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.

Hello,

I look for clear concise communication. I don’t mind spreading but if you are so fast that I can’t keep up or understand you I will be unable to correctly score you. Please keep it civil, to me and your opponent. If you have a question please feel free to ask me but do not interrupt your opponent.

Good Luck!

I'm new to judging so I probably won't be impressed by crazy tactics. Don't be rude to your opponent and help me understand your case and you'll do well. Speak up, don't fidget and have fun!

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

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.

My judging paradigm aligns most closely with the Stock Issues paradigm, but with a nod toward the Appearance paradigm. Logically reasoned negative arguments can singularly defeat reasoned affirmative arguments. Presentation is also important, so clarity of speech and projection is paramount, whereas speeding/spreading should be avoided.

My judging paradigm aims towards speaking skills and communication. I want to observe an organized presentation that is well structured and flows with a beginning, middle and end. Persuasion should be articulate backed up with references and reliable data, and presented arguments need to be appealing. Pace should be at a level that the listener is able to follow along and understand speech.

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 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!

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

Tabula Rasa, for the most part. I will reject on my own truly absurd arguments, and I highly value analysis over just card-spewing.

Spread is fine; I did policy in high school and parliamentary debate in college. BUT if your tags are unclear and I don’t get them on the flow, they essentially don’t matter. I don’t share in the email chain of cards. It only matters what is delivered in the speech; I should not have to rely on an email chain to get some clarity about what you are talking about.

If you can’t spread clearly, don’t do it at all.

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.