I love speech and debate! I was a competitor when I was in school. I will try to give you lots of feedback and be clear about why I make the decisions I do. I am primarily an interp judge, but I have some debate experience and I think a good debate can be just as fun as an interp/speech round. I look for good speaking skills, good use of time, polish (either for pops or contentions), and the energy that a competitor brings to a round.

If you are looking for debate specific paradigms, please ask at the start of the round.

Chris Cohen; Assistant Debate Coach, Lynn University

Competitive History

Cherry Creek HS - 2012-2016: Competed in Speech events, mainly Oratory and Humorous Interp.

Lynn University - 2016-2020: Competed in NDPA, BP, NFA-LD, and IPDA debate along with speech events at larger tournaments. Former President, Speech Captain, and Captain. Helped launch Sports Policy Debate as a new class for students in the Sports Management program.

Judging - I have judged multiple NSDA, NPDA, IPDA, and BP tournaments, and have judged every speech event.

Basic Judge Info

-Speed: Speech & Debate at its core is a communication activity, and spreading takes away from that communication. I will rarely drop someone for speeding, but be aware of your speaking and ensure clarity is not lost when doing so. Do note that the threshold for speed has more leniency for college/post-graduate tournaments than middle/high school. [FOR ONLINE TOURNAMENTS: Do not speed; mics often worsen clarity even in normal conversation]

Debate Information

Debate Overall

For the most part, I am a tabula rasa judge and will vote on what you tell me to vote on. Even if it is an argument I dislike, if both teams tell me it is the most important thing in the round, it will be the most important thing in the round. That said, do not attempt to fiat the judge in round.

Structure and content are equally important. Every part of an argument is important for the argument to stand.

I am a big fan of Meta debate. If you want the round to be about why something in debate rules or theory is wrong, feel free to make it so. Debate is a communication activity, so as long as there is clash and communication, the round is staying true to the purpose of debate.

Remember to draw out impacts and tell me why they matter. Don't just tell me X happens, tell me why X happening is bad or good.

Jargon is good and saves time, but for some aspects you need more than just the jargon. "Normal means" is fine by itself, but "We meet" doesn't stand by itself. Also, don't just tell me you are cross-applying something, explain why the cross-application is valid.

Giving clear voters is important. It is your chance to tell me what you feel should be weighed first when making a decision.

Policy Debate

As A Whole:

Debate is partially an educational activity about learning how others think and seeing what they consider important. Thus, I believe when carrying out a plan (or counter plan), impacts should look at what is best for the actor and the world as a whole. For example, as Aff, If a Res is "The NFL should lower concussion rates", and the plan is 'NFL is now 2-hand touch' don't just say why the impacts are good for the athletes, world, science, etc, tell me why it is good for the NFL.

Aff:

You get to run what you please. If you want to run a performative Aff, you can (but do it well or you will likely be voted down), if you want to run the most topical, down to the letter of the Res plan, all the power to you. When it comes to Aff Ks, because they go against the putting yourself in others shoes educational aspect of debate, they need to meet a higher standard in both structure and content in every level of the argument.

I am in the school of thought that Aff has right to define and Neg has right to challenge. If you want to define "USFG" as Utah State Farmer's Guild, go ahead (but be ready for a T press).

Neg:

Ks - Need to be explained well. Don't just throw a name out at the FW level, but explain the thought. Again, debate is a communication activity, so communicate what the FW is and means. Of all arguments Ks, are one of the two biggest where having bad structure can drop you.

Ts - Yes, Aff has right to define, but Neg has right to challenge for fair definitions. Don't just list standards, explain them. Also, give examples of plans Aff could have run that meet your definition.

CPs - Of all arguments CPs, are one of the two biggest where having bad structure can hurt you. Need to have content on every level of the CP shell or I'll be hesitant to vote for it. Having Ad(s) on a CP is preferable to only "doesn't bite DAs".

DAs - Do what you see fit here. While I prefer non-stock DAs, I have nothing against stock DAs.

F-Spec - If you are going to run this on a United States Federal Government res, I need a strong, clear brink story or it will likely have no effect in my decision.

Other - Any other procedurals or other arguments are fine, but remember structure.

Speech Information

As A Whole:

While being an audience member, don't intentionally stonewall.

Try and avoid blocking yourself to walk backwards [unless done intentionally to show fear/timidness].

Acting Events:

Blocking is important, but should never be bigger than the story itself.

Don't mimic a phones with the pinky and thumb - that isn't how you hold a phone.

Have character voices as crazy as you want, but make sure your voice still projects.

Softer volumes go a long ways for dramatic effect, but make sure you can still be heard.

Try and avoid any blocking that ends up deflecting your voice away from the judge and audience

Rhetoric Events:

If you have a visual aid, please don't have your speech revolve around it. It is just an aid.

Remember, speed variation and pauses can speak volumes if used properly.

I can handle speed as long as you are clear. I don't need you to waste time explaining basic debate rules or theory to me. That doesn't mean that a well crafted theory argument is going to be ignored, you just don't need to read me ten sources saying the same thing. Give me your best source, a clear argument, and trust that I know how to flow and understand logic.

Yes, I flow arguments. Totally off topic arguments need to be answered but as a rational judge I'm not going to weigh silly shotgun arguments with terrible sources as heavily as well thought out, quality evidence backed arguments.

Sources: fabricating sources, misquoting sources, or other forms of cheating will result in a loss. But give each other grace for accidental misquotes. If you misquoted a source, apologize, correct the mistake or discard the evidence and move on.

The Slippery Slope to nuclear destruction argument is for weak teams. A sin tax will not result in aliens attacking the earth. I made those arguments in the 80's and if half what I suggested had happened we wouldn't be here. There are much better, more rational and realistic arguments you can make.

I will report teams that uses -isms (racism, sexism, etc...) to denigrate opponents. Keep to the facts, let your research back your sound argument. Talk radio is not a good model for life or public speaking.

Finally, have fun. You know what you are doing, you are prepared. I look forward to being impressed because what you are doing is truly impressive.

If I’m judging Debate, I prefer it to be traditional. Your job is to convince me that the resolution should either be affirmed or negated, bottom line. Please try to stick to NSDA standard rules for your respective event. There’s no need to bring Policy into PF or LD. If you are speaking so quickly that I cannot follow you, you aren’t helping your argument.

Online Congress: You’ll help us both out if you turn your camera on while you ask questions; I keep track of your overall participation and a face-to-the-name is appreciated. (unless you’re having WiFi issues, I understand) Also, please don’t talk over the speaker during questions - politeness will take you a long way with me. I love a good “hook” and analogies. Stand out.

Thanks and good luck!

*Reagan Great Communicator Debate Series: "Use logic, evidence, and personality, just as Reagan did throughout his life". I want to see personality!

I have been an adjudicator for 9 years, although my experience in debate is more recent, I am adamant about constructive feedback. My sole purpose for being a judge is helping a student grow in their art form. Yes, a well debated topic is, in my opinion, an art.

I believe debate is fundamentally about winning arguments, so make good arguments. I will do my best to evaluate your argument as objectively as possible but make sure contentions are well developed with clear warrants, evidence, and impacts. Evidence is important but I prefer to hear your belief in your position.

LD for me is best debated with a strong value clash. Evidence is important but your ability to present and defend your value draws stronger speaker points. I give higher speaks to passionate speakers who are good public speakers. I am more focused on the quality of argument and logic than on sheer quantity of evidence. Even though I can flow you when you speed read in a debate round, in LD it will impact your speaking points for me. I don’t like speed reading unless you absolutely have to. Please clearly signpost which argument you are responding to and when you are moving into the other side of the flow or weighing. I will vote based on what I flow in the round, not on what you email or flash to me. In fact, I will usually decline to be on the email chain and will prefer to flow the actual round (rather than just read your evidence and analytics emailed to me).

If you're one of the faster debaters on the national circuit, your top speed is probably not clear enough for me over the internet unless you are unusually clear. If I say "clear" more than once, please take the hint and slow down.

Any argument established in crossfire must be brought up in the subsequent speech for me to evaluate it. I will reward creative and well thought out questions.

Professionalism does matter to me. Of course, in cross examination you might wind up interrupting each other occasionally, that is to be expected. However, somebody who does not allow their opponent to speak or proceeds to be rude or lacks professional demeanor in CX or during a speech may see a loss of speaker points.

Even though I am certainly capable of timing you, I would prefer that you time yourselves (allowing me to focus on the flow and the ballot). I will do my best to keep track of it, but please, both teams should also be tracking the time.

Key things for me:

Speak clearly. Clarity is more important than speed.

2 - Have coherent arguments. I am more interested in your position and defense of it than why your opponent is lacking.

3 - Have fun! Be willing to take risks. I like creativity.

I believe debate is a communication event, so I'm not too fond of speeding through cases and using too much jargon. You can have off-the-clock road maps and can use your phones as timers. Cross-examinations need to be respectful and thoughtful. Please provide voters with your final speech.

I believe debate is a communication event so I oppose speed and jargon. Debaters should explain their arguments and have sound logic and evidence to support it. Being able to explain the argument, the implications of the argument, and why does it matter is key to winning my ballot.

Generally, I will make decisions based on who presents a full and complete argument supported with evidence, not conclusions drawn upon conjecture and assumption, and one who is more comprehensive in delivery.

I look for the debater that has a balance of offense/defense and shows me that they have not only a comprehensive understanding of the resolution but also gives me, as the judge, a comprehensive understanding of your case.

I do not support a theory or disclosure theory debate. The resolution has been given to you. Debate it.

I respect civility between competitors. Debate hard, but be courteous.

Watch your speaking pace. Saying points really really fast does not automatically make them count if they are impossible to hear and note.

I like clash much more than arguing debate technicalities.

Philosophy Updated 9-5-17

Nick Ryan – Liberty Debate – 10th year coaching/Judging

Please label your email chains “Tournament – Rd “#” – AFF Team vs Neg Team” – or something close to that effect. I hate “No subject,” “Test,” “AFF.” I would like to be included “nryan2wc@gmail.com”

Too often Philosophy’s are long and give you a bunch of irrelevant information. I’m going to try to keep this short and sweet.

1. I spend most of my time working with our “Policy teams,” I have a limited amount of working with our “K/Non traditional” debaters, but the bulk of my academic research base is with the “traditional” “policy teams;” don’t expect me to know the nuances of your specific argument, debate it and explain it.

2. Despite this I vote for the K a fair amount of time, particularly when the argument is contextualized in the context of the AFF and when teams aren’t reliant on me to unpack the meaning of “big words.” Don’t rely on me to find your “embedded clash” for you.

3. “Perm Do Both” is not a real argument, neg teams let AFFs get away with it way too often and it shifts in the 1AR. Perms and Advocacy/CP texts should be written out.

4. If neither team clarifies in the debate, then I default to the status quo is always an option.

5. These are things that can and probably will influence your speaker points: clarity, explanations, disrespectfulness to the other team, or your partner, stealing prep time, your use of your speech time (including cx), etc.

6. Prep time includes everything from the time the timer beeps at the end of the lasts speech/CX until the doc is sent out.

7. I think Poems/Lyrics/Narratives that you are reading written by someone else is evidence and should be in the speech document.

ADA Novice Packet Tournaments:

Evidence you use should be from the packet. If you read cards that weren’t in the packet more than once it’s hard to believe it was a “honest mistake.”

If you have any questions about things that are not listed here please ask, I would rather you be sure about my feelings, then deterred from running something because you are afraid I did not like it.

I want to see clash in round and I want good structure so it is easy to flow. I am fairly tabula rasa; tell me how you want me to evaluate the round. Speed is fine with clarity.

I am a speech and debate couch in Wyoming, I am a former Policy Debator and now coach it for my team. I enjoy speed so long as I can understand you, if you are slurring your words and it is not able to be heard well I find this is not good debate practice. Clash is the biggest part of a debate and thus needs to occur if there is no debate or clash that is actually presented then the highest speaker will win.