Hi all! I am the Head Coach of Speech and Debate at Pinecrest High School in North Carolina. I am a former extemper with pretty deep knowledge of the happenings in the world.

LD & PF

--I am fine with speed, but remember with speed comes the risk I won't get it on the flow. If you see me stop typing/pen is no longer writing/I am staring blankly at you, consider that your cue to slow down.

--Make sure to differentiate your sourcing. Authors' last names are great, but tell me where the source comes from first. John Doe from the Council on Foreign Relations in 2022 sounds better than Doe 22. After that, you can refer to the source as CFR or Doe and I'm good on what you are referring to.

--Please weigh. Please. You have to do this in order for me to be able to determine a winner.

--Respect. Respect your opponents, partner (if in PF), self, and the host school. Competitive debate is a great activity; but you must maintain some sense of decorum throughout your time in the round.

Congress

--When you go to an in-house recess to determine splits, or inquire as to why no one is speaking, you have done yourself and your fellow competitors a disservice by not being prepared. Please avoid this as much as possible.

--I'm fine with rehashing arguments to a point, but you need to add more evidence to support this rehashed point. Something niche and unique that can catch the opposing side off guard.

--Presiding Officers: thank you for volunteering to run the chamber. Please only defer to the parli when you are unsure of certain procedure.

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.

I have two years of PFD experience, 1 year of Congress experience where I was a competitor at the NCFL Grand National Tournament for Cumberland International Early College along with other tournaments on the national circuit. I also competed on the North Carolina Worlds Schools Debate team at the National Speech and Debate Association National Tournament this past June. I am now a freshman in the Honors College at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill double majoring in political science and public policy.

I don't really flow in a traditional sense but I do keep track of everything being said so please do not have that dissuade you from getting out as much information as possible because I will be able to keep up. I am not a lay judge, rather I will probably be one of the tougher judges you have. I appreciate people who are able to talk fast and clearly but am not a fan of spreading so try to limit that.

Typically, I will vote off the point/points that the debate has focused on as most PFD rounds tend to narrow down to around one or two points. Knowing this, I do penalize teams when smaller points are dropped, even if the debate is centered on one thing do not forget to address smaller contentions or leave ends untied.

I value definitions and framework highly. Terminology is key to providing a strong framework and clarifying the resolution so these things go hand in hand. If your team does decide to agree on the opponent’s framework and with their definition keep in mind that I will then be weighing the round off of that framework......even if your team had the stronger arguments. Easiest way to put it is the first minute to minute and a half of your speech will weigh heavily in my vote.

Lastly, my biggest thing is sourcing. If something is said but a source is not clearly stated I will immediately drop the point. I often ask for sources within round so have sources readily available.

I will disclose who I feel won and why unless I am told by the tournament to do otherwise.

Outside of that I prefer a fun round and love to give feedback following rounds so please do not hesitate to approach me, I often would prefer that rather than writing comments.

If there are any questions about my paradigms feel free to ask me in round.

Hello

I have been judging for the last 3 years mostly congress. I am a parent judge

What I like are good facts and figures. How you can reach out and convince novice/common people with your speech matters most to me. Be yourself and give your best with your own style.

I have been judging PFD since 2007. I am a coach and I am currently working with our school's PFD and Congress teams. I would not say that I am an expert, but I have definitely spent a great deal of time helping my students write pro and con cases. I believe that if you talk so fast that I cannot understand your contention, then you didn't say it. I like cases to be clearly signposted; this helps me to keep up with the cases better. I do not like condescension. No one is better just because they come from a school with more resources. Rude behavior of any kind is intolerable. Also, saying something many times does not make it true. I believe a team should clearly link evidence to contentions.

UNC '20

Former 4-year congressional debater (11th in the senate at NSDA Nationals in 2016), also extensively coached PF at my high school. Coaching congressional debate privately now off and on. For PF, I can handle any speed you throw at me within the realms of general acceptability in PF, and I'm good on the flow. If for some reason I can't keep up, I'll let you know. I like funny debates, but there's a fine line between being funny and being a jerk – be nice, especially if you're destroying a team, or your speaker points will suffer as a result.

School strikes
Charlotte Catholic High School

Public Forum
Sparknotes Version:

• I'm normally able to tell myself I know what's going on - I understand most of the positions people read
• Good debating trumps good evidence any day - I rarely call for cards unless I don't think I'll be able to make a decision without them
• Cross-x is binding - I love debaters who use it well
• I reward debaters who can explain complex positions without relying on buzzwords/jargon
• My favorite debates are case debates (defense, impact turns, whatever)
• I'm tab minus blatant bigotry in round. I reserve the right to drop you if I find your argument too offensive to belong within the realm of academic debate (you're doing something seriously wrong if this happens)
• Off-time roadmaps are a vestige from policy, unless you're doing something really weird in your speech save us all five seconds and just start

Specifics:

Prep time starts when the other team begins reading the evidence they requested.

Start with framework at the top of all rebuttals, give me a way to evaluate the round. I prefer crisp, clear framework debates – give me an intuitive way to prefer your framework. I am more than willing to listen to "we win under both frameworks, here's why" – but make that clear to me.

I'd prefer summary to be (selective) line-by-line and final focus to be voters, but whatever floats your boat. I'm here to judge, not tell you what to do, but a really well-executed line-by-line in summary may earn you bonus points from me. I don't need to hear every argument in summary, but I think that you need to give me two or three portions of the debate narrowed down. Again, not gonna take speaks away if you don't, just my preference and makes my flow pretty clean. Kicking out of arguments is more than fine in summary.

Final focus should extend straight from summary – I will not buy any offense dropped in summary but brought up again in final focus. You don't get to basically make new responses/arguments in FF, especially if you're second speaker. FF should be weighing/voters. Don't be abusive, this activity is supposed to be fun.

Extensions: Make extensions clear – don't make me go back to my flow to try to figure out what on earth you're trying to talk about. Give me a point of reference for the evidence/warrant so I know where to go back to.

Theory: I am very reluctant to accept theory in PF. Make of that what you will. If you feel the need to, go for it, but know that I will be somewhat perturbed. I default to rejecting the argument, not the team, unless you can give me a compelling reason why. Just debate the topic instead, and you won't have to worry about this entire little mini-paragraph.

Evidence: For the love of god, don't make up evidence. This mean either a) fabricating evidence completely, b) misconstruing evidence to reach a different conclusion than the authors intended, or c) clipping cards. If there's an evidence challenge, be damn sure you want to go through with the challenge. If you call a challenge and I decide your challenge was unfounded, there's a very very very high likelihood you get dropped on the spot. In the same stead, if I decide that you have fabricated evidence, I will not vote for you. End of story. Integrity is important, don't throw it away for a win that won't mean anything in four years (or less, sorry but it's true).

Congress:

Based loosely on the paradigm of Phil Hedayatnia, which was in turn based on the paradigm of Joe Bruner, which was in turn based on the paradigm of Reilly Hartigan... you get the point.

First, you're always welcome to come up to me after the round to ask how you did. I can't write as fast as I want to, and tournaments don't let me type critiques, so my comments on the ballot will always be shorter than I'd like.

Here are some of the things I look for in round (you should optimally include all of them in your speech):

Clash: If you give a speech past the first affirmative and you don't refute a single speaker, you will not be ranked on my ballot (in a circuit-level round). Pretty simple. Pre-empt, refute, crystallize, I don't care how you do it, but REFUTE SOMEONE. This isn't a speech event, it's a debate event, so debate.

Evidence: You need at least two pieces of evidence per speech, preferably 3-4. That being said, I'll take two high-quality pieces of evidence over four garbage think pieces any day of the week. Explain your evidence, and note the bias of sources. Professors writing studies/journal articles and meta-analyses are the gold standard, books are great, newspaper articles (that are not editorials) are alright. Don't use blatantly biased sources; if you're good enough to bother reading this, you know what those are. If you don't explain your evidence, I'm not going to view your speech favorably (and that's definitely going to hurt your rank).

Analysis: This preferably should come in the form of refutation-laced analysis, but I'll take what I can get. Explain why your argument is correct/more important. Don't use debate jargon (flow, cross-apply, etc), but I want to hear something along the lines of "this is more important/this is preferable because...". Analysis is NOT a placeholder for evidence; analysis backs up evidence. Good analysis will help you, but if you're analyzing bullshit, I'm gonna know.

Organization: Don't use more than two contentions, don't use roadmaps, and make sure your speech logically flows. Make yourself memorable. Remember that your introduction, impacts and conclusion are opportunities to grab my attention and tell me who you are. Set yourself apart. One contention speeches? Perfectly fine. One contention and then straight refutation? Fine by me, I did this all the time. Straight refutation (that's clear)? Sounds good. Crystallization? Cool. Don't make your format crazy, but play around - you don't have to stick to the stock two constructive contentions format.

Delivery: I think delivery (and personality) are very important. If I don't think you're having fun/you care, you're not going to end up on my ballot. Solid and clear delivery is basically a prerequisite for me evaluating your arguments. If you have no content, you won't get ranked, but if you have no personality or lack delivery skills, you probably won't be ranked either. There's a middle ground here, find it. I absolutely loved humor, and if you can make me (or the chamber) laugh, consider that bonus points. I will never mark you down for making a joke unless it is offensive (use your judgment), or it detracts from the quality of your speech. I gave a morning hour at the TOC on North Carolina's elevator queen, Cherie Berry – I have a decent sense of humor. That being said, if you aren't funny, you aren't going to lose my ballot for not trying to be. Be an engaging speaker, and you'll get ranked.

Attitude: Please be respectful to your fellow competitors. You can be angry as hell in a speech, or even somewhat mocking, that's fine... but when the round ends, it ends. It's over. That's it. Done. No arguments, please. And it goes without saying that making sexist/racist/homophobic/etc etc comments about another debater, even out of the round, is out of bounds.

Also, I don't care about your circuit politics, who's friends with who, all that bullshit – if you're good, you get ranked. Congress is a political event, use your friendships to actively help yourself. Don't actively exclude people, but I don't consider it evil for you to have friends in round/on the circuit. People need to get over themselves.

Extemporaneous Speaking: Show me that you've adapted to the round. If you walk in with a speech and just read it verbatim, that's not going to impress me at all. I definitely give higher ranks to people who I see adapting in round; for example, if you get screwed on recency and you prep a speech on the other side in five minutes because it's all you can give, and the speech is decent, I'll (most likely) rank you up and view you favorably.

Questions: This is your time to build your narrative as a debater, poke holes in opponents' arguments, and remind me that you exist in a chamber of 20 people (I normally rank towards the end of the session, so if you gave early speeches, concentrating your questions towards the end is always a plus). If you screw up answering questions as a speaker, I will hold that against you when I rank. If you nail answering questions as a speaker, I might not rank you up because of that alone, but that does make a difference.

When direct questioning (30 sec back-and-forth) is in effect, questioning becomes a big factor in my rankings. You should demonstrate that you have knowledge of the subject and aim to poke a serious hole in your opponent's argument; if you pull off a really awesome line of questioning that forces the speaker to concede a point, you bet I'm marking that down as a reason to rank up your ballot.

Amendments: They're annoying as hell. Unless everyone's agreeing to it, or the bill needs it to function, please skip them. Shaming people for not voting for your amendment in your speech is childish.

And finally, Presiding: Good presiding officers can win a chamber for me, even in a national circuit final round. Bad POs will not be ranked. If you are flawless and in command of the round, expect top 3 or 4 from me (with some exceptions). If you mess up more than once or twice, you won't get ranked. We're all human, but I presided a lot, I know it's easy (I used to prep and write speech outlines while I presided), and I expect a lot.

If you have any questions, just ask.

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

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?

I am the Director of Forensics and head LD coach at Cary Academy. I would describe myself as a neo-traditionalist. I follow a traditional approach to LD with some notable exceptions. I am a typical traditionalist in that I prefer a debate centered on a common sense, reasonable, good faith interpretation of the resolution; and I believe speakers should emphasize effective communication and practice the habits of fine public speaking during the debate. I differ from many traditionalists in that I am not a fan of the value premise and criterion, and that I do not believe that LD arguments have to be based on broad philosophical concepts, but rather should be as specific to the particular resolution as possible. If you want to win my ballot you should focus on developing a clear position and showing how it is superior to the position put forth by your opponent. You should not attempt to make more arguments than your opponent can respond to so that you can extend them in rebuttal. In my opinion most rounds are not resolved by appeals to authority. The original analysis and synthesis of the debater is vastly more important to me than cards. For further insight on my views please consult these following articles I have written for the Rostrum:

http://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/ld%20Pellicciotta0202.pdf,

https://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/Luong%20RJ%20PresumptionNov'00.pdf

Background info: Former Policy Debater (Ohio), History, Government and Econ Teacher (NC), American History Professor (NC) BA in History and Poli sci, MA in American History (emphasis on Women's history). I now coach LD, PF, Congress and Speech events and have had the pleasure of jumping into World Schools.

I'm pretty easy going and do not mind spreading in LD so long as you are clearly speaking when doing it. Not such a fan of PF speaking super quickly as that's not really the point of that event. Make good use of time but don't rush it. Outside of that in these events feel free to ask for any other concerns you may have. Happy to answer before a round starts.

Update on WSD: I do value the flow but also want to see WS norms happening in the round. Take POIs and engage with each other when time allows. I'm not a huge fan of first speech getting into refutation as two other speeches do that I would rather 1st speech take some POIs and develop your sides case. Please remember this is WSD US centric arguments happen based on the motion but I really value some international attention happening regardless of motion as I think it shows broader understanding of the World as a whole .Not to mention a countries decisions do not occur in a bubble and international events do impact other countries decisions, US included.

I am a fairly new judge and consider myself a lay judge. I do not understand spreading or progressive arguments.

When judging I value these the most:

1. Clear and confident speech. What ever the topic be, I expect contestants to be confident in the stand they take. I don't want contestants to rush their speech.

2. Topics to be explained as part of the speech. I might or might not know all the topics that are being discussed, so it is the contestant's responsibility to make it clear to me what the topic is being discussed and what stand they are taking.

3. Clear evidence with links to data.

4. I believe in "Give Respect and take Respect". I discourage extreme offensive language and rudeness to either the judges or competitors.

5. Have fun and enjoy the debate.

Ms. Weaver is a history teacher, specializing in Civics & Government, and early American History. She has a BS in Social Studies Education from East Carolina University and an MEd in Curriculum and Instruction with a focus in Social Studies from Concordia University.

I am so happy to judge you! In speech - let me know if you want time signals! In debate - please don't spread, if I can't understand what you're saying then I can't get your points. In congress - please please please do not keep extending questioning, it's pointless - also, be sure that you are always trying to keep the chamber moving, avoid rehash, and AT ALL COSTS avoid a one-sided debate.