UPDATED 2/21/20: I do not judge as often as I may once have. At most local events, I find myself on the operations side of a tournament.

That should not terrify you – I am a career public servant, who happens to coach debate because I appreciate everything that it taught me as a student. You should assume that I approach debate rounds this way: what is the best decision I can make given the information presented to me?

It may sound old-fashioned, but I do not wish to be on any email chains. I have sadly witnessed teams answering entire disadvantages not read by their opponents simply because they were included in said distribution. Not to be outdone, I have read ballots where judges voted on evidence that nobody read. I pledge to keep the best flow I can. If I need to see a piece of evidence, and the particular league or tournament's rules allow for that, I will call for it.

If you are short on time reading this, my paradigm can be expressed in six (6) words: do your thing and be nice. If you are really short on time, we can go with four (4): old guy, still flows.

Policy:

1. Speed is fine, but clarity is necessary. I cannot vote on what I do not have typed/written down. I try hard to listen to the text of the evidence presented;
2. Open cross-examination is acceptable, but if it is clear than one member of the team is not able to participate at the same level, speaker points will suffer;
3. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I look first to any potential violation(s) of stock issues and then default to a policymaking perspective.

Lincoln Douglas:

1. I do not mind an LD round that gets on down the flow;
2. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I will default to a whole resolution lens looking first to the value/value criterion debate.

Public Forum/Speech:

1. Nothing earth-shattering here. I am less speed tolerant in public forum and I will simply apply the ballot criteria to whatever speech event is at hand.

Regardless of event, we enter the debate knowing the resolution and some basic rules of the road (e.g., speech times, likely printed on the ballot). By tabula rasa I mean that the debaters establish the framework for evaluating debates. You should do what you do best and do it well. Arguments should have three parts – a claim, a warrant, and some sort of greater implication regardless of your style.

I still believe that good decisions should flow like water. Great rebuttals frame debates and clash wins rounds. My ballots will provide a succinct RFD, possibly pointing out either strengths or opportunities for improvement as we progress through the speeches. 3AR/3NR oral critiques nauseate me: what I say out loud (if disclosure is permitted) will almost certainly match what I am placing on your ballot. Your coach should see comments too. You did not go to the dentist; my RFD is never going to read “oral.”

Finally, be respectful of your partners, opponents, and judges. I have zero tolerance for poor behavior in debate rounds.

I prefer a loud, clear, confident speaker.

You can speak at any speed, but make sure that you are clear with your arguments

I also enjoy logical arguments.

I am a relatively new parent judge who prefers traditional debate. Please go slow in the round and do not assume that I understand esoteric arguments. I like when debaters emphasize their voters and consistently tie their framework to their arguments. Remember to give me an analysis of the round during your last rebuttal speech. Keep debate jargon limited and do not be overly aggressive to your opponents.

I believe that debate is a communication event and therefore the participants should use a clear, audible, understandable vocal rate, tone, and inflection in their delivery. A quick rate that is clear, understandable, and respectful to the opposing side may be used. I expect the debater's delivery to create an inclusive atmosphere for those in the round.

I flow on paper. Use clear tags lines. Make sure that you clearly state the resolution, provide clear definitions, interpretation, weighing mechanisms, impacts, voters etc. Do not assume I have extensive knowledge on the subject matter. Explain it to me in your case. This is your responsibility. If I don't understand it from your argument, then you run the risk of losing the ballot. Debate is essentially the affirmative's advantages verses the negative's disadvantages. Make me understand your case. Thank you.

Conflicts: Pennsbury High School

Background: My educational background is a bachelor’s degree in human resources. I also have a master’s degree in human resources. My dream was to pursue a Law degree but, life got in the way.

General: I value clear and consistent speaking with good eye contact, movement, use of hands and at a reasonable pace that promotes understanding of your topic. Be clear, concise and organized. You should always treat your judges & opponents with respect. Please communicate any time signals you desire.

Help me understand your speech and/or arguments so I can evaluate you better and vote.

I am a parent judge so; I strive to treat you and your competitors with respect and fairness, I expect the same.

she/her

Hello, my name is Ms. Magee. I am an advanced public speaking teacher and assistant speech and debate coach. I am new to LD judging.

For LD: Please, do not spread; I value clear and concise speaking. I also expect clear attribution of credible sources.

susanmagee17@gmail.com

In general, speak at a moderate speed, and be considerate of your teammates, opponents, and judges. Refrain from hyperbole. Please be clear, concise, and organized -- connect the dots for me.

I am not a technical judge. I will flow the best I can and evaluate your arguments but I am not comfortable with progressive rounds. Keep the round traditional (no tricks) or risk losing my ballot. There is no need to speed read. Please do things to make your speech easier to follow. Slow down/emphasize taglines. Signpost, and Roadmap off-time for clarity.

Debate and arguments must be persuasive. If the argument does not persuade me, I have no reason to vote for it. I do not intervene so debaters must tell me what is important and why I should vote for them. Be clear about what I am weighing and what I should value most highly. Impacts should be realistic. Not every action could or will cause a nuclear war. Your argument should be clear and plausible. I appreciate a clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.

It is important to show respect to your competitors and approach every speech as an opportunity to teach and learn.

TL;DR:

· Make it clear and easy for me to see why you won and you'll probably win.

With More Words:

I've judged and coached extensively across events but at this point spend more time on the tab side of tournaments than judging.

If you want the ballot, make clear, compelling, and warranted arguments for why you should win. If you don’t provide any framework, I will assume util = trutil. If there is an alternate framework I should be using, explain it, warrant it, contextualize it, extend it.

Generally Tech>Truth but I also appreciate rounds where I don’t hate myself for voting for you. That being said, I firmly believe that debate is an educational activity and that rounds should be accessible. I will not vote for arguments that are intentionally misrepresenting evidence or creating an environment that is hostile or harmful.

I am open to pretty much anything you want to read but, in the interest of full disclosure, I think that tricks set bad communication norms within debate.

General Stuff:

Most of this is standard but I'll say it anyways: Don’t extend through ink and pretend they "didn't respond". In the back half of the debate, make sure your extensions are responsive to the arguments made, not just rereading your cards. If they say something in cross that it is important enough for me to evaluate, make sure you say it in a speech. Line by line is important but being able to step back and explain the narrative/ doing the comparative analysis makes it easier to vote for you.

Weighing is important and the earlier you set it up, the better. Quality over quantity when it comes to evidence-- particularly in later speeches in the round, I'd rather slightly fewer cards with more analysis about what the evidence uniquely means in this specific round. Also, for the love of all that is good and holy, give a roadmap before you start/sign post as you are going. I will be happier; you will be happier; the world will be a better place.

Speed is fine but clarity is essential. Even if I have a speech doc, you'd do best to slow down on tags and analytics. Your speaks will be a reflection of your strategic choices, overall decorum, and how clean your speeches are.

Evidence (PF):

Having evidence ethics is a thing. As a general rule, I prefer that your cards have both authors and dates. Paraphrasing makes me sad. Exchanges where you need to spend more than a minute pulling up a card make me rethink the choices in my life that led me to this round. Generally speaking, I think that judges calling for cards at the end of the round leads to judge intervention. This is a test of your rhetorical skills, not my ability to read and analyze what the author is saying. However, if there is a piece of evidence that is being contested that you want me to read and you ask me to in a speech, I will. Just be sure to contextualize what that piece of evidence means to the round.

A Final Note:

This is a debate round, not a divorce court and your participation in the round should match accordingly. If we are going to spend as many hours as we do at a tournament, we might as well not make it miserable.

Sure, I'd Love to be on the Email Chain: AMurphy4n6@gmail.com

I am a new parent judge, thus I’d appreciate a clear presentation of your argument, signposting, and respect for your opponent. Please speak slowly and do not use jargon or assume that I have topic knowledge. Thank you and have fun!

Speech: Be clear, and make sure your body language and voice complement each other. I love jokes, but only if they're ones I can relate to—remember, I was born in a different time, so keep that in mind.

LD (Lincoln-Douglas): Speed is only useful if you can maintain clarity and conciseness. If you're unsure about balancing both, it's better to slow down. Strong arguments are important, but without proper warranting, they won’t count for much in my book.

Be genuine. If you don't believe in the claim or topic, it's better not to argue it. I value authenticity in the round.

I know rounds can get long and tiring—for you and for me! So, try to incorporate something memorable (in a good way), which will help me remember you and potentially rank you higher!

Overall: Engage me with what you're doing, be kind, and create an enjoyable experience for everyone.

Note: If it’s not already obvious, I’m a Lay Judge. However, I still consider arguments (in debate) and performance (in speech) seriously when evaluating.

Email: deborah.wus@gmail.com

Conflicts: Pennsbury High School

General:

Be clear, coherent and articulate. I encourage you to take your time both in your speaking and preparation. It is your responsibility that I can understand your words and arguments. One strong argument or rebuttal can be the most persuasive with the right impact. I believe in quality over quantity in all elements of debate (i.e. evidence, warrants, contentions, impacts).

Please introduce yourself by name to me and the other team. Professionalism and respect for one another is paramount. Standing while speaking and maintaining eye contact when appropriate is compelling. Delivery is key, so make sure you are audible with proper volume, pitch and pace.