About Me:

I'm a 6th year Speech and Debate Coach. I prefer you speak at a conversational speed always. Slightly above is also good, but try not to spread, especially in PF (Super Fast Rebuttals/Summaries are pretty cringe and hard to flow).

I don’t mind different forms of argumentation in LD. Ks, Plans, Counterplans, etc are all ok in my book. Not a fan of progressive cases in PF, but I will still listen to them.

Not a fan of Theory-shells in Debate at all. Unless there was a CLEAR AND OBVIOUS violation in the round, do not run it.

Please utilize off time roadmaps.

Keep track of your own time. Just let me know when you run prep is all.

Signpost so I can follow on the flow. If I miss an argument because you pull a House of Pain and "Jump Around" without signposting, that is on you.

I will always vote in favor of the side with better quality arguments and better comparative analysis of the biggest impacts in the round, not the side that is necessarily "winning the most arguments."

At this point I would consider myself a flow judge (though not SUPER technical), and I value tech over truth more often than not.

More "techy" stuff:

Frameworks should always be extended. If your opponent doesn't respond to it in 1st or 2nd rebuttal, it needs to be extended into 2nd rebuttal or 1st Summary in order for me to evaluate the arguments under that framework. Teams who speak 1st do not necessarily need to extend their FW into their 1st rebuttal, but should provide some context or clarification as to why the framework is necessary for the round (can be included in an overview). If there are 2 frameworks presented, please explain why I need to prefer yours over the opponent. If no explanation is provided or extended, I will default to my own evaluation methods (typically cost/benefit analysis)

I like when teams focus summaries on extending offense and weighing, more specifically explain to me why your impacts matter more than your opponent’s. Don’t just say “(Impact card) means we outweigh on scope,” then move on to the next point. I love details and contextualization, and will always favor quality weighing over quantity.

Please collapse. Please. It helps to provide focus in the round rather than bouncing around on 20 different arguments. It just makes my life as a judge much easier.

Use FF to crystalize and highlight the most important points of contention and clash that you believe are winning you the round (things like offense and turns that go unresponded to, for example). Explain to my why I should vote for you, not why I should not vote for the other side. Voter Issues are always a good thing, and can possibly win you the round in a close debate.

LD Stuff:

If your plan is to spread, and I cant follow on the flow and miss things, that is on you. LD's purpose was intended to separate itself from Policy tactics and allow argumentation that anyone off the streets can follow. Call me a traditionalist or whatever, but spreading just to stack arguments is not educational and hurts the activity. You cant convince me otherwise so dont try.

Im perfectly OK with any kind of case, but my preference is this order: Traditional>K>Disads/Plans/CPs>Theory (only run if there is perceived actual abuse in round, dont run frivolous stuff)

Not super knowledgeable on all the nuances of LD, but I do enjoy philosophical debates and am vaguely familiar with contemporary stuff.

Add me on the email chain: josemdenisjr@gmail.com

I am thrilled to be the head Speech & Debate coach for Olympia High School. I also teach Debate intro, intermediate and advanced classes every day.

In a speech or debate, I look for clear, crisp diction and organized thought. I also work closely with my local Toastmasters club and value good speech mechanics. Also in the spirit of Toastmasters, I strive to point out strengths that the competitor should make sure to continue as well as areas for development in my evaluations.

I have judged both Speech & Debate events on the national and local circuit for several years. I am not a fan of spreading, progressive debate or K cases. I prefer a traditional debate style. I value solid links and impacts and debaters that can take a complicated subjects and distill them down to solid clear points. Off-time road maps are preferred.

I mostly judge Speech and Congress. If you're competing in Speech and poring over paradigms, what exactly are you doing with your life?

I used to think Congress judging is in violation of the Eighth Amendment, but I've slowly come around from the dark side. Some things I look for: (1) I have my preferences as a Speech judge, so starting with an AGD (brief) is usually a good idea. (2) If you're an early speaker (author, sponsor, etc.), comfort with your speech is paramount. If you rely on your notes more than absolutely necessary, I'll hold that against you. If you cannot commit a three-minute speech to memory with weeks (or months) of notice, do not author/sponsor a bill or volunteer to go first/second. (3) Speakers that come later in the session must absolutely coopt or refute earlier speakers' arguments (and not just cursorily). If you do not do so, you will find yourself staring at a ballot closer to a 9 than a 1. (4) Beyond point (3), I place a premium on value-add for speakers 3 and beyond (i.e., what new ideas or arguments can you bring to the session that moves the debate (significantly) forward?). (5) I value data and evidence (shocking, I know). CD bills typically tackle current topics, so more recent cites are of greater value. (6) Every debate can be reduced to weighing impact. Most stats can be sliced using glass-half-full and glass-half-empty filters, so it's important that you parse your arguments properly and provide proper context. (7) I don't subscribe to tech-over-truth, esp. in CD. If I see a weak-sauce argument, I'll dock you even if no one refutes it properly. (8) How you respond in Q&A matters a lot. If you get bogged down in questioning, do not try to refute a fatal argument against, or try to let the bell save you, I'll not be happy. (9) I'm a sucker for humor (esp. the dry or sarcastic variety), but in a manner that adds to your arguments, i.e., your speech should not devolve into a three-minute standup act.

Earlier paradigm (when I was naive enough to believe PF/LD judging would actually add flavor to my life):

Parent judge and B-school faculty member, so not new to case discussions and classroom debate. Just relatively new to the organized version.

In the near future, I will hopefully learn to use "spread," "flow," other jargon, and linear combinations of them in a sentence, but for now, this should suffice: Please speak clearly, even if not slowly.

Stick to time. If you end early because you have nothing more to say and I don't have you clearly winning by KO or on points, I will hold that against you.

As a beginning parent judge I am very excited to see what you put forth.

Make it easy for me to see that you have presented the most valid case. Above all, strive to make sense. I do not prefer any “style” of debate or any particular kind of argument but I do not like spread reading unless I have received the speech several days in advance, then I will allow it.

I like to see debaters who challenge their opponent’s points with a crafty and well-timed rebuttals, in other words, are able to think on their feet. Higher points are assigned to the competitors who make an effort to do such.

PF - Theory is fine in conversation but not in debate. Make your evidence very clear as you go along. The use of evidence to support your contentions is important. Crossfire should remain polite and argument should flow clearly and logically. I am not a fan of arguments being presented that are not relevant to the opponents's case.

Arguments that are deemed by me to be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, Anti-Semitic, etc. are unacceptable in any form. Please keep your hands to yourself(in person).

Keep in mind that not everyone would have the courage to even try what you are doing today. Pat yourself on the back and enjoy the moment.

Congress - Argument is well-organized, points are clearly developed and supported by a variety of credible sources, evidence is analyzed, compelling language, smooth transition between points, movements are purposeful and signal a new point, easy to follow your argument, introduction and conclusion are clearly connected, purpose is established throughout your argument. Responds to questions with confidence and clarity, responds to previous speakers' points to either refute or affirm with new arguments and evidence, speaks clearly, is active in questioning throughout the round

Have been an assistant coach for several years and has recently taken on the responsibility of head coach, has been active in speech and debate since 2009, have judged numerous local tournaments, invitational tournaments, and national tournaments.

Completed the National Speech and Debate Association Adjudicating Speech and Debate course.

❧You're In A Rush -- The Most Important Thing ☙

ㅤ‎ ‎ ‎

⦿ Congress: Conversational speaking speed, eye-contact, define jargon, sources have author + year at minimum, focus on cause and effect to outline concepts, accessibility both in physical and verbal delivery (clarity/understandability), call out cheaters, and be kind!

‎ ‎ ‎

❧ OVERVIEW☙

I, as a judge, aim to give the type of thorough ballots that I enjoyed getting as a competitor, so please understand that I usually give more 'grows' than 'glows' as they say. Make no mistake, I am more than proud of each and every one of you. Getting up in front of people and speaking your mind is perfect for growth in all aspects, full stop.

Speech and debate is, to me, a glowing example of practice and skill becoming one. With this in mind, there are many trade practices that better allow accessibility, enthusiasm, and knowledge to rise to the top. I abide by these best practices.

The following points will outline my paradigm for Student Congress.

‎ ‎ ‎

❧ ON DISHONESTY☙

No one person can know everything, and I believe that any person off the street ought to be able to understand and have faith in the speakers of any event. To mislead or bring forward fraudulent/ plagiarized claims and evidence is not acceptable, and I rely on you to ensure we can have a productive, respectful, and truthful round by ensuring nobody profits from dishonesty.

→ If there are instances of cheating or misinformation, then do not hesitate to call it out!

‎ ‎ ‎

❧ THE DETAILS☙

⦿ To Our Lovely PO's

Since each chamber always needs a PO, and you stepped up to take that role, we appreciate you! Thus, PO's, in my mind, start at the top and will be knocked down by how much they mess up or lose control of the chamber.

→ Assert and maintain control over the chamber at all times.

→ Demonstrate mastery of PO's duties and obligations.

→ If you won the position via vote, then expectations will be higher since you have asserted yourself as the best choice.

THIS INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO:

‣ Keeping track of how many questions each speaker has asked.

‣ Disallowing excessive or abusive recesses.

‣ Ensuring decorum and rule expectations are followed for all competitors.

‣ Quick and accurate recency and precedence calculations.

‣ Gavel procedure.

‎ ‎ ‎

⦿ Speeches

Delivery is one of the most important factors to me; be sure to speak at a pace and volume that may be understood by any person no matter the circumstances.

→ If I can't understand you due to your excessively high or low speed, your reliance on filler words like 'um', or your volume inconsistency then I can't follow your content. To me, delivery and content go hand in hand when it comes to audience accessibility. I will always comment on your delivery for that reason.

→ Redundancy happens to the best of us, and if you're a novice with a prepared speech that has already been covered in the chamber then by all means please still give it! That said, for experienced varsity or during high level competition/ tournaments, I expect adaptation or recontextualization to bring a fresh perspective to the table.

→ Physicality should be purposeful, and not become repetitive, distracting, or background-noise.

→ Non-invasive humor is always appreciated, but flattery will get you nowhere!

→ Content should be explained and guided by context and, preferably, real examples.

HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLES WILL BE WEIGHTED LESS IF THEY ARE:

‣ Misleading or vague.

‣ Non-applicable to the bill or argument made.

‣ Appearing like an un-cited source due to hyper-specific details.

‎ ‎ ‎

⦿ Cross-Examination and Questioning

I use cross-ex as a speaker's last chance to prove themselves in the event they are between speech scores. A tie breaker, essentially.

→ If two speakers give equally scored speeches and there must be a tie breaker then the speaker with more questions asked during cross-ex will win out due to their demonstrated confidence on and understanding of the various topics.

‣ BUT, if a question is redundant, grossly off-topic, or sets up an argument not already in play (like bringing up arguments you plan to introduce in your own upcoming speech) then it will count against the tie breaker since it is not indicative of a fruitful chamber.

IF, during cross-ex:

‣ The speaker defends their speech and demonstrates mastery: scoring will be rounded up.

‣ The speaker is disproven and they cannot adequately refute: scoring will be rounded down.

‎ ‎ ‎

⦿ Decorum

"Be good, be kind, be talented!" -Brian McAninch

→ Know and operate under the rules and expectations of the chamber.

→ Do not abuse recesses or exiting of the chamber.

→ When addressing a fellow competitor during a speech or cross-ex please refer to them by their proper title. It's all an act at the end of the day, so take the stage with pride.

→ Remember that you are debating the argument and NOT the person!

‎ ‎ ‎

❧ GOOD LUCK, COMPETITOR!☙