For PF I like to see good quality evidence first and foremost. The team that appears to use the best evidence in the most honest way will most likely receive a winning vote from me.

In LD, evidence is still good, but should not be the focus of the debate. Getting bogged down in a credibility debate with respect to evidence, to me, doesn't seem to be in the spirit of LD debate. My vote in LD rounds will go to the debater that has the better reasoning and better utilizes their value and criterion, with quality and quantity of evidence taking a back seat.

The Debate section:

I’m a fairly relaxed judge.

I prefer professional round etiquette because it shows that you don’t rely on cheap tactics to give you the win. I will judge the round on your main speeches so don’t solely rely on crossfire to make yourself seem cool. Organized argumentation and explanations for evidence are the most effective way to sway me to your side. I’m not a big fan of straight BS. I prefer you to tell me why your BS matters.

Tell me what I should judge the round on.

Don’t rely on me to time for you, give you time signals, or provide an accurate flow. I will try my best to give time signals if asked but I most likely will forget so please don't rely on me. I can provide better critiques overall if you let me just judge you.

SPEED! I am NOT a huge fan of speed talking, I will be ok if you do talk fast. just know that I am not here for it. I want to understand what your argument is.

Grace periods are fine as long as you don’t abuse them. Just finish your thought and stop.

I won’t mainly judge on crossfire, but I can’t stop my ears from hearing your BS (so, please don’t make them bleed).

The Speech section:

This is something I love. So I am very excited for your performance.

I love stories and acting. JUST HAVE FUN and share the message of your story. Act confident when you are on stage. It helps, trust me. I just want to know what I should take away from your speech. please blow me out of the water with your acting and topic.

I believe that having a memorized script is more important than any other aspect. After that, I value characterization and then the cream on top is choreography.

I will let you know if you are almost out of time so you can have your grace period.

About me:

I was a captain of my high school debate team for 3 years ;)

I competed primarily in speech my first year and took home lots of super shiny HI, POI, and DI trophies. I’ve heard and said a lot of BS in my years so if you’re going to rely on it at least make it worth hearing.

In my second year, I ventured into the realm of debate. I could’ve done better. But in the end, Congress stole my heart...and my patience. I also tried LD.

In my third year...everything changed! I leveled up in Congress. Awful —> Mediocre. I dropped LD in the trash and never looked back but BS will always be my closest frenemy.

The part that is of the utmost IMPORTANCE.

Be nice. It’s ok to destroy your opponent but please do it nicely. Also, have fun. Debate isn't the most important thing in the world, so just enjoy it.

If you have any questions about the round or want to tell me I’m an awful/hilarious judge, go ahead.

p.s. If you read the whole thing before round come tell me what you think I could change about my paradigm to make it better. Also, tell me what you think about theater. (I'm going into theater (design) as my major)

DEBATE EVENTS:

I am a practicing attorney who occasionally moonlights as a debate judge. Over the past 30 years I have watched competitive debate deteriorate from a program of teaching students effective communication to a program contrived to win rounds by any strategy, including so-called "progressive" tactics that are designed to confuse and overwhelm opponents with tangential and obscure minutia rather than inform and persuade judges with impactful, well-reasoned argumentation.

This is ironic because in real life, in a real courtroom, I will only win a trial if I win the hearts and minds of the jury---presenting artfully crafted arguments that accentuate my personal ethos, while balancing appropriate appeals to logic and passion. If I tried to "spew" or "spread" my arguments to a jury, I would lose the case. If I tried it in front of a judge, I would get kicked out of the courtroom! If I tried to win every case by overwhelming the judge, jury and counsel with every "card" I ever stumbled upon (even remotely related to the case), I would lose all my cases and my clients with them.

The same goes for nearly every other professional communicator. No teacher would teach that way. No news broadcaster would report that way. As far as I can tell, the only job opportunity available to a "progressively" trained debater is to deliver the annoying legal disclaimers at the end of tv & radio commercials.

I realize that my views are hopelessly outdated. No one reading this paradigm statement will ever select me as "1" on a judge preference sheet. Nevertheless, if you have the bad luck of getting me in a round anyway, here are some tips about how to get my vote:

(1) Speak at a normal, conversational rate;

(2) Look me in the eyes;

(3) Begin with a clear, real-life illustration of how the Affirmative or Negative case effects real people;

(4) Make me laugh;

(5) Make me cry;

(6) Make me care;

(7) Help me understand what the resolution means;

(8) Help me understand why your ideas are right;

(9) Help me understand why your opponent is wrong; and,

(10) Organize your ideas in a way that makes sense.

I realize that this rhetorical model is profoundly outdated (it is in fact about 2,500 years old). Nevertheless, in the spirit of learning something useful (rather than simply winning another piece of shiny plastic today for speed-reading), please give these ideas a try!

SPEECH EVENTS:

Many Debaters [and coaches] consider speech events to be "throw-away" events---something to do when debaters are not in a "real" debate round. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Speech events teach students about the power of pathos---of making human connections. They provide a wonderful balance to the logos-heavy debate events. To capture my vote [or the vote of most ordinary human beings], a student must be prepared to do the following:

(1) Begin with a clear, real-life illustration of how your topic effects real people;

(2) Make me laugh;

(3) Make me cry;

(4) Make me care;

(5) Help me understand what you mean;

(6) Help me understand why your ideas are right;

(7) Help me understand why any competing viewpoint is wrong [or "misinformed"]; and,

(8) Organize your ideas in a way that makes sense.

Don't be intimidated by all of this this [if you happen to be a hard-core, card-flipping, evidence-stacking debater]. Instead, embrace the opportunity to learn a new [and equally real] way of communicating in a way that focuses on building human connections [rather than squabbling over obscure, marginally-relevant minutia].

Hi! I'm Lydia and I love debate. I competed all throughout high school and placed at state in Foreign Extemp and Interps. I regularly competed in policy, but I'm familiar with all events. I also did theatre and won Speech and Drama Sterling Scholar for my school. In general, presentation is key. If your arguments aren't presented cleanly and efficiently, it makes them difficult to listen to and understand. This applies to both speech and debate events. In a speech event, I want to see creativity and originality. Show me your passion! Nothing can convince me more than a passionate speaker. Most of all, be confident but kind. Good luck!

I’ve coached debate in a fairly rural school for three years, but had no prior debate experience. I’m an English Major with an Emphasis in Rhetoric and composition. In other words, I know a lot about argument and organization, but I’m still learning a lot about the world of debate. As a result, I tend to judge based on argument, organization, and presentation over technicalities. If you’re communicating clearly, though, I can keep up with whatever you throw at me, and will not hold my preferences against any team/speaker who truly advances the better argument/case.

For Everyone: Be respectful toward all opponents/speakers.

Lincoln Douglas:

I prefer traditional arguments that are primarily focused on the resolution.

I will weigh my decision heavily on who is able to consistently uphold a moral argument.

Evidence is important for backing up theoretical/philosophical claims, but LD is less concerned with what is practical and more concerned with what is moral/ethical/right. In other words, if an argument is plausible despite difficulty, it still holds value so long as it progresses the moral agenda connected to the value. Your evidence is important, but only so far as it supports your moral line of reasoning. Moral claims DO need concrete evidence, though, to demonstrate applicability in the real world. Otherwise we are engaging in purely philosophical and hypothetical debate.

A good argument is one that is clear and easy to understand. I prefer a clearly established value and criterion, but a clear argument will sometimes sufficiently imply one or both.

Delivery is important, but the argument itself is more important for advancing your case.

I prefer clear speaking at a reasonable pace, but will not hold speed against the debater with the stronger case as long as I can understand it.

Don't rely on me to read your case to understand it. I should be able to understand what you are saying by listening to you in the round.

Speech Events (Oratory):

I’m looking for your overall purpose and your ability to engage an audience via your performance. My priorities are:

1. Clarity of argument’s purpose.
2. Clear line of reasoning/structure.
3. Stage Presence/Command
4. Importance/Relevance/Impact of Topic

Speech Events (Dxtemp):

I look for your ability to clearly and efficiently address the prompt. Judging priorities:

1.Clarity of answer to question

2. Structure/organization of argument

3. Quality/specificity of evidence

4. Presence/Delivery

I look for strong evidence and firm speaking. Confidence is everything!

Philosophy:

I believe debate is not only a competitive activity but also a powerful educational tool that sharpens critical thinking, public speaking, and research skills. My primary goal as a judge is to create a fair and constructive environment where all debaters can learn and improve.

What I Value:

1. Clarity and Organization: Arguments should be clearly articulated and well-organized. Signposting and road mapping help me follow your case structure and argument progression.
2. Evidence Quality: I prioritize well-researched, credible evidence and expect debaters to explain its relevance and impact on their arguments.
3. Engagement: Direct engagement with the opponent’s arguments through refutation and rebuttal is crucial. I appreciate when debaters systematically address and dismantle opposing points.
4. Speaking Style: While persuasive and clear communication is important, I prioritize substance over style. However, debaters should strive to be understandable and engaging.

Topicality and Framework:

I expect the affirmative team to present a case that is topical and adheres to the resolution. Framework debates should be clear and directly impact how I evaluate the round.

Argumentation:

I am open to a wide range of arguments, including policy proposals, critical arguments, and kritiks, as long as they are well-explained and directly relevant to the debate at hand. Logical consistency is important to me.

Cross-Examination:

Cross-examination periods should be used effectively to clarify, challenge, and set up arguments. Respectful and strategic questioning is valued.

Decision Making:

My decision will be based on the flow—whichever team more effectively advances their arguments and negates their opponent’s points will likely earn my ballot. I consider dropped arguments as conceded, but their impact on the round must be articulated.

Feedback:

I provide detailed feedback focusing on strengths, areas for improvement, and the reasoning behind my decision. I aim to offer constructive criticism that debaters can use to enhance their skills.

Conduct:

Respectful conduct towards opponents and judges is mandatory. I will not tolerate any form of misconduct or disrespect.

Final Note:

Debate is a learning experience. I encourage debaters to take risks, be creative, and most importantly, enjoy the process. Feel free to ask me any questions before the round starts.

Written in collaboration with ChatGPT.

I’m a parent of a student enrolled in Debate. So I feel as if I’m an outsider looking in. Me being an outsider looking in is going to make you work a little harder to win my vote.

About me, I manage a 911 call center. For the past 23 years, I’ve talked to many people over the telephone. Some of which are having the worst day of their lives all the while I’m having an ordinary day. Based on my experiences, the following are some of the ways you can get my vote.

(1) Speak at a normal, conversational rate;

(2) Look me in the eye;

(3) Begin with a clear, real-life illustration of how the Affirmative or Negative case effects real people & get to the point QUICKLY;

(4) Make me laugh;

(5) Make me cry;

(6) Make me care;

(7) Help me understand what the resolution means;

(8) Help me understand why your ideas are right;

(9) Help me understand why your opponent is wrong; and,

(10) Organize your ideas in a way that makes sense.

Basically, I don’t care for speed readers. If I wanted to hear speed reading, I’d go listen to Scatman John (He’s on YouTube)

And remember, let's enjoy what we are here doing today. At the end of the day, we're all on the same team.