I have been judging various events for 2 years. I always try to bury any personal knowledge or belief about topics and judge solely on what is presented in the round by the debaters.

I look for well-defined arguments that are educational and don't assume previous knowledge. I prefer hearing fewer well-defined arguments than a litany of arguments that are spoken at a rapid pace to deliver as much information as possible. I strongly prefer a debater to not use spreading as a method of debate, it sounds like jibberish to me.

I look for respect toward opponents. I like a natural flow of speech and a tone that is passionate but not shrill.

My daughter has done LD debate for the past 3 years and I am a parent judge. I prefer when you speak at a pace in which is understandable and complex arguments are welcome as long as they make sense and are backed with reasonable evidence. Make sure to signpost (state which arguments you are referencing) so I can understand the order. I do not appreciate "spreading" as it makes it hard to understand your arguments when speaking at an incredibly fast pace, talk at a reasonable pace. Remember to state how you win (voters issues) towards the end of your last speech as it provides a good wrap-up of the debate. Philosophies are very interesting, please just define them beforehand and clearly state how it ties in with your case to make it easier for me to understand. Thank you!

I have judged Speech rounds from local to Nationals, and I have been included in Debate, Congress, L-D and PF competitions.

The opportunity for me to judge at Nationals several times has been exciting and very rewarding!

I want to be able to understand you, please speak clearly. My expectations for this

event are:

Disrespect is never ok, be fair to each other and treat people as you would like to be treated.

Be kind, to others as well as yourself.

Logical, clear arguments are appreciated!

"Don't raise your voice. Improve your argument." Desmond Tutu

Parent Judge. My daughter has been debating LD for two years now so therefore I have judged quite a bit, but I do not have any experience with debating myself. Please talk at a conversational pace, If I cannot understand hear/understand you I will not be able to decide whether or not you win. Please run a traditional case.

I am a lay judge who did not debate in high school or college. However, I am the Director of Assessment and a faculty member at a nearby university who teaches research methods, assessment design, and public scholarship. My classes are based on research integration and effective argumentation!

Effective debaters:

* are knowledgeable of the rules
* are reliable and arrive promptly
* are able to look up from their prepared, written remarks
* maintain appropriate speed
* are able to roll with technology glitches

I do not reward spreading. If I cannot follow and document your argument, I will not hold your competitor accountable for a response.

I am a parent lay judge! We would all benefit if you present your arguments at a pace and in an outline format that ensures I can flow them correctly. I have no issues with an off-time roadmap if you desire.

I value logic with supporting evidence over emotional arguments. I would prefer to hear coherently linked arguments rather than an assortment of arguments unrelated to each other.

I'm flow oriented and prefer that debaters explicitly state and weigh impacts. I like to include authors' names when I flow; please read them clearly.

mcrileyro35@gmail.com

cary academy '25

7 bids and won a few tournaments

prefs:

1 - phil/theory

2 - policy/k

3 - identity/performance

general:

im fine with any argument that has a claim warrant and impact

i have a really low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments

i default truth testing and presumption and permissibility both negate

blatantly reading off the doc or making terrible strategic choices is annoying and gets your speaks docked

phil: i think phil debate is fun and strategic but does get very messy. ag ks i think the perm is often true. i don't dislike util and think extinction ows is very strategic.

theory: this is my favorite argument to go for but can be very not fun to judge. any shell is fine. judge instruction, lbl, and actual weighing wins these debates. new or interesting shells or the rvi are cool and will be rewarded with speaks.

policy: used to be a policy debater so i really like policy arguments. i prefer to judge da case, but process cps are very strategic. impact turns are my favorite.

k: i like k debates with specific links that are heavy on lbl and don't rely on imbedded clash. i don't know every lit base so please explain if it is beyond pess, cap, psycho, baudrillard, setcol, or heidegger.

identity/performance: i don't really know how to evaluate these debates and i often feel the aff can't beat presumption. explain what the k does and you should be fine.

tricks: i like smart or substantive tricks like indexicals with an actual warrant or topic specific aprioris. i don't like nail bomb affs or NCs that are just a ton of bad nibs, these debates become a pain to judge. these arguments largely lack warrants or implications but will obviously vote on things that are conceded.

lay debates: these are cool - i need lbl and judge instruction in these debates, otherwise they get really annoying to resolve. don't be mean to lay debaters or novices.

As a new judge, I bring a positive attitude & an open willingness to learn. Iam a critical thinker who appreciates a great debate.

Here are some points to ponder:

• Construction of Message: Is your argument sound? Does your evidence support your claims? Does your argument flow in a logically sound way, that makes it easy to follow?
• Focus on the topic; try not to deviate; keep the main thing the main thing
• Coherent, well explained arguments win rounds
• Speak clearly & confidently
• Show respect toward your opponent & don't be rude
• Evidence matters, data helps
• Make sure you address your opponents claims
• Crossfire is important but not as important as your speeches
• Relax & have fun

I am a layjudge. Do your best to persuade me!

I am a novice judge and excited to be participating in the events. This is my first time, so please speak slowly and clearly. Be kind to your opponents. Looking forward to it!

Please introduce yourself with your name and preferred pronouns.

This is my second year judging speech and debate, but I have enjoyed every minute of it and I hope you will to!

Please speak clearly and present your case in an understandable manner.

If you would like any time signals please let me know before you speak otherwise I will time you from your first word.

I really enjoy hearing thoughtful arguments from young people. The talent on display in these tournaments gives me hope for our future!

1) Manage your time well

2) Be prepared with material for evidence

3) Respect your opponent

4) Effective communication rather than speed is key

5) Use logical reasoning to strengthen your points

Hello and good luck! I’m data-driven and rational person. I will look for a logical flow and prefer you stayed on topic or only include relevant information. I enjoy diversity of thought and opinion. I make every effort not rely on my own beliefs but focus on the evidence presented.