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.

I am a debater for Weber State University and I have done debate for Four years and counting.

Historically I have voted tech over truth, and good T and Politics DA's are my guilty pleasure. However, that was only because either the Framework team was really good or the K team was really bad. I have always been under the presumption of judge instruction over strict morals, so if you tell me how and why I should vote a certain way in a round I'll buy that more that education claims to the academia.

I'm OK with tag team cross-ex and I don't care about heated debates. it's a moot point to try and police those who have historically struggled in obtaining and securing their voices in this space because: A. they will always say want they are gonna say, and B. doing so creates more harm then good. it's a debate, not a dialogue, I don't care that their interrupting you just like I won't care when you call them out for their own agreeegisnes.

I don't consider sending files as part of prep, just don't be egregious. I doubt that will be a problem sense most tournaments including this one is online. but, I digress.

I dictate points on speaker presentation, argumentation, and not everything has a third point. so IF you loose the round but get a thirty. reevaluate your strategy.

Fiat/Presumption: All my understanding of debate comes from the core concept that the AFF has the burden of proof and the NEG has the burden of rejoinder. I believe that presumption comes from the burden of rejoinder and is not an inherent fact of the negatives tool belt. thats why AFF teams can win on a "try or die" claims or turns to T or Framework. this also extends to Fiat, as if the NEG team goes for a CP or an Alternative, switch side arguments dictate that presumption flips AFF, because the negative team has encroached of the burden of proof (Specifically solvency). but negative teams don't get fiat, that just doesn't make sense. so instead they get alt benefit claims like education, structural fairness, and so on. So to counteract this, AFF teams should in theory get both Fiat and Presumption. This Checks and abuse claims to perms from the negative team because AFF teams don't need to go for it to win, it's merely to test the legitimacy of the CP or alterative to just as if the NEG team would run T or Case turns to test the legitimacy of the AFF. thats why you hear the phrase, the perm is a test of mutual exclusivity. it's this understanding that I believe AFF teams inherently start the round with Fiat, as an extension of the burden of proof. the same as I view presumption as an extension of the burden of rejoinder. However, sense I understand this framing to be just that, a theory. I highly prefer that in round you tell me exactly what I just said, the opposite, or something entirely different depending on your strategy. remember, judge instruction above all else.

AFF: Don't drop case, it's literally your only weapon in this debate that you have, it should be at the top of your speech dock before anything else and you should use in to frame the rest of your arguments on any other flow.

K AFF: Same as above, don't forget to extend your ROB in the 1AC on Framework, pro tip.

T: the interpretation is (at least as I feel) one of the strongest arguments on the T flow, it's essentially the uniqueness to any other argument. it's the inherent truth to the round. if you don't have a counter interp or maintain the one you already placed by dumb shadow extension, it's going to be nigh impossible to win the round.

K: if your going to run a K of any kind, make sure it has an alternative, if not, it's just a case turn and a reason to not vote AFF over a reason to vote NEG.

CP: Look above, only this time, if you don't have a DA or case turn attached to it, I might as well vote AFF because "solving Better" doesn't make sense to me because the AFF is the one with the burden of proof, not the negative.

DA: Link, Impact, Implication. The core to any argument, focus on fundamentals over high theory that half of all debaters, including those at the NDT or CEDA couldn't even articulate well.

REMEMBER - JUDGE INSTRUCTION ABOVE ALL ELSE, HOW THE HECK AM I SUPPOSED TO VOTE FOR YOU IF YOU DON'T TELL ME HOW!!!!

I am a former high school/college debate participant in policy and extemporaneous speaking. I also coached debate at the high school level back when evidence and speeches were on paper and I am currently an assistant high school coach.

Policy

Arguments should be balanced with evidence and logic. Speak clearly and road map for me. I prefer impacts or benefits to be quantifiable but I’m flexible if strong enough arguments are made.

Individual Events

Speech competitors will see a higher ranking if they are articulate and tell me why their topic is important. A strong conclusion is a must for a top ranking. Higher rankings for memorized speeches.

LD

I will judge the round based on persuasiveness of arguments. Strong connection of value to criterion is a must.

PF

Persuasiveness and ability to demonstrate an understanding of arguments is key. Please clash. Clarify voters.

Hi!

Ok... yes, I’m a “mom judge,” but before you panic, rest assured that I’m not your average mom judge. I sit in on practice rounds and watch PF rounds on YouTube to practice my flowing.... seriously... I love Debate. I know how much time you put into preparing and I will do my best to be a fair judge for you.

I’ve been judging for two years and have judged PF, LD and speech (oratory, impromptu and national extemp). I’m most familiar with PF.

My professional background is in forensic accounting, expert testimony and litigation support. I have a B.A. in Economics from the University of California, San Diego and am a licensed CPA in the states of Utah and California.

I will flow your round and base my RFD primarily on the flow. I can handle a moderate amount of speed; if you are speaking too fast I will say “SLOW;” if this happens please slow down!! If I need you to speak louder I will say “LOUDER.”

Please sign post; tell me where you are on the flow and be consistent with your terminology. If you or your opponent use tag lines, continue to use those tag lines throughout the round. The clearer and more organized you are in outlining your arguments and responding to your opponents case, the better off you will be.

Please weigh. This is probably the single most important thing for me. Use phrases like “their biggest impact in the round is X, our impact Y is more important because Z” if you don’t do this, that means I will to decide.

Please warrant your responses. Tell me WHY a study concludes something and WHY it is relevant; don’t just give me the study’s results. Good warrants go with good arguments.

Just because you don’t have a carded response to something your opponent said does not mean you cannot have a decent analytical response. I’ll listen to those analytical responses.

I won’t be listening to the content of cross ex, but if you are being rude enough to warrant my attention, your speaker points will reflect that. Also, whatever you uncover during cross ex, you need to tell me in round.

Please be polite, respectful and courteous at all times; deviations from this will result in a reduction in your speaker points.

Please time yourselves.

I do not shake hands.

I do not disclose.

I'm a first year head coach at Skyline High School. I have three experience as an assistant coach. I've mostly worked with speech events, but also congress and Public Forum with limited experience in Policy and LD.

Policy:

Overall: I don't believe I'm experienced enough to understand theory or be able to strongly evaluate Kritiks.

Speed: I'm OK with speed as long as you email me your speeches (tfhenry@granitesd.org) , but please slow down for your taglines.

RFD: I typically base my decision on the the stock issues of the plan on the Affs ability to defend it and prove that it is better than the status quo. The NEG wins if they can prove the plan is worst then the status quo or the status quo is better than the plan.

I have been doing debate for a long time. I can handle most things that are thrown out in a round. I don't like incredible speed, but I can handle it. I like it when the argument is clear, concise and performed well. I do not like personal attacks in a round. Keep things civil! If things get too out of hand I will be very motivated to give the round to the most civilized team. Aside from these few things, I am not extremely worried about the content of the round. Whoever's argument is better will win!

I am a parent judge. I will be judging on clarity and organization of ideas.