I am a senior at Stanford and extemp coach at Palo Alto High school.

PF/LD/Congress: I encourage you to signpost as much as possible and explicitly describe the round's collapse. I appreciate when debaters build up multiple layers of defense and challenge each other's warrants. I won't reward speeches that simply point out the opponent's drops without explaining why certain arguments are actually round-winning. Weigh your impacts and really clearly show me your team's path to the ballot.

Policy*: I don't have any real CX experience, so think about me like a very lay judge that will flow a lot.

Speech: Speak slower and with more pauses than you think you should. I flow extensively and care a lot about internal structure. I'll reward creativity of topic more than most judges; that is, I'll probably vote the speech that takes a risk but maybe isn't as polished over the one that is very technically sound but is something I've heard 100 times.

Extemp*: Extemp warrants its own section since I primarily competed in USX while in high school. Content is much more important than delivery for me, and I'll be paying attention to how your points flow internally. I don't think extempers focus enough on characterization, that is, describing a situation or conflict before getting into the argument. This should be worked in throughout the speech, not just the background section of your introduction. I really don't like canned intros, and it's more obvious than you might think if you're surreptitiously reading off your flow.

Interp: I never competed in interp but have judged it quite a bit. I'll do my best to give blocking/performative advice, but my decision may come down to more holistic, less precise metrics like your energy level and how entertaining I found the piece.

Everyone is welcome to keep their own time, and I encourage you to share your pronouns prior to the round. I will stop any round at any time if anyone is feeling unsafe or unwelcome.

My son is writing this:

Make an email chain every round and add uschoolpf@gmail.com& ariasnath@yahoo.com. Subject the email chain as follows: Round #, AFF [Team Name] vs NEG [Team Name]

My dad is truth>tech, no national judging experience, complete parent, SPEAK SLOW, have a good narrative, and be respectful.

Quality of arguments >>> speed/amount of arguments

Cross obviously matters to him.

Do not read theory/k etc.

General Interp Paradigm

I value creativity including very unique informative topics. I enjoy blocking; however, only if it is clear. I also hate obscene movements that don't add to the overall build of the performance. I love realistic characters and absolutely don't enjoy cartoony characters(Unless it applies to the piece). I also feel that the performance should connect to the audience. Lastly, no matter your background in competitive success (Even if you are a national champion) I rank to what your current in round performance shows me.

Public Forum paradigm

I now coach speech, but I have also coached Congress and have judged PF and LD for the past 15 years in Ohio, Louisiana, and the national circuit. I never competed, but you know what they say about those who can’t (or don't).

I like to hear a well organized case—I value clarity and consistency. I prefer depth of analysis of one or two contentions rather than superficial treatment of a long list. Supporting evidence is important, but not as important as logical argumentation. Be sure that evidence actually supports or refutes and is not just thrown in to provide a source. I tend to vote on the arguments that involve impact and scope.

Clash is essential—nothing more deadly than listening to dueling evidence with no actual interaction. Do as much damage as you can to your opponent’s case and defend you own—sounds really basic, but that’s what I like to hear.

Crossfire is a time to ask questions—please do not use it to advance or restate your case (unless, of course, it pertains to a question you’ve been asked). I like to see teamwork in grand cross—please do not monopolize and let your partner get a word in edgewise.

I enjoy a nice extemporaneous delivery that demonstrates some real (or feigned) enthusiasm for your argument. Please do not spread—it is not impressive, and if I can’t follow you, the quality of your argument suffers.

And finally I value civility, courtesy, and respect—please don’t disappoint.

Lincoln Douglas paradigm

Similar to my PF standards, I am pretty traditional. I like a case that is well organized, clear, and consistent. Supporting evidence and depth of analysis are important, but logical arguments are essential. I really enjoy a good framework debate, and I appreciate hearing voting issues--tell me why I should vote for you. Why are your impacts more important?

I like an extemporaneous and conversational delivery. I am okay with some speed, but no spreading, please--if I can't follow you, I can't vote for you.

Civility, courtesy, and respect--always important.

Congress paradigm

Congress rankings are based on content (structure, evidence, clarity, analysis, clash) and delivery (articulation, fluency, vocal and physical expression, confidence/poise). Most importantly who advanced the debate and contributed the most through the quality (not necessarily the quantity) of his/her/their speeches and questions?

Civility, courtesy, and respect apply here as well.

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.

Hello all. I am a Speech and Debate alumni. I participated in various speech events for 4 years and have competed in many national tournaments. I am very excited to judge and to provide as valuable feedback that I can. I know how much work the competitors put into their performances, and I want to give them the attention and feedback they deserve.

Interp: based on memorization, characterization, use of stage/movements, life of piece, and how well the piece flows.

Non-Interp: based on memorization, use of stage/movements, life of piece/voicing, and how well you present/argue your topic

Speech and debate is a game of verbal air hockey! I value points which benefit humanity not individuals or entities or things. Play by the rules have respect and sportsmanship and we all benefit.

I prefer a slower debate. It allows for a more involved, persuasive and better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable. Don’t compromise quality and clarity for speed. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Congress Paradigm for 2023 TOC:

Delivery: delivery will be a factor in my decision, but only a moderate one. Ideally, speakers adapt to their audience, have poise and confidence, and consider word choice carefully. Two notes I write for congressional speakers often are: 1) Stop yelling at me (please adjust your tone to be appropriate for this environment, and 2) please use a tone appropriate for the topic of debate.

Evidence usage: evidence weighs strongly in my decisions. I'm not only interested in the quality of the evidence, but I'm interested in how you use and analyze it. More is not always better.

Analysis: analysis may be the largest factor in my decisions for rankings in Congress. I really like to see debaters thinking critically, weighing arguments well, and finding nuanced ways to discuss legislation. Speakers who simply expand on arguments already made are going to struggle to do well on my ballot.

Decorum: be respectful, be kind, and follow the rules. I assume you will do this, but if you don't, that will not sit well with me.

Clash is king. I am a parent judge, but open to whatever style of debate you choose to run, traditional or progressive, just communicate it clearly and connect it to your opponent's case. I can connect dots, but I might not connect them the way you think they connect, so do your best to draw the lines. Signposts and structure are helpful. Spreading is fine, but I prefer quality over quantity. may request to see your evidence, especially if you and your opponent disagree on its interpretation and implications

For LD, framework is important. If morality is on your side, use morality. If logic is on your side, use logic. If evidence is on your side, use evidence. If feasibility is on your side, use feasibility. If you have nothing else, make me laugh or tell me a story.

For PF you must have hard evidence to back up your claims, I may request to see it.

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 have been judging speech and debate since 1988. I judged L-D the third year it existed and remember the start of PF. I have coached multiple national finalists. That said, I am primarily a speech judge. I vastly prefer a lucidly persuasive argument that doesn't zip by at the speed of light with an over abundance of jargon.

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.

About Me:

I'm a 6th year Speech and Debate Coach. I prefer you speak at a conversational speed always. Slightly above is also good, but try not to spread, especially in PF (Super Fast Rebuttals/Summaries are pretty cringe and hard to flow).

I don’t mind different forms of argumentation in LD. Ks, Plans, Counterplans, etc are all ok in my book. Not a fan of progressive cases in PF, but I will still listen to them.

Not a fan of Theory-shells in Debate at all. Unless there was a CLEAR AND OBVIOUS violation in the round, do not run it.

Please utilize off time roadmaps.

Keep track of your own time. Just let me know when you run prep is all.

Signpost so I can follow on the flow. If I miss an argument because you pull a House of Pain and "Jump Around" without signposting, that is on you.

I will always vote in favor of the side with better quality arguments and better comparative analysis of the biggest impacts in the round, not the side that is necessarily "winning the most arguments."

At this point I would consider myself a flow judge (though not SUPER technical), and I value tech over truth more often than not.

More "techy" stuff:

Frameworks should always be extended. If your opponent doesn't respond to it in 1st or 2nd rebuttal, it needs to be extended into 2nd rebuttal or 1st Summary in order for me to evaluate the arguments under that framework. Teams who speak 1st do not necessarily need to extend their FW into their 1st rebuttal, but should provide some context or clarification as to why the framework is necessary for the round (can be included in an overview). If there are 2 frameworks presented, please explain why I need to prefer yours over the opponent. If no explanation is provided or extended, I will default to my own evaluation methods (typically cost/benefit analysis)

I like when teams focus summaries on extending offense and weighing, more specifically explain to me why your impacts matter more than your opponent’s. Don’t just say “(Impact card) means we outweigh on scope,” then move on to the next point. I love details and contextualization, and will always favor quality weighing over quantity.

Please collapse. Please. It helps to provide focus in the round rather than bouncing around on 20 different arguments. It just makes my life as a judge much easier.

Use FF to crystalize and highlight the most important points of contention and clash that you believe are winning you the round (things like offense and turns that go unresponded to, for example). Explain to my why I should vote for you, not why I should not vote for the other side. Voter Issues are always a good thing, and can possibly win you the round in a close debate.

LD Stuff:

If your plan is to spread, and I cant follow on the flow and miss things, that is on you. LD's purpose was intended to separate itself from Policy tactics and allow argumentation that anyone off the streets can follow. Call me a traditionalist or whatever, but spreading just to stack arguments is not educational and hurts the activity. You cant convince me otherwise so dont try.

Im perfectly OK with any kind of case, but my preference is this order: Traditional>K>Disads/Plans/CPs>Theory (only run if there is perceived actual abuse in round, dont run frivolous stuff)

Not super knowledgeable on all the nuances of LD, but I do enjoy philosophical debates and am vaguely familiar with contemporary stuff.

Add me on the email chain: josemdenisjr@gmail.com

I ask that competitors do not spread and that they let their opponent finish their sentences during cross. No spreading and no cutting people off while talking! Thank you :)

Nicholas Ferreira

I did interp in high school. Since PF is made for the public I expect your arguments to be easy to follow and digestible for the layperson. Im also looking for arguments to be well supported and for eloquence and a natural flow to your speech.

Always tech > truth and I prefer traditional-style debate only

good luck

Debate is a fun competitive research game. Ask questions if you have them.

Hi, I am a parent who many many years ago participated in debate including LD. However, things have changed to say the least. So I am squarely in the lay category. I will try very hard to not be a lame lay judge.

I am a huge fan of intellectual debate and admire clever but sound arguments. I do try to flow and follow the progression arguments. With that said if you speak too quickly I will not get it all down. Also I do not understand most debate jargon, so if you use a lot of it, I may not understand. Additionally when you are extending please explain that point, otherwise it doesn't count for me. Also I am not a huge fan of theory so you will need to make it understandable and do not run disclosure theory.

I will try to value tech over truth because I think that is the point of debate. The other point of this exercise is to communicate.

Please know that I think you are all awesome for getting up and trying. I hope you have fun and get something out of all your debates. Good Luck! : )

PF
Public forum debate is for the PUBLIC. So I expect debate that is accessible and inclusive to all audiences. 

The speaking rate can be moderate to moderately fast; however, I don’t think you serve yourself well or the community going any quicker than that. 

All arguments must be made by summary, or I will not be able to evaluate them in the final focus.

I prefer debate to be polite. Be nice to all competitors. Using offensive language of any kind, including but not limited to racist/sexist/ableist, will result in low speaker points and an automatic loss.

I judge arguments based on the order they are presented. I will go from top to bottom of the flow at the end of the round to make my decision. Please address the speeches that came before in the round, and make sure you are responding to the other team. 

Evidence is significant to me. I want you to include the author/organization and date. Feel free to email me and competitors to start a chain. 

Ultimately, have fun. Keep it entertaining. And keep it debate!

I am a parent judge who has judged both debate and speech events.

In debate:

I want you to show that you are listening to your opponent(s) and responding to their points. I am not a fan of spreading. I need to hear that you are making arguments that have contextual relevance to the debate you are in and not just rote responses for the general topic. If you tell me your opponent didn’t address your issue when they clearly did, I will mark that against you. I expect your closing to be strong and persuasive. Cross arguments should not be personal. You should give valid reasons why your framework is preferable and give reasons why your opponent’s framework is weaker.

In speech:

I'm looking for a fluid and consistent delivery. I want to see a story with a beginning, an arc, and an ending. I also want you to make a connection with your audience (me). I should not be distracted by other things you are doing. I want to be completely drawn into your story. That means I need to be able to hear and understand you, I should easily understand the sounds and other noises you put into your speech, and I that your examples make sense. Also, if you make a mistake, pick up and move on. Don't point it out to me or apologize. Assume I didn't notice or it didn't happen.

I'm a parent judge. I have a moderate experience judging. I like it when at the end, you tell me why I should vote for your framework and your impacts.

Things I look for in Congress:

1. Clear, confident speaking with few fluency breaks.

2. Consistent presence in the round through asking questions and staying engaged.

3. Strong use of evidence from scholarly sources.

4. Simple, easy-to-understand arguments.

5. Clash and interaction with other arguments.

6. Humor is always appreciated, although I may not understand your pop culture references.

In a presiding officer:

Speed is your utmost priority. Go fast and don't make errors.

Director of Speech and Debate at Lake Highland Prep - Orlando, FL

Email chain info: njohnston@lhps.org

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)
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.

As a communications executive with more than 30 years of experience, I appreciate thoughtful, well-articulated arguments and points of view supported by facts, stories and anecdotes. Help me understand and make me believe what you are saying. I expect students to have robust debates while exhibiting decorum.

Updated for 2020-21

Pronouns: she/her/hers

If you have questions about anything here, just ask!

Congress:

-I don't have a preference between early/mid/late round speeches - just give the best speech. I evaluate each speech for the role it needs to serve in the round. So, if you're sitting on a neg and we go to a 2-minute recess because you're insistent on doing a crystallization speech and no one else has a neg, I'll be annoyed. If you're able to show me multiple types of speeches throughout the session (especially if I'm the parli), that's great.

-I hate one-sided debate - it isn't debate. I don't have a set rule "if you speak on the same side as the previous person I'll mark you down x # of ranks," but it definitely has a negative impact on the final ranks. If you speak on the same side as the previous person, it is very, very unlikely (albeit not impossible) I will rank you in the top 3. This is even more true for a crystallization speech.

-Expectations for authorship/sponsorship/1st aff: problem/solution; identify a framework/burden/scope to evaluate debate; have a central narrative

-Expectations for mid-round speech: Refute; have a central narrative

-Expectations for late speech: Refute & boil the debate down to a main issue or 2; have a central narrative

-Have a clear, specific, and offensive thesis coming out of the introduction.

-Have clear warrants; if they stem from the legislation directly, even better. Particularly in mid/late speeches, weighing/clash is super important.

-Clear, humanized impacts are key.

-I'm not going to open the legislation packet - it's your job to bring it to life for me. If I know a detail of the leg from coaching my own students but you don't mention it, it won't help you - I'll be as tabula rasa as possible with the docket.

-No rehash. It's possible to extend something from your own side with new warrants/impacts, but new data is just rehash.

-Neg speeches can't say the leg is bad because it doesn't do something unless that thing is mutually exclusive with the action of the legislation; if the leg is that we should all eat more bananas and your neg is no we should eat more apples, unless you can prove that we can't eat apples AND bananas the point doesn't work. I also don't love points about complacency - they generally feel stock to me (unless you're talking about a social issue when the issue attention cycle is a legitimate concern). Both of these types of points (do x not y; complacency) feel like avoidance of engaging with the actual legislation - neg speeches must demonstrate the inherent harm(s) of passing.

-No stock intros/conclusions - if it could work for any piece of legislation, it's too vague. I like an attention-grabbing intro of some kind and when the conclusion ties a bow with the opening.

-I don't have a preference for being in the simulation or avoiding it. If you start talking about your constituents and your office in D.C., I will likely roll my eyes. On the other hand, talking about your current high school Bio class doesn't work either.

-Stay involved throughout the entire session. If you give an A+ speech but ask zero questions, you'll get ranked below an A- speech and strong, well-spaced questions.

-I will rank you as the PO if you're a strong PO (fast & efficient, knowledgeable about RR, clear command of chamber). Being the PO is neither a guarantee of a rank nor of a drop for me - if you do an A job as the PO, it'll be ranked the same as if you did an A job as a speaker.

PF:

-I don't flow cross; if you want me to evaluate something out of cross, you need to mention it in a later speech.

-If you want me to evaluate something from FF, it also needs to appear in the summary.

-Make sure to identify moments of clash. Don't let the two ships just pass in the night; tell me where the boats crash and why yours stays afloat.

-Make sure to weigh arguments. Tell me what the key points of the debate are so that I don't have to determine them myself.

-I won't make a decision based on politeness, but being excessively rude/abrasive in cross annoys me and will negatively impact your speaker points.

-Unless there's true abuse in the round, I won't vote on theory.

-I haven't judged circuit PF since Stanford 2019, so you're better off avoiding "progressive" PF stuff. Treat me as more flay.

I am a former competitor in Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas. I competed in the NSDA from 2004 to 2007, and in the NFA from 2007 to 2011. At one point, I thought this background made me a seasoned judge. After a decade of relative inactivity, I'd consider myself more of a trained lay judge, able to keep track of the logic of a flow, to deliver a clear ballot (whether or not you agree), but not necessarily able to keep up to date with the current expectations, trends, and speed of contemporary debate.

As much as possible, I like when competitors help make my ballot clear; they ought to emphasize the key issues in the debate - tell me my paradigm and what issues should be most important to me. In a qualified debate round, both teams or debaters are able to articulate the clear distinction in their positions (a la "the ballot comes down to whether X or Y is true"). Lack of clarity often opens the door to intervention, which I try to avoid but tend to believe is unavoidable to some extent. We can at least mitigate the risk of intervention by keeping clear and pre-emptively declaring our biases.

In the absence of a clear focus on paradigm, I default to a policymaker perspective. I want to emphasize for competitors however that I am willing to abandon the policymaker framework at the drop of a hat, and that this is merely a default that I choose when I have to fill out a ballot and have been given no other tools in the round.

As far as evidence is concerned, I endeavor not to ask for evidence at the end of the round, and put the onus on competitors to highlight and crystallize concerns about their competitors' evidence where possible. I am certain that there are marginal cases for which I might be inclined to ask a question after the round, but I believe it is a judge's responsibility to keep this to a minimum.

I award speaker points as an incentive to competitors to model the behaviors we expect from this activity: clear, precise, insightful debating which is nevertheless respectful to the competitors.

Lately, I've had to reflect on the cases where bias may be a valuable means to protecting the activity; I'm far from perfect in my ability to create an anti-racist, anti-sexist, equitable format, but I am persuaded by the contemporary argument that judges should not hide behind a faux-neutrality which at times creates structural biases against marginalized competitors (or even simply competitors working to advocate on the behalf of marginalized people). As such, I don't want to give weight to arguments made from racist, sexist, ableist, or homophobic/transphobic perspectives. As a former debater, I'm aware that this still leaves many questions open - what counts as those things and what doesn't? Alas, I can't say I know exactly where the line is, but I'm content to intervene at the point that the arguments are clearly based in such biases - and am open to a meta-debate about the above for those who wish to leave the tabula rasa paradigm behind and engage in a substantive and at-times difficult argument about them. I wish I could make this paradigm clearer, but I'm afraid this is the best I can offer in the blurb that I'm able to write. Suffice to say, I take accusations of exclusionary tactics seriously and think that those sorts of accusations exist outside the scope of the tabula rasa paradigm - make those accusations ready to invite intervention and accept that reading, because those sorts of things are not a game to me.

NFA LD

I never competed in NFA LD. I competed in national circuit public forum for four years in high school and on the WKU speech team in college. That being said, I've seen a fair number of high-level NFA LD debates at tournaments over the years and I'm pretty familiar with the structure, norms, and lingo of NFA LD. So I'm not a total newbie.

I studied philosophy in undergrad and international relations, with an emphasis on political theory, in grad school. So I'm comfortable with a lot of the arguments and literature often read in debates. My primary areas of research have been in queer theory, feminist theory, and postcolonial theory. So I am very, very, very open to any kind of arguments that are grounded in critical theory. Try to get it right, but theory is hard and contains multitudes of meaning. So I'm more likely to reward you for trying to use critical theory in a meaningful way than punish you if you get a part of it wrong.

Good evidence and research is really important to me. Having a piece of published information is not enough. It needs to be credible and I need you to tell me WHY I should listen to the evidence your reading. Comparing cards and why one card carries more weight than another is always something I think makes for a good debate. A good piece of evidence accompanied by strong analysis that is carried throughout the debate is the easiest way to earn my ballot. You can't just read a card and leave it there, you need to explain to me why I should listen to it and why what the card says makes sense. I want to see that you understand the evidence you're reading. Good analysis can't save a bad card though, but subpar analysis (as long as there is at least SOME analysis) can be saved by an excellent, well-researched piece of evidence.

I can handle a certain level of speed. I'd say I probably fall right in the middle of the spectrum. You can go fast, but probably not your fastest. I'll tell you CLEAR if I can't understand you and as long as you slow down when I or anyone else in the debate asks you to, I won't deduct speaker points for it. I really value depth over breadth in a debate, so please don't speed to try to fit in more underdeveloped arguments. Just because something's "on the flow" doesn't mean I'm buying it. I'm not going to do a straight up calculation of how many arguments are left per team at the end of the round. I am a flow judge for sure and will only intervene in my decision as a judge if there is clear rudeness or abuse in the round. That being said, a debater who has one amazing, convincing, well-researched argument standing at the end of the round is going to get my ballot over someone with a bunch of weak arguments that technically didn't get touched, but don't really say much. I try to be a blank slate and I try to vote on the flow, but its your job to tell me a convincing story. Also, if your arguments are clearly racist, sexist, anti-queer, ableist, xenophobic etc. I wont vote for them, even if your opponents don't call you out. So think about that when deciding what to run in front of me. Other than that, go crazy, I'll accept any kind of arguments.

Finally, as along as everyone in the room can understand the debate and follow what's going on, I don't really care about your communication style. Do whatever comes naturally to you and makes you comfortable. There are a million different communication styles in the world and none of them are better or worse than the other. Speaker points will be decided off of the organization of your speeches, how effectively/strategically you made your arguments, and your mastery of the topic and your research.

TL;DR: I didn't do LD, but I'm familiar with debate and generally speaking a smart person. So just do good, don't be an asshole, and we'll have a great time!

On arguments. I appreciate arguments that acknowledge the complexity of the imperfect world we live in. There are no perfect solutions to the issues we debate, so I find it disingenuous to pretend otherwise. These issues are complicated; approach them with compassion and nuance. In LD, this means I really want you to lean into the lens of your value. Engage with your opponent's arguments authentically, don't twist their words or intentionally misconstrue what they are saying for a "technical gotcha."

On delivery. Slow down. I know it's not speech, but I'd like your delivery to add something. I don't want to feel like I would have been better off simply reading your argument. Consider variance in tone, tempo, and volume. Pauses separate ideas and can add emphasis.

On losing me. I will question your entire argument if you use logical fallacies, outdated research, or clearly unreliable sources. Do not use arguments that rely on racism, sexism, classism, etc. You will lose my respect if you attempt to intimidate your opponent.

About me. I'm an English teacher who loves cats, books, and learning new things. I value passion and creativity in others. Kindness and compassion are more important than the win.

TL;DR: I am a LAY JUDGE. I'm a recent traditional LD competitor, I'm mostly ok with speed, I flow pretty comprehensively, and I'm fine with any sort of arguments as long as they're clearly presented and weighed. However, I REALLY do not want to judge a round that's just card names, extensions, and line by line rebuttals. I really care about presentation, and, ESPECIALLY IN THE LATER SPEECHES, I would really appreciate it if you slowed down, stepped back, and gave some more big picture narrative/worlds analysis.

Experience: I competed in LD in Ohio for 4 years, occasionally competing at national circuit tournaments including nats 2018, as well as some local circuit PF. I graduated in 2018, and have been sporadically judging since. I also do American Parliamentary debate in college at Brown University.

Paradigm: The most important thing for me is clarity. I want both debaters/teams to have a clear understanding of how the round is breaking down, and then present a clear, weighed advocacy for their side. I want you to make the round as easy as possible to judge; do so by clearly presenting why you win your key arguments and why those points should win the round. Line by line rebuttal is important, but so is presenting a larger, more abstract idea of what your side is, or at least some analysis as to what is the most important thing in the round and why it weighs most heavily. I really appreciate good clear narratives.

Speed/flowing: I'll flow as fast as I can, and I should be able to cover everything unless you're really spreading. If you're too fast, I'll ask you to slow down. However, ideally, summary and final focus should be significantly slower than rebuttal.

Evidence: use it and call for it but also be sure to explain the warrants within it and impact it's use in the round.

If you have any questions, ask me!

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.

I am a language arts teacher at Dean Rusk Middle and sponsor the Dean Rusk Middle School Speech and Debate Club; I also work with the speech team at Sequoyah High School.

In addition to coaching at the middle school level, I have taught writing at the college, HS, and MS level. I appreciate strong organization and emotion when it is appropriate.

If you would type your topic or title in the chat box before your speech, I would appreciate it.

Have fun and please be respectful! If you have any questions don't be afraid to ask!

I am a parent who has two kids in debate, but I am new to judging Speech. Please be clear and passionate about the topic/piece you are delivering a speech on. Best of luck!

I coached Speech and Debate for 12 years. I left K-12 education for a role in Higher Education. I've coached all main NSDA events, and most supplemental and consolation events. I've had TOC, NCFL, and NSDA qualifiers in both speech and debate events.

1. I will flow the round. I prefer less speed, but as long as I can understand you, it won't be held against you.

2. PF and LD are not Policy. Please do not include plans, counterplans, or the like.

3. LD is a debate of value, so please convince me why your value is more preferable.

4. Please don't let the round end in nuclear war, unless that's the topic.

5. Any abusive language or behavior will get you a loss. Period. I'll probably also contact your coach.

6. Humor will get you everywhere in life. It isn't a standup routine, but if you make the round enjoyable you'll be a lot better off.

7. I will never give my decision at the end of the round, unless required to do so by the tournament.

8. Don't abuse prep time. We all have lives, so please be respectful of everyone's time.

If you have questions, please email me at katyschwartzdrowns@yahoo.com

email: sshi.debate@gmail.com

Strath Haven '20 | Penn '24

experience: debated policy all of high school (haven't listened to spreading since though)

==================================================================

LD: Important things to note:

- i have little to no experience with ld, so things like reverse voter theory will need to be well explained and not rapid fire.

- It's been a bit since I've done anything with debate so I won't promise that I can flow spreading.

==================================================================

i've mostly run policy args during my time in debate, but i'll vote for anything if you tell me why i should.

specifics:

(I haven't thought about these in a couple years, oops)

disads - good, im very familiar with these.

counterplans - also good

impact turns - going for big turns are fun, and i will enjoy them lots if you take lots of time warranting out stuff and having a fun time with seeing what you can do with them

k's - i'm open to args with most exp with args like Cap, Security, Bio, etc... high theory args are confusing (and im pretty sure everybody will think so too) so make sure you explain those well. i think neg will need a specific and well developed link debate and i think neg should still engage lots with the aff, because its likely i will weigh the k and the aff unless proven otherwise. case turns against k's are good.

k affs - i'm also open to these, although to be fair most of my time with k affs is when i read T against them. i think neg should allocate a good amount of time on case because i dont think its done enough

t/fw - i like to think fairness is an important impact, but i think you can have really good debates about education. make sure abuse story is clear. I'm generally compelled by t args if the interp/counter interp debate is really clear. i generally am compelled to believe that the ballot is only win/loss, but a good story might change what i think about the ballot in a round. i like to be a policymaker unless told otherwise.

theory - substance is better, i have sort of high threshold for voting on theory args and esp rejecting teams if theory wasnt dropped or it isn't very clear about why i should reject the team

--- condo is chill

--- LD: i will give more weight to theory args if explained well to me because of how things go in LD

speaks - i think mostly common sense will help when approaching this

--- timing and such should be done by teams themselves

--- being overtly rude will dock pts

--- disclosing is good practice

--- efficiency and reducing downtime between speeches/prep is awesome

Did Policy Debate in the late 90s & coached Policy and then later LD in the 00s. In the past 12 years, I've almost exclusively coached Speech events at Lakeville North High School. I taught at Gustavus speech and PF camps when those were still around and have been teaching Extemp Speaking at ISD the past six summers.

If I'm judging you in a Debate round, please know that the time I've spent away from Debate means I'm not necessarily familiar with how practices for each of the events have evolved. If fast and technical are your preferred style, I'll try to keep up but no promises that I can entirely. Podcasts at 2.5x aren't quite the same so you may need to watch and adjust. Chances are I'm unfamiliar with topic-specific lit or whatever critical lit is currently in style so you may need to do more connecting of the dots in order to keep me on the same page as you. For familiarity and thresholds for types of arguments, ask before the round.

tl;dr I've been coaching since 2011 and can handle any way you want to speak and debate. I encourage and support creativity as long as you follow the rules of the tournament, your league or the NSDA.

*************************************

Please hit the “Do Not Disturb” option on your phones and other devices during the round so that your speeches are not disturbed by alarms for calls from your family and Slack notifications from your coach. I wear headphones and your timer going off sounds really loud.

Please "pre-flow" your cases before the round start time. Tournaments want us to start on time.

I don't disclose after rounds unless the tournament requires it. I weigh everything up to the last word of the last speech. So that means I can't start deciding until the end of the debate round, which means I need time to think and write after the round is done so I can turn the ballot in on time.

I don't like when multiple debate teams from a school use the same constructive. Write your own speeches please.

Ask me if I'm ready before you start speaking. I don't want to miss anything you say because I'm still writing notes. Actually ask me - please don't robotically ask "Judge ready? Opponent ready?" then start speaking before receiving an answer.

If the tournament or your league has a rule that judges may only consider arguments spoken about in the last speeches, then I will respect and follow that. If there is no rule saying that, then I will consider ALL arguments given at any point in the round. If you made a great point 20 minutes before the end of the round, then I'm still going to remember it even if you didn't repeat it 5 minutes before the end of the round. Techniques your coaches teach you (like to extend your arguments into the the last speeches) are not rules, they're just best practices.

Congress

I give high points/ranks to competitors who speak well and argue well. If your speech is as good as those in extemp, I will rank you highly. At a certain point in the year, everyone doing Congress is at about the same level for their argumentation skills because everyone is using the same formula for each speech. Therefore, having high-level presentation skills is what separates the top 6 from the bottom 6 for me.

I am biased against speeches that, after the first few, don't rebut or support previous arguments. As a Congress coach, I've seen the student thought process: "Goshdangit I spent all that time before the tournament writing this sponsorship speech and I'm gonna goshdarn give it." Well...ignoring the other speakers and giving a speech that just repeats the arguments of previous speakers does NOT help you get higher scores from me.

Policy

Policy is rare in the 2 states where I've judged, so I haven’t judged it much. The more of your speeches I understand, the more likely you are to win. I don’t read cases or evidence that you share - I judge based only on what you say so that there is no confusion about what was said vs what was written. I don’t mind spreading as long as you’re understandable, but I’m not a perfect flow-er so I’m going to miss some things and will depend on you to tell me what you think is important after the first constructives. I judge based on who was more persuasive as opposed to who covered more points - this usually means if you have some squirrelly argument I will ignore it and go with the arguments that makes more real-world sense. Speaking of squirrelly arguments - I am so sorry but "everything leads to nuclear war" is hack. We were saying the same thing in the 80’s and it feels played out. If it makes sense that something might lead to nuclear war, like militarization of the Arctic, then I’ll accept it. But when you try to say something like more laptop manufacturing in Malaysia or the military playing Fall Guys on Twitch will lead to nuclear war, you’re going to have to work REALLY HARD to get me to give that any credence. I do not turn my brain off during rounds - there's no such thing as tabula rasa.

Lincoln-Douglas

My LD preferences are pretty much the same as Policy above. There’s not a lot of progressive in my area, so I don’t know all the jargon. I don’t care if you do progressive or traditional, as long as I understand what you’re talking about. The more of your speeches I understand, the more likely you are to win.

Public Forum

The more of your speeches I understand, the more likely you are to win.

SPEECH/IE PREFERENCES

No forensbots. If you are giving us a speech that you've polished so much that it shines, make sure your eyes aren't dead. If this is literally the 50th round you've performed this piece, practice it with a friend and tell her to tell you truthfully if you look like a soulless automaton.

My entire life is spent watching young people speak. I notice everything: swaying back and forth; shifting foot to foot; grabbing the bottom of your blazer; pacing too much; purposeless, repetitive gestures. I was once in a national circuit final round in which I ranked a speaker 7 because she kept smacking her lips every other sentence. The other 2 judges didn't notice and each ranked her first. There is nothing wrong with any individual movement or tic, but if you repeat that movement too often, I will see it and tell you. Watch videos of yourself to notice and reduce your own unnoticed habits.

Please don't make fake changes of position. The purpose of changing positions is so that different parts of the audience can see you better. In front of a camera, this means you have ZERO need to change position. Stay centered in the frame just like a news reporter. Please don't do the golden triangle in front of a camera - people whose job is in front of a camera in real life don't do this. In-person in a normal classroom at a tournament, change position based on the people in the room. Don't go over there and talk to a fake audience if no one is actually sitting over there. Adjust your position changes to the actual people in the room you're in. Changing positions during your speech's transitions is WHEN you do it, NOT WHY.

Events I have judged but not enough to have preferences for:

BQ, Extemp Debate, original spoken word, duo improv, radio speaking, broadcast announcing, pro/con challenge, and world schools.

Events I haven’t judged:

Parliamentary, Mock Trial

My experience

High school coach and classroom Public Speaking teacher from 2011-2018, then 2021 to present. Have coached/taught: PF, LD, Congress, and all Speech events. Have coached students to TOC, NCFL and NSDA in PF, OO and POI. Have coached students to state championships for PF, LD, Congress, OO, POI, Extemp and Humorous.

Teacher since 2003.

Teaching private public speaking lessons to adults since 2019.

I judged at nearly a hundred online tournaments during the first 2 years of the pandemic. Online platforms I've judged on so far: Zoom, NSDA Campus, Accelevents, Classrooms.cloud, HopIn and Yaatly.

I've completed the NSDA/NFHS online judge training including the cultural competency section.

I know how to be a Parliamentarian for Student Congress.

I know how to be an Extemp proctor.

In high school I did policy and prose/poetry.

I speak Spanish and Portuguese.

My pronouns are he/him/his.

Mostly a flow judge who appreciates, in cross, civility, clear questions, and direct answers to said questions—experienced in Worlds, PF, LD and Congress. Speak clearly; don't play stupid evidence games. I'm not into K's or attempting to win a round on things not topical to the round. Sometimes in PF I won't flow all the way through focusing more on who wins the offense of the round.=

Congress specific: Advance arguments, challenge one another and know procedure. I will vote up great POs, great congressional-style speakers, and those who are functioning in debate mode (not just speech mode).

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

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

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

I am NOT a present or former debater, coach, or professional judge. I have two daughters who debate and I judge a few times a year. I don't flow but I will take notes and listen to everything you say.

Some pointers that will help you to get my ballot:

- Don't be rude in any way and don’t yell; keep the debate civil

- Speak slowly and clearly; If I don’t understand what you are saying, I can’t judge it

- Don't "card dump," I'd rather be persuaded with logic than with a piece of evidence

You will get my vote if you give me a consistent argument the whole round and persuade me with good speeches.

TIMING- For speeches and cross: Please state something like "my time starts now" or "time starts on my first word." For prep time: Say "starting prep now," "time starts when I get my partner's call," or hold your timer so that everyone can see it when you start prep. Also say "stopping prep, we used X" or "x remaining." This helps me and everyone in the round keep track.

When time runs out, please stop speaking. If time runs and you are in mid sentence, you may complete the sentence but only if you can do so in no more than a few seconds. Arguments made or responses given after time is up are NOT "in the round."

Add me to the email chain. If you are sharing speeches with each other, please share them with me - miritsteiger@yahoo.com

I have over a quarter-century of experience in the dynamics of corporate environments, navigating the nuanced terrains of high-stakes boardroom discussions, strategic planning sessions, and vigorous debates with both peers and executives at the highest levels. These experiences have not only underscored the profound influence of adept speech and debate in shaping outcomes but have also instilled a deep appreciation for the art of persuasion, critical thinking, and collaborative problem-solving. Additionally, I’ve been a proud member of SAG-AFTRA for three decades which has enriched this perspective, reinforcing the indispensable value of performance, passion, and precision in communication. This unique mixture of corporate strategy and theatrical expression has profoundly informed my understanding of the transformative power of effective communication—whether it's captivating an audience on stage or influencing decision-making in business.

The model I adopt as a judge in these debates is deeply rooted in the conviction that quality, not quantity, of argumentation reigns supreme. It is a philosophy born out of real-world applications where the power of a well-articulated, passionately delivered argument can pivot the course of discussions, sway opinions, and forge consensus. It is a testament to the belief that the essence of impactful communication lies not in the volume of information conveyed but in the ability to craft arguments that resonate on a deeper, more meaningful level with one's audience.

While it may be tempting to speak rapidly and provide copious amounts of information, I'd like to encourage you to consider the following points that I feel are important:

The Power of Persuasion: In the world of Parliamentary Debate/PF, your ultimate goal is not just to present information but to persuade your audience. Whether you're addressing policy makers, executives, or peers, your ability to convince them of your viewpoint is paramount. Quality arguments, backed by sound reasoning and passion, have a far greater impact with me than a sheer volume of facts and figures.

Effective Communication: Imagine you are addressing a boardroom full of executives or a panel of policy experts. In these real-world scenarios, they are not looking for information overload but for a clear and concise articulation of your ideas. For me, there is only so much information I can consume, digest, and absorb in a given period of time. If you race through arguments you run the risk of diminishing the impact and persuasiveness of your case.

Memorability and Impact: Quality arguments are memorable. They linger in the minds of your audience long after the debate is over. Quantity may overwhelm momentarily, but it often fails to leave a lasting impression. In the real world, your ability to make a lasting impact is a valuable skill.

Real-World Application: Consider that the skills you are developing in Parliamentary Debate/PF are not just for competition; they are for life. In professional settings, you will encounter situations where you need to influence decisions, present ideas, and lead discussions. The ability to make a compelling case while maintaining clarity and coherence is a prized skill.

I want to emphasize that, as a judge, I place a greater emphasis on the qualities that make an argument compelling and persuasive rather than solely focusing on technical details. Craft your speeches with precision, emphasizing persuasive language, tone, and clarity. Remember that your power lies not in overwhelming your audience but in persuading them effectively.

Have a good round.
no spreading.

David Yastremski
Director - Ridge High School
30+ years experience coaching and judging

LD/PF/PARLI
I'm considered a very traditional flow judge within the various competitive debate arenas. I appreciate slightly-higher than conversational rates as a maximum. I will afford you a 'clear' if necessary.

I do expect and reward debate with a clear framework of understanding. I also like direct application of your argument to clear and defined system(s). I don’t believe we exist in a vacuum – there must be context for me to consider and weigh an argument, and I recognize the resolution is created and should be interpreted within a particular context. Therefore, hypothetical worlds must be warranted as reasonable within a pragmatic context developed within the resolution. I appreciate creative, though plausible and non-abusive, House interpretations in Parliamentary rounds.

In LD and PF, all evidence must be clearly tagged and clearly linked to the grounds within your claims. In Parliamentary, examples should be true, contextually-defined, when appropriate, and directly linked to your claims. You can create hypothetical examples or indicate your personal beliefs on an issue; however, if you are unsure what a particular constitutional amendment or Supreme Court decision states, please avoid introducing it. Also, where tag-teaming is permitted, proceed with caution. One or two interjections is fine. More than that diminishes your partner's voice/skill and will be considered in speaker points and, if excessive, the RFD.

Crystallization is key to winning the round. Be sure you allow yourself ample time to establish clear grounds and warrants on all voters. I don’t consider arguments just because they are uttered; you must explain the ‘why’ and the ‘so what’ in order for me to weigh them in my decision, in other words, directly impact them to the framework/standards. I do appreciate clear signposting throughout the round in order to make the necessary links and applications to other arguments, and I will give you more speaker points if you do this effectively. Speaker points are also rewarded for competence, clarity, and camaraderie during the round. In LD and PF, I will not give below a 26 unless you're rude and/or abusive.

Overall, please remember, I may not be as well-read on the resolution as you are. I do not teach at camps; I don’t teach debate in any structured class, nor do I judge as regularly or frequently as others. I will work hard to reach the fairest decision in my capacity. I really enjoy judging rounds where the contestants make a concerted effort to connect with me and my paradigm. I don't enjoy rounds where I or my paradigm is ignored. Thanks for reading this far!! Best of luck in your round.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE:

I have 25+ years experience in Congressional 'Debate' and REALLY enjoy judging/parli'ing great rounds! I evaluate 'student congress' as a debate event; hence, if you are early in the cycle, I am looking for clear affirmative and negative grounds to establish clash and foundation for the remainder of the debate. If you speak later in the cycle, I expect extensions and refutations of what has already been established as significant issues in the debate (beyond just name dropping). I see each contribution on the affirmative and negative sides as extensions of the previous speeches presented; consequently, if there is a significant argument that has not been addressed to by opponents, I expect later speakers to build and expand on it to strengthen it. Likewise, if speakers on the other side do not respond to a significant issue, I will consider it a 'dropped argument' which will only increase the ranking of the student who initially made it, and lower the rankings of students who failed to recognize, respond or refute it; however, it is the duty of questioners to challenge opposing speakers thus reminding the room (including the judges) on significant arguments or issues that have gone unrefuted. In other words, students should flow the entire round and incorporate that information into their speeches and questions. I also highly encourage using the amendment process to make legislation better. Competitors who attempt it, with germane and purposeful language, will be rewarded on my ballot.

Most importantly, enjoy the unique experience of Congressional Debate. There are so many nuances in this event that the speech and debate other events cannot provide. Own and appreciate your opportunity by demonstrating your best effort in respectful dialogue and debate and be your best 'self' in the round. If you do, the rewards will far outweigh the effort.

EVIDENCE: All claims should be sufficiently warranted via credible evidence which ideally include both theoretical and empirical sources. I reward those who consider constitutional, democratic, economic, diplomatic frameworks, including a range of conservative to liberal ideologies, to justify their position which are further substantiated with empirical examples and data. All evidence should be verbally-cited with appropriate source and date. Students should always consider biases and special interests when choosing sources to cite in their speeches. I also encourage students to challenge evidence during refutations or questioning, as time and warrant allows.

PARTICIPATION: I reward participation in all forms: presiding, amending, questioning, flipping, and other forms of engagement that serve a clear purpose to the debate and fluent engagement within the round. One-sided debate indicates we should most likely move on to the next piece of legislation since we are ready to vote; therefore, I encourage students to stand for additional speeches if your competitors are not willing to flip, yet do not wish to move to previous question (as a matter of fact I will highly reward you for 'debating' provided that you are contributing to a meaningful debate of the issues). I expect congressional debaters to remain engaged in the round, no matter what your speaking order, therefore leaving the chamber for extended periods of time is highly discouraged and will be reflected in my final ranking. Arriving late or ending early is disrespectful to the chamber and event. Competitors who appear to bulldoze or disenfranchise others regarding matters of agenda-setting, agenda-amendments, speaking position/sides can also be penalized in ranking. I am not fond of splits before the round as I've seen many students, typically younger folks, coerced into flipping; hence, students should just be ready to debate with what they've prepared. If you are concerned with being dropped, I recommend exploring arguments on both sides of the bill/resolution.

PRESIDING OFFICER: Thank you for being willing to serve the chamber. I look highly upon students who run for PO. If elected, be sure you demonstrate equity and fairness in providing the optimum opportunity for every competitor to demonstrate their skills as a debater and participant in the chamber. I value POs who assert a respectful command and control of the room. Do not allow other competitors to take over without your guidance and appropriate permissions (even during breaks while others may be out of the room). Your procedures of recognizing speakers (including questioning) should be clearly communicated at the top of the round to promote transparency and a respect for all members of the chamber. Mistakes in recency or counting votes happen -- no big deal (just don't make it repetitive). Public spreadsheets are appreciated.

DELIVERY, STYLE and RHETORIC: Good delivery takes the form of an argument and audience-focused presentation style. Authorship/ Sponsorship/ first-negative speeches can be primarily read provided the competitor communicates a well-developed, constructed, and composed foundation of argument. These speeches should be framework and data rich -- and written with a rhetorical prowess that conveys a strong concern and commitment for their advocacy.

After the first speeches, I expect students to extend or refute what has been previously stated - even if offering new arguments. These speeches should be delivered extemporaneously with a nice balance of preparation and spontaneity, demonstrating an ability to adapt your advocacy and reasoning to what has been previously presented. Trivial or generic introductions/closings typically do not get rewarded in my rankings. I would much prefer a short, direct statement of position in the opening and a short, direct final appeal in the closing. Good rhetorical technique and composition in any speech is rewarded.

DECORUM & SUSPENSION OF THE RULES: I highly respect all forms of decorum within the round. I value your demonstration of respect for your colleagues referring to competitors by their titles (senator, representative) and indicated gender identifiers. Avoid deliberate gender-specific language "you guys, ladies and gentlemen" etc. I encourage any suspension of the rules, that are permitted by the tournament, which contribute to more meaningful dialogue, debate, and participation. Motions for a suspension of the rules which reflect a lack of decorum or limit opportunity are discouraged. I also find "I'm sure you can tell me" quite evasive and flippant as an answer.

I did 4 years of PF and Speech with Unionville and graduated in 2010, and have judged national circuit regularly since. Most recently, I judged PF at Yale 2021.

I appreciate evidence, but value argument structure and critical thinking/logic more. Cards should be used as support for, and not in place of contentions. Please set up a weighing mechanism for the round as early as possible; I will expect the round to be distilled into voting issues by the time we get to Summary and Final Focus.

If frameworks/definitions are a crucial part of your case, I expect it to come up in the first constructive and reiterated throughout the round.

Likewise, key contentions and responses must come within constructives/rebuttals. Summaries and Final Focus are for refining arguments, not for raising entirely new points your opponents have no time to respond to.

If you do not extend your arguments, I will generally not include them in the final weighing. If you do not quantify your impacts, i will have to use a judgement call to decide what each one is worth.

Cross fire will not be flowed, but will be evaluated in speaker points. If you make a point in Cross fire that is important, please include it in the next speech.

The round will be flowed, and I'm generally ok with speed, but if you spread to the point where I can no longer flow, I will stop flowing.

Calling for evidence is fine, but I expect you to have your cards organized and accessible enough that locating them when called for is straightforward. If it takes an excessive amount of time for you to find the card, I will drop it from the flow.

Being professional/not condescending means I won't slash your speaks.

shubo.yin@aya.yale.edu

Flow judge. Clean rounds are nice. Please have evidence. Please display critical thinking.

Here are my paradigms for various events. If you have any questions feel free to ask for clarification in round.

PF paradigm

I am a former PFer and so I am familiar with the event. I competed for 4 years and I am pretty easy going as for judge preferences. I flow the round, but I do really like to see weighing, sign posting throughout the round and voters in the summary and final focus. I am okay with some speed, but this is not policy or LD so don't go over the top.

Congress Paradigm

I competed a bit in Congress in high school and am familiar with the event. I also have 2 years organizing a youth congress program in Iowa. I am looking for organization in speeches, and also prefer if you speak with limited notes rather than read word for word.

LD Paradigm

I have judged some LD and competed about 2-3 times in high school, but I still consider to be a lay judge. I do flow though, but please provide clear extensions.

Speech Paradigm

For Public Address/ Limited Prep speeches, I like seeing organization in the speeches, and for events such as oratory a clear argument

For Interp. I prefer seeing clear character pops and smooth transitions between characters.

Tell me which time signals you want otherwise I will typically give just 2 down for interp/ public address events and then 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 in extemp.

I determine winners by their use of evidence, argumentation, presentation, and language skills. I do not like off-case arguments, and I want some clash. Debate is a speaking event, so I should be able to follow what you say. If I have to rely on documentation that you send me, then I will evaluate your case in my role as a composition instructor and I will still determine the winner according to the verbal arguments.

I do not disclose win/loss at the end.

NSDA Adjudicating Speech & Debate and Cultural Competence certified.

I have taught ELA at the high school and college level with an emphasis on writing for 15 years. 5 of those years have focused on persuasive writing. This is my first year to coach speech and debate.

I have the most experience with IPDA, LD, and BQ debates, but I have little or no experience with policy debates, Congress, World School, or other competitions that follow rules of order.

I average judging multiple rounds at 1 tournament a month.

Lay parent judge. Please speak very slowly and clearly and persuasively explain why you won in your last speech. Refrain from using debate and resolution terminology without explaining. No progressive arguments. I do not disclose my decision.