I am currently the Head Speech Coach for The Bronx High School of Science. Formerly, I competed in info, extemp, congress, and PF for Apple Valley High School in Apple Valley, Minnesota.

Speech: To get my 1, you will need to do a few things. First, you should be memorized. Being on script often makes speakers less conversational and less able to do convincing tech. Second, your speech should be around 10:00 minutes. You should be using the full time that you are given to tell your story. I will not give the 1 to speeches over 10:30 if tournament rules specify that, but I will not drop you for going slightly over time. Third, if I find your speech to be offensive, I will drop you. This community should be one that is open to diversity and celebrating it, not turning people's identities into caricatures. I will write on your ballot what specific joke or character I found to be too offensive so you can hopefully change it. Next, I will be judging you on both your performance and the other things you do while in the room. I believe that good speakers have good ethos, and it will be difficult to give you a high rank if you were a bad or distracting audience member for your fellow speakers. If you are performing with a binder, feel free to use it as a prop. In fact, I love to see creative binder tech. In OO and extemp, I am looking for solid arguments backed up with research. I want to hear your citations. Outside examples and personal stories are welcome. In interp events, I want to see clean and creative blocking and very distinct characters. Basically, I am looking to give my 1 to good people who speak well.

Congress: Like in Speech, I look for good people who speak well. I believe that good debaters have good ethos, and it will be difficult to give you a high rank if you were a bad or distracting audience member for your fellow debaters. On evidence, I am looking for solid arguments backed up with research. I want to hear your sources. Excessive rehash will be penalized. Congress is a debate event, so I like to see clash. Ask good pointed questions and engage in the debate. That said, overly aggressive speakers will not rank highly. As parliamentarian, I will pay attention to the types of arguments and tactics you use throughout the tournament. I like to see logical consistency. For instance, I don't like to see debaters who advocate for isolationism on one bill and open borders on another.

Public Forum: I'll be honest, even though I competed in public forum for three years, I'm still a pretty lay judge. If you are going to speak quickly, then make sure you are very clear because I cannot vote for an argument that I do not hear. My favorite arguments are niche policy arguments that are impacted with regular people saving money or lives not being lost. I will not consider arguments that are not discussed in every speech up to the final focus. I will give arguments the weight that you do. If you say something is important, prove why. Arguments made in crossfire should be reiterated in speeches because I won't flow it. I base my speaker points mainly on how a speaker conducts themselves in cross-examination. I bring a lot of the mindset I have for speech into the debate space and I am looking to support good people who speak well. If you make clear arguments with impacts that link and are not a jerk, you will get high speaker points and will likely win the round. I will drop any team that I feel is being overtly or intentionally offensive. I don't need to see your evidence unless it is highly contested in the round and the deciding factor. Also, in cross, ask questions. You can't go on a rant and end it with "right?" and call that a question. Not gonna lie, I hate off time roadmaps; just signpost!

Good luck to everyone competing and I hope you enjoy your day!

I see each round as a game: I start at 27 speaks, from there you win points for well-made arguments, good use of cards, and clear attacks and rebuttals and you lose points for dropped arguments, poorly sourced or clipped cards, and vaguely linked or unclear impacts. However, I won't flow dropped arguments to your side unless you call them out!

- The easiest way to earn speaks is to clarify the voting issues and prove how and why you outweigh. I'll weigh the round based on the criteria you give me, so be sure to give me a metaphorical rubric!

- I'm a tabula rasa, so I'll vote exactly how you tell me! So hit your framework/V/VCs early and often.

- When making arguments, I like to see claim-warrant-impact. I flow what you say, not what I think you mean.

- Spreading doesn't scare me and will not affect your speaks. However, if I can't flow the argument, you didn't make it.

- Cards should be clearly cited and available for review should there be a conflict over source validity or context. Clipping will not be tolerated.

- Signpost! Whenever possible, reference the Contention # or specific subpoint in your speeches and CX. Pretend I'm your pickiest English teacher.

- If you're running a K or using theory shells, explain it fully and explain it well, otherwise I'll flow it as a fluff argument.

- CX is for questions; if you make arguments during CX I will cry. If you make the judge cry, you will get lower speaks.

Finally, as a former debate team member and policy nerd, I love interesting debates; however, civility is of utmost importance to me. If you can't separate aggression from argument, then you might as well not even debate.

David Chamberlain
English Teacher and Director of Forensics - Claremont High School, CA
20 years coaching forensics. I usually judge Parliamentary debate at tournaments.

In Parli debate I don't like being bogged down in meta debating. Nor do I appreciate frivolous claims of abuse. I always hope for a clean, fun and spirited debate. I trust in the framer's intent and believe the debaters should too! Logic, wit and style are rewarded.

In PF debate I certainly do not appreciate speed and believe debaters must choose positions carefully being thoughtful of the time constraints of the event. This is the peoples' debate and should be presented as such.

In LD debate I prefer a more traditional debate round with a Value + Value Criterion/Standard that center around philosophical discussions of competing moral imperatives. I understand the trend now is for LD Debaters to advocate plans. I don't know if this is good for the activity. There's already a debate format that exclusively deals with plan debate. LD is not one-person policy debate.

Speed:
I can flow speed debate, but prefer that debate be an oratorical activity.

Theory/T:
I enjoy Theory debates. I don't know that I always understand them. I do count on the debaters being able to clearly understand and articulate any theory arguments to me so that I can be comfortable with my vote. I prefer rounds to be centered on substance, but there is a place for theory. I usually default to reasonability, and don't prefer the competing interpretations model. It takes something egregious for me to vote on T.

Points:
I usually start at a 27.0 and work my way up or down from there. Usually you have to be rude or unprepared to dip below the 27.0.

Counterplans:
I don't think it makes sense to operate a counterplan unless the Aff has presented a plan. If the Aff does go with a Plan debate, then a Counterplan is probably a good strategy. If not, then I don't understand how you can counter a plan that doesn't exist. If this is the debate you want to have, try Policy debate.

Critical Arguments:
The biggest problem with these is that often debaters don't understand their own message / criticism / literature. I feel they are arguments to be run almost exclusively on the Negative, must have a clear link, and a stable alternative that is more substantial than "do nothing", "vote neg", or "examine our ontology/epistemology".

Politics / DAs:
I really enjoy Political discussions, but again, LD is probably the wrong format of debate for the "political implications" of the "plan" that result in impacts to the "status quo" to be discussed.

Hi! My name is Dana (she/her). I'm a parent judge, so please keep the debate rounds traditional as best as you can. Any progressive arguments (k, theory, etc) should be run cautiously, and know that I may not always understand them. If you choose to run something like this, please be sure to fully explain why I should vote for you on it. No spreading, keep it simple. If I can't understand it, it won't be on the flow. If you want anything from cross to be on the flow, be sure to say it in a speech. Signpost please!!! Make sure I know exactly what you're trying to say and where on the flow it will go. Most importantly, have fun!

Joshua Dzindzio competed on a national level in both high school and collegiate Speech and Debate. He was the National Runner-Up in Dramatic Performance at the 2015 CFL tournament and placed in the top 16 at the 2015 NSDA Tournament in the same event. He was also recognized in both 2013 and 2015 with the Louisiana State Renaissance Award, which is awarded to the student who displays excellence in both Speech and Performance events at the State Championship. He went on to found a collegiate speech team at SLCC. With only two members, SLCC was recognized at the Novice National Speech Tournament held at ULL with a sweepstakes award. Joshua took home the Novice National Duo Championship.

Lincoln Douglas Debaters: I love to see a strong and continuous link to your Value and Value Criterion throughout your case. I judge by the flow, and do not mind spreading, but will not be able to fairly judge the round if I cannot understand you while spreading. Please be aware of your time, and be respectful during cross. This is not a Presidential Debate. Best of luck, Natalie

Let's have a great round!

NO SPREADING 

1. Articulate your argument

2. Listen to your opponent

3. think on your feet

4. attack the speech not the speaker

Returning to debate after years (ok, decades) absence. I come mainly from a professional theatre, then theatre teacher background. Communicating effectively is of utmost importance for me. Variation, eye contact, sign posts all indicate that you are in control of your material.

I want to hear your argument not read it. I am NOT a fan of spreading. If I cannot hear your argument, it i very difficult for me to vote for your argument. I also do not consider jargon an effective tool in argument; your argument should stand on its own merits

Be sharp of mind, precise of speech, kind of heart

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.

Congressional Debate:

I have judged and/or been parliamentarian at local, regional and national tournaments, including Isidore Newman, Durham Academy, the Barkley Forum and and Harvard. My students have found success at both the national and state levels.

POs- I default to you. Remember, your tone as PO has a big influence on tone of the chamber. Be efficient, clear and consistent and have fun.

As far as the round and debate within the round, consistency is important to me. The way you speak and vote on one piece of legislation should most indeed influence your position on similar limitation unless you tell me otherwise. Debate and discourse does not exist in a vacuum.

Acting/characterization is fine as long as there is a reason and has a positive impact.

Finding a balance of logos, ethos and pathos is important. Difficult to accomplish in three minutes? Absolutely. The balance is what gets my attention.

I'll be honest. I don't like when debate jargon leaks into the chamber. SQUO, affirmative/negative, counterplan, link/turn, etc. This event is it's own unique event with norms.

Additionally, Student Congress is not Extemp-lite. If you are trying for three points in a speech, how do I know what to focus on? If everything is equally important then nothing is important. Take a stance, go for the impact and make the balance between logic and emotional to persuade. Include previous debate points, elucidate your point of view and have fun.

About me: I'm a First-Year attending Colby College in Maine majoring in International Relations and Human Rights. I competed for Bronx Science all four years, where I was TOC-qualified twice and Novice Director my senior year.

I am looking for content before anything else. Strong arguments backed by solid logic and well-developed evidence will get you well-ranked. That combined with fluency and round presence will help you greatly.

The best legislators get the best ranks: Know where you are in the round and adapt accordingly (early- constructives, mid- refs, etc.). Demonstrating a mastery of parliamentary procedure is also highly-favored but not needed for good ranks.

If you are disrespectful towards other competitors, the PO or judges, you will be ranked down.

Most importantly, have fun with it. A great debater allows their personality to bleed through and makes watching the rounds both informative and enjoyable.

he/him

I have been privileged to judge a variety of events over the past four years and look forward to participating in the 2022 Warrior Classic. 

On Judging Debate Events ...

With debate events, the side which does the best job of arguing its position and rebutting its opponent will generally emerge as the winner. Persuasive speaking is an important support to mounting an effective argument, but it is not a substitute for well-developed arguments. I expect both sides of a debate to make their points with logic and clarity as this judge, while an informed citizen, should not be assumed to have expertise in the resolution under consideration. Well reasoned arguments (Claim, Warrant, Impact), presented with conviction, will impress me.

I do not have a problem with aggressive questioning during cross-examination, so long as the questions are on point and not personal attacks. In team events, I expect and prefer to see a balanced participation, but specialization is fine and often necessary. The effective use of quality evidence in support of key points is important in making a case.

On Judging Speech Events ...

While the factors that I consider vary with the requirement of the particular event, I do expect the contestants to demonstrate a commitment to their presentation. Skilled contestants have a well designed structure to their work and flow from section to section in a logical fashion that is easy for the judge to follow. I appreciate a pause between opening and the main body of the presentation, as well as at the summation. I value presentations where the contestant has succeeded in matching voice, gestures, and tone to the text. I've yet to be disappointed by a tournament and have come away quite impressed by the talent and intelligence of today's high school students.

Please remember to be respectful of each other's time and turn. Please do not interrupt while your opponent is speaking during their time. Remember to face your audience, not your opponent. Most of all, have fun and good luck!

PA: Structure/organization, confidence, personality, fluency, and topic uniqueness are what I value most in any PA event

Interp: Effective and purposeful blocking, emotion/range, vocal inflection, and personality in that order- exaggerate but more importantly be deliberate

Debate: trad line by line. Things I look for are strong voters, framework debate (tech > truth) for LD, winner is usually the person who does a better job defending their value/criterion and possibly even opponent's. For PF- consistent defense and weigh on voters.

Please no spreading, or at least slow down when I ask for a clear. It won't affect speaker points or decision but if I look like I'd rather do poetry interp instead of flowing it's because it I do :)

Don’t spread unless the speed you use allows for enough enunciation that I can understand. English is my second language if you speak too fast I will have hard time comprehending what you say.

for Police debate, I’m more like combination of policy maker and tabular rasa. Better policy has to make sense at first. But if 50/50, debate out needs to be done with strong argument and logics to support.

Current Debate Coach at Caddo Magnet HS

LHSSL Executive Secretary

email: Kasi.mccartney@gmail.com

Please show up on time. Have email chains, stands and other needs set up before the start time of the round.

I generally look to the fastest and easiest way to resolve the debate. In order to win you should make clear impact calculus throughout the debate and provide a specific path for round resolution in the 2NR/2AR. First tell me how you win the round, then tell me why even if I buy into some of the other team's arguments you should still win. This is how you win my ballot.

I default to a policy maker framework. I will vote for non-policy strategies but they MUST present a clean structure for their impacts. I prefer the affirmative to have a plan text. I do not consider myself an activist or that my role is to balance forces within the debate community.

Identity Politics - You should probably not pref me. You MUST have a link to the aff or specific in round actions for me to vote on this. I understand and sympathize with the issues in round, but this is not my preferred argument. It will take a lot of convincing to get me to vote on a strategy that is outside the resolutional bounds. I ultimately believe that traditional forms of debate have value.

Theory – I think theory is definitely a voting issue, but there needs to be some form of in round abuse for me to truly buy that it is a reason alone to reject one team or the other. I do not think that simply kicking a CP in block is a time skew that is truly worth voting against a neg team unless there are other circumstances. I don't like CP's with lots of planks. I think that it makes the debate too messy.

Case - I must say I have a hard time being persuaded that the negative has enough weight on their side to win with only case defense and a DA. What can I say, I'm a product of the late 90's. I much prefer to have a CP/K in there to give the flexibility, especially with a topic that allows for affirmatives to have heavy military impacts. Please be careful and make sure that if you takea case only route that you attack each advantage with offense and have a very very weighty DA on your side.

Kritiks- Not my bread and butter, although I do understand their strategic benefit, having come from an underfunded public school. It is my preference that K’s have a clear order and structure. I will vote on the K if you win that your impacts outweigh the impacts of the plan and that there is a true need for action, but I would not be the judge to introduce an extremely loose and unstructured argument to. I understand and buy into threat construction and realism claims, but in the end, I much prefer a well executed CP and politics debate to a poorly executed critical strategy. You will need to a have link specific to the plan. Links based off of the SQ will not be enough for me.

Framework - I default to the framework that the aff can weight the impacts of their plan versus the impacts of the neg.

Impacts – I believe that impact analysis is at the heart of a judging decision. You are an advocate for your arguments and as such you should provide insight and analysis as to why your specific impacts are the greatest in the round, how they should be evaluated by the judge and how they change the evaluation of the impacts to the other team’s case. Without this assessment I feel like you leave too much wiggle room for the judge to pick their personal preference of impact.

T - normally I like T. I default to competing interpretations. I think CX checks for ASPEC. I dont buy RVI's. I like for there to be a robust discussion of specific ground loss and the impact that it would have on debate as a whole.

Speaker points- Speed can be an advantage in the round and should be encouraged, but always with the intent of being clear first. My ability to clearly understand your arguments is crucial to getting them evaluated at the end of the round. The ability to provide analytics and analysis in the round will get you much further with me. As far as CX is concerned, I simply ask that the person who is supposed to be asking/answering the questions, gets the first shot at speaking. If they ask for help that’s perfectly fine, but don’t overwhelm your partner’s ability to conduct their own cx. Baseline speaks for me is 28.5 and you move up or down from there. I hardly ever give above a 29.5

Info about me: I was a high school competitor and have done LD for about 2 years. I know the rules and I will not tolerate any harassment or abuse during a round. This is mainly for personal attacks, and if this happens, it will be an automatic loss and taken to the tab room. Keep the debate civilized.

For speed, I do not mind if you are talking fast, be careful do to the tournaments being online. I do not allow spreading in my rounds. If you are speaking to fast for me, I will signal you to slow down

I do flow my rounds, so if I am looking down, I am still paying attention. I also listen to cross and that may be included with my judgment, however please don't only use the cross for clarification, makes the debate lose speed and clash.

For arguments, I am looking for a logical debate from both sides, I do not want a debate over definitions, or only framework, debate the cases as a whole. Evidence is encouraged for attacking and blocking, however do not rely on it entirely, too much information is just as bad as too little. If you are going to use hypothetical, please don't give the most extreme because that is unrealistic and brings down the debate.

Experience:

I am somewhat new to judging debate. I performed in speech in high school and I am a performer so rhetoric and persuasive appeal does play a big role with me, please show me that you are confident about your case, even if you’re not. That being said, I do want to take the role seriously and I have done what I could to prepare for it in recognition of your hard work in preparation for debate. Of course I don’t need to tell you that good sportsmanship and professionalism are of the utmost importance.

Expectations:

1. Please do not spread. This just loses my attention in your debate and I will just vote for the person from whom I caught the most thoughts/ideas. Help walk me through your arguments and make sure I hear them: evidence and rebuttals. It would be helpful if you sent me your case: saylorw@gosaints.org

2. Avoid progressive arguments unless you are 100% comfortable and prepared to defend them.

3. During rebuttal/final focus be specific with why you think you won and your opponent lost. This really stands out to me.

I am a debate coach so I am familiar with the topic and the jargon used. I flow the entire round. I do not mind spreading as long as you slow down on the tags and sources. I do keep up with your time, however, you should also keep up with the time of your speeches and prep. I don't mind open CX as long as the person who is suppose to be answering is giving the bulk of the responses.

I've been judging debate events for 3 years now and have enjoyed the variety in events and topics. I believe in any and all debate styles, provided you are clear, your arguments link directly to the resolution, and you do not abuse or demean your opponent. I have a zero tolerance policy for disrespect to include any form or racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc.

Public Forum

Feel free run whatever you want. I lean toward reason and logic. I enter the round as a blank slate and will evaluate the round based on definitions and topics as discussed. Make sure your arguments include impacts - the more specific and tangible, the better. When providing numbers and statistics, make sure you have evidence to support your arguments.

My first 20 years of coaching were devoted almost exclusively to policy debate. My second 20 years were spent on every other forensic event. I am a fan of both speech and debate with PF as my personal favorite. Coming from a policy background has helped to mold my judging preferences:

What I like:

Clash - arguments only

Respectful crossfires

Evidence that actually supports the argument it is supposed to

IMPACTS - if you don’t have impacts, you won’t win; if you don’t link your impacts, you won’t win

I actually care about topicality and talking about the actual resolution

Real world issues plus a comparison of pro world vs con world

What I don’t like:

Ks

Plans

Rudeness

Unintelligible grand crossfires because everyone is talking over each other

Squirrelly arguments

HOLLERING

I don’t mind some speed, but policy garble won’t fly.

I look forward to direct clash in a respectful environment with well vetted ev supporting real world issues.

I started judging when my daughter was in the Forensics/Debate program in Bentonville. This is my 6th year to judge.

I'll take lots of notes and like clear, concise, and logical arguments.

Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples and evidence.

When presenting evidence include citations after introduction of article.

The focus should be winning the debate, not attacking a persons style or any method flaws.  Winning on technicalities isn't winning a debate. 

Respect towards your opponent is paramount. Graceful winners are as important as graceful losers.

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

I am currently an assistant coach at Lansing. Previously, I was the head coach and director of debate and forensics at Truman High School in Missouri. I was a policy debater in high school. I have taught at debate and speech camps and I frequently judge policy debate, LD, PF, and speech.

EMAIL CHAIN: jeriwillard@gmail

Things I like for you to do: send an email effectively and efficiently, speak clearly, and respond to arguments. Communicate TO THE judge.

GIVE THE ORDER AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SPEECH.

I flow on paper. Be clear when you are switching args.

The aff should be topical. The aff needs an offensive justification for their vision of the topic. I find the arguments for why the aff should be topical to be better than the arguments against it. (Read: I rarely vote on T. Running T? Go all in.) If you are reading an aff that is not topical, you are much more likely to win my ballot on arguments about why your model of debate is good than you are on random impact turns to T.

Evidence matters. I read evidence and it factors into my decision.

Clarity matters. If you have dramatic tone changes between tag and card, where you can barely be heard when reading the text of evidence, you will get lower points from me and you should stop doing that. If I can't understand the argument, it doesn't count. There is no difference between being incoherent and clipping.

The link matters. I typically care a great deal about the link. When in competition, you should spend more time answering the link than reading impact defense.

I am fine with K debate on either side of the the resolution, although I prefer the K debate to be rooted in the substance of the resolution.; however, I will listen to why non-topical versions of the aff are justified. Methodology should inform FW and give substance to FW args beyond excluding only other positions. Links should clearly identify how the other team's mindset/position/advocacy perpetuates the squo. An alternative that could solve the issues identified in the K should be included with solvency that identifies and explains pragmatic change. K debaters must demonstrate their understanding and purpose of their K lit. Moreover, if you would like for me to vote for the K, it should be the main argument in the round.