I'm an assistant speech coach at the Potomac School. This is my 15th year in Speech and Debate. I graduated from George Mason University where I competed on the collegiate speech team. Before that, I went to Rosemount High School where I did LD and speech for four years. If you have any questions, email me at alekhyatallapaka@gmail.com

Speech:

Extemp and PAs, I am focused more on your content than delivery, especially in the beginning of the season. I will be flowing your speeches.

Interp Events, less focus on argumentation and more on how you interpret the author's original text/your performance choices. I will let you know if I think your performance is too triggering but I will not punish the student (I will leave a strongly worded ballot for coaches though)

Debate:

I'm a flow judge that wants to be told how to feel. Ultimately, debate is supposed to be persuasive--a 'winning' flow is not inherently persuasive. My speaker points are generally reflective of how easy I think you make my decisions.

Things to Remember…

0. The Debate Space: R E L A X. Have some fun. Breathe a little. Sit where you want, talk in the direction you want, live your BEST lives in my rounds. I'm not here to tell you what that looks like!

1. Framework: Cost/benefit unless otherwise determined.

2. Extensions: Links and impacts NEED to be in summary to be evaluated in final focus. Please don't just extend through ink--make an attempt to tell me why your arguments are comparatively more important than whatever they're saying.

3. Evidence: If you're bad at paraphrasing and do it anyway, that's a reasonable voter. See section on theory. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. I also prefer authors AND dates. I will not call for evidence unless suggested to in round.

4. Cross: If it's not in a speech it's not on my flow. HOWEVER: I want to pay attention to cross. Give me something to pay attention to. Just because I'm not flowing cross doesn't make it irrelevant--it's up to you to do something with the time.

5. Narrative: Narrow the 2nd half of the round down with how your case presents a cohesive story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. I like comparative analysis.

6. Theory: If an abuse happens, theory shells are an effective check. I think my role as an educator is to listen to the arguments as presented and make an evaluation based on what is argued.

Disclosure is good for debate. I think paraphrasing is good for public forum, but my opinion doesn't determine how I evaluate the paraphrasing shell. This is just to suggest that no one should feel intimidated by a paraphrasing shell in a round I am judging--make substantive responses in the line-by-line and it's ultimately just another argument I evaluate tabula rasa.

7. Critical positions: I'll evaluate Ks, but if you are speaking for someone else I need a good reason not to cap your speaks at 28.5.

8. Tech >< Truth: Make the arguments you want to make. If they aren't supported with SOME evidence my threshold for evaluating answers to them is, however, low.

9. Sign Post/Road Maps: Please.

**Do NOT give me blippy/underdeveloped extensions/arguments. I don’t know authors of evidence so go beyond that when talking about your evidence/arguments in round. I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that with some humor and panache.**

I am  from TN and am looking forward to judging debate. Please make sure to speak on the slower side and clearly so that I can understand your arguments. Make sure to speak loudly and make eye contact as it helps me understand you better as well. Please be polite .

Thank you.

I am generally a flow judge and can follow fast paced debate.

Framework should be established and followed throughout the round. Tell me why your framework is superior and back up your claim with evidence in contentions. If there is no framework debate, the round will rely on weighing evidence in contentions.

Contentions should be clearly stated with supporting evidence and analysis. Your evidence should be fully explained and analyzed as to its impact on the debate. I prefer evidence be referred to by subject/topic throughout the round rather than simply the author's name. Know your evidence well enough defend it in cross-examination.

Your case should be organized, focused and come to a reasonable conclusion that convinces me to vote in your favor. Failure to communicate the importance of evidence, weighing values and impacts, or extending key arguments may result in a loss.

I like a nicely structured debate. Making the framework and definitions clear is important. However, I do not like for this to carry on. Make the structure clear and move on. You should not still be debating what the framework is in your last rebuttals.

I look for quality sources, not quantity

Debates that build off each other are the best. Don't debate at me, debate with your opponent.

I also look for speaking style. Since I am primarily a speech judge, I take speaking skills into account. Mumbling, speaking monotonously, over using hand movements, and stumbling will rank you lower.

Lastly, I just want the argument to make sense. Don't give me a convoluted, overly complex argument. Make it make sense.

As a background, I did three years of public forum debate and two years of extemporaneous speaking, both on the national circuit.

1. Please no off time road-maps. Use your time in speech to signpost

2. I am fine with speed as long as you are not skipping links.

3. Please weigh.

4. Do not drop arguments you go for in final focus

I am a parent judge. This is my 4th year. I enjoy judging and am always impressed by the talent of all of the students. I try to stay true to myself and my experience both with judging and otherwise. Best of luck to all competitors.

Congress:

I rank mediocre extemp speeches above good pre-written speeches. Your mother, coach, or teammate could've written that speech and you simply reading it is just not impressive.

If you waste everyone's time by asking a "friendly question" I will be ranking you in my bottom half.

Each speech should further the debate in some way. Add to pre-existing arguments or make new ones. Respond to others in the chamber. Don't just argue the same exact thing as said before.

Sources MUST be cited. If you are clearly referencing something, but not giving author and year, I will assume you used ChatGPT and rank you at the bottom.

PF:

Do your own evidence weighing. I will not call for a card unless you tell me to call for a card. A reason for you to tell me to call for a card is because of poor evidence ethics, NOT to weigh it or evaluate it versus yours. You should do that in round. If evidence says conflicting things, you should be doing the proper weighing and indicts. Otherwise I will count the entire thing a wash.

You should collapse in some way, preferably in summary. If you are going for everything on the flow in the final focus, you are undercovering something. Either you are not extending something properly or you are not weighing comparatively. It is much better for education and debate in general to engage in clash qualitatively. Debate evidence. Debate warrants. Actually collapse and interact instead of just half extending a bunch of blippy responses. Messy debates are so prevalent in PF and most of the time it is created because everyone tries to go for everything.

Everything you extend in FF should be carried through every speech. If it is not in summary, I will not flow it through. This includes defense (I do not believe defense is sticky). Other than frontlines, no new arguments and evidence should be introduce in summary/FF. A proper extension includes all aspects of the argument. This includes claim, warrant, and impact (hint: "extend my contention one" is not enough). Most extensions I witness are just little blips. I value quality over quantity. This is why you should collapse.

Weighing is a must. There is virtually a zero percent chance I vote for you if you do not weigh (unless the other team also doesn't weigh). Weighing should be comparative to your opponents impact. I will award you higher speaks if you even meta-weigh (such as why our weighing mechanism of magnitude outweighs their weighing mechanism of irreversibility). Properly weighing like this means you must attribute time to it, not just the fleeting few seconds at the end (AKA collapse).

Turns must be implicated. Most debaters think that a turn automatically means you get your opponents offense. A lot of turns are just disadvantages to the pro/con and most times this disadvantage does not negate the offense from the other team. For instance, let's say Team A argues in case that the resolution will create more jobs and Team B reads a "turn" that it would increase cost of goods and services. Team B has just introduced a disadvantage to Team A's argument, but has not negated their offense or even somehow stolen their offense for themselves (unless other arguments were presented in conjunction with this). In this case, both teams have offense on this side of the flow- Team A in jobs and Team B in costs. So the turn itself should be implicated and weighed in the round to be evaluated. If you read a turn that says it actually decreases jobs, again, impact it out and implicate it. You also probably need to do some evidence analysis or warrant comparisons.

One of my biggest pet peeves in debate is when one team claims their opponent did not respond to something and then I'll look down on my flow and see a bunch of responses. If they actually didn't respond, call them out on it, but please keep a good flow so you can call it out accurately.

I presume keeping the status squo (con). If everything is a wash or muddled to the point where it is nearly impossible to evaluate, that will be my vote. This rarely happens though.

Speed- on a 1-10 I would say around a 6 for me. So no spreading. If you go fast through numbers or quick analytics I will probably miss some of it. Go slower for taglines as well.

Speaker points- I don't care about eye contact. I don't care if you sway, twirl your hair, or even sit while speaking. I'd say there are three factors I consider when giving speaks. 1st is how well you deliver. Can I understand it? Do you mumble? Is it clear? Etc. 2nd is your ability to navigate me around the flow. Are you signposting? Do you bounce me around the flow? etc. 3rd is are you making strategic choices in round? Are you actually weighing comparatively? Are you collapsing? Are you actually engaging in evidence and clash or do you just give a thousand blippy responses and create a messy debate? etc

I don't flow cross and view it as non-binding inside of itself. It can be binding but it needs to be brought up in speech. I'm usually writing ballot comments or evaluating a flow during cross but will still pay attention. If you get a key concession or something, you need to bring it up in speech.

K's and theory are becoming more and more of a prevalent thing in PF. I am generally not a fan. I don't understand what we want Public Forum to become with this. I think we are straying away from what Public Forum is supposed to be, which is an accessible form of debate for the public. I understand that debate is a game and will try to evaluate the flow as such, but I am a more of a traditionalist when it comes to argumentation being run in PF and prefer it to just stay on topic.

I competed in extemp for 6 years (3 in high school, 3 in college) along with doing Congress and some PF in HS and have since coached pretty much every speech event and world schools debate for the past 2 years. For reference, I'm a school-affiliated judge but work at a government contracting company doing work for the Marine Corps, so be warned that national security is my niche area of expertise.

WORLDS: I specifically look for students who use this style of debate to persuade (read: talk at a normal pace. Worlds was created to counter the trend of debates turning technical, and I'm going to try and uphold that as best I can).

PF: I look for logical consistency of arguments and general plausibility. Do not run Ks or anything else wild with me. I will not be persuaded by arguments like "because we use the word 'the' that means the world will end in nuclear war so vote pro" which I have seen run. Also, I can handle speed so long as you work up to it but I tend to deduct a few tenths of a speaker point for excessive speed since PF was never designed to be a technical debate event and I feel like that's going against the event standard as written by the NSDA. But if you want to spread then I will not automatically preclude you from winning the round and I will be perfectly capable of following along.

BOTH: Show me you care about your arguments, and show me why I should vote for you. I see plenty of debates where there's clash, but tell me why your side comes out on top at the end of the day. If both sides have the same position some clash will get declared a wash, and there's never a wash in debate because one side always does a better job fulfilling the value or criterion or impact better than the other side. Just saying you're winning an argument does not make it true, show me why you're winning and trace the progress of that clash for me. I do flow, but I'm not a fan of teams saying "extend contention ___" and then providing no reason why I should do that. Again, tell me why the opponent's response or lack thereof is sufficient to warrant extending something.

Other than that, have fun! I definitely notice when students are enjoying themselves and tend to give an extra style point (or speaker points in speech and PF) or two for that.

I am a parent judge with experience as a speaker. By training and experience, I am a forensic psychologist (broadly, a professional who studies the interaction of the law and psychology). I value the ability to look on both sides of an argument and the ability to present information in a logical manner, using evidence and research to support opinions and guide the flow of a speech or debate. I prefer the strategic and relevant use of facts and research and am less impressed with being flooded with facts and research. In speeches, I benefit from an introduction that provides guidance as to what to expect and a conclusion that ties it together.

I am a parent judge with a degree in Electrical Engineering with a minor in Computer Science. Thus I look for logical arguments that prove your point of view. A dropped argument does not mean you win the debate. In the end, debate is an exercise in discussion, discourse, rhetoric, argumentation and rebuttal. Logos, ethos and pathos are vital in the debate arena. Debate decisions are about who debates better in a given moment in time with a given situation.

While this is my Second time judging in this type of event, I have judged debates for the past four years for NCFCA.

I prefer if speakers wait for all judges to respond that they are ready before speaking. A balance between presentation and substance is a must. Say your sources clearly and explain with specifics.

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

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

I do not mind if you sit or stand.

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 coaching competitive speech and debate since 2005. I like to see strong persuasive rhetoric and a confident respectful communications style. I am not impressed with speed and spread. I appreciate when debaters do not assume that I know or understand the resolution. It is your job to inform and persuade me as to why I should support your side of a resolution. I love to see strong targeted cross examination and appreciate when a debater makes an attempt to connect the cross examination points in their rebuttal arguments.

Congressional Debate:

I have judged and/or been parliamentarian at local, regional and national tournaments, including Isidore Newman, Durham Academy, the Barkley Forum and and Harvard. My students have found success at both the national and state levels.

POs- I default to you. Remember, your tone as PO has a big influence on tone of the chamber. Be efficient, clear and consistent and have fun.

As far as the round and debate within the round, consistency is important to me. The way you speak and vote on one piece of legislation should most indeed influence your position on similar limitation unless you tell me otherwise. Debate and discourse does not exist in a vacuum.

Acting/characterization is fine as long as there is a reason and has a positive impact.

Finding a balance of logos, ethos and pathos is important. Difficult to accomplish in three minutes? Absolutely. The balance is what gets my attention.

I'll be honest. I don't like when debate jargon leaks into the chamber. SQUO, affirmative/negative, counterplan, link/turn, etc. This event is it's own unique event with norms.

Additionally, Student Congress is not Extemp-lite. If you are trying for three points in a speech, how do I know what to focus on? If everything is equally important then nothing is important. Take a stance, go for the impact and make the balance between logic and emotional to persuade. Include previous debate points, elucidate your point of view and have fun.

Email chain info: nathanmichaeljohnston@gmail.com

The Paradigm:
Debate is meant to be a fun activity! I think you should do whatever you need to do to ride your own personal happiness train. So have a good time in our rounds. That said, remember that riding your happiness train shouldn't limit someone else's ability to ride their's. So be kind. Have fun, learn stuff, don't be a jerk though.

I've been around debate for over 15 years. You can read whatever arguments in front of me and I'm happy to evaluate them. I'm fine if you want to LARP, read Ks, be a phil debater, do more trad stuff, or whatever else. I'm good with theory as long as you're generating genuine, in-round abuse stories. Frivolous theory and tricks are not something I'm interested in listening to. If I'm judging you online, go like 50% of your max spreading because hearing online is difficult. I'd like to be on email chains, but we all should accept that SpeechDrop is better and use it more. Otherwise, do whatever you want.

Rankings:
K - 1
Phil - 2
Policy - 1
High theory - 2.5 (it'll be ok but I'm going to need you to help me understand if its too far off the wall)
Theory - 1 (but the good kind), 4 (for the bad, friv kind) - I find myself to be compelled by genuine in-round abuse stories more than potential abuse.
Tricks - you should probably strike me

The Feels:
I'm somewhat ideologically opposed to judge prefs. As someone who values the educative nature of our events, I think judge adaptation is important. To that end, I see judge paradigms as a good way for you to know how to adapt to any given judge in any given round. Thus, in theory, you would think that I am a fan of judge paradigms. My concern with them arises when we are no longer using them to allow students the opportunity to adapt to their judges, but rather they exist to exclude members from the potential audience that a competitor may have to perform in front of (granted I think there is real value in strikes and conflicts for a whole host of reasons, but prefs certainly feed into the aforementioned problem). I'm not sure this little rant has anything to do with how you should pref/strike me, view my paradigm, etc. It kind of makes me not want to post anything here, but I feel like my obligation as a potential educator for anyone that wants to voice an argument in front of me outweighs my concerns with our MPJ system. I just think it is something important and a conversation we should be having. This is my way of helping the subject not be invisible.

Hello! I’m a 1 Diamond Assistant Speech Coach with 8 years of speech coach experience and 25 years of active participation in the speech and debate community. I competed interpretation events as a high school student between 2000-2004. I have 22 years of speech judge experience on the local and national circuits.

In interpretation events, I appreciate strong character development, unique and distinct characterizations, and authentic and meaningful storytelling.

In public address events, I appreciate a clear and persuasive thesis/argument, extensive examples, a compelling analysis, cited research, and strong performance elements (e.g. use of humor, interesting topics, excellent speaking skills, and thoughtful gestures/movement).

I have no experience judging or competing in Congress. I have only judged 1 round of LD, and less than 10 rounds of PF.

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. Reading cards is not good debating, giving full and complete verbal explanations of the specific claims made in the round and how they interact with one another is. For further insight on my views please consult these following articles I have written for the Rostrum:

February2002-Complete-Rostrum.pdf (speechanddebate.org)

Luong RJ PresumptionNov'00 (uvm.edu)

I am a parent judge who has been judging at local tournaments for a few years.

This is my third-year judging for speech and debate, and I do it for two reasons: to see talented participants and to help those participants build upon their existing ability and improve their performance. As a Public Forum judge, I firmly believe that hitting the key voting issues in the Final Focus is of the utmost importance and helps solidify the victor(s). I expect to see a solid use of Logos as a technique with facts, statistics, and credible quotes for every assertion that you make. It is also of vital importance to keep in mind that no judge should be considered all-knowing in whatever subject or resolution you are working with. Please explain thoroughly and clearly.

It is acceptable to have some semblance of brevity as long as I, the judge, can understand every word you and your partner say.

Criterion only.

No spreading. If I cannot hear and flow the argument, it doesn't exist. 

Vote off framework. 

No disclosure.

No oral critiques. 

I believe there are worse things than extinction. 

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’m a parent judge for speech and LD. I have judged a couple of times last year and this is my third year judging.

IN LD I am looking for clear but not too fast speeches, sharp questions and responses in cross examinations, and strong rebuttals. I prefer well reasoned and supported arguments. While I don't mind a brisk speed when it is necessary to incorporate a variety of legitimate arguments in case or rebuttal, I will focus on the strength of individual arguments more than the accusation of dropped cards. You also don't have to win every bit of the flow (or pretend to) to win a round for me. You may even honestly concede minor points and cards/warrants. The important thing is to win the main arguments, wherever they happen to occur in the flow. Therefore, your job is to help me weigh what the most essential arguments are towards the end of the round.

For Speech I appreciate varieties in pace and tone of speech, commitment to goal and respect for your fellow participants.

I am a first generation Cuban-American who grew up in rural NC (so my Spanish is weak at best). I competed in speech (poetry and prose interpretation mostly) in both middle and high school. I have had two children compete in debate so I am aware for both formal rules and conventions.

I am a veterinary pathologist with extensive diagnostic and research experience (including covid studies); I also am a huge history buff. So I will probably know if your science or history is wrong / out of context / or misleading. That said, I do not penalize the speaker unless the error is egregious, meaning that a reasonable person would know the speaker is in factual error off the top of their head. Otherwise, I expected the opposing side to point out the error themselves. I do penalize if the opposition misquotes the other sides argument.

Please do not speak so quickly I cannot understand what you are saying.

And good luck!

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.

Hi!
I am a parent judge who has been a speech judge for several years so make sure to speak clearly.

For me debate is about convincing me that your winning, not just winning individual arguments or just saying that your opponent concede one tiny detail.

I would prefer you win the debate as an overall narrative, rather than simply hoping your opponent drops one subpoint and saying you should win off of that.

You can do this by:

1. Speaking clearly and getting your main argument across clearly.
2. Weighing and explaining why your arguments matter more.