EXPERIENCE
High School Debate Team + Judging HS Debate = 7 years
Keynote Speaking from Kentucky to Kuala Lumpur in front of associations, companies, news reporters, governments and the United Nations from 5 to 500 people = 20 Years

DEBATE PHILOSOPHY
Winning is listening.
Hear their argument. And defend yours. Cartoon villain monologuing is not debate. Reading ChatGPT vomit is not. 52 card pickup is not.
No amount of prep or planning can overcome dismissing Neg's argument, or not realizing you were just skewered by them. An argument is to defend with evidence, or a counterplan, with evidence. Not to claim Aff doesn't get it.
Debate is a persuasive exercise...not you & Mrs. Truth versus the criminally misguided. Read the room, are you persuading anyone?

APPROACH
Anything said not in a round, is a prep time.
I will flow, so speak clearly, in structured ideas, or I can't credit you for it. If you don't do that often, no one can.
Judge based on:
1. Hearing a logical explanation of intentions and outcomes that are,
2. Clearly linked to causes/impacts with a,
3. Direct line to a greater cause/impact over your opponent's cause/impact.

HOW TO WIN:
I value presenters who know their craft. And their topic. Show that you know your burdens and how to overcome them. Illustrate your nuanced understanding of the topic (resolutions are chosen because they have nuance). Explain and engage in a narrative, where your outcome is inevitable given the overwhelming evidence you presented, and your opponent's lack of it.
Work your CX to expose Aff's flaws (there are always flaws). Stand your ground when the hits come back. Get creative in your Neg, step up to Aff's first move advantage.
Use your 1AR and 1NR to extend, not repeat. Fortify your defense beyond a shadow of a doubt. Clash the attacks like you mean it. Respect the art form, and each other.
Respond to what's being thrown at you.
(You will also have more fun)

HOW TO LOSE:
- Bold claims without evidence.
- Spreading...just means you have not honed your ideas. It's not a cattle auction. No one talks like that.
- Reading everything....life isn't written down, look at your audience.
- Skipping/Ignoring...like how CX blew your Kritik into shrapnel.
- Not present, or pretending like you don't understand their CX...if you didn't prepare to defend each contention, you just downloaded your case.
- Dismissive, rude or condescending is really your fear of not being good enough (you are, you made it here, so be cool).

Good luck...if you read this far, you are already ahead of your opponent.

Hi, I am a parent volunteer for speech and debate.

Speech and Debate

My criteria for judging a debate round is looking for

emphasizing strong argumentation,

clear value-based reasoning

effective cross-examination, with a focus on the central issue of the resolution, typically centering around morality

There should be clear communication of framework or a standard flow. Speak clearly, do not speed. If I can't get your arguments down and understand what you are saying then it is difficult to give full credit to your work.

Clear articulation of a value and criterion that demonstrates a strong understanding of the underlying value of the topic being debated. Debators should be able to show and how the value criterion is applied to the resolution.

Logical reasoning and evidence. I like empirical evidence - you will not win the round by trying to win an emotional argument.

Effective refutation

Strong cross-examination skills:Asking insightful questions to expose weaknesses in the opponent's argument and gain strategic advantage.

Persuasive communication:Delivering speeches with clear language, appropriate tone, and engaging delivery to effectively convey their arguments to the judge.I like a well thought out/planned case that makes sense logically - I like to be able to connect the dots and get full picture.Most Important-- Be Kind, Do not be rude. I can deal with assertive, but screaming, belittling opponents, eye rolling, head shaking and showing general contempt is not acceptable.

• DUO: I look for following criteria for duo performance

• • • Collaboration and Synergy:
  • How well do the duo partners interact and support each other on stage?
  • Are transitions between speakers smooth and natural?
  • Do they effectively build on each other's points?
  • 
    
    
  • Interpretation and Character Development:
  • Is the chosen piece clearly interpreted and understood by the audience?
  • Are the characters distinct and well-developed?
  • Does the duo effectively convey the relationships between characters?
  • 
    
    
  • Delivery and Performance Quality:
  • Vocal variety and projection
  • Facial expressions and body language
  • Engaging stage presence and connection with the audience
  • Technical Execution:
  • Proper timing and pacing
  • Effective use of blocking and stage space
  • Clear and audible delivery
  • Individual Contributions:
  • Does each duo member contribute meaningfully to the performance?
  • Are strengths balanced between partners?
  • Are there noticeable disparities in performance quality between the duo?

  Important Considerations:

  • Clarity of Theme and Message: Evaluate how well the duo communicates the central theme or message of the piece.
  • Emotional Impact: Assess how effectively the performance evokes emotions in the audience.
  • Originality and Creativity: Consider if the duo brings a unique perspective or interpretation to the material.

Team coach and experienced judge. My strengths lie with judging speech, but I am still a competent debate judge. I am fine with any rate of speech. I strongly prefer organized arguments backed with clear and cited evidence. I do prefer the use of off-time roadmaps to maintain my own flow. I am more likely to give you the round based on your ability to find and explicitly point out flaws in your opponent’s case/arguments than on the basis of an assertion that your case is simply better. I am very good at picking up on dropped arguments/flow and bad evidence, but will not count it against your opponent unless you specifically point it out yourself, or there are very egregious errors. I am also critical about use of time, and if a round is close, I will be more likely to grant the win to the competitor who had fuller and more effective use of time.