I like a nicely structured debate. Making the framework and definitions clear is important. However, I do not like for this to carry on. Make the structure clear and move on. You should not still be debating what the framework is in your last rebuttals.

I look for quality sources, not quantity

Debates that build off each other are the best. Don't debate at me, debate with your opponent.

I also look for speaking style. Since I am primarily a speech judge, I take speaking skills into account. Mumbling, speaking monotonously, over using hand movements, and stumbling will rank you lower.

Lastly, I just want the argument to make sense. Don't give me a convoluted, overly complex argument. Make it make sense.

I’m a parent judge and new to debate. If I cannot understand you, I cannot effectively judge you, therefore please speak clearly and NO SPREADING.

I am not a professional LD coach so I appreciate a clearly stated value supported with evidence.

I take notes so please speak loud enough for me to hear you. While taking notes I may have my head down, however please do not interpret my head down as a lack of engagement. When speaking, be explicit about what supports your case and/or what detracts from your opponent. I expect a thoughtful response to your opponent and not solely a reinforcement of your value.

In honoring the rules of debate, do not bring up any new arguments in the second half of a round, they will be disregarded.

Good luck, and have fun!

I judge debaters in two main areas: rhetoric and role-play.

Rhetoric- I love to see pathos, logos, and ethos evident in speeches. I especially value a good hook to introduce the speech to the chamber that is well thought out, dripping in pathos, and leaves me wanting to hear more. A debater should utilize logos and have reliable evidence to back up claims of impact and harm. The speech's conclusion should recap and utilize ethos suggesting to the chamber why they should be persuaded to vote with their side on the legislation.

Role-play- Each debater should conduct themselves the same way a real member of Congress would act. This includes language, vocabulary, parliamentary procedure, and referring to other chamber members as Congressmen. I would also include, that they should refer to other Congressman's arguments and mention that person by name as they debate and refute opinions contrary to their own.

anita.DukeDiv at gmail

My name is Anita Salazar. I competed in and have judged just about every speech and debate event. For Debate, although I only competed in PF and Congress, I have been judging LD and CX since 2009. I have seen an array of traditional and progressive arguments and I value validity and logic. I tend to be critical of dropped arguments, but I don't believe more substantiative points should be shadowed by a delineation. Regarding speed: I am fine with any speed if there are signposts and good taglines, but being virtual makes this a bit trickier. Being included in the chain helps this exponentially; but because of internet stability issues, I think it is wise to always confer with your opponent and judge(s) in the round first before spreading.

This is my third year as a parent judge. A few things about my judging preferences:

- I value a clear logic flow and argument

- It’s important during a debate to allow the listeners to understand your argument and points, so it’s better to speak slowly and to be heard, rather than quickly (clarity over speed)

• I love a good clash. You’ll get credit for a clear, logical argument, but demonstrating the ability to modify your argument and rebut your opponents’ ACTUAL argument is very important (dynamic arguments are very effective)
• Be civil in your crossfire. You will lose speaker points with me for badgering your opponent.

Most important: have fun. The ability to debate is a crucial life skill!

Updated Paradigm:

When I judge the congressional debate, I consider the following points to give my vote in favor of the debater.

1. Debater who provides new arguments that furthered the debate rather than repeating previous speakers arguments.
2. Debater who asks best questions, answers appropriately and accurately to the questions.
3. Debater who participates throughout the session.
4. Debater who offers highly organized speeches and clear transition.
5. Debater who provides evidence based examples that were collected from credible sources to support their arguments.
6. Debater who speaks great analysis of the issues through their points.
7. Debater who rebuts the arguments with strong and valid points.