I am a parent judge who will let competitors structure their cases within the framewrok of the event rules as they see fit. Points will be awarded/deducted based on the following:

Logical Arguments & Evidence: The most important element of my scoring is to present fact based arguments with supporting evidence. Quality of the arguements is more valuable than quantity.

Respond to Opponent: The second most important element is how competitors respond to and adapt to opponents counterpoints. The better one defends their position or pokes holes that are difficult to defend (or cannot be defended) will sperate a close debate.

I expect opponents to respect each other and know their event's timeframes. Going over time by a few seconds is OK, but more than 7 or 8 seconds will lower your score.

I thank you for your bravery in public speaking. The variety of speech and debates is quite enjoyable for me. In my opinion speech and debate are about communicating clearly, effectively and efficiently through the use of words, verbal tones and body language.

In debates and extemporaneous speeches, I appreciate it when speakers begin by stating the question and by listing their main points before going in depth. I feel this helps the speaker keep a focus as well as prepares the audience to listen. I expect the main points to make logical sense as they are tied back to the original question and I expect them be supported by evidence.

In all speaking I expect clear, concise communication which is most likely to happen when the speaking speed does not exceed the listening speed. If a participant chooses to spread, then my listening skills are greatly diminished which results in me not being able to follow your reasoning and you will not be communicating your point.

Last, but not least, I expect all participants to treat each other with respect through both their words and actions. Disagreement is a big part of debates, but that is no reason to be denigrating to one another.

Delivery: smooth, confident, limit your stumbles.

Citations/Evidence: these are very important to me.

Dramatic delivery: a plus.

Logical flow to your speech or your argument: from beginning to end, did you sell me on your points, did you sell me on your solutions.

In debate: be civil, make your point, let them make theirs. This is speech and debate, not speech and bullying.
Talking faster does not gain you points with me - be clear, be concise…be persuasive!

I will be judging the debate. Not what happens outside the debate.

I will to the best of my ability remove any bias from my decision.

If team A says 1+1=3 and thats important to their case team B needs to refute it. I won’t drop arguments for you.

One may call me a traditionalist, but I am not a fan, at all, of speed or anything policy related drifting into LD or PF debate.

The reason PF was created was to eliminate all of the lexicon/jargon and to make it easier for a judge off of the street to follow. The reason LD was created was to examine the values within our society that can be held dear to how we function as human beings. When debaters ignore those foundational components, they may as well go into policy debate. If you feel the need to run theory, topicality, kritiks, and do everything else but debate the actual topics, policy is always looking for more teams. I would encourage you to join it to try and save it.

I don't think that judges that put paradigms as "...I will give you one half of a point if you make a Pokémon reference..." are doing any good to PF or LD. Keep that stuff/junk in policy. There's a reason policy is dying around the country, and that is a part of it. It's juvenile, it's nonsensical, and it is non-educational. Judges should be here to help you learn how to improve your communication skills, critical analysis, writing, and research skills...not point bait you.

I would prefer to do congress judging thanks

LD is in my opinion the best, most academically challenging, and overall awesome form of debate. My evaluations of rounds are based on the following:

• spreading is NOT inherent to LD and if you would like to spread I suggest CX. I strongly detest spreading for a few reasons: spreading detracts from the academic conversation that is taking place, and at the most foundational level (in any debate) if your judge/audience cannot hear you then how would you ever expect to be judged adequately. Spreading greatly impacts your ability as a debater to present a clear, concise, and organized argument to your judge. Delivery is essential when effectively communicating with others and in my opinion spreading is the antithesis of that.

• FW is very important for me. The V and V/C are my guide as a judge on the lens in which I am evaluating the round and without those things it makes it harder for me to accurately judge the arguments that you present. Linking contentions back to your FW demonstrates to me that you’ve thought this through meticulously. I have no real preference for “ought’ implying a V of morality or “just” implying a V of justice. I am totally open to your interpretation of the V that you think best suits the debate it really just comes down to the presentation of the V and V/C and the “call back” to that into your contentions. I am down for a FW debate as long as it is relevant.

• Flow of case is important. You shouldn’t make arguments for arguments sake. By this I mean: did you use logic, supported by evidence with clear links and impacts to justify your contentions? Do you weigh impacts effectively and clearly? It is not enough to say “we outweigh on X impact” you need to tell me why your case outweighs.

I was a public forum debater for four years so evidence is important to me. Be clear when you quote a source, if I can't differentiate between your personal analysis and the written words of the card it will fall automatically when attacked by a an opponent who is clear with their sources.

Speak as fast as you want, but enunciate your words. It's better to sound a little silly and over-pronounce your words than mumble them.

Time yourselves, if your opponent goes three minutes over time that is on you. I will not hold it against you if you cut them off 15 seconds (grace) after their speech ends, or immediately after prep ends.

If you have a Value/VC/Framework/Ob make sure it's brought up again. Your focus should be holding up your own V/VC/FW because if your opponent doesn't contest it that's how I judge the round.

List your impacts. If you argue that X will save lives and Y will take lives, give me the specifics. How many lives, what specific part of X/Y causes this, why is losing lives bad (Yes even if it's that obvious!).

I am always interested in seeing cards if provided.

If you cite a rule, you better be prepared to show me the rulebook.

Think about your rebuttals before you say them. Not every point needs to be argued (because sometimes people give arguments that are irrelevant). Remember how to attack an argument, either rebuke the impacts, the occurrence, or the link between occurrence and impacts. Don't just debate impacts, especially if their isn't a strong enough link.

I love final speaks that perfectly sum up the voter issues of the round. If you give me voters, I will look at them, if you drop voters, I will drop voters, just be plain about it.

I am a parent judge.

In debate, my main focus is on how well you present your argument and defend them. I prefer you do not spread. My basic philosophy is that if I can not understand what you are saying , I do not understand your argument and therefore your score will reflect that . Please remember be respectful and do not cut your opponent off during crosses.

My rankings:

27 points - Average event and competition

28 points - Above Average, well prepared, and presented well

29 points - Excellent presentation and well thought out speech or case

30 points - Reserved for top tier competitors who have what is needed to win

What I look for in competitors:

- Clear speech, easily understood

- Respect to other competitors, judge, other spectators, and the room

- Work is focused in the room

- Questions are asked when a direction is needed

What I will not stand for:

- Personal attacks on other competitors (debates)

-Side comments before, during, and after rounds or performances

- Calling into question the rights of someone to exist

-I will not judge or acknowledge Theory Debates.

Do not speak too fast and limit technical jargon.

Background:
I competed in Original Oratory, Duo, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, and Congressional Debate from 2016 to 2020 and have been coaching high school debate since 2023.

Judging Philosophy:
- Clarity and Understanding: The essence of speech and debate lies in effective oration and forensics. It's imperative that I can understand you and that your opponents can as well. While I tolerate spreading if it's comprehensible, clarity is paramount.
- Flowing the Debate: I flow debates, so clear signposting, defined terms, and a logical progression of arguments are crucial for effective communication and scoring.
- Argument vs. Style: In my view, debate is a 51-49 balance of argument quality over style. However, being a great orator is essential. A good argument is not enough if it's presented monotonously or without engagement. Debaters should consider their speeches as a one-sided dialogue with the judge, aiming to uncover the truth and connect meaningfully.

Expectations:
- Structure and Organization: I value well-structured arguments with clear signposting. Debaters should logically progress through their arguments, making their line of reasoning easy to follow.
- Engagement and Oratory: Debaters must engage with their material and the audience. I look for debaters who not only have strong arguments but also convey them compellingly. Eye contact, varied intonation, and a sense of connection with the judge are important.
- Holistic Assessment: In close rounds, I consider both the quality of the argument and the oratorical skill. Debaters who skillfully blend persuasive argumentation with dynamic delivery will stand out.

Advice for Debaters:
- Focus on clarity and understandability in your speech delivery.
- Structure your arguments logically, and make sure your case is easy to follow.
- Remember, debate is not just about what you say but how you say it. Engage with your arguments and the judge to create a compelling dialogue.

As a judge, my goal is to foster an environment where clarity, engagement, and effective argumentation are rewarded. I look forward to seeing debaters who embrace these principles in their performances.

I competed in Policy (CX) for 3 years in high school. I am a Chinese/Arabic/Serbian linguist and have worked in military intelligence for 20 years. I am a current high school debate coach and I teach Policy, LD, PF, Congress, and World Schools debate.

Email for questions/file sharing: rasmum@nv.ccsd.net

Judging style

I believe that debate is a competitive event, and having its own specialized jargon does not necessarily hurt the event so long as using the jargon does not become the event. I do not mind the use of terms such as "drop," "extend," "turn," "flow," or "cross-apply," but they should not replace the substance and do not automatically add impacts. I am not big on technical wins, so your opponent dropping a contention or card does not automatically win you the round. I will not intervene: You must impact. You have to do the work: Impact and link back to the value structure and/or provide me with a clear weighing mechanism for the round.

I prefer well-argued and supported points to spreading. Being able to say so many points that your opponent is not able to address each one in their rebuttal is not truly a skill and does not show me that you understand your position. Don't spread!

Please time your speeches and prep time. I may not keep accurate time of this since my attention is to the content of your speeches. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.

Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!

I will not vote for arguments that are ableist, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. This should go without saying, but for the sake of anyone who needs to see it in writing, there you go.

Speaker Points

Being aggressive is fine, just make sure you don't say or do anything that is offensive

I judge on a 5-point scale, from 25-30.

25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said, or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.

27 is average. The speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity, or other areas of rhetoric.

28 is above average. The speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. The speaker was compelling and used rhetorical devices well.

30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, and very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.

Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.

While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.

Please please please cut cards with complete, grammatically correct sentences. If I have to try to assemble a bunch of disconnected sentence fragments into a coherent idea, your speaker points will not be good.

Judging Paradigm of Janice Rath:

I have judged and observed 2 tournamements and am  new at judging LD.

I would be looking for a communication style, that is clear, concise and precise.  I enjoy listening to a debater that can relate their arguement to someone like me (the average citizen). 

I would enjoy hearing you state your points, restate the points and summarize the points in the debate so that I may easily follow them.

I like to hear participants that can predict counter arguements and approach them with dignity, and understanding.  We live in a world now where we don't spend enough time understanding and appreciating different points of view.  Be respectful with your opponent.  I want to hear why your view is the right view, not why someone else's view is wrong.

I also am always interested in a person that can not only understand the intricacies of their view, but can additionally illustrate the ripple effect of their viewpoint.  For example if you believe in the ethical standards of attracting a diverse workforce what are the long term affects of having this?  How would it affect a minority population and how would it benefit or affect people who are not considered minority and could it benefit them?

Finally, have fun with your topic.  The fact that you are engaging in debate is a most wonderful accomplishment.  

I look forward to working with you.

I'm a newer judge and teacher. I vote on the most coherent, logical argument. You won't win me over on an emotional argument or one that does not make sense. I don't like logical fallacies. I like quantity over quality. I want you to to explain your contentions, not just state them.

I usually don't like spreading, but if I can understand you, it's okay. Since I'm newer, I do my best to take notes during your round to try to flow.

Parent/Coach at Coral Academy of Science Las Vegas with 7 mos. of tournament history.

Please go slower and impact your arguments that an average person will understand .

My note-taking focuses on key points in the arguments.

I find arguments grounded in real-world impacts to be the most persuasive.

Dude! Have some confidence, try your best and don't disappoint me.

“SUCKIN’ AT SOMETHING IS THE FIRST STEP TO BEING SORTA GOOD AT SOMETHING.” -JAKE THE DOG

School: Clark HS, Speech and Debate Coach

Experience: 2 years 

LD: I am a flow judge. I prefer the debate to focus primarily on the resolution with thoughtful, well-reasoned arguments. Avoid k and theory arguments with weak connections to the resolution. 

Good luck!

LD/PF Overview:

I am a debate coach and therefore comfortable with both progressive and traditional styles of debate. However, if you decide to go progressive, you must still clearly be topical and clearly have traditional elements like a value and a criterion in LD. In addition, you must still argue your opponents traditional case in a traditional way when you rebuttal.

I like to list things I do not like, so that you can avoid them:

· Telling a judge they can “drop the debate” or that “you can’t allow that argument.” I’ll be the judge, thank you. Please, do not ever tell a judge what to do or don’t do. You should explain your argument in such a way that I feel compelled to do so on my own volition.

· Language that is too aggressive, because assertion is okay but aggression is demeaning and degrades the integrity of debate. For example using phrases such as “are you aware that” for the beginning of a question suggests you think you research more than your opponent. In addition, when debaters say, “my opponent never did…” and then list something their opponent did do, it’s a loss of points for the speaker because I mark that as not paying attention to your opponent. Other phrases that suggest their arguments are “oblivious” or “asinine” or “ignorant” –Don’t suggest your opponent is lacking in any form.

· I dislike when the rebuttals are purely pre-loaded (some blocking is fine) but when your rebuttal is not specific to your opponent’s case and only defends yours against a general argument, I will not count that as a case defense.

· Battles over evidence are borderline pointless. Definitely point out evidence that is misrepresented, outdated, or otherwise taken out of context. Please do not make one piece of evidence last the entire debate. Mention it once, state you’d like to contest it, and let the judge (me) read the evidence at the end of the round. Most of the time it is not evidence that wins my vote, but the explanation and impact. To me, impact is most valuable. Do you know why any of this matters to anyone? Can you explain this in an attainable way for anyone, not just a debate judge? That’s how you prove to me that your argument is holistic and true.

LD/PF Paradigm:
I expect you to time one another, verbally so that I can note when we are over or under.
If you are failing to provide evidence that should be easily available, I will consider this in my vote. Evidence should be organized and known well-enough to reference quickly.
If you fail to engage with your opponent as an intellectual equal worthy of competing against you in the round, I will take this out in speaker points. I may also let it sway my vote, because ad hominem is a fallacy, and I like my debates to remain logical.

I'm a parent judge and have been judging since 2021.

I need to be able to understand you. I will judge your speaking abilities, logic throughout the case, and how much you know your topic. Don't just read off your computer screen. Understand your argument, listen to your opponent, and adapt your case.

I understand that sometimes the aff/neg may have a harder case to make and will not let that or my personal opinions sway who wins.

Be respectful of your opponent(s). While they are speaking you should be listening, taking notes, and/or preparing your arguments. 

I expect you to know the rules for your events. You can time yourself. I will time you, but will not stop you. If you go over by a few seconds that is fine, but more than that may cause you to lose points.