Qualifications

None.

Updated PF Paradigm

Hello. I am a fairly inexperienced debate judge. I value clearly articulated contentions that are well supported with evidence. If you are going to talk fast I need to be able to understand what you are saying. Please avoid using debate terms or acronyms that a lay judge like me may not know. I will vote on what is said, rather than make inferences as to what you meant to say, so the more explicit in linking evidence to your arguments the better. Lastly, in your final focus I will vote on what you tell me so please clearly weigh impacts.

Tips toward securing my ballot:

· No one wants to see another debate like the 2008 P.F. Bronx semis

· If you’re going to run a logical fallacy please make it strong enough so that your opponents cannot identify & respond to it.

· ABSOLUTELY no Nietzscheism(s)

· Please refrain from overstaying your welcome in crossfire…

Experienced LD/Speech Judge

Traditional but open to some K's or plans/CPs

Don't run theory as I will likely vote for the competitor with a more concrete argument

Short Version:

I debated in high school (very traditional policy) and college (parli, just one year). I teach English. While I coach LD, l prefer a good traditional-style Lincoln-Douglas debate. This is not Policy. I look for solid clash of values throughout, and would prefer that you avoid jargon as much as possible. A thoughtful and well-supported value structure is more important to me than individual cards, and everything you discuss should be related to your framework.

Full Version:

Judging Style:

I really like to see good clash. I find it easiest to vote for you if you have a thoughtful, solid framework which is well supported by all of your contentions and evidence. Impacts are extremely important to me. While I think the best debate is traditional in style, I'm open to seeing creative approaches, but only to a limited extent. I have a B.A. in Philosophy, so I'm very comfortable with any philosophical arguments you might want to run. Feel free to be complex, but I will be able to tell if you misrepresent or misunderstand the philosophy.

Speaks:

I generally stick to a range of 26-29, with 26 being average or slightly below, 27 being decent, 28 being good, and 29 being excellent. I typically reserve 30 for persuasive, perfect speech. If you are being truly unnecessarily rude, or use racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. language, then I will rank you lower than this range.

Speed:

For me, this is related to speaker points. I'm fine with speaking quickly, but believe that spreading has no place in debate and is, at its core, abusive. If you spread, I will drop you.

Flashing:

I'm fine if you want to flash your case, cards, whatever to your opponent, so long as there is mutual agreement. I'm not interested in reading your case, though. I will only evaluate you on what is spoken during the round. This is not an essay contest. The only material I will ask to see during or after the round might be specific cards, if questions about them become relevant to the debate.

Regarding time, just don't waste it. I don't typically count the time taken to flash toward prep, unless you're clearly taking advantage.

Ks

I don't generally love these, but I'm happy to entertain a really well constructed K. You'll have an uphill battle, you really need warrant, and I won't typically default away from the resolution, but you could still convince me that you deserve my vote with a good K.

DAs

I'm OK with these, but they need to be impacted. I tend to treat these as just another argument.

Theory:

I have a pretty low tolerance for these, but will accept a thoughtful theory shell, especially if there is a potentially clear instance of abuse. You need warrant, and should carefully explain interps.

Flex Prep/CX:

I will not allow the use of flex prep.

General Comments:

I've probably left out my thoughts on some aspects of debate, so please ask questions if you have them. I'll do my best to answer. What I'm really hoping to see is a sportsmanlike debate that is thoughtful. While there are some strategies that I believe are inherently abusive, I will at least hear you out if you make an earnest effort to have a good academic debate.

Traditional LD judge. This is not policy. I look for a solid clash of values throughout and would prefer that you avoid jargon as much as possible. A thoughtful and well-supported value structure is more important to me than individual cards.

I prefer that when you are speaking you speak clearly. If you are talking too fast and I miss some of your information I consider that to be your fault.

I do not mind if you sit or stand.

Be confident and presentation is the most important. Just think that you are practicing so you won't feel any nervousness. All the best.

I have been the sponsor of the Speech and Debate Team at Apex Friendship High School for the last eight years. This is my eighth year judging. I have taught English for 20 years and Speech for five.

1. Framework is critical. If you don't connect your evidence to your framework, you haven't succeeded.

2. Do not spread--I value quality over quantity.

3. I value strong CX skills--being able to think on your feet and attack an opponent's case is key to winning the round.

4. Civil discourse is expected.

- First time PF judge.

- Please speak slowly. (I will gesture if you are going too fast.)

- Please articulate details you want me to remember.

- Be cordial and respectful to your opponents.

- In final focus, clearly indicate what you want me to vote on.

- Weigh your impacts.

- Don't use jargon.

I'm a former speech competitor that has been judging speech, PF, LD, and CX rounds for 5 years. I am currently a public speaking teacher at the collegiate level as well. The things that I look for are consistent throughout both speech and debate events, recent and unbiased information, clear definitions, and NO SPREADING! The point of debate is to cleanly debate topics as educated individuals and to not devolve into a rude, talking over type of argument. There is a difference between debating and arguing.

The long and short of it all: I want a good, clean and fair fight!

I am a Coach, and I have been judging for close to a decade now. I am a teacher certified in English & Theatre, so my notes can get a bit technical, and come specifically from those perspectives. I tend to make notes and comments as I view, so they follow my flow of thought, and how I understand your developing argument, as your piece/debate progresses.

I have judged almost every event, including judging both speech and debate events at Nationals.

In true teacher and coach fashion, I WANT you to do well. So prove me right!

Paradigm for Congress

How I Rank: While the ballot on Tabroom only has a place to score speeches, it is not unlikely that room is full of great speakers. To fairly rank the room, I have a personal spreadsheet where I score individual speeches, as well as the categories below, to help separate the "great speakers" from the "great congresspersons". Think of it like a rubric for your English class project. Speeches are the biggest category, but not the only one.

Speeches: Do you provide a unique perspective on the bill, and not simply rehashing what has been said in the round already? Do you back up your reasoning with logos, ethos, AND pathos? Is your speech deep, instead of wide (more detail on one specific aspect of the bill, rather than trying to cover all angles of the bill)? Do you write with a clarity of style and purpose, with a good turn of phrase? Do you engage your listeners? Do you respond well to questions?

Questioning: Are your questions thoughtful and based on listening closely to the speaker, and what they actually said? Are your questions brief and to the point? Do you avoid simple yes or no, gotcha style questions? Does your questioning have a clear line of thinking? Do you connect questioning to previous speeches? Do you avoid prefacing?

Decorum: Do you follow the rules of the chamber? Do you follow speaking times? Do you speak calmly and collectedly? Do you ask or answer questions assertively, without being aggressive? Do you respect your fellow speakers?

Roleplay: Do your speeches reflect that you are a congressperson, and not a high school teenager? Do you think of your constituents? Do you consider yourself a representative of your state or District? Do you allow your RP perspective to make your speeches better, and not become a distraction? Do you participate in motions, seconding, etc?

Knowledge of Rules: Do you have an obvious and clear understanding of the rules? Do you follow them closely? Are there any egregious breaking of the rules?

Special Consideration for the Presiding Officer: The Presiding Officer is marked for one "speech" per hour. This score is a reflection of how well they perform the specific duties of PO. It concerns knowledge of the rules (at a higher expectation than the average congress competitor), the efficiency of the room, the fairness of the PO, and the demeanor of the PO (should be calming and welcoming). I also look at them for decorum and RP.

Paradigm for PFD

Construction of Message: Is your argument sound? Does your evidence support your claims? Are you claims tied together and supporting each other? Does your argument flow in a logically sound way, that makes it easy to follow by only listening, and not reading? Are you avoiding logical fallacies?

Delivery of Message: Are you speaking slowly and clearly enough that the judge can actually process what you are saying? (this is a speech and debate competition, not a race). Do you command the room when you speak, without being overbearing?

Evidence of Engagement: Are you actually listening to you fellow competitors? Do you make points in questioning and rebuttal that are based on what your opponents said, and not just what you thought they said? Are you adapting to the way the round is flowing? Are you cooperating with your teammate?

Construction of Rebuttal: Are your counterclaims based in evidence? Are you pointing out any logical fallacies? If you raise a concern about something in your opponents case (ex: you accuse them of cherry-picking), is your case safe from similar scrutiny?

Decorum: Are you behaving in a way that reflects well on your team-mate, your coach, your school, and the District?

Paradigm for LD

Construction of Message: Is your argument sound? Is your value interesting? Is your value criterion an adequate measure of your value? Does your evidence support your claims? Are you claims tied together and supporting each other? Does your argument flow in a logically sound way, that makes it easy to follow by only listening, and not reading? Are you avoiding logical fallacies?

Delivery of Message: Are you speaking slowly and clearly enough that the judge can actually process what you are saying? (this is a speech and debate competition, not a race). Do you command the room when you speak, without being overbearing?

Evidence of Engagement: Are you actually listening to you fellow competitor? Do you make points in questioning and rebuttal that are based on what your opponents said, and not just what you thought they said? Are you adapting to the way the round is flowing?

Construction of Rebuttal: Are you able to use their Value and/or Value Criterion to support your own argument? Are your counterclaims based in evidence? Are you pointing out any logical fallacies? If you raise a concern about something in your opponents case (ex: you accuse them of cherry-picking), is your case safe from similar scrutiny?

Decorum: Are you behaving in a way that reflects well on yourself, your coach, your school, and the District?

Not submitted

I debated in NPDA/NPTE for three years. I view debate as a game, which means that every strategy is a game piece. Use it as you see fit, and play as you prefer. Speed is great, though there’s also a difference between speeding out a team and bullying novices. It probably won’t lose you the round, but your speaker points may reflect overt abuse. I haven’t judged a team that can talk faster than I flow, but I’ll clear you if that happens so you don’t have to try to guess my threshold. Similarly, I value content over presentation. Kritiks are my favorite piece in debate, but if a policy affirmative wins framework or a perm, I have no problem voting there. I’ll listen to non-topical affirmatives; win the flow. Run T, theory shells, etc. as much as you want- again, win the argument. Don’t assume that if an argument is common, I will fill in the warrants for you. I also acknowledge that the debate world tends to have different realities than the real world- whatever is said in round will generally be assumed true unless argued otherwise. I view ink as the wall between arguments- so points from the 1AC shell can be pulled as support for the 2AR if not discussed throughout the round. Likewise, a drop in the 1AR doesn’t get to be answered in the 2AR.

Email Chain: megan.butt@charlottelatin.org

Charlotte Latin School (2022-), formerly at Providence (2014-22).

Trad debate coach -- I flow, but people read that sometimes and think they don't need to read actual warrants? And can just stand up and scream jargon like "they concede our delink on the innovation turn so vote for us" instead of actually explaining how the arguments interact? I can't do all that work for you.

GENERAL:

COMPARATIVELY weigh ("prefer our interp/evidence because...") and IMPLICATE your arguments ("this is important because...") so that I don't have to intervene and do it for you. Clear round narrative is key!

If you present a framework/ROB, I'll look for you to warrant your arguments to it. Convince me that the arguments you're winning are most important, not just that you're winning the "most" arguments.

Please be clean: signpost, extend the warrant (not just the card).

I vote off the flow, so cross is binding, but needs clean extension in a speech.

I do see debate as a "game," but a game is only fun if we all understand and play by the same rules. We have to acknowledge that this has tangible impacts for those of us in the debate space -- especially when the game harms competitors with fewer resources. You can win my ballot just as easily without having to talk down to a debater with less experience, run six off-case arguments against a trad debater, or spread on a novice debater who clearly isn't able to spread. The best (and most educational) rounds are inclusive and respectful. Adapt.

Not a fan of tricks.

LD:

Run what you want and I'll be open to it. I tend to be more traditional, but can judge "prog lite" LD -- willing to entertain theory, non-topical K's, phil, LARP, etc. Explanation/narrative/context is still key, since these are not regularly run in my regional circuit and I am for sure not as well-read as you. Please make extra clear what the role of the ballot is, and give me clear judge instruction in the round (the trad rounds I judge have much fewer win conditions, so explain to me why your arguments should trigger my ballot. If I can't understand what exactly your advocacy is, I can't vote on it.)

PF:

Please collapse the round!

I will consider theory, but it's risky to make it your all-in strategy -- I have a really high threshold in PF, and because of the time skew, it's pretty easy to get me to vote for an RVI. It's annoying when poorly constructed shells get used as a "cheat code" to avoid actually debating substance.

CONGRESS:

Argument quality and evidence are more important to me than pure speaking skills & polish.

Show me that you're multifaceted -- quality over quantity. I'll always rank someone who can pull off an early speech and mid-cycle ref or late-cycle crystal over someone who gives three first negations in a row.

I reward flexibility/leadership in chamber: be willing to preside, switch sides on an uneven bill, etc.

WORLDS:

Generally looking for you to follow the norms of the event: prop sets the framework for the round (unless abusive), clear intros in every speech, take 1-2 points each, keep content and rhetoric balanced.

House prop should be attentive to motion types -- offer clear framing on value/fact motions, and a clear model on policy motions.

On argument strategy: I'm looking for the classic principled & practical layers of analysis. I place more value on global evidence & examples.

Greetings: I have been around the Carolina West District for approximately 10 years. At one time or another I have judged every event. Although we are a very small school, we have had many students place in their respective events and go on to use their speech and debate skills in college and the work force.

Policy: All 5 elements must be clearly addressed. Spreaders should ensure I have their taglines or at least sign post before they start to rock-n-roll. I pay special attention to topicality, sources, cross x, and solvency.

Lincoln-Douglas:The AFFIRMATIVE has the burden of proof of the resolution as presented and should provide fair definitions. The NEG can and should challenge unfair definitions. I pay special attention to sources, cross x, and contentions coming full circle as well as defense and rebuttals.

Public Forum: Simply looking for which side presented the more compelling case with viable sources and confident defense.

Congress: I see two major elements here: speech content & speech delivery. I focus on well organized speeches with quality sources and ability to address questions. The P.O. should run a tight fair chamber. Outstanding =6 pts, Very good=5 pts, Average=4 pts.

IEs: The first presentation I see is in first place of that round til someone beats them and so on down the line. I look for all literary elements, appropriate use of: hands/body/posture, facial expressions, and vocal variety as the piece dictates. As OI, POI, Novice Reading, or Children's Lit do not require memorization, nor do I. I neither reward students who have memorized, nor penalize students who haven't. My personal favorite events are: Extemp and Informative Speaking.

I do NOT disclose my decisions and I do NOT share oral critiques in the room. I will gladly answer student's questions with their coaches permission to speak with me. I will generally challenge all Extempers with a short questions following their speech.

I am an experienced speech judge from Asheville High School. While I was never a competitor, I am a highly trained educator and former university professor with a Master’s degree in Education and Bachelor’s and Doctoral degrees in Physical Therapy. I only judge Speech events, given that my children have both participated in Congressional Debate and wanted me nowhere near their chambers. Clarity and enunciation are important to me within the context of the speech style. I appreciate it when you adjust your speaking voice to project in rooms that have noisy HVAC systems. While the pandemic is pretty much over, you may see me in a mask and I may request space, given that my full-time job includes caring for critically ill, often immunocompromised patients, who cannot afford to have the health professionals they trust bringing them iatrogenic infections. I will also support any student, who still feels more comfortable wearing a mask for myriad reasons and am happy to make accommodations as needed, such as spacing out the audience, leaving the door open if the hallway is quiet, opening a window, etc. While it is a competition, I appreciate competitors, who are kind, thoughtful and supportive of each other and of me. Ultimately, the skills gained from Speech and Debate will only serve a competitor well later in life if he/ she/ they learn how to make humanconnections.