I am a Middle School Speech and Debate coach. I judged debate at the NSDA nationals last year and have judged on our local circuit here in Richmond, VA. Have completed cultural competency training via NSDA.

Here are my prefs:

1. Clear signposting throughout.
2. Cut your cards cleanly. I may ask to see evidence at the end if something is unclear or if a particular piece of evidence has been a source of contention in this round.
3. Speed is your worst enemy with me. (Lay/Flay only). High speed tech is not great for me. I will flow the round.
4. Make sure you have clean and clear logic chains with impacts that I can weigh. If you leave me with nothing to weigh at the end it will be incredibly hard to make a decision.
5. I want to see interaction with the evidence and cards provided.
6. Most importantly, I value and uphold civil discourse. I will not tolerate mean-spirited, snarky, or otherwise disrespectful debate.

Current Experience:

Co-Advisor for Marvin Ridge HS Speech & Debate Club

Parent of Cuthbertson HS Speech Student

Have been judging as a parent and an advisor for 2 years now

Spanish & French Teacher, National Honor Society Advisor

Previous Experience:

Directed HS theatre program & taught a speech course (also HS level)

Managed a business for 15 years

Values:

DEBATE: I value good delivery and awareness of the audience for debate events. No "spreading" -- if you are incomprehensible, your arguments will not convey. Make good use of your cross-fires, be respectful. Interesting and innovative contentions can be stimulating, but make sure that you have good citations to ground in reality, not speculation.

SPEECH: For speech, I have no hold-ups for possible "triggers" in material. I will react as an audience member. I value good use of evidence and organized delivery, especially for info, extemp, impromptu, etc. Random movement and pacing is a distractor. Always happy to enjoy a great speech or performance!

I take contemporaneous notes, so they will flow in the order of your speech, from execution comments to suggestions, and analysis of structure. I am happy to give immediate verbal feedback to all competitors to help with any improvements that can be made, if time allows and permitted by the host school.

My Background

I am a parent judge with a unique professional background spanning Engineering, Marketing, and Graphology. As a Graphologist, I work with individuals to help them enhance their personality traits through handwriting analysis. I am also a mother of two boys and bring both analytical and nurturing perspectives to the debate space. This is my first year judging Public Forum

Judging Philosophy

I evaluate debates through both technical and accessibility lenses. As an engineer, I appreciate structured arguments and clear evidence. As a marketer, I value effective communication and persuasion.

Expectations Delivery

• Speak at a comfortable, comprehensible pace
• Maintain clarity in your speech
• Project confidence while staying respectful
• No interruptions or aggressive behavior will be tolerated
• Keep a calm and professional demeanor throughout

Organization

• Present arguments in a structured, logical manner
• Clearly signpost your main points
• Make explicit connections between arguments
• Properly cite your evidence

Content

• Focus on quality of arguments over quantity
• Explain complex concepts in accessible terms
• Demonstrate the real-world impact of your arguments
• Back claims with credible evidence

General Notes

• You are responsible for your own time management
• When I look down, I am taking notes to ensure fair evaluation
• Maintain professional courtesy towards all participants
• Remember that debate should be both educational and enjoyable

Evidence and Citations

• Present author qualifications and publication dates clearly
• Prefer reputable academic, government, or established institutional sources
• Paraphrasing is acceptable, but direct quotes should be marked as such
• Be prepared to provide full citations if requested
• Evidence quality matters more than quantity

Cross-Examination

• Maintain professional and respectful tone
• One speaker at a time - no talking over each other
• Questions should be concise and focused
• Use this time effectively to expose flaws or gain concessions
• No new arguments should be made during cross-examination

Technical Considerations

• Moderate speed is preferred - clarity over speed
• No spreading will be evaluated
• Technical debate terms are acceptable but should be explained
• Off-time roadmaps are permitted but keep them brief
• Avoid excessive debate theory unless directly relevant

Argument Evaluation Framework

• Clear, practical frameworks preferred
• Explain real-world implications
• Both traditional and progressive frameworks acceptable
• Cost-benefit analysis appreciated
• Consider both short and long-term impacts

Weighing Mechanisms

• Explicitly compare competing arguments
• Magnitude, probability, and timeframe matter
• Quantifiable impacts preferred when available
• Consider both direct and indirect effects
• Explain why your impacts outweigh

Dropped Arguments

• Dropped arguments are considered true but must be warranted
• Extensions must include full argument, not just tags
• Drops in final focus carry more weight
• Technical concessions should be highlighted

Speech-Specific Expectations Summary Speeches

• Clear crystallization of key issues
• Respond to main opposing arguments
• Establish clear narrative
• Begin weighing process
• No new arguments

Final Focus

• Limited to arguments from summary
• Crystal clear impact comparison
• Explicit voting issues
• Show why you're winning
• Connect back to framework

Flow and Note-Taking

• I flow on paper and take detailed notes
• Clear signposting helps me follow
• Numbers and statistics should be written on the board
• Visual aids are welcome but not required

Additional Notes

• No prep time stealing
• Flash prep is acceptable but counted
• Be ready to start when prep time ends
• Flex prep is not permitted
• Keep a positive and professional demeanor throughout

Speaker Point Scale

• 30: Outstanding performance in all aspects
• 29: Excellent performance with minor areas for improvement
• 28: Strong performance with clear room for growth
• 27: Good performance with several areas needing work
• 26: Basic performance meeting minimum expectations
• 25: Performance needs significant improvement

Note: This paradigm may be refined as I gain more judging experience. Above all, remember to be kind, speak clearly, and enjoy the debate!