As a judge, I have a moderate amount of experience. I would not consider myself a novice, but also not a "tech" judge. I will do my very best to judge, not only follow the rubric and resources provided, but also by following my instincts and heart. I appreciate good delivery that is efficient, but not over paced. I may ask you kindly to slow down if I'm having trouble keeping up. I do take into consideration mannerisms, tone, inflection, and eye contact when judging your delivery. I also appreciate it when you show your fellow competitors respect, kindness, and over all good sportsmanship. What you are doing is difficult, and I commend you for pushing yourself to do hard things. Just please keep in mind, this is hard for me too, and my decisions do not come lightly. Good luck! A little luck never hurts;)

I have more experience judging speech than I do judging debate.

Please do not "spread," as I have difficulty processing language presented at extremely high speeds. In other words, I respond better to a few key points argued in a readily coherent manner.

I apologize in advance for any judging inadequacies on my part.

Thank you and good luck!

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.

I'm a first year head coach at Skyline High School. I have three experience as an assistant coach. I've mostly worked with speech events, but also congress and Public Forum with limited experience in Policy and LD.

Policy:

Overall: I don't believe I'm experienced enough to understand theory or be able to strongly evaluate Kritiks.

Speed: I'm OK with speed as long as you email me your speeches (tfhenry@granitesd.org) , but please slow down for your taglines.

RFD: I typically base my decision on the the stock issues of the plan on the Affs ability to defend it and prove that it is better than the status quo. The NEG wins if they can prove the plan is worst then the status quo or the status quo is better than the plan.

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.