I come from the speech world and I favor organized structure, evidence-based arguments, and professionalism. I have a hard time following spreading and prefer a slower speaking rate.

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

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

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

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

For judging I am incredibly easy when it comes to judging.  I like good debate that is clear and easy to follow.  I'm not a huge fan of spreading.  Especially in debate formats that it isn't meant for.  I will pretty much flow anything in the round with in reason.   If you stretch too radical then I'm not inclined to buy into your thoughts.  I've been judging world schools the last 9 years so prefer to stick to the ideals of world schools.  Definitions should be clean and easy to follow, nothing squirrely.

I am a lay judge - make sense and I vote for you :).

Be kind and have a great debate.

Try not to spread because I won't be able to flow. If you don't see me flowing, you're probably going too fast.

Pronouns: She/her

I have NO TIME FOR HATE. Any comments that are offensive, racist, bigoted, transphobic, misogynistic, etc will result in an automatic drop. This includes: speaking down to opponents, using improper pronouns/misgendering, using offensive terminology, etc. Speech and debate is about respectfully allowing our arguments to shine through, not attacking one another; therefore, I will not tolerate it.

LD:

I am an old-fashioned LD judge. No spreading. If I cannot hear an argument, I do not judge that argument. It is not my job as the judge to figure out your arguments; it is YOUR job as the debater to tell me what they are.

I want to see framework debate. LD is NOT Policy! 99% of the time I'm not interested in solvency. I also usually drop counterplans, because that's subverting the intention of LD.

Also, personal pet-peeve: poorly cut cards. Cards should not be cut stringing disparate words together to change the intention of the writer of the card. If you can't pull a clean quote out of it, choose a new card.

I am a firm believer in the idea that an LD round ought to be understandable by anyone off the street.

Congress:

I reward active speakers who participate and advance debate. Rehashing in a late-cycle or giving speeches just to give a speech and not to advance debate will NOT be rewarded. I do notice who is just giving speeches and who is giving speeches, proposing motions, asking questions, etc.

I participated in speech for 3 years in high school and am currently on my university’s speech and debate team.

I have experience judging high school speech events from this year and I have also judged debate events at a few college tournaments.

I have the least experience judging debate and would prefer to judge speech events however I am willing to judge anything.

For speech I judge based on characterization, blocking, tone, and overall storyline. I judge on how well the competitor interpreted each character and for platform speech’s I base my judging over how well written the speech is and how well their overall tone is.

I don’t disclose rankings to the competitors

In Public Address: I value your originality, creativity, and persuasive presentation of ideas of personal importance. Cite your sources, explain their importance, and tell me why it matters.

In Interp: It is crucial that you tell a story in a meaningful and impactful manner. Characterization, gestures and facial expressions, and, vocal variation will all add to the overall decision.

In Debate, DO NOT SPREAD. I'm not a fan and would like to flow your case. Speeding through your case with me will not help you. I won't evaluate K, T, or Theory positions. Make the debate simple for me to evaluate and you will be rewarded for that!

Overall speaking skills or/and argumentation are critical to winning! But remember the most important thing is that you learn!

I have limited experience judging debate. I've been a High School Social Studies teacher for 10 years. Please make sure to provide evidence for arguments, speak slowly and I prefer depth of argument over quantity of argument.

hi, its Shannon Ehrmann's debater writing this paradigm to make it easier for people to pref

Quick prefs:

1 - Larp

Strike/Pref Low - Everything else

understands larp, probably best if you go slow i.e. lay

can definitely understand if you go quicker i.e. spread, just slow down on the taglines, when switching flows, and pls pls add analytics on the email chain if you can

but overall just go slow - thats your best bet to get the ballot

make logical arguments, extend warrants clearly, truth ov tech,

email chain: shannon.ehrmann@apsb.org

Good luck!

I don't like to be confused - give me clear voting issues. If I am confused, I'll probably default to impacts / policy-maker or a simple morality question of what the right thing is to do.

Speed is okay, and I'll try to follow, but speed with ridiculous breathing is obnoxious. Speed without any change in delivery for tag lines is hard to follow and hard to flow. And again, speed with an argument I'm not expecting and trying to learn is counterproductive. You can say "it's on the wiki" to your opponent all you want, but I don't feel any obligation as a judge to go read your case. Do the communicative work and teach me.

If you're going to run something unexpected (i.e. something a little squirrely or a blatantly non-topical or niche argument) or a kritik that I might not have heard before (well, any kritik, really), put in the work to explain it to me. I like learning stuff, otherwise I wouldn't spend my weekends doing this. What I don't like is being yelled and spread "at" about a philosophical premise I've never heard of before. Dumb it down for me a bit, take it a little slower, and I'll gladly come along for the lesson.

Some pet peeves (certainly not voting issues, but a paradigm is here for me to air all my complaints, right?)

- pointless off-time road maps, particularly in PF and LD. The only reason you'd need to give me this is if you're going in an unexpected order

- statements like "my opponent made a key mistake" - don't critique your opponent's performance for me. Convince me on the actual issues we're debating. My RFD may be dependent on a mistake made by a debater, but the voters you give me should be impacts in the context of the topic at hand.

- standing/sitting around while opponents "look for" evidence, saying that you'll start your prep time once they give you the evidence - always have your own evidence ready to go, and if your opponent doesn't have it ready to go, ask them to give it to you ASAP, while you go ahead with prep time or your speech - if they are unable to produce the evidence, go after them in your next speech for that - DON'T hold up a round "waiting for evidence"

If you're reading this for Policy specifically: I didn't compete in Policy, but I've been coaching it off and on for a little over a decade, and I've judged frequently at NSDA and NCFL. That said, the circuit I coach in is fairly limited in terms of competition (like fewer than 10 teams at most tournaments), so my approach to policy tends to be pretty traditional, and I understand the event and the stock issues, but I'm not super familiar with kritiks or whatever passes for "progressive" arguments on "the circuit." (And if you can't tell by the quotation marks, as a coach in a small state focusing on just getting kids to competition, I'm a little disdainful of the elitism of "the circuit.") That said, I'm willing to listen to anything and willing to vote on anything, but you need to do the work to explain and teach me. It may be harder to get my vote with a kritik or anything else outside the realm of typical stock issues if you don't clearly explain the impacts of your argument and give me a nice Aff/Neg world comparison.

If you're reading this for LD: I didn't compete in it. I've coached it off and on, though not as much as PF and Policy. I'm going to lean pretty traditional for LD, just given my limited background and the circuit my students compete in. That doesn't mean I won't vote on plans or kritiks, but you're going to have to convince me. My default mode approaching LD is that I should be focusing on a value and criterion debate supported by some straightforward contentions, and I'm going to need a little help doing the mental jump into plans or kritiks. I'd certainly rather hear a framework debate about the values presented in the round than a framework debate about whether or not LD should allow plans, but I'll reluctantly follow along with whatever (cross apply my notes above for Policy, I guess.)

If you're reading this for Public Forum: I barely competed in it, and that was almost 20 years ago. I've coached it quite a bit, including teams that have broken at NSDA and won moderately large regional tournaments. I've also judged at nationals and major regional tournaments. I strongly object to the idea of paradigms in Public Forum debate. Access for students is a broadly discussed issue in Speech & Debate, but we need to remember that access for judges, especially volunteers, is just as important. Demanding paradigms in a debate event meant by design to be accessible to the public is, in my humble opinion, the wrong way to approach this event. I'm not exactly a "lay judge," but you should approach me in a public forum round, for the most part, as if I were a lay judge. Be organized and clear. Don't spread. Don't play games, especially when it comes to evidence and prep time. Give clear voters and an easy-to-understand Pro world vs. Con world layout.

I am a speech and debate teacher/coach at Christ Episcopal High School. I have a Ph.D. in Theatre Literature, Criticism and History with a minor in Communications and intense study of Rhetoric.

I have been a high school speech and debate coach since 2014.

My preferences are:

* respectful discourse-if you are rude-you loose speaker points

* Obvious: looking for sound logic, claims supported with credible evidence

* looking for clash and effective use of time

* I like clear weighing

* good communication skills with judge --no spreading. If I can't understand you I won't be able to flow your case-we can negotiate a signal you prefer when you have lost me.

* I don't like email chains for LD or PF which I consider Oral mode of debate and not written- email chains are also time inefficient--(this means you must actually speak in a way that a speaker of the language could mostly understand you. Incoherency is not very persuasive.)

* I am oriented towards substantive LD debate and do not prefer Theory case in LD because to run it efficiently takes the time you need for Policy rounds-If you run Theory then be sure to use your time efficiently

1. If you are going to talk fast, please do it clearly and well. You want me to hear and understand your argument and evidence.

2. Good evidence and supporting arguments win rounds, not how many times you tell me that you've won a contention - I can decide who won the argument.

Hi!

Thanks for reading. Parent Judge.

Please do not speak too fast. Be persuasive. Be clear. Sign posting is helpful.

Have a great round!

I am a traditional judge. I place a high value on the framework debate, specifically on values and value criterion. All contentions should link back to the framework, and voters should as well. Weigh your arguments as well. At the end of your final speeches, I expect to hear clear voters. If possible, do not spread. If you are, send me the doc. I do not judge many circuit rounds.

Hello! I am an English and AP Capstone teacher at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX. I typically judge speech events. When making decisions I will be looking at:

• Speaking style & audience engagement
• Number and quality of sources
• Students presenting a well-thought-out argument
• Representation of material presented/author intent of the piece

Best of luck, and have fun!

Current coach/DOF at Lindale High School.

For email chains: mckenziera @ lisdeagles.net

CX - This is where I have spent the majority of my time judging. While I am comfortable judging any type of round, my preference is a more traditional round. Debate rounds that are more progressive (kritikal affs, performance, etc...) are totally fine, but you'll do best to slow down and go for depth over breadth here. I think that judges are best when they adapt to the round in front of them. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

LD - Despite judging policy debate most, I was raised in a traditional value and criterion centric area. Still, I think that policy debates in LD are valuable. See my notes above about progressive argumentation. They're fine, but you'll probably need to do a few things to make it more digestible for me. Again, though, you do you. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

PF - I judge only a few PF rounds a year. I'm not up-to-date on the trends that may be occurring. I naturally struggle with the time restraints in PF. I generally feel like teams often go for breadth instead of depth, which I think makes debate blippy and requires more judge intervention. I'd rather not hear 20 "cards" in a four minute speech. Framework is the most reliable way to construct a ballot. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.

Congress - Speeches should have structure, refutation, research, and style. Jerky Parliamentary Procedure devalues your position in the round.

Speech - Structure and content are valued equally. I appreciate, next, things that make you stand out in a positive way.

Interp - Should have a purpose/function. There's a social implication behind a lot of what we perform. I value great introductions and real characters.

DEBATE: Competed in LD for the last three years of High School (graduated 2019). I am comfortable with whatever argumentation that you'd like. But if you speed, I prefer that you either slow down on taglines or add me to the email chain (allygperkins@gmail.com). Because it's LD, provide some sort of framework or adapt to your opponent's so I know what to vote on in order for you to be able to access your impacts. I generally tend to go with tech over truth, except in the case of racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc...

***Debate was such a fun time in my life when in high school, but I know how stressful it can be. That said, enjoy yourself and have fun. One way we can do that is to make sure that we are inclusive and accessible to all. I find that some debaters believe that cross-x is a time to "flex" and assert dominance/privilege. Condescending mansplaining, consistent interruptions of your opponent, or otherwise aggressive behavior will not be accepted, either resulting in a loss (at a maximum) or a decimation of speaks (at a minimum). Debate is cool, but it's not important enough to do anything that makes people feel unsafe/uncomfortable.***

SPEECH: I competed in poetry, prose, OO, and info off and on for four years of high school (again, graduated in 2019)

In interp events, I look for a compelling story line, well developed characterization, clear and concise teaser/intro, and ultimately dedication to the story telling

In platform and limited prep, I look for confidence, time allocation, speech structure, and enjoy humour in the right context.

Ultimately, speech events are all about what you make of them and I am just here to watch you use your platform to discuss subjects that are important to you!

I'm a college debater so you can consider me a tab judge. I'm cool with any arguments and speed is fine as long as you signpost

T- i don’t usually vote on topicality or theory unless it is something obviously something unfair to the debaters. but make sure to somehow impact out your t if you are going to make it a voter

CP- Cp’s are fine. pic cps are cool but not a fan of conditions cp. if you choose to run one make sure you do it right. biggest thing is that people do them wrong.

also you have to win on every part of the counterplan for me to vote on it net benefit’s solvency etc

K- Kritiks are fine but don’t let them distract you from the debate world to where it becomes a theory debate rather than it being a “policy debate” K aff are cool too just make the framework clear

DA/OC- easiest way to get my vote is to prove case outweighs or solvency issues.

dont be afraid to ask any other questions and good luck!

High school and college Speech judge. My emphasis is on evidence, practical analysis, and ultimately the persuasiveness of the argument

High School Experience:

I did four years of debate in South Florida, competing in Declamation, Original Oratory, Congress, and Duo. I also have experience with Impromptu speaking. I competed at Florida Blue Key, Wake Forest, Harvard, Emory, Varsity State, and CFL Nationals, winning a variety of awards.

College:

I stayed active, judging at Blue Key, Emory and Nationals. I was often used as a Congress judge. I prefer speeches that are well developed, and delivered in a measured, and easy to understand way (no spreading). I have a MA in Political Science, so I am knowledgeable on current events, and will call out a speaker on their ballot for fabricating information or misusing it.

Coaching:

This is my second year coaching, and my school's first year having a team. My preferred events to judge are Extemp, Congress, Original Oratory, and Duo.

Roadmap

Currently, I am a Philosophy and Cognitive Studies double major at Tulane University. During high school, I mainly competed in Policy Debate, but I am familiar with all forms of debate.

I am a flow judge, and will only judge the round based off of the flow. This means that it is your job to give clear tags when presenting your arguments to ensure they make it on the flow. I will not make arguments for you and will solely rely on the flow for my final judgment. In your conclusion make sure you tell me how to judge the round.

Speak clearly and confidently and your speaker points will reflect it. I understand the tension and clash between debators, but remember to maintain a level of respect at all times.

I have been a Speech and Debate coach for 15 years with multiple State champions and National elim rounds. I also teach classes for students for both elite competitors and novices. I have judged virtually every form of debate including CX, PF, LD, WS, and BQ, however, my main emphasis is on the Speech and Interp side. While I can handle speed, I prefer debaters that emphasize organization and clearly outlined arguments with strong analysis skills. Debate is a communication event. If I can't understand you or you don't make your arguments clearly with good evidence, I will not be voting for you.

I am a junior high speech and debate coach. While I do tolerate some speed please do not spread. Please make sure to signpost. Impacts are important please make sure you connect them back to your value/criterion. Have fun and be kind to each other.

I am a traditional LD debater and judge. I can flow. I can follow spreading to a point but if you lose me that's on the debater. I don't care for the critiques and counter plans that have influenced LD in recent years. Give me values, a criteria to judge the value and solid philosophy to underpin your arguments.

Background:

My high school and college experience consists mostly of public speaking, speech, and student government involvement. I also have an extensive performance and theatre background.

I graduated from University of Florida with a B.A. in Political Science, with a focus in Constitutional History & Education. I then went on to obtain my M.Ed., focusing on Secondary Social Studies Education.

Speech & Debate Judging Experience:

I currently work closely with the newly formed Navarre High School Speech & Debate Team. The NHS team is coached by Meghan Rodriguez, who trained me to judge.

I have traveled to and been a judge at several local and regional tournaments, and have also served as a judge for two National Tournaments. I am most comfortable judging speech events, including Dramatic Interpretation, Humorous Interpretation, Duo Interpretation, Program of Oral Interpretation, and Original Oratory. My specialty, however, is Congress.

I look for sharp, fluid speakers, who are animated and engaging. I want to forget the outside world when you are speaking, to forget that this is an event. You should be natural, flexible to your environment, and your performance should not seem over-rehearsed.

In Congress, I expect informed and succinct speeches that adapt to the mock Congress setting/dialogue/debate and do not rehash. There is no need to attack, but feel free to address other speeches when necessary and pertinent. Speak clearly - your speech is not a race.

Speech: I have experience mentoring, building teams, and judging presentations while working with logistics student case competition teams for 5+ years on a collegiate level. My teams at the University of North Texas had back to back to back first place finishes at a national industry sponsored competition as well as many other wins. Please make sure to know your material, relax, and speak with volume, confidence, and professionalism. Also props to anyone who compliments my Texas Tech Red Raiders on their basketball prowess. #Alumni

Debate: I've never watched or judged any debate events (i.e. policy or LD...) so if I am selected as a judge, please know I'll be super stock/lay/tab. Lay out the facts for me (without mansplaining, if this applies to you) and defend your points. Go slow, be persuasive, confident, loud, and kind to one another. I evaluate CX too. I'll be flowing so again, don't go fast. If I have to say clear and you don't slow down, I'll stop flowing and dock speaks. If competitors use an email chain, I would like to be included: julesintex@hotmail.com Don't steal prep time and if you ask me what my paradigm is, I'll know you didn't take the time to read this.

If you have any questions, email me!