I am new to judging this school year (2023-2024), but have now judged in a few tournaments. I very much enjoy listening to the debates, and understand and appreciate the work the students put into them. When I listen to the students, I cannot help but think the future of our country is in very good hands.

What I look for in competitors is the following:

1. Competitors who speak slowly and clearly. I would rather listen to a few well thought-out contentions than try to keep up with someone who speaks fast and tries to squeeze in as many arguments as possible.
2. Competitors who are respectful. Especially those who are respectful to other competitors.
3. Well presented rebuttals. Competitors who make good rebuttals to the opponents contentions makes a big difference in a debate.
4. Speaking directly to me. Making eye contact keeps attention sharp. So try not to spend all of your time as if you are reading to me from your materials or laptop.
5. Confidence speaks for itself. I understand why students might think it a good idea to ask for my vote, but it is not necessary.

My name is Melanie Burdett, and I consider my judging paradigm to be "old school." I debated in high school in the early 1990's and coached and judged Lincoln Douglas debate after that. I don't like speed or spreading, but I do like brief roadmaps, although the roadmap is included in the timing of your speech. Framework, especially your core value, is important to me - I say that to indicate that it is more than something to check off a list to say you have it. Link it to all of your contentions and use it in your argument impacts. Above all else, use good, logical arguments that are based in fact. Enjoy the debate and remember that you are trying to convince me, the judge, not your opponent.

***IMPORTANT***LD is not policy, so don't act like it is. Framework comes first and arguments only matter if they are impacted out under the framework. I will not vote on anything that's not clearly tied to the framework.

I participated in LD throughout Middle and High School and am now a coach, so I have a good amount of experience with all traditional rounds. I'm comfortable with any speed as long as it's coherent. Evidence is important, but I greatly prefer reasoning and thoughtful explanations to card-reading in rebuttals. Please feel free to email me at sedabu01@gmail.com with any questions regarding the round, I’m happy to give more thorough feedback.

Events: I participated in Speech and Debate from 7th grade through high school and college. My primary events were:

• Extemp
• Impromptu
• LD
• PF
• Info
• Congress

While I have only ever competed in POI, I often engaged in peer sessions with speech competitors in my team. Therefore, I feel well equipped to judge any speech or debate events.

Speed: I can handle a quick pace so long as the speaker is clear.

I am a lay parent judge and here are my preferences:

• No spreading, you can speak fast within limits but please stay verbally clear and understandable by an average school teacher.
• Verbally highlight Value, contentions, and structure during the constructives.
• Avoid any theory but if you must then explain it in lay terms.
• In your closing speech, state why you believe you won the round.
• My email is dilbagh.chahal@gmail.com. Please use a subject line beginning with "tabroom: "

Add me to the Email chain: mhc1721@gmail.com

Judging Preference:

1.LARP

2.Topical K’s

3.Nontopical K’s

4.Theory

5.Phil

6.Spikes/Tricks

I'm a tech judge, I will be judging off the flow, I can understand almost everything and will vote for almost anything but if you do go for tricks I will tank speaks.

Just be nice and have fun!

I prefer traditional LD debate and do not like it when opponents spread. I am heavily interested in how your evidence proves your contentions. I also prefer hearing a good value clash, especially because it is a key driver of the round. Once your time is up, I will let you finish your sentence, but that's about it; don't abuse the system. I will be flowing and make sure to be respectful towards your opponent. I am fine with off-time road mapping as well.

I've been judging debate (both Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas) for about two years now. I was not a debater myself, but my degree is in philosophy, which means I have a strong educational background in rational argumentation. The following list is what I consider during a round, ranked from most to least important.

• I place a high value on structure and clarity. This means a few things. First, I should never be confused about what your contentions are - tell me explicitly what they are. Next, each of your contentions should fit clearly into the overall argument you're making. Each contention needs to tell me what your point is, why I should believe it's true, and how it supports your position. When responding to your opponents, tell me clearly which contention of theirs you are responding to, what your response is, and why your rebuttal weakens their argument as a whole.

• I do not value speaking style very highly, which means if you're nervous or misspeak, that's ok! I won't dock you points for it. That being said, if you speak so quickly that I struggle to understand you, that will cost you. I can't give you credit for an argument I can't understand. Speed is fine as long as you're not sacrificing clarity.

• It's always good to know the rules of the event, but catching your opponent on a technicality (such as introducing a new argument after constructive speeches are over) does not impress me. You should be able to win on the merits of your arguments; if your opponent does something unfair, I will weigh that appropriately.

• Speaking with passion is great, but remember to keep it respectful. You're attacking your opponent's arguments, not your opponent.

• I allow off-time roadmaps, but please keep it brief.

For LD specifically:

• This is a philosophical debate, which students often interpret as necessitating fancy philosophical terminology. I promise that it doesn’t. It is far more important to me that you understand what you’re saying rather than use a piece of vocabulary you don’t really understand.

My name is Eleni Fafoutis and I am currently a third year medical student at Penn State College of Medicine. I have experience both speaking and judging, having made Nationals in extemporaneous speech twice and original oratory once. I further have more than a year of experience judging a wide variety of categories, ranging from dramatic interpretation to Lincoln-Douglas to impromptu.

When judging, I expect contestants to speak clearly and understandably, not rushing through what they are saying - this helps me understand what you are saying and give you the most fair score possible. I pay attention to body language and usage of space - keep an eye on any nervous habits like hair twirling, pacing, etc. I look for meaningful resource usage (if the category asks for it). Further, I look for impartiality and careful analysis of facts, especially in debate and extemp categories, and am more persuaded by a well thought-out, well-researched speech than one relying on anecdotes or emotional appeals.

Spreading makes for an ineffectual argument. Off-time road maps are welcome. You may time yourself, but judge timer is official. I look for clear, logical, arguments that address the opponent's arguments effectively.

I'm in my fourth year judging LD debate, including judging at nationals. I maintain a rigorous flow during rounds. Because I do take extensive notes, I prefer debaters to speak at a conversational rate or at least not too fast that I'll miss important points. Please particular speak clearly when articulating your value and value criterion - don't bury your main points in a deluge of evidence and quotations. I prefer well-reasoned arguments over direct quotes from sources. Quotes can be fine and obviously can support your argument, but when overused, they indicate reliance on others' critical thinking over your own.

I like off-time road maps, a summary of voting issues, and for debaters to identify which, if any, points they think their opponent dropped. Regardless of how competitive a round might be, I prize civility and recommend debaters treat their opponent with respect at all times. I also value substance and logic and encourage debaters to prioritize persuasive arguments and points over technical ones. In that vein, the overuse of jargon can be distracting and unpersuasive. When using acronyms, be sure you have been very clear at the outset about the meaning to avoid confusion.

Finally, I know how much time and effort goes into preparing for tournaments, so I try always to bring an open mind and my undivided attention.

I have been a judge for LD debates for about a year but high school debates in the Midwest a few more years. Forensics has been where I have spent the most time judging for 15 years.

I like to give constructive advice no matter what subject matter. Research, presentation and respect for those presenting opposing views and the judge is what I look for which includes the questions. I count off for being derogatory toward the opponent and myself. Being respectful of your opponent even though you may not understand why they are asking certain questions is important. That allows for good discussions and presentations.

I am an academic rather than a former debater - I'm a professor of political theory and political science - and that means I care more about the quality of your arguments than purely technical issues (though I am sensitive to the latter). I also tend to weigh quality over quantity, so you do not need to cram as many arguments into your cases and rebuttals as possible.

Competitors:

Thank you for taking the time to read this paradigm, I trust that it will provide the necessary information to your success in this round.

What I value most in PF/LD debate:

1) Logically sound arguments. It does not matter how eloquent your speech sounds if your contentions are not logical and thorough. However, this does not mean that a good delivery is unnecessary; a solid delivery helps one properly convey the points of their argument. This is just to say that I don't want you to waste time on flowery language and irrelevant words that make one sound intelligent, if it is at the expense of your argument. Just speak plainly and strategically. Spreading is okay; but, if you are slurring your words it will be increasingly difficult for me to follow your arguments.

2) Good Cross-Ex. This back-and-forth is vital, and often where the winning team separates themselves

3) Be competitive, but always show respect to your opponent. This is a debate, so the conversation should be intense. However, this does not come at the expense of disrespecting your opponent or acting in an unprofessional manner.

I debated in high school, worked as a lawyer and have been judging debate for the last two years. I don't have many strong preferences and I like to leave debaters room to be themselves, but here are a few things I'd like - or wouldn't - to see in your round.

1. I'm a stickler on time. Please avoid off-time roadmaps (but feel free to sign-post within time). Also be warned that I will call time precisely... even if you are still speaking.
2. While I don't object to assertiveness or passionate debating, please remember to be courteous to your opponent and respect the forum. Personal insults are never appropriate.
3. Be mindful of your opponent's need for quiet during their prep time.
4. I don't have a preference for any particular kind of argument: philosophical, policy and evidentiary arguments can all work if well presented.
5. I also do not have any strong opinions on speed as long as you enunciate clearly.
6. I give points to debaters who really listen to their opponents and shape their rebuttals to creatively and decisively counter them.
7. I give points for values and especially value criteria that are well-tailored to the resolution and incorporated into the debate, including rebuttals.

I truly admire all of you for your commitment and hard work, and I wish you great luck in the round!

I look for a clear argument with real, meaningful evidence. More evidence is not better evidence. Talking fast means does not give debaters a victory. If I can't understand what you said because you are talking too fast, then essentially, you didn't say it.

I am fairly new to LD debate. I would prefer that you don't speak too fast and don't spread. I value evidence over framework.

When you finish your constructive speeches, please summarize your main arguments.

Hi, I'm Ms. Kudukoli. I work in the IT Industry. I have been a parent/lay judge for 4 years now. Here are a few things that I expect during the rounds.

• I prefer that the debaters clearly state their value, criterion, and contentions.

• I try to follow rules whenever applicable, for example if debaters forget to mention a contention in their rebuttal, I will consider the argument to be dropped and it should not be brought up in the following rebuttals.

• I expect debaters to respect each other.

• My preference for the speech delivery is to be clear and moderate level speed.

• As a parent judge, I am most convinced by a good balance of value clash and contention debate. I am not well-versed in Progressive LD so please keep such topics to a minimum.

• Post round if I have any conversations, it will be casual and will not talk about the debate topic or encourage any talks to influence my decision

Overall, I have loved my judging experience so far and expect to see young debaters with a positive attitude and energy in the round. Good luck!

• Revathi

I have been the Heights debate coach for the last 10 years. The way I judge a round is to first figure out what framework I'm working under and then decide whose contentions best achieve this framework. I will never decide a case on style - that's what speak points are for. The best debaters show a fundamental and honest understanding of their opponent's case and how these cases interact.

Framework: Although I'm up for judging "cookie-cutter" cases, I definitely prefer unique lines of argument, especially with regards to the framework. I will and have decided a winner of a debate solely on the framework. You can lose the framework debate and still win the round if you can show me how you win under your opponent's framework. If there's not a big difference between the frameworks presented, then just say that and don't spend half your rebuttal talking about framework, just tell me they're basically the same and move on to your contentions. I don't really care how absurd your framework is; if your opponent can't clearly explain how it's wrong, then that's fine. I'm not going to use my own personal views on what's "abusive" or "out of context"; it it up to the debaters to demonstrate those things not me.

Contentions: I am not swayed by your cards. I'm not going to read some paper or assess it. Tell me what the person said and how it makes sense. I am going to be completely unconvinced by a bunch of statistics forecasting GDP growth 20 years from now. Just stick to basic logical argument and what makes sense rather than "some other smart people said that these things would happen". I am also unconvinced by emotional pleas or quotes from famous people in history or laundry lists of "bad things". Here, again, I am going to be delighted to hear clever and interesting arguments rather the tired white papers from think tanks and NGOs.

Speaker Points:
Speak in a humane and respectful tone in order to make your points. Speaking insanely fast is not humane or respectful towards others unless they've all agreed before hand that this is what we're going to do, and neither your competitor nor I have signed up for that. Modulate your speaking tone and speed -even repeat things that are important. Signposting and chunking during the speech is great.

I am a relatively experienced parent judge. For LD debate, I appreciate debaters who speak clearly, not too quickly (no spreading), and follow the proper flow for an LD round, without letting any threads of the arguments go unaddressed. I will be flowing the round. I prefer well reasoned responses rather than stock replies. And I very much appreciate when debaters clearly lay out voters issues.

1. Speaking Style: Please speak clearly especially when you spread if you want to be understood. If I can't clearly hear your points, I won't be able to flow them.
2. Clarity: Make sure you tie your contentions and refutes to the resolution. Please signpost in your refutes.
3. Structure your final rebuttals in a format that is easy for the judge to organize. Off-time roadmaps are very helpful.
4. Engage the totality of your opponents' arguments. Use time for cross-ex wisely.
5. Cite LD rules where you can.
6. Good luck and have fun!

I'm a newer and traditional judge and I'm uncomfortable judging progressive debate. All arguments should be well thought out and well supported. I'd appreciate it if you deliver your speeches at a reasonable pace and no spreading. I won't flow off a doc. Make sure to extend all our arguments and give voting issues. Good luck and, most importantly, have fun.

Especially in this technological time of tweets and social media, effective communication becomes so much more vital. Events in public speaking are a valuable tool for developing a critical mind and a well-expressed person. I have never seen a person who did not need to be able to express themselves coherently in some fashion; now is the best time to develop those skills.

More experience equals more confidence. I would encourage all of you to attend as many tournaments as you can; get that experience level up. There no worthless experiences; if one event doesn't pan out, try another, we have plenty from which to choose. And never feel embarrassed to reach out for assistance. Quite often the greatest mistake people suffer are right after they decided not to ask for help.

To quote Thomas Edison: “Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is to try just one more time.”

Speech:

Speech is not "acting", it is interpretation of an event, a person's situation, or a story-line that is impactful. The use of one's voice, body, and facial expression all play into the scoring of an individual's performance.

In interpretive events, make sure your characters, narration, and transitions are crisp and clear. I shouldn't have to interpret your technique to discern the success of your interpretation of the literature. If you introduce physicality by moving across the floor, make sure it is within the rules and is not distracting. Physicality should not get in the way of delivery. There are some who use noises to signify a transition, we shouldn't need a sound cue to do so. In the end, I should be able to at least discern the gist of the piece as a whole, either your particular cutting or the work in toto.

Oratorical events, such as Original Oratory or Extemporaneous Speaking, must first and foremost have a central concept or theme. In extemp, that is not difficult as there is but one topic; the ability to explain and answer a domestic or international question addresses the speaker's poise and understanding of the topic question. For OO, your topic is yours to determine, but the end is still the same: clear communication. I want to know what you plan to talk about, how you are going to explain it, then tell me what we did, basic speech structure, at minimum. Fluency and ease of delivery are key; those are traits that will only flourish with time and practice. If you're going to do "the walk", make it fluid and not scripted. A good speaker flows from point to point, both verbally and physically.

Impromptu Speaking, the ability to tell a story with an impactful meaning is what I look to rank the competitors. Being able to make an in-depth analysis of a topic in a short time is impressive when done at all, extra points!

Student Congress:

In general, this is my favorite event in competitive forensics. This combines so many different elements and requires a well-rounded speaker with personality and charisma. I truly believe this is one of the more difficult and rewarding events offered.

As a Parliamentarian:

I am looking for any and all actions that promote the business of the house. Not allowing dilatory motions is not only the job of the Presiding Officer, but also the house, as well. Every member of the house should make an effort to observe the business in the house and be ready to make a Point of Order if needed. I also wish to promote and reinforce courtesy and decorum in the house. Proper address is rewarded. The business of the house is to advance debate and legislation, not just to make sure someone gets a speech in. Being aware of the business of the house will inform the members that it may be time to end debate on a bill, so make sure the proper motion is used.

For the coaches, the speeches are tracked by speech number: Bill number/topic-side in my comments. This is to ensure that they are aware of the place and time of the speeches by the students.

As a Judge:

I will be looking for clarity in argumentation and a clear reason for or against the motion on the floor. Delivery is rewarded more than reading; speak up and out to the house. After an authorship speech, these become debate rebuttals; speeches should refer to the bill, the author’s speech, or previous speakers, all in the goal of advancing the business of the house and debate. As debate advances, we should see new points or aspects for or against the legislation; rehash means that the topic is done. An effective member of Congress combines persuasive speaking and evidentiary substance.

Lincoln-Douglas debate:

I am at first, a flow judge, meaning that I want to see a debate run from beginning to end. Leaving large holes on the flow makes judging the round much easier. After that, I look to the actual caseloads. Core Values and Value Criteria must not only be presented, but supported by the contentions. Strategic use of an opponent's value, criterion, or contentions to uphold their own is risky, but a winner when done correctly. In the end, I wish to be convinced.

I do not tolerate the infiltration of policy-style debate into L-D. This is a philosophical event "we should", not a policy debate "here are all of the solutions". Solvency is not an issue. Spreading (the tactic of speaking very quickly to cover as many points as possible) is not a disqualifying habit, but I will dock the debater points. Also, if a debater is speaking so fast that I cannot keep up and miss recording it, it never happened. Evidence is to be cited properly, not card-style "Lucas, 1977". Policy jargon, like counterplan, card, K, etc are also not supposed to be in L-D. Do not waste our time with off-time road-mapping; we know what you want to do in the first affirmative rebuttal, just do it.

Be courteous to your opponent. Allow them to answer questions, do not cut them off. Turn off all noisemakers, including your timers. Please do not make unnecessary noise and distractions during the opponent's speeches. If you require 14 different pens to flow speeches, change pens silently.

You might feel that my list is a lot of negatives for a few positives when that is not the case. Each round is unique and it is difficult to make a case (!) that would fit every resolution and pair of debaters. I will always comment on good speaking tone, volume, and pacing. These are not voting points, but could add a point or two to a winner. Convincing me against my own opinion will also garner an extra point or two. My opinion does not matter when I start the timer, but I am human and I know which side I would be arguing, so convincing me is key.

Policy Debate:

Nope.

Public Forum:

Public Forum Debate is a team event that advocates or rejects the assigned resolution. The focus of the debate is a clash of ideas in a persuasive manner that can be understood by a “lay” judge. Good debaters should display logic and analysis. They should use evidence when needed. They should win their case and refute that of their opponents. They should communicate effectively, using the fundamentals of good speaking. The format keeps a team on its toes. This is an event that should be able to be judged by a lay person, making a convincing case is critical. Therefore, abstract concepts and debate-specific jargon doesn't make a strong case per se.

I judge the quality of a debate first on maintaining a consistent debate. If, for some reason, both teams decided that there is one major voting topic, that is fine; sometimes the round evolves into more argumentation on fewer points. Next is on the quality of the debate. While I look to evaluating caseloads as a policy or conceptual level, a weak caseload is more difficult to defend from a good opponent. Next is the quality of the crossfire periods. While minor, if I hear a good question, there's an extra point right there. Last is speaking quality. I do like to hear a well-spoken case.

I do not tolerate the infiltration of policy-style debate into PF. Solvency is not an issue. Spreading (the tactic of speaking very quickly to cover as many points as possible) is not a disqualifying habit, but I will dock the team points. If a debater is speaking so fast that I cannot keep up and miss recording it, it never happened. Evidence is to be cited properly, not card-style "Lucas, 1977" Give us a source that is relevant to the topic and topical (recent). Policy jargon, like counterplan, card, K, etc are also not supposed to be in PF. Debate the topic, not the debaters. Do not waste our time with off-time road-mapping; we know what you want to do in the first affirmative rebuttal, just do it.

You might feel that my list is a lot of negatives for a few positives when that is not the case. Each round is unique and it is difficult to make a case (!) that would fit every resolution and pair of teams. I will always comment on good speaking tone, volume, and pacing. These are not voting points, but could add a point or two to a winner. Convincing me against my own opinion will also garner an extra point or two. My opinion does not matter when I start the timer, but I am human and I know which side I would be arguing, so convincing me is key.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I competed for four years in high school (James Wood and Sherando High Schools, VA 1992-6), three in college (Laurel Ridge Community College, 1996-9). I did almost every speech event offered at the time (Duo Interpretation, Prose/Poetry, Humorous/Dramatic Interpretation, Extemporaneous Speaking, Impromptu); placed at Virginia High School League in Extemporaneous for three years at state, regional, and district levels, qualified to NCFL Nationals in Duo, Phi Rho Pi member, Eastern Seaboard champion in Impromptu and Duo. Also competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate and Student Congress. A 2023 graduate of the University of Virginia with a Bachelor's Degree in History & Politics, my intent for the near future is to teach high school history and government.

If you have any post-round questions or future judging opportunities, you may contact me at solo_falcon@hotmail.com

My own background is parliamentary style debate: seven minute speeches, extemporaneous, no notes or props. Consequentially, I dislike spreading, especially in the constructives. Six minutes is long enough to talk at a human pace. Also, I'm flowing during the debate, so if I can't keep up with you, I'm missing your cards and links. On the flip side of that, good rhetoric stands out to me and will earn you higher speaker points.

Off time road maps are fine, but I think signposting during rebuttals is much more helpful.

Debate manners matter to me. Both competitors, when possible, should stand when it is their turn to speak and during CX. Check to see if your judge and opponent are ready before the round begins. Don't refuse to answer questions in CX (a little dodging is fine). Be confident but polite even when there's strong clash in the round. No new evidence in AR2.

It is important to use your prep time to plan your rebuttals. I'll count significant unused prep against your speaker points unless you give a great speech in NR or AR2, and really prove you didn't need to prep.

Framework is key to Lincoln-Douglas debate. Make sure the link between your V/VC is strong and you tell me why it matters for the debate. At the same time, dragging out the framework clash all the way to AR2 is only justifiable if you have a point. Just reiterating "my value is broader and more essential" over and over again doesn't help. I'd rather you recognize that you have the same value as your opponent in different words than waste time splitting hairs. Your contentions need to be linked to your V/VC.

Evidence matters, but just having a card alone is not enough. Make sure you explain your links clearly, especially on impacts. A card from one expert telling me that the Aff world will result in economic growth is easily countered by a card on the Neg side saying the opposite. Make sure you can explain the link to the card if this is a crucial point. Impacts matter, but more so when they are topically relevant. Sure economic growth is good, but if it is not topically related and you can't explain the link, it's not that helpful.

Point out drops and tell me why they matter. I will double check drops in my own flow. If it is there and you can extend the impact of that drop, it will really count for you in the round.

I follow voter issues, so make sure you choose them well and devote adequate time to them in NR and AR2.

Finally, because Lincoln-Douglas is values based debate, argumentation matters more to me than sparring on evidence. Good solid links with sound logic tied to your V/VC count heavily in your favor. Pointing out the inconsistencies in your opponent's case will also count in your favor, and I'll usually reward it with high speaker points.

Hey

I competed in PF in the DC area and on the circuit. I am now studying at UVA.

Preferences

To preface: If I am judging you in a round with multiple judges, consider me flexible. I understand that other judges may have different preferences and I know it can be frustrating when your judges don't all want the same kind of round. You can't make everyone happy, so focus on making the other judge(s) happy. I will adapt.

Add me to the chain/Google shareable/carrier pigeon please:
aidan@theomaras.net

If you contextualize arguments for me, I will be able to better evaluate them.

I will vote off of the flow, but I recommend that you provide a narrative on why I should vote for you that outlines the voters and gives me a clear path to a decision.

Again, I will flow, but note that I prefer rounds to be accessible to people that have not gone to a camp. This means that, while some jargon is acceptable, making an effort to communicate in plain English will win some speaks. If you disregard this, it will not affect my decision but it will probably affect your points.

Respect is essential, so I am unlikely to vote for you if you are rude, disruptive, -ist, etc.

Please don't spread. High-speed, well-enunciated speech is fine, but try to stick to fewer than 240 words per minute.

Don't go over time. When the time on your timer is greater than time allocated for your speech, close it out.

If you run an alternative argument (ex: theory, kritiks), do so knowing that I probably will not evaluate it "correctly" and that I am heavily biased toward substance.

If there is an egregious violation, and you clearly articulate it, I will consider the arguments. Again, I am unlikely to do so in the way that a coach, camp, or captain told you a judge ought to; if you make unorthodox arguments about the debate space, I may evaluate them in an unorthodox way.

Roadmaps are fine as long as you give them quickly. Roadmapping is not a tool for your understanding, it is a tool for your judges' and opponents' understanding. If I feel that you are turning your roadmap into prep, I will disallow future roadmaps.

I will use the tournament standard to assess speaks. See the relevant docs for details.

Please ask if you have any questions. Good luck!

I am an experienced lay judge. I am averse to spreading, but will not dock you if you spread. I can only judge on what I can understand and flow. Simple, succinct and deliberate is the winning formula for me.

I really enjoy judging a great debate where the participants meaningfully engage with the other’s arguments, make appropriate (and typically full) use of their allotted time, treat one another with respect, and speak at a reasonable pace that allows judges and the other participant to take notes, process what is being said, and evaluate the arguments and values advanced in real time. I am a very experienced judge and oral advocate. I have been judging various forms of debate for five years, I competed as a debater in LD and in extemporaneous speaking at the national level in high school, and I also enjoyed parliamentary debate in college. Professionally I am a senior appellate attorney who regularly argues challenging legal issues in court.

I flow each advocate’s arguments and note how each argument was or was not addressed by each other participant. I take the time to draft what I hope is helpful feedback for each advocate after each round.

I look forward to judging your round!

Hello, my name is Athena Potkovic. I am the sibling of a debater and have judged tournaments for less than a year now. I am familiar with the jargon and technical language in debate and simply ask that debaters speak coherently to strengthen both their argument and my ability to truly understand their points.

I am a beloved note taker so I promise that I am always listening, just note taking is my best form of listening.

I love a good argument with emotion but please stay focused on your structure to ensure fairness for both parties.

Reminder: Please go into the debate familiar with the time constraints so we can avoid the awkwardness of me cutting you off. No one likes being cut off!

About me: I did PF in high school so I have some exposure to the event. I've been judging for the past couple years, so I'll probably be able to make a good decision if you read this and follow along.

Publlic Forum

1. Tech > Truth but if you're rude you're probably getting low speaks
2. Respect is important
3. The team that wins the more impactful argument gets the win
4. Final focus should be voting issues and weighing
5. In terms of speed, 200 wpm is probably my max but I'll flow off a doc if provided
6. I won't evaluate theory or Ks

Debate the way you think will win, and I'll follow along.

First and foremost, let's keep in mind that we are here to learn and most importantly to have fun! Respect towards the art of debate and mutual respect towards opponents is mandatory. Good sportsmanship and professionalism are the cornerstones of a good debater in my opinion. I'd like to see both sides engage in a thoughtful debate. It must be noted that rules for Lincoln Douglas are strict in terms of spreading, so be sure to keep that in mind.

I am a Lincoln-Douglas Coach.

Off-Time road maps are fine.

I most likely have a broad understanding of the LD topic you are debating. I will be flowing your debate, and generally make my decision based on who is able to support their contentions and attack their opponent's contentions with the best reasoning.

I prefer students to speak at an understandable rate: not spreading.

I expect students to treat each other with respect, and shake hands and say "good debate" or something similar at end of round. If you can't shake hands for whatever reason, any other polite form of acknowledgement is appropriate.

If I make a face during the debate don't read too much into it- I'm usually trying to remember what I was writing down, not reacting to something you said. :)

I am new to World Schools, and am looking forward to seeing respectful, well thought-out debate rounds. In your reply speeches, tell me exactly how your arguments are interacting with the opposing team's arguments, what arguments you think you're winning, and how I should weigh them. I am a lawyer and you should assume I am a reasonably intelligent person–that does not mean I can or want to read your minds! Warrant out your arguments and actually analyze: assertions or examples are not enough without explaining them and how they support with your argument. Every argument needs explanations and impacts. Respond to your opponents substantives, and especially in the later speeches, take them at their highest ground. Take 1-2 points. Make thoughtful points (and keep it brief–don't make me cut you off at 15 seconds). Don't be mean to each other.

Type of Argument: I do not have a preference for the type of arguments you run as long as they are argued well with evidence and have a strong connection to the value/VC debate. Do NOT drop any arguments; I will assume you conceded the point. I am less focused on whether someone followed the correct format of addressing a specific type of argument but rather the analysis and thought behind it.

Speed: I can handle speed but do not spread. The goal is to be comprehensible. Spreading is not a useful life skill. It speaks more to your ability if you can explain the argument concisely rather than at lightening speed.

Misc.: If an argument is dropped, do not simply tell me that it was dropped; explain the impact of dropping the argument. On the same note, do not just extend all your cards during your rebuttal. That does nothing to help you win the round. Focus on the arguments and provide clear impacts of why specific arguments were dropped.

Use all the allotted time for both cross-ex and rebuttals. Extra time at the end of your speeches hurts your speaker points. Also, provide clear voting issues. Write the RFD for me.

Please road map before your rebuttals and clearly signpost throughout.

Experience: I was an LD debater in high school.

-don't spread (speak at a comprehensible pace)

-keep track of your own prep time. If time is up during the speech, just finish the last sentence.

-always signpost your speeches and responses

-give off time roadmaps

-be respectful to your opponent

Avoid at all costs: Tricks, non-topical positions, wasted time in rounds doing doc exchanges, off-time roadmaps, time suck arguments.

Framework/Standards Debate--Set a standard for the round that makes sense in terms of the activity. If you are debating LD, let's hear about the resolution. Ensure resolution ties. I vote on whether to affirm or negate the resolution...not a critique on the consequential outcome of forced policy parameters.

Case Structure: Contentions should be carefully crafted, contain warrants and impacts and link back to the standards in order to provide a well researched/reasoned case position. A case position that is founded upon theory arguments that is without research or evidence to support the basic claims are simply assertions and will be treated as such. I am not a judge that will vote for tricks, time suck arguments, or spreading intended to overwhelm the opponent.

Speed—I take notes and flow.  Speed of discussion should not be so fast as to lessen the judge’s ability to record. If it is unintelligible or full of debate jargon that doesn't either further the argument or advance your position then I will be far less compelled to write it down, understand it, or vote for it at the end of the round. Simple lines of analytics are not arguments...they should be explained.

Flowing--I do

Time--Feel free to time yourselves, but I will be tracking time as well.  I will let you know when time is up. 

RFD: It is based upon the debater that provided--throughout the round--a logically sound set of arguments that are presented in a cogent manner. I put great weight on effective rebuttals than constructive speeches.

Speaking: This is a communication activity that carries with it standards for decorum. If you are appearing before a judge for the first time, I urge debaters to always put their best foot forward. Address your advocacy toward the judge, and show a level of courteousness that one might encounter in any professional work environment. Speaker points reflect all of these elements.

Hi! I used to be a high school LD debater myself both on the national and local circuits. I am comfortable with most advanced styles of debate, although that will not necessarily convince me that you deserve the win, and if you plan to do something ~extra~ then I expect it to be executed well. I can handle spreading as long as it is with clear enunciation. I will flow with you on pen/paper. I like clear organization: explicitly stating what points you win on, which point you are addressing in your rebuttal, etc. I like to see some evidence or at least well-fleshed out thought/logic. It is important to me to include discussion of the value and/or criterion from BOTH CASES. I like a clear outline in the crystallization as to why you deserve the win/summary of the round. I will not allow disrespect, and I try to be fair to the debaters and as objective as possible. Style is important to me but arguments will trump style.

(PS- I am a physician and I will raise my eyebrows if you bring in health-related arguments that are not sound so make sure that if you do so you have the evidence ;) thanks!)

Please focus on speed of speaking so I am not struggling to keep up with your arguments. It will help you relax as well! Remember, clarity is as important as the content you prepared.

Make optimal use of your prep time and do your best to make full use of your allocated time.

Good luck and enjoy!

I am a parent judge with no personal debate experience, but I'm aware of most things commonly used in LD. English is not my first language, so I prefer clear and concise speaking (no spreading). Off-time roadmaps are okay and appreciated. Tech >>> truth (unless it's a bigoted argument).

I don't flow author names, so clearly refer to your arguments and fully explain them. Citing a page of evidence won't suddenly make me understand the point you're trying to make. No new arguments in final speeches and no new evidence in 2AR. Voter's issues are appreciated but not required; you'll win if you're able to convince me.