date/timeframe.

Respect for each other is required.

I have been speaking professionally in the corporate and academic spaces for 15 years, and I've taught rhetoric and argument for over a decade at both the university and high school level.

With that background, my focus is on actual debate of ideas through well-formed, well-delivered arguments. Rhetoric is the art of persuasion, and I expect to be persuaded, not bombarded with as much information as possible.

I do not want to hear spreading. I will drop you for attempting it, or simply attempting to speak as fast as possible. Having more arguments does not equate to having a better argument. You don't have to speak slowly--I can keep up--but there should be no speed talking.

Similarly, I have no patience for debating about debating. We participate in Speech and Debate because we believe people can arrive at consensus and solutions through expressing and debating ideas in the real world. We should, therefore, debate about the real issues. I will easily recognize and drop you for debate tricks or arguing the theory of debate/theory shells.

I want to hear clear warranting and impacting from evidence that establishes a logical progression, logic which avoids tautological traps, reductive debater math, and slippery slope/post hoc/complex cause fallacies (PFers, enough nuclear holocaust). I weigh on soundness of cause and effect, not the effects themselves.

I can judge off flow and of course expect weighing, but I'm much more focused on you proving your argument is stronger, not proving to me that your opponent didn't respond correctly, or why it is that I shouldn't choose their argument, so avoid focusing solely on the flow.

Feel free to run k and bring in critical theory, but please know that I have a PhD in critical theory, so if you run it you better be able to prove you know the theory itself and not just some reductive version of it. Proof that you're running a frame you don't understand will get you dropped.

Finally, I expect each competitor to treat their opponent with respect and decency. Any aggressive tactics or bullying (cutting off, talking over in cross, verbal reactions during opponent's speech, etc.) are frowned upon and can lose you the round.