Hi! I am an experienced judge that loves speech and debate. I have a background in theater, so please speak up and enunciate. I like traditional debate, I like to flow your rounds and I want you to debate your points & your opponents case. Please be respectful and enjoy your round. After all, this should be fun. 

Hello, I’m Issack G. Bahena! I’m a sophomore at Utah Valley University majoring in finance with a minor in music production. I’m a small business owner and a passionate debater. I’ve judged for two years and coached for one. I was the captain of the congress team for my high school. I love speech events which is why I gravitated to Congressional debate.

Congress: I’m a simple man, I like my speeches to be eloquent and precise. We’re not on a theater stage so please keep the yelling down to a minimum.

I judge heavily on your involvement with the Chamber, also on speech structure! Keep it structured like an argumentative paper! (Intro, three points, conclusion [with several sub points in your main points])

Also! If you bring up repetitive contentions in your speech, then I won’t take that part of the speech into account with the rest of the points.

For the P.O: Keep the house in order, and make sure that all representatives remain respectful. follow the rules of the day and we’ll have a great time!

side note: make a Kanye West reference and I’ll consider adding extra speaker points

When judging a competitor in speech events, here are some general things I keep in mind. In order to receive a high ranking, a competitor should understand these concepts and demonstrate them throughout the delivery of his or her speech.

EYE CONTACT

• In Original Oratory or Impromptu, I look for good eye contact with his or her audience. In an oratory, it is especially important that the competitor be convincing. Without eye contact, this effect is diminished.
• In Oral Interpretation, even when the competitor is reading, I want to see the story come to life through facial expressions and reaction. Likewise, in OI, even though the piece should not be completely memorized, I expect the competitor to generally look at the audience, not the script.
• In Dramatic Interpretation or Humorous Interpretation monologues, the competitor should generally keep solid audience eye contact.
• When rendering characters in Dramatic Interpretation, Humorous Interpretation, Duo or Oral Interpretation pieces, the competitor should employ the use of focal points for the characters.
• In Duo, other than during the introduction, offstage focus must be maintained at all times.

FOCAL POINTS

• I look for focal points that are consistent throughout the piece and help create characterizations, if applicable.
• When appropriate, switching of focal points should involve the switching of body, look, attitude and voice. Simply looking at a different point will not create the “reality” of a distinct character.

PACING

• I look for the way the competitor uses pauses and inflection to create characters or make points.
• I think of pacing much like this long dash — it made you pause for a moment — and how it makes you read this sentence a bit differently.
• I look for a variety in pacing builds contrast; contrast builds emphasis and subordination.

THE END

• A good ending should really hammer home or end cleanly and directly.

When judging a competitor in speech events, here are some general things I keep in mind. In order to receive a high ranking, a competitor should understand these concepts and demonstrate them throughout the delivery of his or her speech.

EYE CONTACT

• In Original Oratory or Impromptu, I look for good eye contact with his or her audience. In an oratory, it is especially important that the competitor be convincing. Without eye contact, this effect is diminished.
• In Oral Interpretation, even when the competitor is reading, I want to see the story come to life through facial expressions and reaction. Likewise, in OI, even though the piece should not be completely memorized, I expect the competitor to generally look at the audience, not the script.
• In Dramatic Interpretation or Humorous Interpretation monologues, the competitor should generally keep solid audience eye contact.
• When rendering characters in Dramatic Interpretation, Humorous Interpretation, Duo or Oral Interpretation pieces, the competitor should employ the use of focal points for the characters.
• In Duo, other than during the introduction, offstage focus must be maintained at all times.

FOCAL POINTS

• I look for focal points that are consistent throughout the piece and help create characterizations, if applicable.
• When appropriate, switching of focal points should involve the switching of body, look, attitude and voice. Simply looking at a different point will not create the “reality” of a distinct character.

PACING

• I look for the way the competitor uses pauses and inflection to create characters or make points.
• I think of pacing much like this long dash — it made you pause for a moment — and how it makes you read this sentence a bit differently.
• I look for a variety in pacing that builds contrast; contrast builds emphasis and subordination.

THE END

• A good ending should really hammer home or end cleanly and directly.

Public Forum Debate Paradigm

I am new to judging Public Forum but I have seen enough of them to understand what should be expected. This debate should be a very active and should engage in the discussion of the assigned topic. The conversation should be very focused on the topic at hand and all evidence should be related to that topic. I am great at putting my personal bias aside and I will only use what is presented in front of me. If you think something is very obvious to make sure to present it. The best is to assume that I've been in an underground bunker for the last 40 years and I know nothing of the world.

I am not a huge fan of card calling if it just to discredit the information without you providing some kind of evidence contrary to the fact that is being disputed. I do look more at the key points and how well you supported them throughout the debate, in addition, to discrediting the opponent's points.

Congress Paradigm

Congress is an active conversation about the bill or resolution at hand. I am looking for participation from everyone. Remember questions are great and help spur the conversation but no points are given. When giving a speech for either aff or neg I do look for those that have their speech memorized and are actively engage their fellow delegates. When you are answering questions remember that yes and no answers, although valid, is a missed opportunity to further support your speech.

2nd time judge.

For LD:

I'm a value based judge. I expect to see you discuss the value and to tie back your contentions to your value. Although you do not have to win the value to win the debate you can adopt the other debater’s value and argue your side achieves their value better. I will be flowing the entire round. I will expect you to tell me why to vote you and when to vote in your favor. I expect you to argue for your contentions as well as rebutting the other debater’s argument. I did foreign extemp and LD in high school so I understand the rules and you can feel free to use all the debate jargon you want. I expect you to use evidence cards as well as logical arguments. I try to be as objective as possible and base it on what you guys say not my own opinions. I can keep up with fast speech fairly well as long as we don’t get so fast we start speaking like policy debaters. Overall be thoughtful, clear, and well spoken and give good arguments grounded in your value.

For Foreign and National Extemp:

I’m a foreign extemper in my heart still. I expect for extempers to use evidence by quoting sources by stating the the newspaper tile as well as the date. I expect the sources to be in a least a year preferably 6 months of the day your speaking. I will be counting them and they will affect overall ranking. I will look for clear organization and for you to fill between 6 and 7 mins but you do have a grace period. I expect an AGD or hook and a conclusion as well as your points. I will look for a thoughtful clear organization of your speech. I want you to speak with confidence and with emotion. Be funny or be powerful, let yourself and your opinions come through your speech.

For all the other IE’s:

I’m looking for a logical and thoughtful organization. I’m looking for a speaker with good eye contact and a voice with emotion and enunciation. A speaker whose emotional when they need to be, and logical and argumentative when they need to be. I’m very familiar with theater and speech so I look for the arguments as well as the performance for the overall rankings.

I am like a debate dinosaur. Maybe not a dinosaur, but a majestic unicorn that wants to be understood. I have been doing this activity since 1991 and I have literally done/coached every event. I believe that this is a community and we should all treat each other with respect.

I can flow. My skills are not what they used to be, but I can flow. Please be super clear in your organization and if I can't understand you, I will let you know. I am good with theory and enjoy it when done well. I was debating in college when critical arguments became widespread. I understand them and value them. I don't have argument preference...do what makes you happy and pick a strategy that you thing you can win with. Please be clear with your decision calculus.

Be civil. Debate beyond your case. As you debate, interact with and include all of the information brought up in the round. Speak clearly, and organize your arguments in a clear and concise manner.

Lincoln Douglas

I have been judging speech and debate tournaments for five years with the bulk of my experience focused on speech events. I have an extensive background in political consulting, speech writing and public speaking. I prefer a more traditional approach with a comfortable conversational speed. However, I am fine with rapid conversational style speaking mixed with spreading IF your value criterion, definitions (important) and contentions are clear and audible. I prefer quality over quantity so, if you plan to spread make sure the plethora of information is necessary. In other words, I'm more impressed with those that provide the most content using the fewest words.

Although a charismatic presentation can often sell your argument on the surface, in LD I am more influenced by your content. I can appreciate passion in your arguments provided you are being respectful to your opponent. I tend to prioritize value criterion and contention level arguments. I'm open minded to progressive arguments but they are not preferred.

I love a good CX! Your questions matter. I tend to give high marks to those that can strategically ask questions that require simple answers. Furthermore, those that can take control of the CX by respectfully not allowing their opponent to beyond the scope of the question, will also gain high marks from me. I believe there is a strategy to an effective cross and I am paying particular attention to those that make those most of their time.

I give speaker points from 25 - 30. Please feel free to ask questions before the round begins.

1. The faster you speak, the greater risk you run that neither your judge or your opponent will catch what you're saying. I am not against speaking fast per se, but if you talk so quickly that you slur words and I can't understand you, it will put you at a disadvantage. Even if you include me in an email chain, clarity > speed and concision/potency > sheer volume of words.

2. I look for clash, which I define as a dialectically progressive correspondence between argument and counterargument. I won't look favorably on a rebuttal that is simply a rehash of your case. Don't just tell me that your previous point refutes their contention; give me a new reason why.

3. LD: Stronger cases will have strong value-criterion framework. If you depart from this convention, your justification must be solid and explicit.

4. Off-time road maps are great, but if it consists only of, "First, I'll be going over my opponent's case, then going over my case," then don't bother; that's the bare-bones function of a rebuttal speech anyway and I already assume you'll do that. Give me more structure: signposts and summaries that reinforce your speech's structure throughout are even better.

5. Don't be rude. It will cost you dearly in speaker points.

6. I reserve the right to determine for myself what the voting issues are for the round in a neutral evaluation of your case, your opponent's contentions against it, and what has arisen to carry the most ethical and logical weight during the discourse. However, you are more than welcome to advise me as to what the voting issues should be from your perspective.

7. I'd be delighted to shake your hand after the round if you wish.

I like to see good presence and pace from in your speeches. I look for data used to support your case and also impact information to support your speech. Paint me a picture to help motivate to think. I enjoy a good opening but make it connect to your speech and look for a good summary.

DEBATE GENERAL: I am not a fan of spreading/spewing; if I cannot understand the speakers, I cannot judge based upon the arguments. Fast is fine as long as enunciation is clear. If it gets to the point where I cannot flow, I will judge you based upon presentation alone. During cross, I want to know that you can answer the question, not only rely upon cards. I prefer a civil debate; it makes my job more difficult if I have to discern between what you're saying and how it's presented.

CON: I expect a debate. Unless it's the first aff/neg speeches, I do not expect canned speeches. I am not a fan of voting blocks to keep people low on priority because I think it's important to see how everyone is doing, not just the select few who are better at networking. That being said, if the debate is not being furthered because there are no new arguments or clash and the same speeches are given over and over again, I welcome a motion to PQ to move the session along. I expect the Chair to know the basics, like Robert's Rules, as well as the Orders of the Day, and keep everything running smoothly.

PF/LD: I am looking for evidence but I also want to know that you understand your cases. In LD, if you are going to run a CP, make sure all of the components are there. While a criterion is not required, I do prefer that you have one. In PF, if there is a framework, I expect it to be upheld.

CX: While the biggest impact is important, it should be a realistic one.

Traditional, no spreading.

Congress: Clear contentions, stated clearly, well supported by citations. (ie, Contention 1 or My first Contention). Do not make me try to figure out what you are wanting to say. If examples are used, back up the example with a legitimate source. Ask intelligent, to the point questions. Answer questions efficiently without a bunch of fluff. If you don't know the answer or don't have the support for the answer, I will know it. Don't waste my time or yours bluffing around. Civility is paramount. Do not talk over each other, that is rude.

Third year judge...I appreciate clear speech and a reasonable pace.

Take a moment to roadmap at the start and use easily-followed logic/reasoning.

I haven't been a debater or coach in the past, however my career has been in software sales and I've managed sales teams for years...therefore I enjoy being "sold" with clear evidence, reasoning and logic.

I am looking for a balance between quality of the speech itself and your delivery.

For the speech:

-Creativity- please bring your own personality into these speeches--begin with an interesting hook, use metaphors, and make your argument engaging

- Clear reasoning and argumentation--show Claim Vs Warrant Vs Impact

-Organization-sign post when possible and with your conclusion, highlight your key contentions

- Demonstrate research! Show that you have investigated this topic so that you can speak authoritatively and show clear evidence

- Be polite and demonstrate respect when addressesing the other competitors--don't be rude or condescending

-Context--I like to see that you are listening to other speakers, so you gain points with me by referencing previous arguments to build your case as well as rebutting previous arguments to strengthen your case

On Delivery:

- Speed for the sake of speed is big no. If your audience can't follow what you're saying, the impact of your speech is lost.

- Speak with energy and passion that shows your engagement with the topic.

-Show good eye-contact

- Speak clearly with a confident volume and avoid filler words

Have fun! Enjoy the process and really engage as a creative participant.

I am a parent judge who has been judging for four years.

Do not say untrue or imprecise things about the economy. I know how it works.

I’ll do my best to flow, but can’t guarantee that I’ll get everything if you are speaking too quickly

I understand minimal debate jargon. Don’t use it.

Make my life easy - provide clear extensions of your arguments and tell me why they matter.

Don’t lie. I won’t like you if you lie.

Don’t steal prep time - it is massively annoying.

If you are late, your speaker points will probably be lower.

I do not like it when debaters are rude. I get that you have to clash, but there is a line to walk, and it truly is not a fine line. It is not hard to not be rude. Do not mansplain or be condescending. Do not laugh at your opponents. I am less likely to pick you up if you do.

Don’t make bigoted arguments. I may not be as “woke” as my younger judges but it will not fly with me.

Ideally, please use the chat or file share for sharing evidence! I need to see it and it's weird for me to be on email groups with teenagers. These in-app tools are provided for your use.

Kristy Oblad Paradigm

I participated in Speech and Drama in High School. I have a Bachelor's Degree in Socio-Cultural Anthropology. My brother was a state champion in debate and placed in Nationals. My oldest son debated all through HS and I currently have a son in his third year in debate. I enjoy judging all types of speech and debate. I am the most inexperienced with Policy and Congress. Speaking skills/communications is my predominate style of judging. You must be consistent from start to finish with your hypothesis to conclusion. Contradiction will hurt you. I do not mind if you go fast but if you do you must still be articulate. Speed as a tactic does not impress me. Filler words such as "like" and "um"--I tend to dislike these.

I feel tournaments are a place to practice and get better. That is an important part of participating in debate. If you are well-prepared and I can see your effort and desire for improvement, yet you aren't a top-notch speaker--yet...Your preparation and participation combined with a well researched, reasoned argument will sway me. Make sure you are civil. I can see through tricks/tactics to confuse. I do not appreciate condescension. I do appreciate explanations with the premise that I am intelligent and will be able to follow your argument/presentation if you are well prepared and have a good flow of reason.

3 diamond coach. Member of Wyoming coaches Hall of Fame. TabRoss on all debate.

Above all, I appreciate civility. Respect your opponents and maintain a positive attitude. I don't mind a little aggression, but if you start to get snarky or roll eyes, I will start deducting speaker points. I'm not a fan of spreading or spewing. I will flow as best as I can, but if I can't follow, don't expect to win. Please keep your case appropriate for today's practical application. Clash well, speak clearly and persuasively, and have fun and you should do well.

General notes: My job is to pick out a winner and a loser, a first place and a not-so-first place. Not everyone gets to win. You are all beautiful, worthwhile humans. If I, who am also a human, do not pick you as the winner, don't take it personally. Take my opinions with a grain of salt, see if my feedback has anything in common with what other judges have brought up, and move on. Fussing about your results with me will only justify my decision more; you have come to debate your opponents, not the judge. I wonder if the reason why so many coaches have a hard time finding volunteer judges could be because some students don't get these basic realities? HMMM... :)

Event-specific paradigms

Policy: Know that while I have a great deal of experience in judging this event as a debate coach, and while I respect the original premise on which Policy Debate was created, I am largely disappointed with the culture of Policy Debate, and hope that you'll do the courtesy of making it a healthy event for this round. Don't expect me to allow you to flash or email-chain any files with the other team, or with me. If you cannot coherently communicate your argument in the time that is allotted without lapsing into the epileptic fits of high-pitched squeaking and gasping that are so irresponsibly passed off as authentic debate, you may expect me to weigh your wanton abuse of the debate round into my decision. Fitting an overabundance of contentions into your constructive cases simply to set your opponent up later to be unable to sufficiently answer them all is not demonstrative of you being the better debater; it simply tells me that winning means more to you than authentic debate. Additionally, simply reading cards without contributing your own critical analysis does not convince me that you are the better debater, but only demonstrates you possess the linguistic skills of a parrot.

I promise you that it is possible to have a Policy Debate round where you can be intelligible to your judge and to your opponents. Speech rates in excess of 300 words per minute, while they may be the norm in Policy Debate as it currently stands, are beyond disappointing.

Hopefully I have by this point established that I am a judge who values substance over form. I will be judging the whole of your arguments, and while I will refrain from allowing my own personal biases or my own "rebuttals" from influencing the decision for the round, I will rely on the logical arguments provided to me throughout the round to decide the case. Do not think of your debate case as a series of bullets that, if your opponent misses one bullet (contention), that your entire case falls through. Think of your cases rather as structures of logical argumentation--where you craft the logic of your argument to be able to withstand any attack, whilst exploiting the architectural flaws in your opponents' case.

A note on theory or K cases, whether they be on the AFF or NEG: These are totally valid strategies for winning the round, if used non-abusively. Too often I have seen teams walk into the round knowing they will run a racist K when they know next to nothing about the background of their opponents or their opponents' case. If you decide to run a theory or K argument, expect a great deal of scrutiny on my part to ensure you are not abusing the educational value of the round.

Finally, you would be well advised to avoid ad hominem or any other violations of the NSDA Honor code. Failing to live up to these expectations in round will help me make a very easy case as to why you should lose. Do not be abusive in the construction of your case; avoid these and other inane imbecilities of sacrificing decorum to appear more "aggressive," and please just focus on the essence of the debate itself instead of purposefully trying to emotionally manipulate your opponents into making mistakes. I am here to judge a debate round, not witness a toddler's sandbox brawl.

Public Forum: This event was originally created by the NSDA in response to the complaints made that Policy and LD had both become corrupted with a nonsensical gamification that prioritized form over substance. Public Forum was created with the intent to avoid those problems. Therefore, expect me to have a very dim view on spewing. The only other place spewing is even slightly practical outside the speech and debate world is rattling off the warnings and disclaimers at the end of radio ads about cars or pills, or if you are planning on being an auctioneer. Seeing as there's a reasonable chance that is not a common career goal for PF debaters, don't expect me to judge you favorably if you ignore the warning to avoid spewing.

In any debate round, I aim to take a wholistic approach to the overall logical strength of both sides. Don't count on being able to abuse the round by fitting in seven different contentions into your case and then expect me to reward you for not having the other team be able to sufficiently answer each of your contentions. And the logical strength of your argument is not served by simply reading cards. I expect critical analysis and discussion of your evidence. And while your case should be backed up by evidence, not every compelling argument need be made with a card. If one of your cards can be cleanly refuted with responsible logic, I will dismiss that card, regardless of the authority of the source. The logical fallacy of ad auctoritate is not a viable approach to a true victory in the debate.

Finally, you would be well advised to avoid ad hominem or any other violations of the NSDA Honor code. Failing to live up to these expectations in round will help me make a very easy case as to why you should lose. Do not be abusive in the construction of your case; avoid these and other inane imbecilities of sacrificing decorum to appear more "aggressive," and please just focus on the essence of the debate itself instead of purposefully trying to emotionally manipulate your opponents into making mistakes. I am here to judge a debate round, not witness a toddler's sandbox brawl.

Lincoln-Douglas: This event was instituted by the NSDA in response to complaints that Policy Debate had devolved from its original purpose of a healthy debate where the logical substance of both arguments would clash together in a serious discussion of significant issues. Lincoln-Douglas, unfortunately, has not been immune to the corrupting effects of the cancerous influence of the meta-game of Policy Debate, and I expect the debaters I judge to responsibly debate without manifesting the immoral foibles typical of Policy Debate. In other words, don't spew.

If you choose to present a case that varies from the traditional argumentation format of Lincoln-Douglas, you are free to do so inasmuch your "creativity" is not abusive to the educational value of the round and do not put your opponents in a position where they could not have reasonably anticipated to be able to have to counter every outlandish argument their opponents could make.

I place high value on the logical substance of both sides of the debate. While evidence-based cases are an obvious necessity, your opponents' rebuttals need not always have a "card" to counter one of your own, inasmuch as the opponent in question is able to point out any serious logical flaws that may be present in the card you present. Remember to defend the strength of your value and criterion.

Finally, you would be well advised to avoid ad hominem or any other violations of the NSDA Honor code. Failing to live up to these expectations in round will help me make a very easy case as to why you should lose. Do not be abusive in the construction of your case; avoid these and other inane imbecilities of sacrificing decorum to appear more "aggressive," and please just focus on the essence of the debate itself instead of purposefully trying to emotionally manipulate your opponents into making mistakes. I am here to judge a debate round, not witness a toddler's sandbox brawl.

Congress: Chairs, please be sure to be fair in whom you allow to speak and when, and follow priority. Speakers, I will judge you based on the logical strength of your argumentation, your ability to successfully address attacks against your argumentation, and your speaking performance (construction of the speech, audience engagement, etc).

Finally, you would be well advised to avoid ad hominem or any other violations of the NSDA Honor code. Failing to live up to these expectations in round will help me make a very easy case as to why you should lose. Do not be abusive in the construction of your speeches; avoid these and other inane imbecilities of sacrificing decorum to appear more "aggressive," and please just focus on the essence of the discussion of the house itself instead of purposefully trying to emotionally manipulate your opponents into making mistakes. I am here to judge a speech/debate round, not witness a toddler's sandbox brawl.

Impromptu, OO :I will judge you according to these three criteria:

1) Relevance. Did you address a subject in a way that I can easily see why I or the audience should care about what you are talking about?

2) Uniqueness. Was what you said in your performance something I have probably heard 20 times about already? Or was it a sob story that (while admittedly it may be sad and tragic, and you have my condolences) was calculated to exclude other students who haven't had their "sob story" happen yet?

3) Call to change. How successfully do you persuade the audience that we should live or think or feel differently about something in supporting the main thesis of your speech?

Extemp: I will judge according to these three criteria:

1) Topicality. Did you answer the prompt you chose completely and fully?

2) Evidence. Was your speech evidence-based as opposed to "Here's some generic facts I can tease out abut this issue?" Was your evidence cited?

3) Analysis. Did you make an effort to add your own unique insight and commentary on the topic, and was this commentary/analysis logical?

Interp Events: I will judge you according to these criteria:

1) Characterization. To what degree can I believe that you are your characters, and not a teenage student from a team other than my own whom I hardly know?

2) Emotive Technique. Strong acting choices, incorporation of the narrative arc, believable and text-based emotive variety.

3) Vocal Technique. Are the voices for the different characters separate and distinct, quality of diction/enunciation, and appropriate vocal variety.

i doubt anybody will actually read this, but here it is

policy experience: 4 years of policy debate, three-time region champ, 3rd place in state, two time nat qual.

i can stick with anything but my rfd will definitely come down to stock issues and how well each team debates. a good entertaining round with clash on every point is ideal and even though that is hard in northern utah with all of the theory debate, it would be nice to see clash and head to head battles with stock issues.

all in all, spewing and spreading is okay, but i will not flow what i cannot understand

any other debate:

i am just looking for a clash worthy debate. a clash filled round are the best parts of rounds. it is not necessarily who has the best speaking ability, but also the amount of substance in your case. most of the times this goes hand in hand, but if your case is no bueno, you will hear about it.

⣀⣶⣀ ⠀⠀⠀⠒⣛⣭ ⠀⠀⠀⣀⠿⣿⣶ ⠀⣤⣿⠤⣭⣿⣿ ⣤⣿⣿⣿⠛⣿⣿⠀⣀ ⠀⣀⠤⣿⣿⣶⣤⣒⣛ ⠉⠀⣀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣭⠉ ⠀⠀⣭⣿⣿⠿⠿⣿ ⠀⣶⣿⣿⠛⠀⣿⣿ ⣤⣿⣿⠉⠤⣿⣿⠿ ⣿⣿⠛⠀⠿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣤⠀⣿⣿⠿ ⠀⣿⣿⣶⠀⣿⣿⣶ ⠀⠀⠛⣿⠀⠿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⣉⣿⠀⣿⣿ ⠀⠶⣶⠿⠛⠀⠉⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣶⣿⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣤⣿⣿⠶⠀⠀⣀⣀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⣤⣤⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⣀⣶⣤⣤⠿⠶⠿⠿⠿⣿⣿⣿⣉⣿⣿ ⠿⣉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠛⣤⣿⣿⣿⣀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣤ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣤⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⣛⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⠛⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣶⣿⣿⠿⠀⣿⣿⣿⠛ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠿⠿⣿⠀⠀⣿⣶ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⠛⠀⠀⣿⣿⣶ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⣿⣿⠤ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣶⣿ ⠀⠀⣀ ⠀⠿⣿⣿⣀ ⠀⠉⣿⣿⣀ ⠀⠀⠛⣿⣭⣀⣀⣤ ⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠛⠿⣶⣀ ⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⣉⣶ ⠀⠀⠉⣿⣿⣿⣿⣀⠀⠀⣿⠉ ⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⣀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿ ⠀⣿⣿⣿⠿⠉⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⣿⣿⠿⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣶⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿ ⠛⣿⣿⣀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣀ ⠀⣿⣿⠉⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉⠉⠛⠛⠿⣿⣶ ⠀⠀⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣿ ⠀⠀⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉ ⣀⣶⣿⠛ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣤⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣤⣤⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⣿⣿⣿⣶⣿⣿⣿⣶⣶⣤⣶⣶⠶⠛⠉⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣤⣿⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠛⣿⣤⣤⣀⣤⠿⠉⠀⠉⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠉⠉⠉⠉⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⣿⣿⣿⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠛⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣛⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣶⣿⣿⠛⠿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣤⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⠛⠉⠀⠀⠀⠛⠿⣿⣿⣶⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠛⠿⣶⣤⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠛⠿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣿⣿⠿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠛⠉⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣤⣶⣶ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣀⣀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣤⣶⣀⠿⠶⣿⣿⣿⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠉⠿⣿⣿⠿⠛⠉⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣤⣤ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣤⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣿⣿⣿⠿⠉⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⠿⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠿⣿⣿⠛ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠛⣿⣿⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠤⣿⠿⠿⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀ ⠀⠀⣶⣿⠿⠀⠀⠀⣀⠀⣤⣤ ⠀⣶⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⠛⠛⠿⣤⣀ ⣶⣿⣤⣤⣤⣤⣤⣿⣿⣿⣀⣤⣶⣭⣿⣶⣀ ⠉⠉⠉⠛⠛⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠛⠛⠿⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣭⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣤⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⣿⠛⠿⣿⣤ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣿⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣤ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⠀⠀⠀⣶⣿⠛⠉ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣤⣿⣿⠀⠀⠉ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣶⣿⣶ ⠀⠀⠀⣤⣤⣤⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶ ⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⣿⣉⣿⣿⣿⣿⣉⠉⣿⣶ ⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⣿ ⠀⣤⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠀⣿⣶ ⣤⣿⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠀⠀⣿⣿⣤ ⠉⠉⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠒⠛⠿⠿⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠉⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉ ⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⠉⠿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣤⠀⠛⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣶⣿⠀⠀⠀⣿⣶ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣭⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣤⣿⣿⠉ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣤⣶ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⠀⣶⣿⣿⠶ ⣶⣿⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣤⣤ ⠀⠉⠶⣶⣀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⣿⣤⣀ ⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⠿⠉⣿⣿⣿⣿⣭⠀⠶⠿⠿ ⠀⠀⠛⠛⠿⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣉⠿⣿⠶ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣤⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠒ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⠛⣭⣭⠉ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣭⣤⣿⠛ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠛⠿⣿⣿⣿⣭ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⠉⠛⠿⣶⣤ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣿⠀⠀⣶⣶⠿⠿⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⠛ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣭⣶ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣤⣤ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⣶⠀⠀⣀⣤⣶⣤⣉⣿⣿⣤⣀ ⠤⣤⣿⣤⣿⠿⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣀ ⠀⠛⠿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠉⠛⠿⣿⣤ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠿⣿⣿⣿⠛⠀⠀⠀⣶⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣤⠀⣿⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠉⠉ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⠉ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣛⣿⣭⣶⣀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⠉⠛⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⠀⠀⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣉⠀⣶⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣶⣿⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠛⠿⠛ ⠀⠀⠀⣶⣿⣶ ⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣀ ⠀⣀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣶⣿⠛⣭⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⠛⠛⠛⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⣀⣭⣿⣿⣿⣿⣀ ⠀⠤⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠉ ⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠉ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣶⣿⣿ ⠉⠛⣿⣿⣶⣤ ⠀⠀⠉⠿⣿⣿⣤ ⠀⠀⣀⣤⣿⣿⣿ ⠀⠒⠿⠛⠉⠿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣿⣿ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣶⠿⠿⠛

3 diamond coach. Member of Wyoming coaches Hall of Fame. TabRoss on all debate.

Experience:

Speech and Debate Coach, 8 years

Teacher: History, Language Arts, Civics, and Constitution

Judged PF, LD, Policy, Congress, BQ, and most IE events.

Style:

Cases based solely on theory are often very flimsy but are not altogether invalid. If an opponent is running theory alone, that does not promise a win. You should adequately address their arguments as well as supporting your own topicality.

Spreading anywhere outside of policy debate seems inappropriate most of the time. In policy rounds it should be tempered. If it is in your case but not in your speech, you might not be able to use it and it may be difficult for your opponent to use it against you, but they won't have to.

Novel arguments that are well tied to topicality are always enjoyed, but don't promise a win.

Flow:

Most of my flow is primary contentions and how well they are supported vs attacked. Not significant detail but I can follow cards just fine. Contradictory cards from opponents are just as valid unless you can prove otherwise.

Presentation skill:

Unless something stands out as amazing: Logos>Ethos>Pathos>eye contact

Debate events aren't memorized speeches. If you want me to look up and make eye contact so you can guess what I am thinking, you will get less notes in the process and neither of us will enjoy the round nor the results.

Speech events of any kind maintain the opposite expectation. They should be memorized and make connections. Interps don't require eye contact but you get to decide the value of the 4th wall.

Flagrant violations will always negate your efforts.

Ad Hominem attacks against an opponent will be disciplined in your scores. If they are minimal, you might be warned. If they are excessive or major, they will be addressed through your coach, the tournament director, and possibly your admin or the NSDA.

Calling your opponent stupid in round or after the round in ear shot of the judge is a great way to forfeit a well won round.

I respect your coach and the tournament director but I am not afraid to debate with them either.