Hi, I'm Calvin G Adamson (he/him), I'm currently a politics and government major at Northern Arizona University. I debated public forum for Sioux Falls Christian (Rushmore District, SD) during my three years of high school (years 21-22 through 23-24). In addition I competed in non original oratory for one season, and dabbled in extempt (domestic).

Quick background knowledge for all events and divisions:

In addition to the events I competed in, I now have a small bit of experience in congress debate. Other than that, I have no experience, beyond a general understanding, of the other events. It's important to know that my judging philosophy stems from a traditional style of debate. I understand different philosophies and more progressive styles, but Speech and Debate is meant to be an inclusive and accessible activity that everyone can be a part of and enjoy. I do not appreciate unfair attempts to gain an advantage over other students in a way that detracts from the accessibility of the activity. I will vote you down with low speaks in egregious circumstances.

Bearing that in mind, keep debate fun and enjoyable. You guys know what you're doing, it's your thing, you got this.

TL;DR

Have fun, play fair. Be confident, know what you're doing (or just act like it). (Tech and Truth, see note*)

YOU GOT THIS! I BELIEVE IN YOU! DO YOUR THING! HAVE FUN!

Specifics:

Pro/Con Challenge:

Never done, never judged. I honestly didn't know this event existed until I was asked to judge for a tournament.

This is a shot in the dark paradigm right now, and will be edited as a learn more.

I will judge your ability to effectively write and deliver a case. As a former PF debater, I know what to look for in a good case. I have also taken college courses that are all about evaluating different philosophical arguments. I will know a good argument (contention) when I see one. Specifically, in a good argument I am looking for the right format. In debate, we typically format cases as claim, warrant, impact. Tell me what your big idea is, tell me why that idea is correct (with cited evidence), and tell me why your big idea matters (what's the effect?). When I'm evaluating the strength of an argument, I'm looking at it in the format of premise one, premise two, conclusion. Where premise one is a conditional, premise two affirms the antecedent or denies the consequent, and the conclusion is guarantied to follow your premises. That's a whole bunch of jargon for I want to make sure your claim has reasons, and those reasons actually lead to your claim. And then of course comes an impact, which isn't really part of the argument, it's where you tell me all the consequences of the argument and why I should care.

Good research, coherent writing, effective speaking, and CLEAR IMPACTS will do you good.

Public Forum Debate:

This is my event, and what I most enjoyed being a part of. PF is the pinnacle of debate, act like it. Be confident, speak strongly, do your thing.

If you want a 30 speaks there's two things I want from you, and one thing to avoid: 1. be confident and clear. Talk at a pace I can understand and flow along with (up to a 6 out of 10). Avoid pauses and ums, make sure you are organised and ready to go. 2. be polite. Aggressive (rude) crossfire gets you nothing. 3. Avoid using jargon and or treating it like a policy round. We're in PF, if it helps think of me as a total lay judge. Generally I'll give you full speaks if you wow me with how clear, confident, polite, and knowledgeable on the topic you are. That, and if there are no problems in the round to doc points.

If you want to win my ballot, you have two avenues by which to do this: 1. Be a better debater. Honestly, I weigh your skill and ability to argue over whether you technically respond to everything in the round. If you've done the things above, and the content of you and your partner's speeches were solid, you'll most likely have my ballot. I appreciate the ability of debaters to argue to a public audience, please try to show me that you can do that. If you do these things, I will want to give you the round and it would take a lot for your opponents to beat that out. 2. Win the flow. I keep a general flow, it's nothing too intense or detailed but I am keeping track of whether you respond to everything or not. If you show my that A. your case stands and your impacts matter, and B. that your opponents are wrong and/or your evidence/impacts outweigh, you have my ballot. I will consider drops whether you tell me it was dropped or not. Make sure you argue the information well and make good points, then I have no reason to vote you down. (for those of you who care I'm a mix of tech and truth)*

I value avenue 1 over avenue 2. If you can do both, bro ur winning with 30 speaks each. But I'm telling you these are the things every debater tries and very few do well. Usually the round comes down to one team made me feel like they were good debaters and one team made me feel like they responded to all the arguments. I default to the team that demonstrated that they were better speakers/debaters or the other team was rude or made comments that caused me to vote them down.

Debaters who are aggressive in cross, make petty remarks, or detract from the educational and enjoyable nature of the event will not be tolerated. You MUST be polite and respectful.

A note**: I am all too aware of the NSDA rules. Not only I has my team called evidence violations, but they have been called on me as well. My philosophy is that violations are incredibly serious and if you lodge a protest you are alleging that your opponent did something so despicable that they should no longer be allowed to debate (seeing as some of the penalties are disqualification). DO NOT allude to violations. Don't gaslight your opponents to thinking that they did something wrong, you and I both know if something really happened or not. Make it incredibly clear if you are making a violation or not. As a judge, it is my job to make sure we have a fair round, and for me to evaluate the round based on debaters' ability, not on whether a source really said what it said. So just be good sports and don't lie about sources.

Please also understand that in South Dakota PF, I will not weigh policy arguments. Theory arguments, and especially kritikal arguments/cases, will not be weighed and I will probably doc you for it. The idea behind theory is to bring to light something unfair in the round, something that makes debate less inclusive/accessible. However, in PF or in SD, it will do the opposite for me. To me theory and Ks only remove accessibility and inclusion in debate.

Overall, I want you to enjoy the activity and be good at what you do.

Policy Debate:

Never done, never judged. I do understand the event to a degree (although I have no experience given CX does not exist in South Dakota).

If I'm judging you in CX buckle up because it's gonna be a bumpy ride. But I assume most of my criteria for speaks stands, and winning a ballot will be judged more heavily on technical argumentation than on your presentation skill.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate:

Never done, never judged. I am rather familiar with this event though and would probably be able to judge semi-reasonably.

Congressional Debate:

Never done, but I have judged before (AZ only).

If you've found yourself in a session with me, you should always have decorum and a good grasp on procedure. Please be courteous of other students speeches and (unlike actual congress) don't try to "play the game." This is about giving speeches to advance the discussion over a topic. The procedure is there to make ensure fairness, so don't use the procedure as a way to manipulate such fairness.

If your speeches add good content to the discussion and advance debate, you may rank. In the end, I want a good discussion about the issue, the end result (pass/fail) doesn't matter.

In opening speeches I want to hear a summary of the topic and why it matters that we pass/fail the bill. In mid speeches, I want to hear you address previous arguments and respond, and add your own spin or new evidence. In the last speech for a side, a summary type speech is appropriate and new evidence is less pertinent.

I don't really judge the questions you ask, as long as they're productive. When you're being questioned, all I'm really judging is if you can hold your ground. Keep the argument you made during your speech and no matter what ANSWER THE QUESTION. An "I don't know, or I'll look into that" is not an answer. Even if you evade the question that's better than "idk."

Big Questions Debate:

Never done, never judged. I have zero experience with the topic, given that my circuit (SD) does not run BQ except at quals.

HOWEVER, I have read up on BQ and I have a good grasp on mechanics and what the event is.

I will judge you on your ability to convince me that your side is true. With such abstract and philosophical topics, it is important that you explain things well. I also think it would be important to remember that your not here to debate debate, your here to debate the topic, so keep arguments resolutional. But since this is BQ, if you have a really good philosophical K or theory argument, flesh it out and explain it to me like I'm five, and maybe it'll click with me and it will provide a really good reason to believe your side.

In BQ you kind of get to make an argument from scratch since the topics are so broad. You get to determine what the terms mean, and how I should evaluate the round. Thus, a FW would be appropriate if explained well. You might also want to note that I will probably be throwing my truth out the window and going full tech. My goal is to walk into round and forget everything I thought I knew and let you teach me. Whoever can convince me, acting as an uneducated listener, that your side is true wins. That criterion would not work if I had preconceived notions of any kind, ergo treat me as a tech judge.

Extemporaneous Debate:

Never done, never judged. I do know this event but I have no experience. I would judge debate skill and preparedness over evidence and argumentation. Tech over truth.

World Schools Debate:

Never done, never judged. No experience but I've read up on it. Probably would be a train wreck if I judged, but sounds like a fun event from what I know.

Oratory:

(This is general comments for all speech events if I ever happen to be judging them)

I competed in non original, which is a SD state event, but never original which is the main event. So I read someone else's oratory, whereas in OO you perform your own writing.

I will judge you on several criteria:

• Speaking Confidently
• Speaking Clearly
• Using your space well, do you walk around too much, too little, or just right?
• Hand motions and gestures. Are they repetitive, do they make sense with what you're saying?
• Other body language. I had a weird tendency to pop up off my heals when talking, it looked weird and I got docked for it. These kinds of things should be kept in mind.
• Tone and inflection. Do you use your voice and range well, is it interesting to listen to or monotoned and boring?
• Some don'ts:
• Don't overact, don't go sing-song with your voice (too much up and down), don't pace (too much movement), don't yell (volume control), don't fall asleep or use your phone (be a respectful audience member when others are performing)
• Remember to have fun and enjoy listening to the other speeches!

Informative Speaking:

Never done, never judged. I know the event but my judging criteria may not be all that ironed out. But again, be prepared and confident. (Refer to oratory comments for general)

Extemporaneous Speaking (IX, DX, MX):

I competed, very briefly, in Domestic (United States) extemp. Never did mixed or international, never judged.

Here I want to see that you did effective background research, you know what you're talking about, and you organised your speech well. In extemp it's about getting down to the basics of speech writing and deliverance. Make sure you have your main points identifiable, and follow the general speech criteria above (oratory).

Poetry (POE, SW):

Never done, never judged. If I'm judging you for this, yeah it'll be rough. Poetry is not my speed so I'll do my best but I can't say I know how to judge poetry on content or delivery.

Impromptu:

Never done, never judged. I sort of know the idea of the event and I could probably judge fairly well. I'm not experienced in time signals so bear with me. I know how hard the event is and mad respect if you're competing. Have fun and a big good luck.

Declamation, Expository, Commentary, and PCC:

Never done, never judged. I don't really know much about these other than they exist. I would be taking a shot in the dark to try to say something about them.

Program Oral Interpretation:

Never done, never judged. I don't have any experience, but sounds like a cool event. I would judge based on the general criteria.

Humour Interp:

Never done, never judged. I have quite a bit of experience in watching these rounds however. I will judge on general criteria.

Dramatic Interp:

Never done, never judged. This is often considered the big ticket event in interp. I will judge based on general criteria, and add in emotion and ability to compel the audience to empathise with the story.

Duo Interp:

Never done, never judged. Yeah I couldn't say I'm familiar enough with the rules/standards of the event to judge this at this time.

Storytelling:

Never done, never judged. Would probably judge similar to that of drama.

Prose:

Don't know the event at all.

Reader's Theater:

This is a state event in South Dakota. Never done, never judged. This event is meant to be fun, but competitive. I will judge accordingly.

In round disclosure:

I will not disclose my vote unless directed to by the tournament officials. If you want an RFD you can find it on my ballot online or when you get your packet back from your coach. In novice or JV rounds if you want comments I will talk to the competitors and them only not other spectators. We are not here to debate whether I voted correctly or not, I'm here to help you get better so I can help you understand what I noticed or thought, but my ballot will not change once the round is over.

Comments for speech events will be handed out at the end of the round, or as you leave if you are multi-entered. It will be up to the tournament officials whether ranks are disclosed at any time. I do, however, believe in the philosophy that you should have comments in your hands so you can do better right away in the next round.

Email chains or file sends: calibrate4321@gmail.com

If you have specific questions, don't hesitate to ask. Remember to have fun and you'll do great!

Speech and Debate is the greatest high school activity ever. The people I met because of it are some of the greatest people I know. Everyone I know who did S&D say they are better because of it.

See if you can meet some new people, learn a new skill, meet a new friend, try something that gets you out of your comfort zone, and just have a great time. Your doing a hard thing that many people could never do, make the most of your time here and remember: No matter what happens, YOU GOT THIS

Notes that I'm sure no one cares or wants to read lol:

*Tech vs truth:

I like to think that an ideal judge walks into a round a forgets everything they know and only comes to a decision based on what was said in round (which is what I will do for BQ). However, that just isn't reasonable. Everyone has basic common knowledge, and, depending on the topic, some judges might know a lot and some very little. My philosophy is that I will try my hardest to only weigh what you said in round and how you debated. But if something comes up that I just can't get over (like you said the earth is flat), I have to vote on truth over tech on that. So in general if your arguments are semi reasonable, or in an area I don't know anything about, you can count on a mostly tech judge.

Lay Judging:

Depending on the event, I will judge as a layperson. I don't carry my beliefs or preconceived notions into a round. PF is my main event and so you can assume I will judge with a PF brain, I like things basic and general. I like things slow and understandable.

I come from the very traditional South Dakota Circuit. And this is where a lot of my judging will occur, however I'm moving to Arizona so I may end up judging there or in surrounding areas. I'm ready to learn what other circuits are like and how debate goes across the country. As always, bear with me.

**NSDA/Rules:

Like I said earlier, I've been on a team that has called and been called on rules/evidence violations more than once. My district has developed a poor habit of caring more about the rules and playing the game to the letter rather than enjoying the activity and doing the thing we all enjoy. In my final season I actually carried around the NSDA manual, and the SD state rulebook to every round. My team had a policy that we printed every source and that we would never get called for lying or misrepresenting our evidence. We also had a policy that we would only consider calling a protest as the "nuclear option." I urge you to do the same.

When debate becomes more about technicalities than actually debating, we've missed something. In public forum especially, we are so not here to debate the debate. We're here to debate the topic and I honestly only care about evidence if you or your opponent blatantly lie. I don't tolerate cheating and I don't tolerate lying (including lack of information and misrepresenting information). But guys, I really just want this to be a fun, educational experience so can we agree to just be good people of integrity?

***Theory and Ks:

Like I said, I debated in South Dakota, home of the traditional style debate (BTW if you don't know Public Forum was invented in SD). On our circuit, we stress accessibility. Debate is supposed to be for everyone. Anyone who takes the time to learn and prepare should be able to compete or judge (obviously being a good competitor takes much more). Because of that, my experience of theory arguments was always in a way that made an attempt to gain some sort of advantage over an opponent. Someone would run Disclosure Theory knowing full well that their opponents didn't even know that was a thing. Or a team would run a K just to confuse the judge into thinking that they had to vote for them. I consider this use of theory and kritik cheating. Gaining an unfair advantage by exploiting something your judge knows and your opponents don't or something your judge doesn't know about.

Because many SD debaters can't afford to travel across the country to big debate camps at universities, policy arguments, theory, and Ks are not common. Thus, Policy debaters were hard to come by and eventually the event died out. I can't say that I know all the ins and outs about policy debate but I've done a lot of reading (because I was curious to why this event is so uncommon in SD but yet the most prestigious debate style).

If you ever find me judging policy, I hope I will have been well trained in the event by then. For all debate events, all I want to warn you about in running these complex arguments is to be careful. If you're running them to gain an advantage over me or your opponents, stop it. But if the argument makes sense and is actually valid in a situation, then flesh it out. Tell me exactly what you mean and why I should consider this. Explain in painful detail, especially if your opponents don't understand what you are saying.

REMEMBER: YOU WANT TO WIN BECAUSE YOU DESERVE IT, NOT BECAUSE YOUR OPPONENT DIDN'T UNDERSTAND

I am a parent judge, please be polite and respectful.
Please make sure to not spread. Make concise arguments which are based in evidence and clearly explained arguments.

Respect is greatly important to me, I will not tolerate any disrespect among all parties. I will dock points for any condescending remarks.

I do not prefer spreading. Card reading should be 3 minutes max.

Take a breath, don't overstress, and most importantly have fun! I know you'll do great :)

1. Respect - Please show upmost respect to both your opponents and teammates, NO derogatory behavior please. Ok to be assertive but not aggressive.
2. Be crisp and clear, Talk in a way i can understand.
3. Time yourself.
4. Use signs and gestures as much as possible.
5. Have fun kids, enjoy the learning and experience and don't stress about winning !!

Hi, I competed in speech for all four years of high school. I've now judged/coached for about 5 years! :) Here's what I have (in terms of my rules) to say about speech and debate:

For everyone: please don't try to shake my hand (it wont affect your score, i get its for being nice and thanking me for judging your round) but idk where your hands have been.

SPEECH: Have fun, don't be nervous, and do you best. I judge fully based off the performance. If you go over the grace period of your performance, cool, but like, know you can't be ranked the 1. I love topics of public health, healthcare, child/maternal health, and health equity.

DEBATE: I am a lay judge, however I've now been judging traditional debate for 3 years (mostly PF and LD, BQ, but I know it's not traditional debate lol). Don't be nervous to correct me on debate lingo or debate rules. If you want me to disclose, I can. However, I will not disclose during elimination/outrounds!

Please make sure you can take your own times! I will be taking my time from now on to make sure the round runs as fairly and efficiently.

I'm fine with spreading, just make sure I can understand your sources (Name, Date) plzzz

Have your cards ready and set to go, in case I want to see them!

Checking and reading cards is not a part of prep time, but if you go over like 2 1/2 min or more, I'll start counting it towards your prep time.

Have fun, be cool, make me laugh, you could get extra pts, idk (life is short, yolo). Also, no sexism, racism, or any kind of hatred because it will lead you into an auto-drop. ALSO, yes to the email chain! abhern12@asu.edu

CONGRESS: I love clash! Speak eloquently and loudly please! Answer all of your questions succinctly as you can during CX! If you make me laugh in the round, that could possibly help lol. Please keep the debate as creative and interesting towards the bills you want to pass. Repeating arguments are irrelevant, please always add a new/interesting point during your speeches :) Have fun too! :) (if u talk about public health, delivery of healthcare systems, access/utilization of healthcare, child/maternal health, or health inequity and disparities, maybe you might catch my eye and get ranked idk) ((public health is cool))

This is my first year of judging but I do have a few principles that I stand behind.

- No spreading. I flow debates the old fashioned way, by writing on paper. It is the participant's responsibility to make sure I can flow the debate. If I cannot keep up because a presenter speaks too fast or fails to emphasize their points or contentions well, the result may not be what you expect. If you see me writing frantically and seemingly not paying attention to you, slow down.

- I will not connect your arguments. If there is a connection to be made, you must make it for me.

- I like the participants to engage with me as a judge. Eye contact is important to not only see if I'm engaged but also to demonstrate your conviction.

- The better you weigh your impacts, the better your results will be.

- Since I'm a lay judge, if you run plans/counterplans/kritiks I may not understand your argument. Be sure to fully explain what an argument is if you want me to vote on it.

- Please do not try to load your opponent with off-case positions or tons of rebuttals with the hope that they ignore it. I pay attention most to the logic of the round, and will vote off who logically proves their side the best.

I did 4 years of debate in high school (3 yrs PF and 1 yr LD).

Please do not spread, it's difficult to follow along. Also no super tech stuff.

I prefer that you use your summary speeches to make the round crystal clear for me, and tell me what to vote on.

I don't really factor in what happens during cross ex, unless you're being rude to each other (so be respectful).

Keep your own time and sign post!!

Extra speaker points if you say silly goose in one of your speeches lol.

I am a lay judge. I prefer slow talking and would appreciate it if you implicate your arguments well. Please provide off time roadmaps. Weighing is crucial to the round and I will judge mainly off of it or a lack thereof.

Hello, My name is Autumn Kutsick, I competed on Northern Arizona University's Team for a year and a half. I have competed in Parli, IPDA, Extemporaneous, Impromptu, and Oxford.

Questions on my paradigm or your ballots email: aj.kutsick@gmail.com

You may use the same email to include me in the evidence chain.

General:

1. Don't be a jerk, when it all ends debate is fun and you and your opponent should both learn something.
2. Please weigh your rounds and your impacts, I don't want to do it for you, it's your job to tell me why something is important and why you deserve the vote.
3. Definitions are important, if you are going to claim abuse on a definition tell me why and where it comes from. Don't just add on to definitions.
4. A plan that lacks solvency is not a plan, you must be able to show your plan will actually accomplish something.
5. Impact Calc is important!! If you want my ballot tell me why you deserve it!
6. Do not weigh impacts in an icky way, especially pfers. I will take you down on ethos if you make an argument that clearly ignores important values.
7. Dropped points are very important, especially if your opponent points it out.
8. Do not lie to me, or manipulate source material. I will not use outside information but if you outright lie I will drop the entire point and your speaks. This goes for purposefully misinterpreting and misconstruing cards as well.
9. Don't put words in your opponent's mouth, especially in the last speech. Listen and do not manipulate, using what they say against their case is fine but don't manipulate them to serve your purposes.
10. Speak clearly, I dislike spreading because I don't want to hear 3 pages of evidence I want to hear the logical conclusions you came to from your evidence. You must make arguments not just use your evidence as your argument. This is a sport that requires critical thinking and I want you to show me where you did that thinking.
11. Link your arguments, I don't need you to hold my hand through your case but I do need to see where you draw connections.
12. Currency and uniqueness are important, if your opponent has older evidence that is less important than newer evidence for the issue at hand point it out. Same with unique impacts, while all impacts are important social media isn't the only cause of body image problems, etc.
13. As being someone who did college parli I understand tech and am not lay, however, if you are going to run an out-of-the-box k it better be clear how everything links together.

Speeches:

1. Signpost, I need to be able to follow you for it to make it onto my flow.
2. Stay away from Ad Homonym attacks, these have no place in the education of any round. You and your opponent are both intelligent, show me that by clashing with their case not their personality.

Cross:

1. Yes, it is binding but less important if it isn't mentioned in the speech.
2. Don't be rude. Again this may be heated but no personal attacks.
3. Make sure there is actually a question, don't drone on where it is unclear to both your opponent and I what you are asking.
4. Statements made by those who are supposed to be asking a question will not be considered.
5. If you are going to cut your opponent off do it respectfully at a natural breaking point.

Counterplans (For Policy):

1. Must prove why they are better with less detrimental impacts. Please don't propose a counterplan without solvency.
2. With a counterplan it should still solve the problem completely. IE.) Don't give me a counterplan for the terrible treatment of prisoners in workplaces saying you are going to pay them minimum wage, this leaves out safety, training, etc.

Voters:

1. I vote on well-linked arguments if your plan solves everything but is poorly linked then the status quo outweighs.
2. Show me how your case is better, and what is more important.
3. Make sure the round weight comes back up at the end.
4. Tell me why I'm voting for you and show the impacts if I don't. Please don't make me do the dirty work.

I will disclose and give a verbal RFD if you stick around. Don't be afraid to ask questions and most of all have fun :)!

“Please speak slowly and clearly because if I can't understand then I can't vote for you"

1). Please show utmost respect to both your opponents and teammates. If I hear derogatory behavior from anyone, I will have to vote against you (Absolutely fine to be assertive and bold but please do not interrupt nor show disrespect).

2). No spreading at all. Talk in a way I can understand.

3). Time yourselves. I expect you to be fair about it.

4). You do not have to extend every piece of warranting but do it so I can still put stuff down in our flow.

5). I am a relatively new judge so organize your information in a way that is clear and concise.

6). Signpost or it will be hard to follow you.

Parent/Lay judge- I vote off of presentation and logic

Background:

• State Champion and 2-time entrant to the Tournament of Champions for Brophy College Preparatory in PF.
• Graduated from U of A Honors College with a triple major in Economics, Political Science and Classics.
• Coached and founded Salpointe PF Debate and ran the UA Model UN program in college. Post-graduation I coached for my alma mater for 5 years.
• Presently, I am a management consultant specializing in data analytics for government clients and I have my own side gig doing oratory, analytics and strategy consulting see petsasconsulting.com.

What I would want changed in the status quo:

• N/A

What I expect/prefer:

• In an exchange of evidence no one is allowed to prep until evidence is received.
• The second rebuttal must defend their case that they wish to extend. "New argument" to me, means something mutually exclusive to the existing arguments on the flow. Continuing the debate, to me, is important and more constructive for learning rather than repeating the same thing you have said since the constructive. Interact specifically with your opponent's arguments! To do that you will have to listen to them instead of reading straight from your block files.
• As long as every word is articulated and easily understood, you can go as fast as you would like. If I stop flowing in constructive or rebuttal, then you are doing something wrong. Spreading/going fast will result in lower speaker points but you can still win the round. I do value Speech theory and will evaluate even if it is brought up late in a round, but if you are bringing it up late in round, you must warrant why I should still evaluate an argument that would ordinarily violate the rules.
• I do not flow CX. It is time for debaters to seek explanations from their opponents and seek out contradictions in their line of argumentation. If you give a speech the whole time, then you are wasting your time and my time. Same goes for reading evidence etc. Anything that happens that is of any value in CX should be brought up in a speech, otherwise, it didn't happen (and very often nothing productive does happen).
• I expect that there will be impact calculus done for me in the round. On a VERY BASIC level, for example, if one team's most important argument comes down to economic impacts and their opponents most important argument is going for an environmental impact then I would EXPECT reasons as to prefer one impact over the other. You do not want me to decide what is important.
• I do not care if you are the "better team" if the worse team makes better arguments, then they will win the round. Good teams can lose easy debates, I am not going to give it to you, you have to earn it. It is always best to leave no doubt.
• Only give me an off-time roadmap if you are actually doing something out of the ordinary in terms of starting in a particular place on the flow that isn't the top of one side.
• If you are the first rebuttal and you take time to "strengthen your case" without providing new evidence or impact calculus at the end when your opponents haven't attacked it yet, then you are doing it wrong. Please sit down if you have nothing else to say.
• I do not want to shake your hand after the round.

I am a parent and enjoy learning about new topics during a debate. Please make sure you explain your thoughts clearly and speak in normal conversation speed so that I can fully follow along your arguments and rebuttals.

At this time, I have no stated paradigms.

I am a parent judge, and I am fairly new to judging speech and debate.

Speech
Speak clearly. Ensure your character transitions are distinguishable and breakouts identifiable.
I value a speech that keeps me engaged.

Debate
Speak clearly. Do not spread.
Be respectful. Do not yell or be abusive.
Identify contentions clearly. Number them so that I can keep track. Use signposting. Stay organized.