Hi. I have been judging Speech and Debate on and off the last several years. This is my first time judging nationals and policy.

I am open to any argument, as long as it makes sense and is backed up with evidence. The tagline must be what the card actually says.

In rounds, my main pet peeve is unclear tag lines. Be sure that you clearly enunciate the tagline if you want me to take it into account.

For critiques and theoretical arguments, make sure you clearly explain both the argument and its implications.

I try to be open-minded and fair about any arguments presented.

Let's have a great round!

I did Speech and Debate for 4 years. I did Original Oratory, Expository Speaking, Prose, Poetry, Congress, and some Policy.

I may stop writing now and again, but this is so that I can focus on what you are saying (I usually just jot down what sticks out). Spreading is fine, but if you can refrain from doing so I'd rather actually hear your points, so be clear. Keep it classy and be nice to your opponents. Don't falsify evidence. Be thorough with your arguments and tell me why you should win.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round. Best of luck.

I coach IPDA debate (an extemporaneous form of debate) at the college level and actively assist with LD and PF at the high school level. I'm also a non-practicing lawyer who works in legal/regulatory compliance, for what that's worth.

In terms of experience, a good summary would be: I'm capable of handling most technical, "progressive" and/or esoteric aspects of debate, but I really don't think I should have to. It's almost always possible to make even the most novel arguments in a way that is understandable and logically accessible to a reasonably educated non-specialist. And while I probably can understand your terminology or theory, I tend to reward debaters who don't need it.

A few specific things to keep in mind with me:

I vote based on complete arguments. That means claim, warrant, impact, and reason for decision. I probably know what you're trying to say, but can't ethically fill in the gaps for you. So please --if that card really is the killer you think it is-- walk me through why it wins the round for you.

I'm not crazy about speed. I won't say it can never add value. But 80-90% of the time that it's deployed in high school, its principal function is to obscure lazy reasoning or the lack of solid evidence, as opposed to fitting in more useful info. Again, debate is more than tag lines, and I'm not going to pretend that I can understand the particulars of a piece of evidence read at 300 wpm. So if you use speed like that, you assume the risk that I'll miss an essential part of your logical syllogism

On a related note, I'm very unlikely to read your case or cards. If you want to create a competition where people pass papers back and forth to make arguments, that might be an interesting game to play. But the essence of this competition --i.e., debating-- is orally delivering an argument to listeners. There's no reason to have oral delivery unless part of the game is encapsulating information in a way that a listener can process and evaluate. So I will generally decline to read cases or cards unless there is a specific, credible allegation of dishonesty.

I have no objection to theory or kritiks per se, but you're not entitled to tabula rasa judging on these kinds of arguments. That is, if your argument is truly a priori --i.e., it takes precedence over the resolution itself-- then you're no longer operating within the protective shell of imaginary judge fiat, where I can comfortably ignore what I know. Instead, you're asking me to take some stand relating to morality, ethics, fairness, etc., because of some ostensible impact on the real world. I can't ethically take "real world" actions while deliberately ignoring my own relevant knowledge. So full disclosure: if you take the debate outside the resolution, you assume the risk that I'll vote against you based on things that were not said in the round.

Be respectful. I know some tension is inherent in the activity, so I'll give a certain measure of leeway. But I'll happily give you the loss for gratuitous rudeness, mockery, etc.

My judging paradigm is very simple. I believe the purpose of debate is to teach competitors to think critically and communicate effectively. Evidence is only important if a competitor can tell me why it's important. It is imperative for the competitor to demonstrate a true understanding of the arguments they are making. To that end, I think spreading should be avoided when possible, but I am fine with some speed.

I like to see clear clash and persuasive argumentation. Assertiveness is good, rudeness is completely uncalled for and may cost a competitor the round if it is pervasive enough. Further, competitors should be respectful and deferential to judges regardless of the judge's experience.

Debaters should come prepared for technology catastrophes. Bring paper copies, USB storage devices, and contingency plans. I flow when I judge, so I only take things into consideration that are said in the actual debate. If you are spreading to the point that your words are unintelligible, I will put my pen down. If that happens, you will not be getting credit for anything you say until you can be understood enough for me to resume flowing.

Hi! My name is Ryder and I am currently a Senior at St. Andrews Episcopal School in Ridgeland Mississippi. I have been involved in Speech and Debate since 7th Grade. I have primarily participated in PF and LD but I have also done Congress, Big Questions, Extemp, Impromptu, Prose, OO, and Pro Con Challenge.

I love this activity and personally, it has done so much for me which is why I also love to judge it! But enough about me let's get into the specifics:

Jude Style: I am a flow judge. I also believe in Tech>Truth (Unless you are just blatantly lying or misrepresenting your card).

General Debate:

1) I have very little experience with Policy and LD, but I am by no means a lay judge. With that being said do not try and put lay judge tricks past me. If you try and say your opponent clean dropped and arg and they clearly didn't that will not bode well with you. Speaking of drops make sure you clean extend evidence through all speeches. If you drop your arg in a rebuttal and then don't bring it up again then I will not flow that to you (Applies to evidence as well). So please make sure you clean extend your arguments.

2) I cannot stress this enough but please ARTICULATE when you speak. I personally do not like speed in debate events however I can still understand it. Just please make sure that you say your words with clarity and I can undoubtedly understand the words that come out of your mouths. (If I do not understand or miss something because you are not articulating your words then I will not flow it through).

3) Make sure that our arguments make sense. This might sound self-explanatory but please make sure you have a clear link chain throughout your case. It makes the debate 1000x times better.

4) As far as timing goes please do not go over the 5-second grace. I know for PF at least 4 minutes is not enough time (trust me I go over sometimes too) but please do not go over the grace. I will just stop paying attention to anything after that. It is extremely unfair to your opponents.

5) Do not be racist, homophobic, sexist, or transphobic. You will instantly lose.

6) In PF and LD I do not like Theory or K's. Most kritiks are based on some very complex and abstract concepts that require a great deal of explanation. The longest speech in PF is four minutes long. If you can explain such complex concepts in that time frame at a comprehensible speaking rate, then I do admire you. However, the vast majority of debaters don't even come close to accomplishing that task. So please, do not run them.

Please don't spread.

email - vl15 at rice dot edu (please add to the email chain)

Have any questions? Ask me.

I did policy debate at St. Andrew's Episcopal School in Mississippi from 2016 to 2020. I also did a semester of NPDA at Rice University.

Here are some of my general thoughts about debate:

- I believe that debate is primarily an educational activity. I have no problem intervening when argumentation or discourse is harmful to the debate space.

- Outside of the above, though, I feel my role as an adjudicator is to allow debaters to debate how they're comfortable debating - my role is not to impose my predispositions about debate upon others. I will attempt to intervene as little as possible to make a decision.

- That being said, I am predisposed to grant greater credence to clearly articulated and warranted arguments that advance a coherent theory/understanding of how the world functions. I am indifferent as to what mechanism/framework you utilize to advance these arguments.

- To me, the most persuasive speeches have been the ones where people take the time to dwell on important framing issues in the round and provide compelling analysis as to why they're winning there in a straightforward manner.

Policy Affs

- I feel that there is stronger value to "defensive" arguments than most. It should be possible to win that an affirmative doesn't solve or that there is zero risk of a link to the disadvantage.

- I think that solvency deficits and internal-link takeouts are underutilized and help minimize policy affs well.

- Many policy affirmatives contain, at best, tenuously constructed internal links; teams ought to be unafraid to exploit these weaknesses.

Critical Affs/Framework

- You should be prepared to explain your methodology clearly. I am fine with non-policy affirmatives being read, but I am less experienced in evaluating these (that doesn't mean you shouldn't read them if that's what you do!).

- Even if the affirmative doesn't affirm the resolution, it is better if it relates to the topic in some manner.

- I'm not all that convinced that procedural fairness is intrinsically valuable, but it is probably an internal link to several important impacts (clash education, the collapse of debate, etc.).

Disadvantages

- Specific analysis is important in selling your scenario. Be detailed in your explanation of the link level and the rest will hopefully follow.

- I prefer that you contextualize the disadvantage to the affirmative; even if you have generic links, explain how they implicate the affirmative ("turns case" arguments help mitigate external offense from the affirmative!).

Counterplans

- Most counterplans are alright, although I think that process CPs and international fiat are questionable. Delay counterplans are likely abusive.

- Clever counterplans are fun but are probably not very theoretically legitimate. That being said, there's nothing wrong with a good theory debate.

- Conditionality is probably good (to an extent).

Theory/Topicality

- I default to competing interpretations.

- Good procedural debates are well-organized, well-warranted, and contain good impact weighing. I like these debates.

Critiques

- Teams that read Ks well are able to (1) explain their theory clearly, (2) explain how their theory directly problematizes the affirmative/the affirmative's theory of the world, and (3) explain how their alternative praxis directly resolves these problematizations.

- I may not have more than a surface-level understanding of your theory.

- Framework is probably important for both the aff and the neg in these rounds.

Hello competitors!

My name is Kara and this is my second year with speech and debate. I've competed in mostly interpretation events, as well as some speech events. `I have also competed in Public Forum. I am so excited to see your pieces and debates! If you have any questions about anything, do not hesitate to come up to me at any future tournaments!

I am looking for the following:

Speech/Interp

Preparation- Is your piece memorized? Can I tell that you have worked hard on this piece instead of throwing it together at the last minute? I want to be able to know that you worked on and put your blood sweat and tears into the piece you are presenting. :)

Volume vs. Acting- (This is mostly for interpretation events + Declamation) Obviously I need to be able to hear you, but is that all you are putting into your piece? Volume is essential, however, there needs to be more to your piece than that. Emotions do not always have to be portrayed as screaming and I need to be able to see you developing your characters and making them believable. The most basic way I can say this is do not focus on loud acting. I would rather have someone quieter act well than someone yelling and not acting.

Storyline/creativity- Does the story you're telling make sense? Can I follow what you are saying? Basically I just want to be able to follow along with the story you're telling. Put me into the world you are creating with your piece! Did you add some personal spice to the story? Originality is always entertaining. Draw me in. Show me something I wouldn't expect.

Debate

Understanding- This sort of goes two ways. The first one being can I tell that you understand the topic? Is it clear to me that you know what you're talking about? You must first understand the topic to debate on it. The next one is can I understand what you are talking about. Make your arguments and attacks clear to me.

Attacking and Defending- This is kind of obvious lol. Are you defending your own case well? Are you attacking your opponent well? Make it clear to me that your case is the one that stands.

Attitude/General Rule following (this goes for both debate and IEs)- If you are breaking a rule in an event then I will have to take off points for that (ex. moving below the waist in prose or poetry, touching in duo, etc.) I put attitude in this category because even though it is not an explicit rule, disrespect (unkind words, uncivil treatment towards competitors in a debate, booing, laughing at competitors (unless the piece calls for that), leaving for performances, etc.) will not be tolerated.

Check your ballots for personal feedback. Remember to have fun, and good luck!

I participated in speech and debate in High School and have been judging debate all year this school year.

I am generally a tabula rasa judge beginning with a blank slate and look to see which side presents the best overall arguments. I tend to put a greater burden of proof on the affirmative since the negative can usually argue to the status quo.

Email contact: jrr289@msstate.edu - please add me to any email chains being used in the round

Background: I competed in speech and debate for three years in high school. I primarily participated in public forum debate and international and domestic extemporaneous speaking, but I occasionally competed in LD, congress, and various other limited prep speech events. I attended the NSDA tournament twice in international extemporaneous speaking. I competed at the CFL National tournament three times: once in extemporaneous speaking, once in public forum, and once in congress. I have stayed active in speech and debate by judging a few tournaments a year and helping coach public forum debate teams on the high school level.

Speeches and case organization

I have a fundamental aversion to jargon and unexplained abbreviations or acronyms in debate. Explain and define everything.

The best constructive speeches contain at least some background information on the resolution. Many teams overlook this, perhaps due to time constraints, but this is a critical step. In other words, you need to answer this question up front: how have we arrived at the topic before us?

Organized speeches with clear signposting are an absolute must. Evidence is obviously important, but I will pay special attention to how it is woven throughout your speeches. Are you making it clear why this evidence is important? Why I should trust it? What is its impact? Do you have multiple levels of evidence to support every argument you plan on making?

Crossfire

I will pay attention to everything said during crossfire. While a debate may not be won solely by the crossfire performance, it can quickly be lost. A great debater is one who does not lose their persuasiveness even when they have to think fast on their feet. You should be able to defend all your arguments and evidence without hesitation during crossfire. What I believe to be an extremely effective communication strategy during crossfire that you may want to consider is not forgetting to make eye contact and speak to the judge. Do not limit your focus during crossfire to your opponent or your papers in front of you. Engaging me in crossfire and making me feel included will absolutely earn you some extra speaker points.

Miscellaneous

I will flow each debate carefully, but I do not consider myself a technical judge. You are free to run whatever arguments or strategies you choose; if you can sell it well, I will probably buy it. At the end of the round, my decision is usually for the team who wows me the most. Sometimes that is the team who I think wins the most number of arguments. Sometimes that is the team who wins the strongest arguments. Sometimes it is the team that had the best delivery and persuasiveness.

Please feel free to contact me via email if you have any questions.

Hi all!

My name is Sarah Grace, and I'm a sophomore at Georgetown University studying International Politics with a concentration in Foreign Policy Processes and a minor in the Korean Language. If you're a junior/senior and you have any Georgetown-related questions, or questions about how debate can help you with the college application process, regardless of your school affiliation, I'm happy to help. You can best reach me at sgs100@georgetown.edu!

As for my speech and debate background, I debated all four years of high school. My three main events were Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Original Oratory, and Extemporaneous speaking. I'm the most experienced with Lincoln-Douglas Debate - I was both the 2021 State Champion and also competed at multiple national tournaments. I've competed in LD, PF, and Policy. I did OO sophomore-senior year, and I'm familiar with most speech events. My blind spot is interp.

This community has meant a lot to me, and I'm excited to be able to give back to it through judging, so I wish you all good luck!

Overall Notes

1.DO NOT SPREAD.

2.I will keep the official time, but you can also time yourself.

3. I give good speaker points, but you are only going to get a 30 if you were perfect in every way.

Debate Paradigm

1. No ad hom attacks/insults/slurs/etc. Be sensitive about the content you are debating.

2. You may give an off-time road map if you want.

3. I look for clarity, signposting, and solid logic in rebuttals. Please let me know WHERE you are and WHAT contention you are addressing. If you are addressing your opponent's first contention, please tell me so I can note it on my flow.

4. In rebuttal, give me impact calculus. Tell me how I am supposed to determine who has the more important impact (probability, severity, scope, magnitude). Please compare the affirmative/pro and negative/con worlds and tell me which one is better.

6. I like to see key voting issues that address major areas of clash in the final rebuttal speeches.

7. I can handle speed, but you need to enunciate. PLEASE DO NOT SPREAD.

8. If you use cards in rebuttal, don't just read them out, explain why it matters. Saying "Remember my Williams 2020 card" isn't enough. You should give me some additional analysis as to why it is relevant for your rebuttal.

LD Specific

1. I want to see value/value-criterion debate. Every contention should link back to the V and VC.

2. Give key voting issues in the 1NR and 2AR.

3. Logic-based arguments are fine. That being said, having evidence to back up your claims is also important. If you are saying something that is not entirely obvious, but pin it as "logic-based" I will weigh that in the round.

4. I will weigh the framework debate heavily if it is not collapsed, and if you do collapse the framework, you still need to make it clear what lens I'm judging the round through. If you win on framework, I still want to see solid debate on the contention level.

5. A bad CX won't lose you the round, but if you make a mistake/concession in CX and the opponent brings it up in rebuttal, I will weigh it.

Policy Specific

1. Please add me to the email chain. My Gmail is sgshurden@gmail.com.

2. I'm not super familiar with policy debate, so please make your arguments as accessible as possible. I need to understand what you are saying to flow it.

Congress

1. I treat Congress like a debate event. This means solid evidence, analysis, addressing other people in the chamber, and relevant questioning.

2. I don't like to see the SAME person stand up to give an aff and then stand up to give a neg right after. Pick a side and stick with it.

Overall Speech Paradigm

Dec, OO, Info

1. I'm familiar with Dec, OO, and Info. I know what the conventions are in each event, but in general, I will look for who the better speaker is.

2. Please don't judge how well you are doing based on my facial expressions.

3. Organization and evidence still counts. Even in speech. If I am confused about where you are, or the relevance of a point/piece of evidence, I will consider that when I rank you.

4. The speech I like the most won't necessarily be the one that gets the 1.

Extemp

1. Organization - The well-organized extemp speeches I've seen have a solid intro with a thesis, three points with several sources to back them up, and then a conclusion that links back to the intro.

2. Speaking - this comes back to who is the better speaker (inflection, tone, etc.).

3. Content - if you have 10 sources and they're all from the New York Times, I think you're probably making them up. Give me the month and year for each source. Ultimately, the analysis is more important to me than the source itself.

Impromptu

I look for most of the same things I do in extemp: organization, speaking, and content/analysis. Less emphasis on sources for obvious reasons.

Interp

I've never done interp before. If you get me as a judge, I have no idea what interp conventions are. I'll be judging on who I thought was the better speaker.

Hi, my name is Morgan and I am so excited to judge for you all!

To me, the key to an impactful performance is maintaining your connection to your piece while developing a connection to your audience! In other words, I judge on memorization, speech clarity, eye contact, and just a genuine performance with your material. I will also give you suggestions for future performances!

I can't wait to hear what y'all have to show me!

I leave short concise, hopefully pratical feedback.

If you want or need me to elaborate email GeraldWindham.GW@gmail.com with your name, piece title, and what tournament I judged you at.