I have been judging various events for 2 years. I always try to bury any personal knowledge or belief about topics and judge solely on what is presented in the round by the debaters.

I look for well-defined arguments that are educational and don't assume previous knowledge. I prefer hearing fewer well-defined arguments than a litany of arguments that are spoken at a rapid pace to deliver as much information as possible. I strongly prefer a debater to not use spreading as a method of debate, it sounds like jibberish to me.

I look for respect toward opponents. I like a natural flow of speech and a tone that is passionate but not shrill.

I care most about students being effective speaker. Spreading or cramming in as much information as possible will not be the reason you win and will most likely inhibit your ability to win. Being an effective speaker that effectively conveys their arguments, points out flaws in their opponent's case, and is a persuasive speaker with strong rhetoric skills will bode well.

Parent judge, please slow down and explain your arguments clearly.

Sending docs would be nice but you don't have to - xhm1031@hotmail.com

Hi all! I am the Head Coach of Speech and Debate at Pinecrest High School in North Carolina. I am a former extemper with pretty deep knowledge of the happenings in the world.

LD & PF

--I am fine with speed, but remember with speed comes the risk I won't get it on the flow. If you see me stop typing/pen is no longer writing/I am staring blankly at you, consider that your cue to slow down.

--Make sure to differentiate your sourcing. Authors' last names are great, but tell me where the source comes from first. John Doe from the Council on Foreign Relations in 2022 sounds better than Doe 22. After that, you can refer to the source as CFR or Doe and I'm good on what you are referring to.

--Please weigh. Please. You have to do this in order for me to be able to determine a winner.

--Respect. Respect your opponents, partner (if in PF), self, and the host school. Competitive debate is a great activity; but you must maintain some sense of decorum throughout your time in the round.

Congress

--When you go to an in-house recess to determine splits, or inquire as to why no one is speaking, you have done yourself and your fellow competitors a disservice by not being prepared. Please avoid this as much as possible.

--I'm fine with rehashing arguments to a point, but you need to add more evidence to support this rehashed point. Something niche and unique that can catch the opposing side off guard.

--Presiding Officers: thank you for volunteering to run the chamber. Please only defer to the parli when you are unsure of certain procedure.

I have judged Speech rounds from local to Nationals, and I have been included in Debate, Congress, L-D and PF competitions.

The opportunity for me to judge at Nationals several times has been exciting and very rewarding!

I want to be able to understand you, please speak clearly. My expectations for this

event are:

Disrespect is never ok, be fair to each other and treat people as you would like to be treated.

Be kind, to others as well as yourself.

Logical, clear arguments are appreciated!

"Don't raise your voice. Improve your argument." Desmond Tutu

Philosophy Overview: In evaluating Lincoln-Douglas debates, I prioritize clear, logical argumentation supported by evidence and reasoning. I value debaters who engage respectfully with their opponents and the topic, showing a deep understanding of the issues at hand. Speaking with speed is fine, but make sure your points are clear and understandable.

Framework: debaters should establish a clear value criterion and framework that logically supports their case. They should use this framework to guide their arguments and demonstrate how their case upholds the value criterion better than their opponent's.

Contentions: Debaters should present well-structured contentions that are supported by evidence and reasoning. I value depth over breadth, so I prefer to see fewer, more developed arguments rather than a large number of shallow ones.

Rebuttal: In rebuttals, debaters should directly engage with their opponent's arguments, pointing out flaws in reasoning or evidence. I value responsive arguments that adapt to the opponent's case rather than pre-scripted responses.

Cross-Examination: Cross-examination should be used to clarify arguments and expose weaknesses in the opponent's case. I value respectful and productive cross-examinations that focus on substance rather than trying to score points.

Speaker Points: I will award speaker points based on clarity, persuasiveness, and strategic thinking. I value debaters who can communicate their arguments effectively and engage with the audience.

Final Thoughts: Overall, I am looking for debaters who can think critically, communicate clearly, and engage with the topic and their opponents in a meaningful way.

I value strong logic and comprehensibility above all else. Fancy words and complicated arguments are great but if I cannot understand you, then... ya I cannot understand you. If you can accomplish all four of these things at the same time, then I'll love you.

Stay present in the round (e.g. questioning, motions) and keep it interesting. I appreciate good rhetoric and strong, probing questions.

For POs: if you do your job, keep mistakes to a minimum, and truly run a fair, fast, and efficient chamber, then you'll rank well on my ballot.

Best of luck!

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

This is my third year judging LD as a parent judge. Please add me to the email chain: omicsoft@gmail.com

Preference: Traditional or Policy-oriented arguments > Mainstream Critical=Mainstream Philosophy > Theory > Esoteric concepts that can't be explained fully within the time limits.

I prefer traditional rounds with straightforward weighing and voter issues. I value clear logical connections between your arguments and your impacts. Furthermore, I will not extend anything for you. Please sign post, give an off-time roadmap, and try to stay organized.

Under any/all conditions on a lay circuit:

• No spreading
• No theory
• No tricks
• No spikes
• No Ad Hominem
• No Bigotry/Disrespect

For progressive debaters -

• Limit speed to <250 wpm for ALL your speeches - you don't need to email me your rebuttal speeches.
• DAs/CPs are perfect
• Keep your DAs topical

Good Luck!

Rachel Mauchline

Durham Academy, Assistant Director of Speech and Debate

Previously the Director of Forensics and Debate for Cabot

she/her pronouns

TL;DR

Put me on the email chain @ rachelmauchline@gmail.com

speed is fine (but online lag is a thing)

tech over truth

Policy

I typically get preferred for more policy-oriented debate. I gravitated to more plan focused affirmatives and t/cp/da debate. I would consider myself overall to be a more technically driven and line by line organized debater. My ideal round would be a policy affirmative with a plan text and three-seven off. Take that as you wish though.

Lincoln Douglas

I've judged a variety of traditional and progressive debates. I prefer more progressive debate. But you do you... I am happy to judge anything as long as you defend the position well. Refer to my specific preferences below about progressive arguments. In regards to traditional debates, it's important to clearly articulate framework.

Public Forum

weighing.... weighing.... weighing.

I like rebuttals to have clear line by line with numbered responses. 2nd rebuttal should frontline responses in rebuttal. Summary should extend terminal defense and offense OR really anything that you want in final focus. Final focus should have substantial weighing and a clear way for me to write my ballot. It's important to have legitimate evidence... don't completely skew the evidence.

Here are my specific preferences on specific arguments if you have more than 5 mins to read this paradigm...

Topicality

I enjoy a well-articulated t debate. In fact, a good t debate is my favorite type of debate to judge. Both sides need to have a clear interpretation. Make sure it’s clearly impacted out. Be clear to how you want me to evaluate and consider arguments like the tva, switch side debate, procedural fairness, limits, etc.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

This was my fav strat in high school. I’m a big fan of case-specific disadvantages but also absolutely love judging politics debates- be sure to have up to date uniqueness evidence in these debates though. It’s critical that the disad have some form of weighing by either the affirmative or negative in the context of the affirmative. Counterplans need to be functionally or textually competitive and also should have a net benefit. Slow down for CP texts and permutations- y’all be racing thru six technical perms in 10 seconds. Affirmative teams need to utilize the permutation more in order to test the competition of the counterplan. I don’t have any bias against any specific type of counterplans like consult or delay, but also I’m just waiting for that theory debate to happen.

Case

I believe that case debate is under-covered in many debates by both teams. I love watching a case debate with turns and defense instead of the aff being untouched for the entire debate until last ditch move by the 2AR. The affirmative needs to continue to weigh the aff against the negative strat. Don't assume the 1AC will be carried across for you throughout the round. You need to be doing that work on the o/v and the line by line. It confuses me when the negative strat is a CP and then there are no arguments on the case; that guarantees aff 100% chance of solvency which makes the negative take the path of most resistance to prove the CP solves best.

Kritiks

I’ll vote for the k. From my observations, I think teams end up just reading their prewritten blocks instead of directly engaging with the k specific to the affirmative. Be sure you understand what you are reading and not just read a backfile or an argument that you don’t understand. The negative needs to be sure to explain what the alt actually is and more importantly how the alt engages with the affirmative. I judge more K rounds than I expect to, but if you are reading a specific author that isn’t super well known in the community, but sure to do a little more work on the analysis

Theory

I’ll vote for whatever theory; I don’t usually intervene much in theory debates but I do think it’s important to flesh out clear impacts instead of reading short blips in order to get a ballot. Saying “pics bad” and then moving on without any articulation of in round/post fiat impacts isn’t going to give you much leverage on the impact level. You can c/a a lot of the analysis above on T to this section. It’s important that you have a clear interp/counter interp- that you meet- on a theory debate.

Hi! I'm Nitya! I've done debate since middle school and all the way through high school. I've competed in PF briefly (<1 year) and I did Congress for about 4 years at Southlake Carroll (TX). I'm currently a freshman undergrad student at UNC Chapel Hill.

What I look for in Congress:

*New and unique arguments tend to make the debate more interesting; be creative with what you're saying (I do not have a preference for a certain type of argument)

*Clash in your speeches is essential. Especially in later speeches, do not just repeat what has already been brought up earlier in the round without adding anything new to it.

*Fluency, enunciation, and non verbal communication/presentation matter!

*Have a good balance between evidence and commentary; I want to hear solid analysis but make sure you have sources to back it up

*Prioritize both content and presentation! Even if your presentation is great, if your content doesn't make sense, I won't rank you as high.

*Participate in questioning! I judge you based on not only what you present but how you interact with what others present. (Congress isn't just about the speeches you give but it is also about your presence in the round. I will largely take into account how much you contributed to the quality of the overall debate)

*PO's performance will be taken into account. I will judge based on understanding precedence, parliamentary procedures, and moving the debate along in general.

Overall, be respectful and have fun! Excited to see y'all in rounds!

Overview

Hi, I am Jacob Palmer (he/they). I did 4 years of policy at Emory. I also did 4 years of LD at Durham and have coached at Durham since I graduated. I mostly judge LD but occasionally find myself in a PF or Policy pool, so most of this paradigm is targeted at LDers. Regardless of the event I am judging though, I will do my best to adapt to you and evaluate the round solely off the flow. TDLR: Don’t cheat. Be a good person. Make real arguments. Do those things, and I will adapt to you.

Add me to the chain: jacob.gestypalmer@gmail.com. I won't backflow off the doc, and I will yell clear or slow if needed. Docs should be sent promptly at the round start time.

Feel free to read the arguments that interest you. If you make warranted arguments and tell me why they matter in the broader context of the debate you will do well. I will evaluate any argument that has a warrant, clear implication, and isn't actively exclusionary. I am tech in that I will keep a rigorous flow and evaluate the debate solely off that flow, but there are some limits to my tech-ness as a judge. I will always evaluate every speech in the debate. I will not evaluate arguments made after speech times end. I think arguments must be logically valid and their warranting should be sound. I think lazy warranting is antithetical to technical argumentation. As a logical extension of that, spamming arguments for the sake of spamming arguments is bad. Reading truer arguments will make your job and my job substantially easier. I won't vote on something not explained in round.

Be a good person. Debate often brings out the worst of our competitive habits, but that is not an excuse for being rude or disrespectful. Respect pronouns. Respect accessibility requests. Provide due content warnings.

Since other people do this and I think its nice to respect the people that helped me in my own debate journey, thank you to the all the people that have coached me or shaped who I am as a debater: Jackson DeConcini, Bennett Dombcik, Allison Harper, Brian Klarman, DKP, Ed Lee, Becca Steiner, Gabe Morbeck, Mikaela Malsin, Marshall Thompson, CQ, Nick Smith, and Devane Murphy. Special thanks to Crawford Leavoy for introducing me to this activity.

Specifics

Policy – Advantages and DAs shouldn’t be more complicated than they need to be. Plan and counterplan texts should be specific and have a solvency advocate. Spec is fine against vague positions but the sillier the shell the harder it will be to win an actual internal link to fairness or education. I'm generally fine with condo, but the more condo you read the more receptive I'll be to theory. To win the 2ar on condo the 1ar shell needs to be more than a sentence. Judge kick is fine, but I won't do it unless you tell me to. The 2nr in LD is not a 2nc. If your 2nr strategy relies on reading lots of new impact modules or sandbagging cards that should've been in the 1nc, I am not the judge for you. To an extent, carded 2nr blocks are fine, e.g. when answering a perm, but all the evidence you should need to win the 2nr should just be in the 1nc.

T – Don't be blippy. Weigh between interps and show what Affs, Advantages, DAs, etc. are actually lost or gained. The worst T debates are an abstract competition over ethereal goods like fairness. The best T debates forward a clear vision of what debates on the topic should look like and explains why the debates based on one interpretation of the topic are materially more fair or educational than others. I think affirmatives should generally be predictably limited. I think functional limits can solve a lot of neg offense if correctly explained.

K – These debates are also probably where I care the most about quality over quantity. Specificity matters - Not all Ks are the same and not all plans are the same. If your 1nc shell doesn’t vary based on the 1ac, or your 1ar blocks don’t change based on the kritik I will be very sad. I generally think I should vote for whoever did the better debating, but y'all are free to hash out what that means.

More often than not, it seems like I am judging K debates nowadays. Whether you are the K debater or the Policy/Phil debater in these rounds, judge instruction is essential. The 2nr and 2ar should start with a clear explanation of what arguments need to be won to warrant an aff or neg ballot and why. The rest of the 2nr or 2ar should then just do whatever line-by-line is necessary to win said arguments. I find that in clash debates more than other debates, debaters often get lost in extending their own arguments without giving much round-specific contextualization of said extensions or reasons why the arguments extended are reasons they should win the debate. You need to tell me what to do with the arguments you think you are winning and why those specific arguments are sufficient for my ballot.

Non-T/Planless Affs – I am happy to judge these debates and have no issues with non-t affs. Solvency is important. From the 1ac there should be a very clear picture of how the affirmative resolves whatever harms you have identified. For negatives, T USFG is solid. I’ve read it. I’ve voted on it. Turn strategies (heg good, growth good, humanism good, etc.) are also good. For T, I find topical versions of the aff to be less important than some other judges. Maybe that’s just because I find most TVAs to be largely underdeveloped or not actually based in any real set of literature. Cap and other kritiks can also be good. I no qualms evaluating a K v K or methods debate.

Phil – I love phil debates. I think these debates benefit greatly from more thorough argumentation and significantly less tricks. Explain your syllogism, how to filter offense, and tell me what you're advocating for. If I don't know how impact calc functions under your framework, then I will have a very hard time evaluating the round. If your framework has a bunch of analytics, slow down and number them.

Theory – Theory should be used to check legitimate abuse within the debate. As with blatantly untrue DAs or Advantages, silly theory arguments will be winnable, but my threshold of what constitutes a sufficient response will be significantly lower. Slow down on the analytics and be sure to weigh. I think paragraph theory is fine, but you still need to read warrants. I think fairness and education are both important, and I haven’t really seen good debates on which matters more. Debates where you weigh internal links to fairness and/or education are generally much better. I think most cp theory or theoretical objections to other specific types of arguments are DTA and really don’t warrant an RVI, but you can always convince me otherwise.

Tricks – If this is really your thing, I will listen to your arguments and evaluate them in a way that I feel is fair, granted that may not be the way you feel is most fair. I have found many of the things LDers have historically called tricks to be neither logically valid nor sound. I have no issue with voting on arguments like skep or determinism or paradoxes, but they must have a sufficient level of warranting when they are first introduced. Every argument you make needs to be a complete argument with a warrant that I can flow. All arguments should also be tied to specific framing that tells me how to evaluate them within the larger context of the debate. Also, be upfront about your arguments. Being shady in cx just makes me mad and sacrifices valuable time that you could spend explaining your arguments.

Independent Voters - I think arguments should only generate offense through specific framing mechanisms. Somewhat tied into this I feel incredibly uncomfortable voting on people's character or using my ballot to make moral judgements about debaters. I also don’t want to hear arguments about events outside of the round I am judging. If something your opponent did truly makes you feel unsafe or unable to debate, then you should either contact me, your coach, tab, or the tournament equity office. We can always end the round and figure something out.

This is my fifth year as a parent speech and debate judge, most of which has been spent judging public forum and lincoln douglas debate.

Please be respectful of your opponent and your judge. Please follow the rules and treat everyone fairly.

I appreciate speaking that is reasonably paced so that I can follow your arguments, so a little quicker than conversation-paced speaking works best for me. You will have enough time to make your arguments without rushing through them. I will listen carefully to your evidence, and to me, a few pieces of strong evidence are far superior to a lot of weak evidence.

I have little knowledge of your topic and have not prepped so do not assume that I know the literature, arguments, or acronyms.

Please convince me with good evidence and a carefully made argument.

Include me on the email chain please: jessie.pein@duke.edu. I really prefer speech drop tho.

Hey! I'm Jessie Pein. I debated for Harrison High School in Harrison, New York. I primarily debated on the national TOC circuit, but I am also familiar with traditional debate (attended both NCFL nationals and NSDA nationals '21). I qualified to the TOC junior year and senior year, broke my junior year, and I have 11 career bids. I worked at both NSD Philly and NSD Flagship this past summer. I mostly read topical Ks, soft left affs, and some T/Theory; but I'd strongly prefer if you debated your best layer, the way you'd like to (and will be disappointed if you read something just because you think I'll like it). I will evaluate almost every argument as long as it has a claim, warrant, and an impact. Be kind, show respect to the activity, and most importantly, have fun reading what you want to read! Additionally, feel free to email me after round!

Harvard Update '24: I won't vote on music related theory. If I can't hear you, I can't flow you, so this is more for you then it is for me.

Shortcut:

1. Ks
2. Phil
3. Theory
4. Policy/Tricks

Random:

I have learned to appreciate a good skep/determinism 2NR. This doesn't mean you should auto read this argument; I am just noting that my debating history might lead you to believe I do not evaluate these arguments, which is untrue.

I am definitely the worst judge for a policy vs. policy debate or a heavy tricks round.

Novice rounds:

1. weigh. your. impacts. please. novice rounds get irresolvable super quickly, so using weighing in your speeches is necessary (probability, magnitude, etc.)

2. signpost! please tell me when you're extending your arguments, or when your responding to your opponent's. if you're responding to the AC, tell me that's what you're doing.

3. give voters! write my ballot for me. if you're giving the 2AR, respond to their voters and interact.

4. do not steal prep. if i see you're stealing prep, i will say something.

Basically, just do what you're good at. Keep me entertained. Happy debating!

If you have any questions about anything written here, please don't be afraid to ask! Debating as a novice can be scary, so i'll try to provide as much feedback as possible in my RFDs. also, +.1 speaker points if the email chain/speech drop is ready to be sent ahead of time.

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

gsangal@gmail.com- Please doc share to ensure I don't miss anything.

Hello, my name is Gorav. In a round, feel free to address me as judge. I am your normal Flay judge. I hope to see you all present good, well-structured arguments, and rebuttals.

I am very inclined to logic-based arguments but have nothing against emotion-based arguments.

My main tip for you to be able to win me over is to signpost and clearly weigh your arguments. Tell me why I NEED to vote for you. Again I can't stress this enough, WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. I need to know why Aff/Neg is better. Another tip to win my point is the level of eye contact and emotion.

I heavily will draw the most points from the 2NR and 1AR, but that doesn't mean you can fall behind on your other speeches.

Speed - keep it at a little faster than talking speed at most for constructives. On rebuttals, you can go a bit faster.

For circuit - I don't know what it is, but I am open to the new experience. The only issue I may have with it is I might not be able to follow.

Overall, I see debate as a fun and inclusionary activity.

I'm looking for clear arguments that have been articulated at a slow pace. I'm also looking for debaters who efficiently counter their opponent's central arguments.

1. What is your experience level? Have you been actively coaching or judging, and how long? How often have you judged rounds on this topic?

This is my first-year judging for the forensic team. I have experience judging some speech categories, but I have mostly judged for PFD. This is my fourth competition this year. I have experience in public speaking and have been trained on both the military side and civilian side in various types of public speaking.

2. Describe your preferences as they relate to debaters’ rate of delivery and use of jargon or technical language.

I recognize that every team is coming from a different demographic and are performing at different levels due to their coaches and their styles. It is a lot of information to fit into a short amount of time and I try to be mindful of that. I want each person to come in and speak at the rate they are comfortable, but please be mindful that I must be able to understand the words you are saying. I judge on the ability to effectively defend your position and I give grace to you when you fumble because I recognize that you are told which side you are debating shortly before you walk into the room. However, I do not enjoy when people give up and state words like “I do not know” or “probably” or “maybe.” You are supposed to be prepared to debate both sides and should have done research on the topic.

3. Describe your personal note-taking during the round. Do you write down key arguments? Keep a rigorous flow?

I’m not a big note taker. Do not take it personal, it is how my brain works. I do not like to be distracted with writing notes during any meeting or interaction I have because I want to be able to listen, observe, and take it all in. I’m a reflector. I write your name as soon as I get in the room and confirm who you are. I will write down single words here and there when there is something specific that I want to be prompted to mention about your performance.

4. Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Are there certain delivery styles that are more persuasive to you?

I value professionalism and follow through. I recognize everyone is different and everyone communicates differently and therefore, I do not have a preference on style.

5. What are the specific criteria you consider when assessing a debate?

I consider whether the team committed to their side and were able to properly defend it throughout or did they get flustered and change their stance continuously when the other team pushed back. I evaluate their professionalism based on how they interacted with their opponents and how respectful they were of each other during crossfire.

I have judged PF debates since 2020. I use computer to take notes of key points delivered. I value the logic in arguments more than style. Balanced defense and offense win debate. I expect each team to show respect to the opponent. Argue with facts and logic instead of rhetoric.

I have been judging LD debates since October 2021 as a parent judge. While English is my second language, I have been in the country for more than 20years and am a professor in the field of marketing. Therefore, I don't expect you to purposefully slowdown just for me.

Some basic principles I follow for the judging:

1) Logic and impact come as the most important factor for winning the debate;

2) Techniques matter: please speak at a reasonable speed to clearly communicate your evidence and arguments in an organized manner;

2) Professionalism is the bottom line: be respectful when responding to the opponent's questions or arguments;

3) Enthusiasm and energy will be always appreciated.