I am a Grady (Midtown) alum and former extemporaneous speaker. I spent two summers GMIF, placed at States, and qualified for NCFLs and NSDAs for the three years I was on the team. Post-grad, I have judged on a semi-regular basis. For further context, I graduated from Rhodes College with a BA in English and currently work as a senior real estate associate for a prop-tech startup – interpret that as you wish.

I give preference to fact-based arguments rather than philosophical angles or hypotheticals.

A well-organized value and criterion go a long way with me. Remember – I’m a former extemper, so I can be a stickler for organization and restating arguments. And usage of time.

Try not to spread – I can understand some speed, but not that much speed.

I love a good cross-examination. How you defend your stance here will be key, however, remember to be respectful of your opponent. I don’t expect a meditation session but I do expect civility.

I want to hear your arguments through your own words. Make them evidence-based, but don’t regurgitate a case study to me.

I will suspend my own opinions or prior knowledge of a topic and award the round to whoever has the best debate and defense to sway.

I can be reached at cole.bagley@gmail.com

Email: jameshbrock@gmail.com

Handshaking: Even before current viral concerns, I wasn't a fan of hand shaking. If you feel the need for post round physical contact, I will either accept a light fist bump or a full hug of no less than 5 seconds in duration. Alternatively, you can just wait for my decision.

Overview: I am the debate coach at Houston County High School a suburban (closer to rural than urban) school 2 hours south of Atlanta. We don't travel outside of the state much. I am a big advocate of policy debate, but, the vast majority of tournaments we attend no longer offer the event. So, we have switched to PF/LD debate.

I flow. If I am not flowing, there is a problem.

Speed okay. If I am not flowing, there is a problem. The most likely reason I would not be flowing is, that the sound coming out of your mouth is not words. If this happens, I will most likely close my laptop or put down my pen until I can recognize the sounds you are making.

Disclosure Theory: I am a small school coach. My teams are not required to post their cases online. I don't like it when teams lose debates to rules those teams didn't know were "rules". If disclosure is mandated by the tournament's invitation, I will listen. I also, will not attend that tournament. So, just don't run it. Inclusion o/w your fairness arguments.

PF: I judge on an offence/defense paradigm. Logic is good, evidence is better. I'm the guy who will vote on first strike good or dedev. Tech over truth, but I will not give a low point win in PF, and try to stay true to the speaking roots of PF. F/W is the most important part of the debate for me. It is a gateway issue that provides the lens through which to view my decision. I have done a moderate amount of research, but I probably haven't read that article. I may be doing it wrong, but I like logic when judging a PF round. I don't think you have time to develop DAs or Ks, but have no other objection to their existence. Jeff Miller says to answer these questions if judging PF... - do you expect everything in the final focus to also be in the summary? Yes. At least tangentially. The first final focus of the round needs to be able to predict the direction of the the final speech. If it's not in the Summary it gives an unfair advantage to the second speaker. - Do second speaking teams have to respond to the first rebuttal? No, but its a good idea. It makes for a better debate and I will award speaker points will be awarded for doing this. - Do first speaking teams have to extend defense in the first summary? If you want to extend defense in the final focus. - Do you flow/judge off crossfire? Cross is binding, but it needs to be made in the speech to count on the ballot. That being said, at this tournament, damaging crossfire questions have provided major links and changed the momentum of debates. - Do teams have to have more than one contention? No. - does framework have to be read in the constructives? Responsive F/w is allowed but not advisable in rebuttal only.

LD: For me, this is policy light. I understand it, but I try not to be influenced by a lack of policy jargon in the round. IE I will accept an argument that says "The actor could enact both the affirmative action and the negative action." as a permutation without the word perm being used in the round. I tend to view values and value criterion as a framework debate that influences the mechanisms for weighing impacts. I am a little lenient on 1ar line by line debate, but coverage should be sufficient to allow the nr to do their job. I will protect the nr from new 2ar argument to a fault. I will not vote on morally repugnant arguments like "extinction good" or "rocks are more important than people".

tl;dr: Spend a lot of time on F/W. Impact your arguments.

Policy Debate: (Having this in here is a little ridiculous. Its kinda like, "back in my day we had inherency debates. No one talks about inherent barriers anymore...)

Procedural:
I am human, and I have made mistakes judging rounds. But, I reserve the right to dock speaker points for arguing after the round.
I have few problems with speed. If you are unclear, I will say clear or loud once and then put my pen down or close my laptop. I love 1NC's and 2ACs that number their arguments.
I want the debaters to make my decision as easy as possible. My RFD should be very very similar to the first 3 sentences of the 2AR or 2NR.
After a harm is established, I presume it is better to do something rather than nothing. So in a round devoid of offence, I vote affirmative

The K:
As a debater and a younger coach, I did not understand nor enjoy the kritik. As the neg we may have run it as the 7th off case argument, and as the aff we responded to the argument with framework and theory. As I've grown as a coach I've started to understand the educational benefits of high school students reading advanced philosophy. That being said, In order to vote negative on the kritik, I need a very, very clear link, and reason to reject the aff. I dislike one-off-K, and standard Ks masked with a new name. I do, however, enjoy listening to critical affirmatives related to the topic. I am often persuaded by PIK's, and vague alts bad theory.

Don't assume that I have read the literature. I have not.

Non-traditional debate: We are a small and very diverse squad, and I (to some extent) understand that struggle. I have coached a fem rage team, and loved it.

Theory:
I have no particular aversion to theoretical objections. As an observation, I do not vote on them often. I need a clear reason to reject the other team. I will occasionally vote neg on Topicality, but you have to commit. I think cheaty CPs are bad for debate, and enjoy voting on ridiculous CP is ridiculous theory. I still need some good I/L to Education to reject the team.


Parliamentary debate:
I enjoy this format. I will adopt a policy maker F/W unless otherwise instructed.

Hello! My name is D'Andre Chambers, I am currently a Sophomore Political Science major from Canton, Georgia and I go to the illustrious Morehouse College. My future goals and aspirations include the following: I hope to become a criminal/civil lawyer one day. However, given a increased interest in politics and the political arena, I am also considering a career as a politician both advocating and writing legislation that benefits everyday Americans. Throughout high school, I competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate (Novice division during the beginning of the speech and debate season and Varsity during the end of the season). While I only competed in Lincoln-Douglas for one year, I have achieved great success such as finishing top 50 in the state of Georgia for LD debate, qualifying to NATS 19 in World Schools Debate, and winning numerous speaker awards throughout my tenure as a high school debater. Now, on to the interesting part! Listed below you will find specific paradigm's for Speech and Debate.

SPEECH-RELATED EVENTS:

-While Speech is not my expertise in regards to judging, I look for things such as professionalism, the extent to which you keep me entertained in your speech, and the quality of your performance. Thus, achieving these qualities while performing your speech will not only get you higher speaker points by me, but also will get you placed higher than your opponents. I look forward to hearing your speeches! Good Luck!

DEBATE-RELATED EVENTS:

In debate, the following qualities will get you the ballot over your opponent:

-Extending key arguments

-Expressing your arguments clearly to me

-Make sure to point out key concessions made by your opponent

-Having a clear speaking voice and tone (This will also get you really good speaker points with me)

-Clearly presenting framework such as a value, value criterion, and contentions (please make sure contentions are in the proper format)

However, the following qualities will not get you the ballot over your opponent:

-SPREADING (I WILL NOT FLOW ANYTHING IF YOU ENGAGE IN THIS ACT)

-RUNNING PROGRESSIVE/POLICY CASES (I am a strictly traditional judge)

-Addressing your opponent in a rude and disrespectful manner (keep the debate both respectful and clean)

-Completely conceding the round to your opponent (essentially accepting defeat, at least try and persuade me)

-Not clearly establishing framework (this will make it difficult for me to flow)

I DO DISCLOSE!!! I will also provide a detailed reasoning for my decision and how I feel you could better your cases and speaking abilities. I WILL NOT DO THE DEBATE FOR YOU!!! MAKE SURE TO SPECIFICALLY TELL ME WHY YOU SHOULD WIN OVER YOUR OPPONENT!!! DOING THIS WILL GREATLY INCREASE YOUR CHANCES OF WINNING THE DEBATE OVER YOUR OPPONENT!!! I look forward to hearing your arguments!! Good Luck!!!!

I am a speech coach in Georgia. I competed in IEs but I can follow debate very well.

• LD - Value/Value Criterion - This is the unique feature of LD Debate.  Have a good value and criterion and link your arguments back to it.
• PF - I side on the traditional side of PF.  Don't throw a lot of jargon at me or simply read cards. Compete in PF for the debate animal it is.  Remember debate, especially PF, is meant to persuade - use all the tools in your rhetorical toolbox: Logos, Ethos, and Pathos.  
• Speed -Since I did not debate in High School, I don't follow speed well. Speak at your own risk, but if I didn't hear it, I don't flow it.
• Know your case, like you actually did the research and wrote the case and researched the arguments from the other side.  If you present it, I expect you to know it from every angle - I want you to know the research behind the statistic and the whole article, not just the blurb on the card.
• I like clash.  Argue the cases presented, mix it up, have some fun, but remember that debate is civil discourse - don't take it personal, being the loudest speaker won't win the round, being rude to your opponent won't win you the round.
• Debating is a performance in the art of persuasion and your job is to convince me, your judge (not your opponent!!) - use the art of persuasion to win the round: eye contact, vocal variations, appropriate gestures, and know your case well enough that you don't have to read every single word hunched over a computer screen.  Keep your logical fallacies for your next round.  Rhetoric is an art.  
• Technology Woes - I will not stop the clock because your laptop just died or you can't find your case - not my problem, fix it or don't but we are going to move on.  
• Ethics - Debate is a great game when everyone plays by the rules.  Play by the rules - don't give me a reason to doubt your veracity.
• Win is decided by the flow (remember if you don't LINK it, it isn't on the flow), who made the most successful arguments and Speaker Points are awarded to the best speaker - I end up with some low point wins.  I am fairly generous on speaker points compared to some judges.  I disclose winner but not speaker points.
• Enjoy yourself.  Debate is the best sport in the world - win or lose - learn something from each round, don't gloat, don't disparage other teams, judges, or coaches, and don't try to convince me after the round is over.  Leave it in the round and realize you may have just made a friend that you will compete against and talk to for the rest of your life.  Don't be so caught up in winning that you forget to have some fun - in the round, between rounds, on the bus, and in practice.  
• Questions? - if you have a question ask me.

As a science teacher, I function in a world based upon data and logic. My paradigm is based upon that experience and personal value system. Arguments establish validity through the proper use of data versus grandiose claims of support based upon claims with small value. Provided below is a list of how I evaluate arguments:

1. Is your position logical? Does it take into account as much evidence as possible? Does it ignore or dismiss the counter-argument? Absolutes, by my opinion, signify weak positions.
2. Does the the data support the argument? Is it significant enough to value when considering the position, or is it anecdotal?
3. How does your argument relate to the bigger picture? The small stories lead to the sum of the larger story? Where does the process lead?
4. How does your argument affect others? Are the sacrifices being presented enough to support your position? Have you considered the long term outcomes of your position? Does it favor those with power, wealth, and privilege versus the average person? Does it further marginalize those who have significantly less privilege? Does it widen the gaps?
5. From a stance of morality and ethical behavior, does your argument abandon those values? Is it the old "to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs" argument?
6. Is your position what is popular or what is right? Popularity is easy to follow, but is it what is best for all? Are you willing to make sacrifices to your position to strengthen its argument? Are you willing to reconsider the evidence presented as a counter to yours or do you dismiss it?

I am a very recently graduated top competitor in Georgia IEs. Having said this, I am very familiar with current popular topics and styles for OOs, Interps, and topics for Extemp. My criteria for judging each of the speech events is different, so here is a list of what I expect from top level IEs:

Impromptu: I expect Impromptus to be entertaining and non-formulaic. The topic should be analyzed in an abstract way that allows the competitor to tie outside information or ideas into the topic with a clever and creative link. However, the speaker should not ramble and make connections that can not be explained for the sake of entertainment value. Although I expect as much of the 5 minute limit to be used as possible, rambling without organization will lower the speaker's score. A general outline of the speech will greatly affect my ability to follow the speaker's ideas and thus keep me more engaged. Lastly, performance is very important to me. A speech with a vibrant and fun performance can easily bring up poor content. Essentially, a strong mix of an entertaining link and content and vibrant performance will get a high score form me.

Extemp: Although very different in style from Impropmtu, I still expect Extemp speeches to be somewhat entertaining. A mixture of good sources, interesting view points, and humor/good presentation should be used to make the speech not only engaging and fun to listen to for the judge, but helps me consider your viewpoint as valid and well thought out. I will not take my political views into account for these speeches whatsoever, so any route may be taken with your topic. DO NOT just read off statistics. I expect a clear explanation on the reason why that evidence is significant and important for me to know. I do not expect everyone to use all 7 minutes. If you can make your point quickly and concisely, no points will be taken off. Essentially, I want a speech with a clear, well explained thesis backed by evidence that is thoroughly integrated into the speaker's view while still managing to make the speech fun to listen to.

OO: Originality and a fun presentation are absolute musts for a good OO. With much more freedom to build an entertaining and original piece than the improv events, I expect these pieces to be well thought out, thought provoking, and something I've never heard before. If a speaker uses an overused topic, an interesting spin on that topic can easily save their score. I expect as much of the 10 minutes to be used as possible, as these pieces should be rehearsed and practiced to utilize ample time. A fun mix of interesting content and a truly electric performance will easily catch a top spot from me.

Interps: For the earlier tournaments, I am not expecting mastery of acting techniques, especially from novices. However, I do expect full effort to be put into the performance, whether that be blocking, accents, or emotional aspects. Simply memorizing lines will not give many points. There must be a clear attempt to make the piece personal to the speaker, thus being their interpretation. Performance will be the largest factor of scoring for me in these events. A simple slip up or forgetting one line will be a very small infraction as long as there is a smooth recovery.

Clarity of speech is very important, even at the expense of fewer points. When countering arguments, make sure that you don't misrepresent your opponent's argument(s). If citing statistics or offering quotes, you should explain the relevance and/or validity of the source.

In High School I competed in poetry and extemp. I dabbled in Debate in college for a year and I fell in love with debate. I graduated from West Texas State University with a degree in Speech Communication and Theater Education. I coached and judged Speech and Debate events in Texas in the UIL circuit for 10 years. I judged events for a homeschool/private school group in Huntsville for 2 years. I have coached and judged in the NSDA circuit for 3 years.

1. I am NOT a fan of SPREADING and if you speak so fast that I am unable to flow your arguments, I will put my pen down and I can no longer judge you. Spreading is unnecessary for a well-crafted case.

2. EVIDENCE is very important, and it needs to back up the case you are presenting. I am not opposed to you doing this pragmatically, and I enjoy when you can back this up with real world examples.

3. I will judge this case on your use of evidence, direct clash and speaking style. Did you prove your case, did you present the best case, did you attack your opponent’s case?

Experience/Background: I coached at Columbus HS from 2013-2021, primarily Public Forum, and now coach at Carrollton HS (2021-present). I did not debate in high school or college, but I have been coaching and judging PF, a little LD, and IEs since 2013, both locally (Georgia) and on the national circuit, including TOC and NSDA Nationals. I spent several years (2017-2022) as a senior staff member with Summit Debate and previously led labs at Emory (2016-2019).

Judging Preferences:

If you have specific questions about me as a judge that are not answered below (or need clarification), please feel free to ask them. Some general guidelines and answers to frequently asked questions are below:

1. Speed: I can flow a reasonably fast speed when I'm at the top of my game, but I am human. If it's late in the day/tournament, I am likely tired, and my capacity for speed drops accordingly. I will not be offended if you ask me about this before the round. For online rounds, I prefer that you speak at a more moderate speed. I will tell you "clear" if I need you to slow down. If I am flowing on paper, you should err on the slower side of speed than if I am flowing on my laptop.

2. Signposting and Roadmaps: Signposting is good. Please do it. It makes my job easier. Off-time roadmaps aren't really needed if you're just going "their case, our case", but do give a roadmap if there's a more complex structure to your speech.

3. Consistency of Arguments/Making Decisions: Anything you expect me to vote on should be in summary and final focus. Defense is not "sticky" -- meaning you cannot extend it from rebuttal to final focus. Please weigh. I love voters in summary, but I am fine if you do a line-by-line summary.

4. Prep (in-round and pre-round): Please pre-flow before you enter the round. Monitor your own prep time. If you and your opponents want to time each other to keep yourselves honest, go for it. Do not steal prep time - if you have called for a card and your opponents are looking for it, you should not be writing/prepping unless you are also running your prep time. (If a tournament has specific rules that state otherwise, I will defer to tournament policy.) On that note, have your evidence ready. It should not take you longer than 20-30 seconds to pull up a piece of evidence when asked. If you delay the round by taking forever to find a card, your speaker points will probably reflect it.

5. Overviews in second rebuttal: In general, I think a short observation or weighing mechanism is probably more okay than a full-fledged contention that you're trying to sneak in as an "overview". Tread lightly.

6. Frontlines: Second speaking team should answer turns and frontline in rebuttal. I don't need a 2-2 split, but I do think you need to address the speech that preceded yours.

7. Theory, Kritiks, and Progressive Arguments: I prefer not judging theory debates. Strongly prefer not judging theory debates. If you are checking back against a truly abusive practice, I will listen to and evaluate the argument. If you are using theory/Ks/etc. in a way intended to overwhelm/intimidate an opponent who has no idea what's going on, I am not going to respond well to that.

8. Crossfire: I do not flow crossfire. If it comes up in cross and you expect it to serve a role in my decision-making process, I expect you to bring it up in a later speech.

9. Speaker points: I basically never give 30s, so you should not expect them from me. My range is usually from 28-29.7.

First off congratulations to all competitors for making it this far, hats off. I used to do Speech and Debate as well and I own the title for POI Georgia State Champion for the 2019 season. I enjoy thrill filled speeches, showcase of compassion, and I enjoy watching the performer getting lost in their scenes. For the sake of PF, i rather debaters not spread, more of a traditional judge in that realm.

As a student, I competed at both the middle and high school levels in Individual Speech Events including, Dramatic Interpretation, Duo Interpretation, and Declamation. As a freshman in high school, I won the 1988 KY state championship in Oratorical Declamation. My university did not offer competitive speech and debate, so I did not compete at the collegiate level. I have taught English for 19 years, and have been the IE coach of our school's Speech and Debate team for the last 7 years. I have had students qualify for NSDA nationals in IE events in 2017, 2018, and 2019, 2020, and 2021. While coaching our team, I have had a student place in the top 60 at nationals in Dramatic Interpretation. 12th in the nation in Expository, and some of my students have claimed AL state championships in OO, Informative, and After Dinner Speaking. I have also had AL State Runners-up in DI and Duo. I enjoy contemporary pieces as much as old classics. I don't mind pieces with controversial themes, provided the topics are presented appropriately within the context of the piece.

I prefer to judge IE events, but am prepared to judge debate when needed. The following is what I prefer and/or look for when I judge debate events:

1. I am not a fan of spreading. If you speak so quickly that I am unable to flow your arguments, I will put my pen down and no longer judge you. Spreading is unnecessary for a well-crafted case.

2. Evidence is very important, and it should back up your case.

3. I will judge your case based on your use of evidence, direct clash, and speaking style. Did you prove your case, did you present the best case, and did you attack your opponent’s case?

I coach PF Debate and have judged LD for 15+ years. I love to see professionalism, real logic in cases and rebuttals, impeccable speaking skills, and good time management. Please avoid barraging me with questions about my expertise before the round starts.

“Off-time road maps” serve no purpose. Framework and observations are not just for show; I weigh them throughout the round. Spreading does not belong in PF or LD, and I will not flow arguments that I cannot hear.

Good argumentation matters the most to me. I should hear incisive warrants to support all claims. Your impacts should be specific and resonate throughout your contentions. Good debaters achieve turns and can group arguments well.

In regard to PF:

Summary speeches should, above all, situate the round and extend the rebuttal.

Try not to turn the round into just an “evidence-off”. Know when to move on from a dispute over one piece of evidence.

In the Final Focus, you must weigh arguments with specificity and effective persuasion, but the focus should be on the holistic argument and impacts, not line-by-line analysis at that point.

I don't give long-winded verbal feedback at the end of rounds, but I try to give an abundance of ballot comments for your benefit.

Hello speakers. I have decided to break up all the sections for your presentation into an easy to understand point scale. The following areas are as follows. I think you all know this more than I do but if anything seems left out or for any reason unreasonable please let me know when we begin so I can make it uniform to commonalities.

Thanks and have fun!

SPEAKER POINTS:

For Individual Events, speaker points are awarded on a 50-point scale:

50-47: Exceptional

46-44: Very good

43-40: Good

Below 40: Student gave little effort

Program of Oral Interpretation

Time limit: 10 minutes

Selection from published works of prose or poetry that have a common theme connecting the pieces. Works must be presented from a small binder, but a memorized introduction and transitions are required.

POINTS of INTEREST

Some things to consider while judging Program or Oral Interpretation, Dramatic Interpretation, and Duo Interpretation:

• Dramatic structure: introduction, rise, climax, fall/resolution, and denouement/conclusion • Cutting (the selection of text)

• Cutting (the selection of text).

• Blocking – movements to convey space, emotion, and action. Blocking should enhance, not distract.

• Characterization – reveal personality through delivery, vocal and facial expressions, and intensity.

Could I easily identify characters and what was happening?

• Was the plot easy to follow? Enjoyable? Polished?

• Does the performance move the audience?

• How is the pacing? Time limit is 10 min. I am pretty reasonable. If you get close that is awesome as within 1:30sec is great! Too much over or under can take away from your points.

Programming: Were at least two of the three genres of literature (Poetry/Prose/Drama) used in the program? Did all of the literature contribute to the theme or argument? Did the flow of the performance make sense? Was there a balance among genres in the performance?

POINTS STRUCTURE

If you happen to score the same, the weighing areas are Dramatic structure, movement, cutting and plot.

Dramatic structure (8pts)

Blocking (5pts)

Characterization (10pts)

plot (9pts)

movement (9pts)

pacing (5pts)

Cutting (4pts)

Any questions or feedback can also be requested through email as well. I will also be judging round 2 so I may be caught up during that time but after I should be free to answer any questions.

Myshawilliams1@gmail.com.