Content: Evidence & Arguments - 75% of the points

Style: Including clarity, speed, & respect - 15%

Structure: Flow 10%

I was an LD and PF debater all 3 years of high school, dabbling in events such as Oratory, Informative, Duo Interp, and World Schools. Overall, be respectful, take care of your opponents, and take care of yourself. I do struggle sometimes with audio processing, so please speak clearly and for the love of everything on earth, do not spread/spew. You can run whatever you'd like, I love seeing unique arguments. The most important thing is to do your best and enjoy what you do. :)

Overall, have clear links, and make sure you can access your impact. If your link doesn't lead to your impact, I can't weigh it. Your scope and impacts should be clearly shown in round. Signposting is important, so please do so. I won't flow cross, I don't think it's important for me to do so, but if there's something important that's said then feel free to bring it up in a speech. Do your weighing throughout the round, not just in the last speech.

I can give oral critiques, but I will also be giving comments in your ballot. If you want a more in-depth paradigm for your event, look below or ask before the round starts.

Lincoln Douglas:
I like a more morals/value debate. If I can see that one side has won based on the value and criterion debate, as well as the morals debate, then they will win the round. Don't try to sell me on "this won't pass through [insert legislative branch]" because I won't buy it. LD is morals and values-based, stick to that. If you're running a Kritik, ask your opponent if you can run it first before asking me. If they decline, honor that.

Public Forum:
Uphold your framework throughout the round, or else there's no reason to weigh it. I don't appreciate seeing competitors interrupt each other rudely during grand cross, so please be courteous and respectful to both your teammate and your opponent.

Policy:

I have no experience in Policy, so if there is a chance I'm judging your Policy round, please just walk me through it. Give me a copy of your case, you can use jargon I don't mind. But I trust that you know what you're doing.

Speech events:
Do well! I think it's silly to have a paradigm for speech events, but if you are a speech kid and are happening to look at my paradigm, then do well! Do what you know. Have confidence, and most importantly have fun.

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.

Lincoln Douglas

I have been judging speech and debate tournaments for five years with the bulk of my experience focused on speech events. I have an extensive background in political consulting, speech writing and public speaking. I prefer a more traditional approach with a comfortable conversational speed. However, I am fine with rapid conversational style speaking mixed with spreading IF your value criterion, definitions (important) and contentions are clear and audible. I prefer quality over quantity so, if you plan to spread make sure the plethora of information is necessary. In other words, I'm more impressed with those that provide the most content using the fewest words.

Although a charismatic presentation can often sell your argument on the surface, in LD I am more influenced by your content. I can appreciate passion in your arguments provided you are being respectful to your opponent. I tend to prioritize value criterion and contention level arguments. I'm open minded to progressive arguments but they are not preferred.

I love a good CX! Your questions matter. I tend to give high marks to those that can strategically ask questions that require simple answers. Furthermore, those that can take control of the CX by respectfully not allowing their opponent to beyond the scope of the question, will also gain high marks from me. I believe there is a strategy to an effective cross and I am paying particular attention to those that make those most of their time.

I give speaker points from 25 - 30. Please feel free to ask questions before the round begins.

I am a parent judge. I do not like you to speak way fast. It helps me when you recap at the end.

I am a new judge.

This paradigm will summarize my preferences as a judge and what I often look for when judging a round.

Topicality - I look for the degree of which an argument addresses the topic at hand and how transformative it is towards an individual's perception of an issue.

Delivery - I look for confidence, vocal tone, and how fluid the argument is presented. For example, including short pauses to ensure their point comes across properly and ending their sentences on a lower pitch when the statement is not a question.

Appeal of an Argument - I look for arguments that have copious aspects to them for the purpose of making them memorable: These include expressing intertwined emotional and rational arguments, how the passion of a speaker reflects their points, and the impression they give of how important the issue is to them.

I like clear, reasoned arguments. Good construction of cases that are thoroughly understood and that flow well. Data is really key-don't just pull something out of thin air-give good rationale/data to support it. As long as your impacts and contentions pertain to your criterion and are consistently portrayed you have a strong case. Don't mention the criteria early on, and then fail to tie it in cohesively through the entire case. Good eye contact.

Decorum is paramount!

Please remember this if nothing else. I like to see good flow and obvious preparation with your case, topic, policy or presentation. In impromptu and extemporaneous I want to see your personality and natural instincts on display. I really prefer you take your time and use the grace period after to wrap up your sentence or thoughts so I fully understand and get your message as intended and not be left to assume.  I want to see good compete out of opponents and respectfully aggressive approach. Again decorum is huge with me. Being actively engaged in the entirety of every round is something I look for. You can always be learning from those around you.  And lastly have fun! I am grateful for each of you and for all of your hard work.

Lincoln Douglas:

I look for debates that produce a philosophical argument. While statistics can be an important part of this form of debate, it should not be the main source for the arguments. Quotes from philosophers (I define this as any public figure with an opinion) should be the main source of evidence in debates.

Correctly pointing out valid logical fallacies in your opponent's argument will help to greatly weaken it.

I also need to be able to understand you and comprehend what you are saying, so make sure you speak at a normal pace.