For debate: Quality of the argument and evidence is paramount, but presentation and confidence can add to the quality of the argument. Make sure to support your arguments with evidence, and respectful debate is always a must.

For speech: Presentation and flow is important. Make me feel something by using good examples in an impactful way. It should feel organic and natural, not rehearsed.

Hi my name is Joe Atkin he/him. I have never judged before but I'm looking forward to it! I will be paying attention to a general attempt at memorization, delivery, weight, the content of the speech itself, grammar, and pacing

- Please make sure that I can follow the round and can easily understand what your arguments/points are.

- I don’t like spewing or spreading, if I can’t understand you then I can’t judge based upon the arguments presented. I will also knock off a couple of speaker points for this if it gets to a point where I can’t follow your arguments.

- I like evidence but I do want to see that you have a clear understanding of the topic you are debating.

- I will be flowing Cross. During Cross I want to see that you understand the topic.

- Personal attacks are a big No no.

I was a debater in high school, and I have loved debating ever since I started in the 9th grade. As I judge I am looking for convincing evidence and confidence. As long as your evidence is convincing, and you are confident about your case, you will get my vote.

When I was a High School student at Mountain View H.S. in Orem Utah. I participated in Policy Debate. After graduating, I then went on and was accepted on the University of Utah's debate team and competed in the NDT Circuit for a year. After graduation, I volunteered several times to judge high school debate tournaments as an alumnus for MVHS. Much later I became involved with debate again with Skyridge High School as the assistant coach.

I love a good policy debate! I have come to appreciate and respect Public Forum. I also have a fondness for Lincoln Douglas as I was initially a Philosophy and Political Science major at the UofU before moving into Computer Science. I will judge Individual Events, but I feel inadequate at times in this area.

Speed of speaking is not an issue for me. I will flow the entire round save perhaps the rebuttal speeches. I do request that the speaker is able to face the judges and also have their mouth be visible. I am somewhat hard of hearing and having a visual indicator of speech helps me understand better. Clarity should not be sacrificed for speed. If you cannot speak clearly at high speed you should slow down. I will not penalize teams who speak more slowly and thus are required to group arguments. The most persuasive argument should win regardless of speed of delivery.

I try to be a Tabula Rasa style judge and leave my personal political leanings outside of the room. I will vote for arguments that I find distasteful if I believe that they have been presented clearly and persuasively and the alternate team has not defended well against them. I count myself as a politically moderate independent.

I will vote for Topicality arguments if they are presented well. I will vote for a Kritik. I will vote for a Counterplan. I would prefer to have clash though and see a good policy debate. I do not mind tag team cross examination. Please be respectful of one another.

I prefer to disclose and give oral critiques if I am allowed to by the tournament organizer.

Best of luck to the competitors and participants! My goal is to help spread debate and critical thinking. Even if I vote against your team, I hope that you have a positive experience.

For email chain exchanges please use vbillings@entangling.net

Hi! I'm Keri (she/her); put me on the file share: keri.j.brown@gmail.com

Overall in every event, I'm looking for a round where debaters are respectful of each other and clearly outline every argument. If you are rude or I can't understand you, your speaker points will drop dramatically.

Policy: Please, make your speeches clear. This means do not spread. If I can't understand your argument, I won't flow it, and you very likely will lose. You should favor good, fleshed-out arguments over a hundred nitpicky things that your opponent can't respond to in time.

I want a lot of judge instruction - it's not my job to remove or extend arguments for you. This means I want impact calc and explanations of why your arguments outweigh your opponents'.

I have judged policy before, but techy jargon (especially in more theoretical arguments like kritiks) is relatively unfamiliar to me so please give thorough explanations for all the nuances of your arguments.

The more progressive, the higher the bar. If you're going to run a fancy, complicated argument about capitalism, you're really going to need to flesh out why I should vote for it over the actual topic.

LD/PF: Progressive debates are not my thing. Traditional arguments would be best; pick a couple of good arguments to go with and clearly explain them. I will not tolerate spreading, and complicated jargon must be thoroughly elaborated upon.

Please make sure you are talking clearly and concisely so I can easily understand your arguments.

Please sign post so it is easier to follow the round so I know which specific argument you are attacking your opponent.

Hey guys!

My name is Katja and I’m a Junior at BYU studying Music Education. I was Miss Salem 2022 and I'm very involved in the Miss America Organization :). I was a speech captain of my debate team in high school and I've competed in every single event offered.

Speech paradigm: Be creative, be concise, and be organized. Be well rehearsed: no "um" or other filler words. I will judge roughly 60/40 on content/performance. Keep me interested and show me you can think well on your feet. Show me why I should listen to you.

Debate paradigm: I can follow spreading as long as you are clear and organized. Please don't spread unless you can do so well. don't try to go fast if it means tripping over your words. Keep in mind, you're here to communicate! I will judge based on quality of arguments and how well you refute and defend all the arguments. I also am looking for organization(line by line rebuttals). Be respectful, but I don't mind jokes or having fun with your opponents or the rounds. i don't always flow cross however it does show me the knowledge and understanding you have of your own research and case. If you think it was important in cross it needs to be addressed in the next speech or it will be considered dropped.

You got this!!

-Kat :)

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].

My name is Cheryl Davies, I may be a parent judge, but I work in financial forensics, so don't think you can lie to me.

truth > tech

• Please do not spread. I need to hear your arguments in order to judge you properly.
• I expect clear argumentation for your warrants (not just evidence, show me that you understand the evidence)
• Aggressive cross is appreciated but please be respectful of each other
• I won't flow cross so if you want to have me judge based off an argument made there, bring it up in rebuttals
• Don't steal prep time - quickly start and stop your timer
• Please time yourselves
• Stay away from personal anecdotes, I won't be giving pity points
• Don't make race or gender arguments unless you can directly correlate them to the resolution
• I won't vote for you just because you feel "personally victimized" (unless there's a legitimate ad hominem fallacy) - arguments like that take away from the debate and I consider them abusive

Ks:

If you're going to run a K, make sure it's flushed-out and has a strong link that you clearly articulate.

Theory:

I'd prefer if debaters stay away from theory arguments and stick to the content under the resolution (no disclosure or frivolous theory please)

Tricks:

No.

If you make me laugh, I'll give you an extra speaker point.

Hello, my name is Tamara Townsend Faucette. I am an energy and environmental attorney. I really enjoy judging and am so impressed with the intelligence and professionalism of the competitors. Things I look for:

1) Energy- whatever side you are arguing, step fully into that role and persuade me that it is your preferred position. Often the passion and energy of a competitor shows their preparation and enthusiasm for the topic. Persuade me that you should win.
2) Responsive- Show your flexibility and depth of knowledge by specifically attacking your opponents case with logic and evidence.
3) Respect- A vigorous debate is encouraged but please maintain the highest level of professionalism and respect.

I have judged a lot of debate events. I do not mind spreading as long as I have a copy of the brief. If you plan to spread put me on the email chain.

I appreciate off-time roadmaps. Please do not spread during off-time roadmaps--that is a chance for me to understand your organization. Use words not lingo in your roadmap--it does not count against your time.

I do not like a ton of lingo or abbreviations, especially in policy debate. I understand the lingo but I would rather hear your analysis in full words not abbreviations.

Your debate experience will serve you well and build resilience. I hope you enjoy the process! Thank you, Tamara Townsend Faucette

As a judge I am looking for three things.

1. I want to see that you care about the round. Show up on time (as much as you are able and is possible given how tournaments run). Be kind and respectful to your opponents and the host school.

2. I want to be able to understand you. I do not like spreading, and you will get likely get low speaker points if you do this. The most common feedback I give is, "slow down when you speak."

3. I am also looking for precision. I want to see that you know what you're talking about and make it very clear what your arguments are.

I don't mind critiques (or "Kritiks" as I believe you debate kids call them) but I want to see that you have good evidence.

The most important thing for me is that you are able to do your best. Please take the time you need to set up your notes, laptop (as permitted), table, water bottle, etc. I know you have put a lot of work into speech and debate and I want you to be able to improve after every round. If there is anything specific I can do to help you be at your best, please let me know.

I have a lot of experience judging LD and PF. This is my first time at nationals. While I have not judged World Schools before, I did use to work at the Houses of Parliament in London, so I am familiar with the general format.

DEBATE GENERAL: I am not a fan of spreading/spewing; if I cannot understand the speakers, I cannot judge based upon the arguments. Fast is fine as long as enunciation is clear. If it gets to the point where I cannot flow, I will judge you based upon presentation alone. During cross, I want to know that you can answer the question, not only rely upon cards. I prefer a civil debate; it makes my job more difficult if I have to discern between what you're saying and how it's presented.

CON: I expect a debate. Unless it's the first aff/neg speeches, I do not expect canned speeches. I am not a fan of voting blocks to keep people low on priority because I think it's important to see how everyone is doing, not just the select few who are better at networking. That being said, if the debate is not being furthered because there are no new arguments or clash and the same speeches are given over and over again, I welcome a motion to PQ to move the session along. I expect the Chair to know the basics, like Robert's Rules, as well as the Orders of the Day, and keep everything running smoothly.

PF/LD: I am looking for evidence but I also want to know that you understand your cases. In LD, if you are going to run a CP, make sure all of the components are there. While a criterion is not required, I do prefer that you have one. In PF, if there is a framework, I expect it to be upheld.

CX: While the biggest impact is important, it should be a realistic one. I am not a fan of spreading or Cap Ks.

I judged many years of debate and IE events except policy. I can handle any speed but do not like the speed of progressive policy. Every event has its rules and structures, I like road map and framework, they help a lot to see whether the person or the team is sticking with their flow.

LD, l look for things that whether the value and value criterion line up with their contentions. Evidence credible or not. Speaker has the fire along their speech or argments but not sound yelling?

PF, team needs to know their topic well. Time management on speech whether things are well organized by FW or flow, evidence always important in PF. Wrong information under my knowledge, definitely out some points from me. Plan should not be spending time during in PF, it is not policy event. Speaker point should be high with high convincing tone and voice but not yelling.

Please do not spend time in rule argument, I want hear your opinions on the topic!

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 like to see clear and concise arguments. I prefer speech at a normal speed. I do not like debaters talking so fast that it is difficult to understand. It is not a speed competition. I appreciate it when you cite your sources because debate should be based upon facts. I strongly dislike speed talking or spreading. I am 100% deaf in one ear so I need you to speak clearly.

I have judged several debate tournaments and judged at the national tournament in 2023 in Phoenix, Arizona.

I participated in debates for three years and competed in Policy, PF, and LD. As a non-biased judge, I will evaluate your ability to argue and defend your position. I don't care if your case is more left-wing or right-wing. To me, that isn't what makes a good debater. I know how to flow, and I can follow a case that is either progressive or traditional.

If your contentions directly attack the opponent's then I will see it as an equal clash which means I'll begin weighing the Framework, Theory, and Impacts of your case. I always see a lack of Framework & Impact Calc, if you don't have one, please create one. If you present on that is outlined, structured, & isn't dropped, it'll become a major voter for your case.

Gabe McDaniel

I look at comparative advantages. If a needs case is used it must solve for the harms. I’ve been known to make decisions on topicality when warranted. However if a case is topical doesn’t mean you win the round.
I competed in HS and College and coached for several years with state champions and national qualifiers. I’ve judged HS and college tournaments in CA, Utah, Texas, and Nevada. I flow the debate and can handle speed pretty well. However since I only judge a few times a year now I may not know all the acronyms that are unique each year.
don’t just read the evidence. Tell me how it applies and to what extent. Make your arguments.

For Policy:

I tend to be fairly progressive and will listen to most arguments you run.
With that being said, I don't typically vote off of T.
Kritiks are all good (as long as you know what you are doing).
Framework and voters are a big deal and I base the round off of these typically. Tell me why you should win. Go down your list of arguments, tell me why your opponent didn't beat them, and which ones are of greatest importance.

Most importantly, have fun and be respectful.

I am an experienced debater on the high school and collegiate levels. I'm a flow judge who likes to see quality arguments. Please signpost your speeches and let me know where to put your arguments on the flow. I vote on the flow- so please don't just stand up and talk. (It helps if you are flowing too!) I appreciate it when you are respectful to your opponents. I understand and know the rules of each debate event.

I am very experienced with individual events and am fine judging any of them.

Experience

I am a new Speech and Debate coach, so I am still learning the ins and outs of each event. Feel free to clarify times, norms, or format for your event if you would like to. I have been teaching English for 10 years, so I know a great argument when I hear it.

What I like to see

I look for organization, logical arguments, and compelling examples. Dynamics in your pace, tone, and expressions are crucial. Being pointed but respectful during cross x is important! I prefer a roadmap and, ultimately, I am looking for the most logical well well-developed framework in debates.

What I don't like to see

I do not like to see overly aggressive behavior in cross x, logical fallacies, or extremism on either side. I do not enjoy speakers who fall into a monotone and expressionless script. Help me feel connected and passionate about your case!

I participated in speech and debate in high school and have been judging for a few years. My paradigm comes from Aristotle. I am looking for pathos, ethos and logos. Pathos- Is there an emotional connection? Is it personal? Why should I care? Ethos-Are there reasons to support your credibility? Logos- Do you have a logical and reasonable argument?

More specific to Debate: I understand that debaters have a lot of evidence to present, but if you speak so fast that I do not know what you are saying than you will likely rank lower. It is important that you know how to pronounce words, otherwise it doesn't seem like you know what you are talking about. It is vital that you cite sources to support your case. I will be flowing and trying to give weight to arguments that best carry through. Please avoid personal attacks. ln LD, your case is stronger if the value and criterion line up with contentions.

Dislike: nitpicking about rules.

I expect everyone to be respectful of one another, in speech and in action, during speaking and listening.

My name is Jonathan Spencer. I would like to applaud you first and foremost for dedicating the time to such a useful and enriching activity. I am a proud member of generation X and don't believe in voting straight ticket in any election. I have a graduate degree from Westminster College of Utah and I work in the financial services sector. Some of the items I will be looking for when I am evaluating your round or event:

1-Preparation. Chance favors those who have spend the time to prepare and put in the hard work to have a successful round.

2-Passion. I want to be moved to feel why your point of view is relevant and valid even if I may disagree with you.

3-Decorum. Its important people are treated with respect and show validation even when a point of view is not in alignment with your own perspective.

4-Be concise. I am not counting words & I'm not overly sensitive to the time you use (however some judges may be).

5- Politics. It is not important to me what political slant you bring into your topic. As stated earlier I want to sense your passion and energy from your presentation. My assessment of you is not swayed by your political views and this does not factor into my evaluation. However I am very interested to learn & become informed from your perspective. Please do not alter your words or content by compromising yourself on the grounds of trying to pick up points by appealing to what political lenses you believe I want to hear.

I'm looking forward to hearing what you have worked so hard to prepare and eager to be a part of your adventure in your next round.

JS

I want to be able to hear your case and not read it. Speak clearly and distinctly. Back up moral arguments with evidence. I like hearing the why and how. Make it make sense.

Novice judge committing to approach each round tabula rasa. Thank you for the opportunity.

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.

1. Clarity and Organization:

• I expect speakers to articulate their arguments clearly and concisely, ensuring that their points are easy to understand to a generally educated and informed person.
• Organization is crucial; I look for a clear structure in speeches, with a logical progression of ideas and smooth transitions between points.

2. Content and Argumentation:

• Substance is paramount. I evaluate the strength of arguments based on evidence, logic, and reasoning.
• I appreciate originality and depth in analysis, as well as the ability to anticipate and respond to counterarguments effectively.
• Arguments should be relevant to the topic at hand and supported by credible sources where appropriate.

3. Delivery and Style:

• Delivery encompasses both verbal and nonverbal communication. I pay attention to vocal variety, tone, pace, and gestures.
• Engaging the audience is essential. I appreciate speakers who exhibit confidence, passion, and charisma while maintaining professionalism.
• Style should complement substance; eloquence and creativity can enhance the impact of an argument, but should not overshadow its substance.

4. Rebuttal and Refutation:

• Debaters should demonstrate active listening and critical thinking skills during rebuttals.
• I value the ability to identify weaknesses in opponents' arguments and provide cogent responses supported by evidence or reasoning.
• Rebuttal should be respectful and focused on the substance of the argument, avoiding personal attacks or irrelevant tangents.

5. Adaptability and Flexibility:

• Competitors who can adapt their arguments and strategies based on changing circumstances or opponent tactics demonstrate versatility and agility.
• Flexibility in adjusting to time constraints, format variations, or unexpected challenges reflects maturity and preparedness.

6. Ethical Conduct:

• Integrity is non-negotiable. I expect competitors to uphold ethical standards, including honesty, respect for opponents, and adherence to the rules of fair play.
• Plagiarism or any form of cheating will result in severe penalties.

7. Overall Impact:

• Ultimately, I evaluate each performance based on its overall impact – the effectiveness of the argument, the persuasiveness of the delivery, and the engagement of the audience.
• While technical proficiency is important, the ability to inspire, provoke thought, or evoke emotion can elevate a speech or debate from good to exceptional.