Please talk slow and do the timing yourself if you can.

Debate: I did three years of high school debate, mainly in Public Forum. I've also competed in Congressional Debate and I am familiar with Lincoln Douglas. I can follow faster speaking but I'd rather have arguments clearly delivered than a larger number of arguments delivered quickly and potentially underdeveloped. I try to flow the round as much as possible, and much of my decision is informed by weighing impacts and examining clash. I appreciate efforts to link arguments and evidence through the round. I hope my feedback can help identify ways to strengthen your argument presentation. I want everyone to have a positive learning experience through debate, which can often be tense and intimidating, so please maintain a respectful atmosphere and do not disrespect your fellow competitors.

Speech: I am not an experienced speech judge, but I've competed once in US Extemporaneous Speaking and have observed various speech events. I appreciate when a speech flows well and I enjoy hearing your interests and personality present in your speech.

The Tabula Rasa and Comparative Advantage paradigms stand out as exemplary models of speech tournament judging due to their respective virtues and strengths, which converge to uphold the highest standards of fairness, rigor, and intellectual engagement in adjudication.

With its commitment to impartiality and intellectual objectivity, the Tabula Rasa paradigm serves as a bulwark against bias, favoritism, and undue influence in speech tournament judging. By approaching each round with a pristine intellectual slate, judges ensure that debaters are evaluated solely on the merits of their arguments, evidence, and performance, free from the distorting effects of personal preferences or preconceived notions. This paradigm fosters a fairness, equity, and transparency culture, instilling confidence in participants that their efforts will be judged with the utmost integrity and impartiality. Moreover, the Tabula Rasa paradigm promotes intellectual humility and open-mindedness among judges, encouraging them to embrace diverse perspectives, styles, and debate approaches, enriching the academic discourse, and fostering a culture of intellectual curiosity and exploration.

Similarly, the Comparative Advantage paradigm embodies the pragmatic ethos of speech tournament judging, empowering judges to discern the relative strengths and weaknesses of competing arguments and performances systematically and rigorously. By employing a comparative framework, judges can adjudicate the dynamic interplay between opposing viewpoints, identifying strategic advantages, rhetorical flourishes, and tactical maneuvers that distinguish one side from the other. This paradigm fosters a culture of excellence and accountability, incentivizing debaters to strive for mastery of their craft and to engage in rigorous preparation and strategic planning. Moreover, the Comparative Advantage paradigm promotes intellectual rigor and critical thinking skills among participants, as debaters are encouraged to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate competing arguments in light of their relative merits and weaknesses.

The Tabula Rasa and Comparative Advantage paradigms constitute a formidable framework for speech tournament judging, embodying the ideals of fairness, rigor, and intellectual engagement at the heart of the debate community. By embracing these paradigms, judges uphold the highest standards of integrity and professionalism, fostering a culture of excellence, accountability, and intellectual curiosity that enriches the educational experience for all participants.

I am a parent judge. I enjoy judging debate competitions and listen to well-thought out cases and arguments. Beyond your primary case, I pay special attention to how well you defend questions about your contentions, how well you pose questions to your opponents in Crossfire, and how clearly you speak in an organized way. Good luck and Happy Debating!

I am a parent Judge.

I've judged public forum debates for a while now, so I'm familiar with common positions and arguments. Please speak at a moderate pace and slow down for taglines and author names.

I'm an open-minded judge. Sticking to the resolution is crucial, and creative thinking is valued. However, the ability to handle strong arguments and deep thinking is just as important.

Remember, let's keep the focus on the topic and have a constructive exchange of ideas. Good luck to both teams!

As a lay judge, my primary focus is on clarity and comprehension. I come to the debate with an open mind but limited familiarity with debate jargon and speed.

• Speed Limit: I have a strict speed limit of 150 words per minute. If you exceed this speed, I will drop you. Clear and articulate speech is crucial for me to understand and evaluate your arguments effectively. Please speak slowly and clearly to ensure I can follow your points.

• Clear Explanations: Please explain your arguments thoroughly and in a way that is easy to follow. Avoid technical jargon or, if you must use it, ensure you define and explain it clearly.
• Structure: A well-organized speech with a clear roadmap is highly appreciated. Signposting your arguments helps me follow along and understand the flow of your case.

• Impact Calculus: Rather than a barrage of impacts and blocks, I prefer fewer, well-explained impacts with clear weighing. Explain why your impacts matter more than your opponent's.
• Sources: Use credible sources and explain their relevance. Good sources that are well-integrated into your arguments will weigh heavily in my decision.

• Weighing: Effective weighing is key. Tell me why your arguments are more significant in the context of the debate. Comparisons between impacts (magnitude, probability, timeframe) are very helpful.
• Relevance: Make sure your arguments are directly relevant to the resolution and the round. Avoid tangential points that do not contribute to the core of the debate.

• Respect: Maintain a respectful and professional demeanor towards your opponents and me as the judge. Courtesy goes a long way.
• Engagement: Show that you are engaged and listening to your opponent's arguments. Refute them directly and provide counter-analysis where necessary.

By adhering to these guidelines, you'll help me make a fair and informed decision. Clear, well-explained arguments with a focus on weighing and credible sources will be most persuasive in my evaluation.

Lay judge, have judged many rounds. Speak at reasonable pace ie not too fast, please be clear on our main points and impact weighing.

I am new to judging. Please speak slow and clear and actively interact with the warrants of each argument. Good luck and have fun!

I am new to debate. I will appreciate debaters to speak clearly and not to speak too fast.

Moss (Mikey) MacPherson

Former National Qualifier from Midland Legacy Highschool

Please do not spread at all. I am a former debater, but my specialties were speech and interp. I want to understand you well and see that you know what you are talking about. I also believe that if a strong speaker has a weak argument that is caught by their opponent, the strong speaker can easily lose the round; I am not afraid to give a low point win. I also may seem harsh in my critiques, but I am trying to give you the information that will help you in later rounds.

Lay judge, have judged many rounds. Speak at reasonable pace ie not too fast, please be clear on our main points and impact weighing.

Hi! My name is Joe, I'm a political consultant and former high school debater (Public Forum, Congress, LD; c/o 2017). I have a professional background in health policy, democracy, and congressional oversight, and I studied public policy and human rights in college and grad school.

Judging priorities: Strong and topical arguments, clear and cogent speaking, constructive debate, respectful exchange, critical thinking.

Preferences: Moderate speaking tempo, clear roadmaps. I keep a detailed flow and appreciate well-structured speeches/rebuttals, but I'm open-minded and generally defer to students on voting issues, framework/value criterion, etc. Technical language or jargon is fine but be careful with acronyms.

• Public Forum: No plans or counterplans, no new evidence in final speeches; cards are essential and subject to judge review if a dispute arises.
• Policy/LD: If used, Kritiks should be carefully integrated with the topic. Students should name and directly challenge relevant aspects of the systems or structures in question.
• Congress: Participation and engagement is my top priority, but I usually prioritize quality over quantity when it comes to speeches.

BACKGROUND:

• HS (4 years) Speech/Congress/Parli/PF. College (1 year). Speech coach (5+ years). Worked with multiple flow debate programs. Debate is fun! 

• DEBATE PHILOSOPHY:

• Debate provides students an opportunity to be passionate advocates on any given topic by means of using clear communication. Utilize unforgettable rhetoric, teach me something new, and always play by the rules. Most importantly, make sure to be extremely respectful of one another!

MY JUDGING CRITERIA:

I am heavy on flow. I love responsiveness and crystalization. Make it easy for me to follow you.

• Jargon: I’d prefer students not use it for purposes of clarity. I’m sure audience members, your judge, and your opponents would appreciate this as well. One of the main ways to receive good speaker points from me is to always treat each other with respect.

• Value: You should always link your arguments to value. Otherwise, your arguments don’t have as much weight from my view. If you can also demonstrate how your arguments work under your opponent's value, that’s a bonus.

• I appreciate off-time roadmaps. I don’t mind “spreading” (fast speaking), but make sure to slow down and enunciate tags and citations. Also, if I find the entirety of your speech to be filled with unnecessary diction, I will frown. Why? Word economy. Lastly, you will note that I stop flowing as soon as the following occurs: information previously stated is being brought up once more, I cannot understand the speaker or your argument is not making sense to me.

• Theory: Not a huge fan of T. If you decide to run theory in your case, do know that I will always make my decision based off of what I feel is most important in debate; the educational experience. I avoid making a decision based off of my own personal beliefs or experiences.

• If you decide to run a Kritik (should the tournament allow it) I would appreciate your case most if it still acknowledges the round. Stressing a K without continuing to be a part of the entire debate is too dull. Not only should you be clear as towards why the other team is diminishing the value of the debate by means of what they are communicating, but you should also demonstrate that you care about the entirety of the debate.

• Throughout the debate, you should aim for pinpointing weak arguments and fallacies. Make it easy for me to flow arguments and be specific. Refer to the flow when covering your opponent's case in rebuttals. More specifically, you should cover all sub-points mentioned in each contention.

• Often times, competitors do not cover an entire contention and generally cover an argument - no. Simplify the process of me disregarding an argument entirely. In rebuttal speeches, cover something that has not been covered before. Do not present old news to the table.

Email: cherellestevens86@gmail.com

My name is Cherelle and I am a paralegal, with 12 years of experience in my field- my practice areas being, personal injury, criminal law, tax law, wrongful death and slip and falls. I intend to go to law school next Fall.

I have competed in Speech for 4 years and Debate for 3 years during high school (2004-2008). I am also a national competitor, placing sixth in the nation, at Bradley University.

My judging experience includes Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Duo/Dramatic Interpretation, Oratory and Prose/Poetry.

I take a lot of notes during rounds. Don't worry, I can keep up.

Your arguments should be clear, convincing, and evidence based. I am not a fan of spreading.

Please maintain respect for everyone in the round. With that said, please note, I appreciate "spirited" debates. Convince your opponent and myself that you have WON, hands down!

I will be paying attention to the quality of the arguments and the competitor's ability to use their knowledge to think on their feet quickly, respond to the opposing side's points effectively, and use clear and convincing evidence to support their side.

Good luck! Let's debate!

Hi, nice to meet you. My name's Lena ! I have a background in medical, business, and tech. I've been judging debate for 7 years working with Brooks Debate Institute in Fremont, CA.

Judging Preferences:

- I appreciate a strong framework, fair definitions, and I love to be given clear standards by which I should weigh arguments and decide rounds. Tell me how to think.

- I prefer when an argument is backed up with factual evidences through cited sources and quantitative data. If there's no real evidence, then it's just an opinion at this point.

- Final speeches of ANY debate I watch should emphasize voting issues. Tell me how I should weigh the round and explain which key arguments I should vote for - Please DO NOT repeat the entire debate.

- Speed: I'm okay with some speed, but I ABSOLUTELY HATE SPREAD. You should be concerned with quality of arguments over quantity. If you're reading more than 250-300 words per minute, you're probably going too fast. Can't win if I can't hear your arguments properly.

I participated in debate and speech in high school and have 7+ years of experience in judging debate, including several national qualifier tournaments. I appreciate a fast talker, but only if you can still speak clearly. I flow the rounds and tend make decisions after re-reading my notes after the round (likely flowing stock issues as the round goes). Showing respect to your teammate and opposing team is paramount to me, but I appreciate a strongly made/passionate argument. I am looking for the most logical argument overall (what team made the most sense), but ability to explain yourself in your own words and confidence in knowledge are close seconds. If I can tell you know what you are talking about, it will go far. Secondly I appreciate a powerful public speaker who holds my attention and has ability to explain abstract topics with ease and efficiency. I will always vote for the team that made the most sense - even if I don't think that team was "right". I don't love topicality arguments but if it is going to be claimed, claim it early and back it up quickly. I appreciate creativity and confidence.