In my role as an LD judge, I prioritize the value clash in determining the winner of the round. I expect debaters to clearly define their values and value criteria, and to consistently explain how their arguments uphold or fulfill the respective values.

• I view the value clash as central: the debaters should not only argue about the facts but also demonstrate how their positions fulfill a higher moral or philosophical principle.

• To win the round, debaters must explain not only the relevance of their value but also why their value is superior in the context of the resolution.

• I expect both sides to engage directly with the opponent's value. Simply asserting that your value is better or more important is insufficient without reasoning and analysis that compares both sides’ values.

• Comparative analysis between the values should be the cornerstone of your speeches. It's essential to prove that your value system better addresses the resolution than your opponent’s.

• Evidence plays a role, but it’s secondary to the overall value clash.

• A strong impact analysis is necessary. Why does your value matter in the context of the resolution? Why does it make the world a better place or offer a superior moral framework? Strong impacts are those that resonate with fundamental human experiences and ethical principles.

• If a debater is clear and persuasive but slower, I will still prioritize them in the round.

• Your delivery is secondary to the argumentation. I care more about your ability to explain and argue the central moral principles than your presentation style, as long as it's intelligible.

• I appreciate when debaters make clear ethical connections between their framework and real-world consequences.

• Don’t just explain your framework; apply it to your position's resolution and real-world impact.

• Feel free to challenge the opponent’s value by showing its limitations, contradictions, or its inability to address the issue at hand properly.

Hello competitors! My name is Leon Li, and I'm excited to be your judge.

Striving to be objective and attentive, I view speech and debate as both a competition and an educational activity. Thus, I'm open to various styles and approaches but expect arguments to be logically sound, well-reasoned, and clearly delivered; and communications to be effective. I'm a big fan of Aristotle's three modes of persuasion (ethos, pathos, and logos) that he used to explain the art of rhetoric, in which compassions, character demonstration, audience engagement, and well-structured logics and frameworks are all appreciated and awarded.

I will aim to provide fair, clear and constructive feedbacks while respecting the time and effort you've invested in preparing for the competition.

Good luck, and I look forward to great rounds!

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.

tldr: I am a traditional judge. It is probably in your best interest to run a traditional case. But if you feel the need to run something non-traditional I will do my best to keep up (especially if I'm the only judge on your panel who prefers traditional).

-----

I was the assistant speech and debate coach for Pennsbury HS in Pennsylvania from 2018-2020, and I am currently a freelance judge when needed. I'm also on the Board of Directors for the Bulgarian English Speech and Debate Tournament (BEST) Foundation where I also served as a coach for primarily World Schools Debate. I competed primarily in Congressional Debate and Extemporaneous Speaking from 2012-2016. I was a 3x NSDA qualifier in Congressional Debate.

First and foremost, know that I am not usually a debate judge. I've judged my share of PF and LD, and I have a general understanding of how to judge both events (so I'm not a lay judge insofar as I do have an idea of what I'm doing). For that reason, I prefer traditional arguments, but I can deal with progressive cases if you have an interesting perspective (but I would definitely lean on the side of traditional). I'm also okay with counterplans (in LD), but I will caution that I am almost always on the lookout for a mutual exclusivity argument from Aff when I hear counterplanning from the Neg. So if you're going to run one on Neg, be absolutely certain that what you're proposing cannot exist in an Aff world. If it can, and Aff points it out, my ballot is almost always decided then and there.

I can deal with K's, theory, phil etc. But please explain some of terms you're using if you can - I don't know all of the acronyms and me being confused is probably not good for you. Err on the side of traditional if you can, as that's what I'm best equipped to judge. But if I'm the only judge on your panel with these preferences, run your progressive case - I'll try and keep up.

-----

Because I enjoy a good debate, here are my preferences:

- Come prepared with all of your cards organized. I don't want to sit there and waste time while you fish around to find a specific card.

- Speed: Spreading will make it so that I can't include as much info on the flow - my typing is not super fast. In terms of speed, I suggest that you speak quickly but don't spread.

- Please signpost and lay out a roadmap, ESPECIALLY in your rebuttal speeches. I'm cool with off-time roadmaps (in fact, I encourage it).

- I will time you, but I expect you to time yourself and your opponents - I will stop flowing if you go over time.

- I appreciate a good clash over a good point. It makes filling out my ballot much easier when I can link arguments together.

- PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE weigh the round. I cannot stress how important it is for you to lay this out in your rebuttal speeches.

My email is morgan.elizabeth.rowe@gmail.com if you have any more questions.

I appreciate the delivery of the spoken word at a moderate speed. I request that you utilize consideration when engaging with teammates, opponents and judges. Please present your argument in a clear, concise and organized manner. I need you to connect your details to your argument.

I am unble to judge speed reading adequately, therefore more often than not you will lose my vote. Please utilize language to clarify your points and enable your speech to be easily followed.

It is helpful to utilize tag lines, signposts. Roadmaps off - time help to clarify the organization of your presentation for me.

Debates and arguments must be persuasive. If the argument does not persuade me, I will not be able to cast my vote for it. Debaters must tell me what is importand and why I should cast my vote for their position. Please be clear and concise about what I am considering and emphasize your key points. The impacts of your contentions must be realistic. Your arguments must be clear and plausible. Please present a clear anaylsis of why you should win in the final rebuttal round.

I evaluate your fluency of speech, rate, tone, use of transitions, as well as organization of details. Please view each session as an opportunity to learn and grow. I look forward to the opportunity to learn from you!!!