Hello! I have four years of high school competitive experience in both speech and debate events. Regardless of event, I encourage competitors to provide content warnings at the beginning of their speeches if applicable, and this goes doubly for speech events such as DI and Oratory.

CON

I place the greatest emphasis on how well your points are evidenced. My feedback and ranking are focused on the strength of your warrants. Past the first cycle of debate, you should be referencing previous speakers. Don't introduce new debates regarding the legislation later in round; there won't be sufficient clash on it. Maintain presence in round with solid questioning. High speaker points are awarded based on how well your argument is structured. Limit rhetoric and pathos. Keep your impacts realistic. Do not abuse the grace period and @ POs: do not be afraid to verbally stop a competitor if they go over the grace period.

Congress
I competed primarily in this event on the state and national circuits. I look for
1. content and interactions within the arguments that are made in the round
This means having robust argumentation and relevant refutation. Pinpoint the biggest arguments of the round and interact with them somehow. I pretty much expect the round to go author -> constructives -> decent refutation -> crystals.
2. rhetoric that is appropriate for the theme of the speech/argument and is meaningful
3. delivery (fluency, appropriate tone and variation).
Traditional CX is not that important to me, just answer the question. Direct CX is more meaningful, and how well you do here does indicate to me how confident you are in your own arguments, so don't take this too lightly.
The PO does NOT start with the 1 and get dropped per mistake, but they're very likely to place in my top 8 (where in the T8 depends on how well you do versus the quality of debate in the round). POs that frequently make mistakes will probably not place in my top 8.

Extemp
This was sort of my secondary event. I'm looking for a thesis/umbrella that does actually respond to the question, and each of your points to fit under the umbrella and have a direct response to the question as well. Speakers that can provide specific context for their arguments will place well. In general I look for content > delivery, however delivery is still important; having transitions and effective AGDs/conclusions (along with basic delivery things like fluency) will probably help your rank in the round.

Debate
I pretty much never did PF/LD/CX so more nuanced argumentative techniques are lost on me. Please don't read theory or Ks or whatever, I don't really know how to evaluate them so I will probably end up voting you down lol. Overall, treating me like a relatively experienced lay judge is your best bet, big thing for me is just signpost really well so I can clearly see where you're at/ what you're responding to. I'll likely give 30 speaker points unless I really felt that I couldn't understand you.

Other IEs
Never did them, so I'm just looking for a good performance.

Hello! First off, I'd like to wish all of you the best of luck. No matter how I end up ranking you in this round, I admire all of you for the passion and commitment that you put into the performances I get to judge. Here's what to expect from me:

I. Congress

Speakers - I care primarily about the impact of the arguments that you make. In an ideal world, a legislator's primary goal is to fight for their constituents' interests. In this case, your constituents are all Americans, so tell me why this legislation is important to pass or fail depending on what impact it will have on Americans. Unique arguments are always preferred (rehash is boring and a waste of everyone's time), but it should not be so narrow in its scope that I have no reason to care about it.

I appreciate clash in its ability to fact-check and help us understand the true impact of legislation, so I highly recommend it. You are not required to, however, especially if you feel that making your argument is more important to convincing the chamber to pass/fail this legislation. Americans ultimately care more about how item #14 is going to affect their lives than whether this bill should have been a constitutional amendment instead.

Regarding speaking skills, just ensure that I'm able to understand you and that you act professionally in your demeanor. Whatever is the most comfortable way for you to persuade me that this bill is important to pass or fail is best with me. If you'd like to speak in a non-English language, that's fine! Just let me know ahead of time so I can find a way to translate it into a language I know. I'll respect whatever makes you most comfortable in your job of representing the American people's best interest, so long as you fulfill the responsibilities of that job.

PO - I measure your performance in two ways: control of the chamber and efficiency. You should be able to keep the chamber running smoothly and under control. In the context of moderating Presidential debates, be like Kristen Welker, not like Chris Wallace (this is not a political statement by any means, I'm big fans of both). I will also care about how efficient you are. If you add just a second of time for every minute in the round, you'll be able to fit in one more speech. DO NOT engage in any corruption of the sort - if I get the feeling that precedence and recency were predetermined in any way ahead of time, you and every speaker who has participated in it will automatically be unranked.

Presiding is not a guarantee of any specific rank in the round. I can and will give POs the 1 if you do awesome, and you can and will get the 16 if you run the chamber like a frat house.

II. Extemp

To do well, you should persuade me why your answer to the question is correct. This involves both content and speaking skills, since persuasion is ultimately a function of both.

Regarding speech structure, you are free to choose whatever you think works best for you. If you think that a significant statement is pointless, don't bother. If you want to use four or two points to back up your answer instead of three, go for it. Just do whatever works for you and whatever helps you answer the question to the best of your ability.

Please don't lie about your sources. If you don't remember where you found your information, it's not necessary to cite things. For example, if you learned what you talked about in an article you read four months ago but don't remember what it was from, I don't expect you to have a source for it. All of you had to get your knowledge from somewhere. I won't be checking your sources unless it's obviously wrong (e.g. citing a very liberal statement from the National Review), though.

Jokes and puns work great if they make me laugh (but I'm sure those of you considering to include this in a speech already know that!). I'm not here to judge political leanings -- great perspectives can come from anywhere.

For time signals, I'm open to however you'd like them. If you want me to manually give them with hand signals, that's fine. If you want me to add another computer showing the time as you speak, that's fine too. Just let me know what you prefer and I'll do my best to accommodate you. I'm fine if you use the grace period, and am generally not all that concerned about speech timing. Sometimes there are rules prohibiting me from giving you the 1 (or automatic disqualification) if you go past 7:30, though, so please stay within the grace period if you can.

Fluency breaks are evaluated holistically - like most people, I'm not going to care if you have a few, but I will care if there is one like every fifteen seconds or something. Make sure your gestures improve your performance - you don't have to gesture because someone told you to.

REGARDING BOTH:

If you need me to explain anything from my paradigm before the round begins or how I plan to evaluate your performance, go for it! I think it's super important to know the way your judge will evaluate you so you can do your best. Also, if you disagree with my paradigm and believe I have some standards that create bad incentives for you, let me know and I'd be willing to change it. I encourage contrarianism so long as it improves the quality of your performance - don't overdo it though!

I love seeing the results of hardwork and the love of speech.

Prose: Coming from a background in UIL and standard prose & poetry- the point of this event for is not so much action/flashy based, but all choices of the performance should be made from the text and not just so it it gimmicky. I appreciate the time and commitment that it takes to do certain binder techniques- and I'm not against it, however that shouldn't be the driving factor in your performance. Let the author's words breath what they wanted to say.

Duo: Duo was always my favorite event to compete and judge in; performing the choreography, sound effects, and lines perfectly in sync with another person without looking or touching them was always an incredible. I'm looking for polished, passionate, and hard-working teams. The genre of the selection doesn't matter, if the performance is capturing comedically or dramatically, the effect is still the same and the audience and judge should want another 10 minutes of the performance.

Duet: I don't think that duet's should go along with the moniker of being super 'clean' like duos - meaning poppy techniques, duets should be raw performances between two people, you can touch and look at each other, use it!!! Doesn't matter if the performance is funny or sad, it should still be entertaining and unique!

HI: I did HI for 4 years and loved every minute of it.

HI is the hardest event to go in front of everyone and perform- you can fake sad, but you can't fake funny. I'm looking for clean/innovative technique, non-recycled jokes and characters, and biting/clever humor. You don't have to have 30 characters if they aren't all polished, it'd be better to have 4-5 really solid ones instead. Make the story clear! There should be a point to HI's, and not just joke after joke. My favorite HI's are the one's that trick you into either feeling something, thinking, or laughing hard. The effort goes a long way.

DI: This was the most important event I ever competed and judged. Competing at Nationals in it really made me think about what a good DI is. The best DI's do not have to be full of sobbing, yelling, or crazy technique. The ones that make it all the way have a sense of humanity to them. Even when you're playing someone else- there is a person behind that performance and it should be embraced. DON'T TRY AND PERFORM LIKE SOMEONE ELSE, overacting killed so many beautiful pieces. Be honest, be passionate, and have a message.

Every single DI should have a message. What's yours?

My judging philosophy is very short. Its your debate, not mine. Stay organized and tell me where and why to vote (signpost plz). Speak clearly. Speed is not an issue for me, but do not sacrifice clarity. Write my ballot for me.

PF/LD Paradigms

I’m first and foremost an interp coach. Treat me like a lay judge who happens to know the rules (and yes- I know the rules). No spreading, clash is fine. If you really want to pick up my ballot, be sure to focus on cross-examination. I find that a strong, quality CX can illustrate your ability to communicate, prove your points, illustrate your knowledge and understanding of the debate and show your best engaged debate skills. Anyone can read a prepared card. Show me you know what to do with it.

On an aside, I do like debaters to keep it professional. I like it when people stand for cross-examination and are polite and supportive to their opponents before and after the round. I like it when I feel the teams are focused and paying attention not only to their opponents' speeches but also to their team member's speeches.

Congress Paradigms

I look for competitors who are prepared to speak on any topic - especially if they have prepared to speak on both sides of the topic. I look for quality speeches that add value to the debate; if we're four cycles in and you aren't bringing new information, crystallizing information we've heard, or providing a new rebuttal then it's easy for your speech to get lost amongst the masses. Activity in the chamber is good - I'm looking for you to be engaged in listening to other speeches, asking valuable questions, and working together to run a fair and efficient chamber.

Interp Paradigms

I was a high school competitor all four years - competing in all Interp events (DI, HI, OO, prose, poetry, Duo, Duet) and Congressional Debate. I competed on the Texas and National Circuits. Here's the big thing to know - you should never change your style, material, or story to try to get my 1. I will always respect the stories you choose to tell, the performance you're developing, and your courage to be you and share messages important to you. Just be you. My ballots may sound tough, but it comes out of a desire to help you improve. I've provided insight into what I'm looking for but none of it should force you to change your content.

For Interp Events, I'm looking for honest storytelling (talk to me like a person) and tech that helps enhance your story and not detract from it. I'm looking for clear, well-developed characters. I'm looking for an excellent intro that provides meaning and importance for your piece. I'm looking for excellent execution of pacing and incorporation of levels. Draw me into your story and leave me with something to take away. In addition, for all binder events, I'm a stickler for binder etiquette.

For Public Speaking Events (OO and INFO), I'm looking for topics that you are personally invested in. I'm looking for an engaging AGD, a clear vehicle, and well-defined points supported by a balance of ethos, pathos, and logos. Share your heart story and be honest with it. Most importantly, these are two events where you can really be yourself. Be your best self, sure. But don't feel like you have to put on a whole song and dance to get my one. I'm looking for an inspirational, conversational tone. INFO - I'm looking for creative visuals that are well-executed and add value to your speech without being a distraction.

For Extemp, I'm looking for a clear understanding of the question and a definitive answer with supporting analysis (cite those sources guys). Two points or three points are fine, depending on the question and your approach to answering the question. I just want your speech to have a clear sense of structure and organization. I'm also looking for strong presentation skills. Have vocal variety, adopt a conversational tone, know how to present in a way that is approachable for all audience types and not just those well-versed in current events and extemp. Don't be afraid to crack a joke, but don't rely purely on humor. Fluency breaks, circular speech (rehashing points and repeating yourself), and poor time management could affect your rank in round.

General note for everyone - I have a really bad thinking face and I'm going to look confused and upset. I'm not - don't take it personally! It's just my face and I don't really have a whole lot of control over that. Plenty of times I've had my own students tell me they were sure I hated what they were doing and then I was very complimentary of their work. So I promise you my face has nothing against you! It's just a grumpy face.

When it comes to interpretation events, I am drawn to performances that marry the synergy between literature, fully crafted performances, and effective blocking. I'll be looking for a well-crafted and engaging message that not only captivates the audience but also demonstrates a deep appreciation for the literary nuances in your chosen material. Ensure your content is not just spoken but embodied, utilizing effective blocking to enhance the visual dimension of your performance. Your delivery remains pivotal, so articulate your words with confidence, using your voice, body language, and strategic blocking to create a cohesive and immersive presentation. Pay attention to pacing and timing for a seamless and dynamic flow. Tell me a story, take me on a journey, and make me feel something!

In general, my Paradigm includes strong arguments that shows inherency to why you made that claim. You must have well-constructed and organized speeches, with strong evidence to back up any claims that you make. You must also be able to present your argument well with a strong speech. I look for debaters who are able to properly convey their argument while being articulate. You should be able to convince me that the claim that you make regarding the bill is solvent and overall show why that side is the side to support.

I'm a volunteer and I've read over some information about this topic and watched a demo video, but I'm new to judging.

LD: To me, LD is still, at least somewhat, a Value debate. It isn't Policy debate for a reason. Yes, I understand that it has gotten more progressive, but understand judge adaptation too. However, you can still run a somewhat progressive case while respecting a Value Debate premise. That's the sweet spot. Weigh the impacts of both sides of the resolution. Give evidence (empirical, theoretical, philosophical), and give voters. Convince me which world I would rather live in - the affirmative or negative. In other words - if you don't tell me why, I'm not likely to vote. Spreading evidence only gets you half way.

CX: See most of LD, except remove the Value Debate part. Weigh impacts of both sides. Direct CLASH! I will not vote solely on T unless it is completely unanswered by the aff. Give empirical evidence - not a card that is just someone's onion that you are trying to pass off as evidence. Negative, clash with the aff's case, but bring some offense too.

CX and LD - be kind, professional and understandable.

i'm basically like a flay judge, tell me what to vote for and why.

Please treat me like a lay judge. Go slow and keep it simple. :)

Don't get super technical because i don't believe that's the way pf should have to be

3 min summaries mean please collapse and weigh

i dont like it when teams waste 20 extra mins in round not even looking at cards but pulling them up, so if u have to spend more than two mins trying to find called cards itll start eating into your prep - have your cards prepared

IN CONGRESS:
I expect to see plenty of clash. The event is called congressional DEBATE! Utilize questioning period effectively, and ask targeted questions. Analysis is the #1 priority

Speech: Long history judging/coaching all events after competing in policy debate for both high school and college.

Extemporaneous speaking: 1. Avoid the generic attention getters and jump into content as quickly as possible. 2. Cite lots of sources (accurately and fluidly--I'd aim for about 10); 3. Delivery/style: word economy is crucial in this event...rate is conversational, but 7:00 is not a lot of time to answer a complex question; 4. I will keep close time and look closely at the extent to which the speech is balanced. 5. All this said, I appreciate a good joke and an effort to breath personality into the speech--be bold and don't be afraid to take chances.

Platform speech events (oratory, informative, etc.): 1. A lot of my thoughts on extemporaneous speaking are applicable, recognizing this is a different genre of speech--it's geared to reach a broader audience. Thus, I might temper my comments on word economy a little--probably makes sense to take your time a little more and utilize a pace that provides more time to let points sink in, etc. Still, I value a quantity of information over cheesy jokes, etc. 2. I really, really appreciate a speaker who digs deep and finds a unique topic that is meaningful to her. So often, especially in out rounds, speakers are very equal in a lot of ways (organization, delivery, etc.), and it's the topic that helps provide a degree of separation--generic topics are fairly easy to spot. This is your chance--you can pick any topic to talk about; make it worth your while--this will make it worth my while.

Oral Interpretation: I'm not the best oral interpretation coach in the world--just never did it myself or anything like it. But, I'm not the worst either and have seen/judged a lot of INCREDIBLE rounds at the highest levels of competition. The great oral interpers make me forget that I'm judging for a few minutes. I definitely recognize great interp when I see it and am more impressed by performers who move me through pace and facial expressions than I am through volume--though the great interpers will use all the vocal qualities and have a knack for what is needed in each exact moment. The material is key--I love seeing unique themes and performers choosing material that they personally identify with. The introduction is incredibly important--here you have the opportunity to take any topic and make it your own--a source or 2 in the intro can often be effective at contextualizing your message. Take risks. Have fun. Speak your truth.

Policy Debate:

Philosophy/Overview:

I began policy debate decades ago as a policymaker (1990's when a good counterplan/disadvantage strategy ruled the day). Critical arguments are fine but don't assume that's a beginning point for me--be sure and frame the debate by discussing its pre-fiat implications. As far as performative based arguments and other more progressive styles of debate, I'm not against them...just don't have a lot of experience with them--definitely not my starting point--be sure and invest time helping me get there. Generally speaking, I feel the Affirmative should Affirm the resolution and any arguments ought to have a pretty specific link/buy-in to it. While I don't consider my understanding of debate to be inflexible or permanent, a few very gifted and persuasive college NPDA/NPTE teams have tried to convince me that the topic doesn't matter and haven't been successful.

Delivery:

Once upon a time, I erroneously gave myself credit as being a speedster from both a delivery and flowing perspective. I've gotten older (OLD) and am not in that kind of shape any more. I haven't coached or judged national circuit style of debate in a LONG time. I value efficient, quick delivery with lots of arguments--but; word economy is more impressive to me than the rate of speaking. If you must talk as quickly as possible, I'll do my best to keep up but don't be surprised if I miss stuff and/or don't have enough time to process it in a way that does you a lot of good. Definitely go slow on tag lines, game-winning arguments, transitions between arguments, and anything that you'd like to have show up on the RFD. If you enjoy "rapid fire," I get it--it's fun and I want you to have fun--and I don't question the pedagogical value in any way; but if you want me to get most of everything on my flow, I recommend slowing it down to at least 75% of your norm.

e-mail: timothy.doty@lubbockisd.org

As a PF judge, I am looking for sound arguments that are unique and well supported by your research. Your arguments should be able to be understood by a general lay audience, not just a judge with debate experience. You may provide off-time road maps, provided they are less than ~10 seconds. Please, no spreading.

Debate:

No two rounds are the same, so depending on the round, I can vote on framework, clash, structure, analytics, or impacts because those are all crucial to a good debate. Persuade me why I should care and vote for you.

Ensure every argument is sound, but I could easily go for outlandish arguments as long as they’re done right.

I’m good with speed, and progressive arguments are fine, don’t go overboard to where you do so much that you can't keep up with your arguments and structure.

I have a background in both traditional and progressive LD and PF. If I am in a CX round, then something has gone terribly wrong.

If you are rude, condescending, abusive, etc., in the round, you WILL be called out and possibly ranked down because of it. This is supposed to be a healthy, educational environment, and I don't condone people acting like they are better than any other competitor just because of how many rounds they have won.

Congress:

I should put this in all caps, but if you behave unprofessionally in the chamber, I will completely dock you. Nothing is worse than complete disrespect for the round, competitors, and judges.

Also, I don't automatically vote you up just for being PO. Don't run for PO if you don't have your Parli procedures down; I know them.

Content is key to winning in congress and being active in the chamber. Ask questions that make you stand out for the RIGHT reasons, not because you made someone laugh.

IEs:

I have multiple state titles and have competed in numerous national out rounds on the high school and college circuit, so I don't just go by "who has the best story." Characterization and development are important, as well as clean delivery. No topics are off-limits, and follow the parameters of the event.

If you have any questions, please feel free to email me at ashlyntrokey@gmail.com.

CX Debate

I consider myself to be a Tab judge, but I also have more of a traditional background. I'm comfortable evaluating the style of argumentation presented in the round. However, I don't have as much experience evaluating policy debate rounds this year as I typically would because of the online format. That means I'm not as familiar with the literature, so be mindful of that. I recommend that you explain to me how there's a path to vote for you in the rebuttals. Tell me how you think arguments should be weighed in the round.

Speech

In interp, I look for a clear storyline and development of characters. I expect to see a teaser and an intro that justifies the selection/tells me why the performance matters.

In platform and limited prep, I listen for effective speech construction, meaningful content, and smooth yet conversational delivery. I like the use of humor and other elements to add personality to the speech.

Hi, I am a fairly new to judging debate. Please don't spread, and if you can try not to use too much jargon and feel free to explain some definitions when appropriate.

Try to crystallize in your last speeches, and make it easy for me to decide the outcome.

Please add me to the email chain. Here is my email: prateekf@yahoo.com

I do congress mostly, but a bit of PF. Mostly truth over tech. Pretty lay but you can be slightly technical as long as you just don't throw jargon at me.

I judge LD, PFD, Congress, I.E.'s. Coached for 14 years and participated in more of the interp stuff when I was in high school, but that was a long time ago so don't hold it against me.

I am big picture for LD/PFD. I try to keep a tidy flow. I like solvency but don't necessarily need to vote on it if the resolution doesn't call for offense. I will vote on progressive or theory if steps are clearly defined throughout. I dislike spreading as it's not necessary. I frown upon evaluating specific cards as RFD because I don't know the authors' mindsets most of the time. I'm cool with Disads and CPs in PFD at TFA tournaments but avoid them for NSDA. In PFD, you should prefer using weighing mechanisms for your actual case instead of frontlining responses to your opponent. Students who use "kick the case and focus on responses" in PFD should probably just switch to LD or CX if they want to debate long-term. For speaker points, I typically start everyone out at the max and deduct from there, but because of their arbitrary nature, I don't have huge variances or decimals.

Congress: know your parliamentary procedure and role in the chamber. At TFA tournaments, I typically give 3's for decent attempts at a speech with some sources and some reading. 6's are very rare for me. I know that's tougher than other judges, but it doesn't affect ranks. Another thing to consider for Congress is your role of politicking. I think Congress should be treated as a competition in which the participants are able to speak on either side of legislation without regard to what other competitors are able to/going to do. That means you can "steal" a speech from someone who was waiting for their turn as part of the round, and I won't rank you down if you do a good job. Direct questioning should be concise and meaningful, not just an attempt to throw your own 2 cents in. Presiding officers don't auto-break from prelims; you need to be outstanding and any flubs or parliamentary procedure errors will result in lower hourly scores.

World Schools: I'm new to it but I tend to treat it sort of like my speaker points for PFD and LD. I start everyone out high and then work my way down. I'm less attentive about POI's because I'm usually listening/writing, so I don't mind if you're trying more than 10 times to request them.

Public Speaking: Conversational delivery necessary. I'm more of an "appeal to logos" guy than "appeal to pathos" in Extemp, so save the emotional pleas for things like Oratory instead. I will rank down if you're trying to push the grace period as part of the speech in general. I don't mind canned intros in Extemp, but at least connect to the prompt. Oratory should follow a clear format like "problem, effects, solutions" and not be a personal venting session. Informative speeches MUST have visual aids; considering it's the only real event that showcases one's ability to inform in this manner, I think you should prioritize all types of measures to inform the audience.

Interp: Teasers and/or cold opens are necessary and the prepared intro should follow a format that gets the audience to understand WHY you chose the piece. Characterizations must be consistent. Be cautious and selective about how you employ accents around me (i.e. not everyone is southern or from Long Island). I frustrate during thematic pieces like poetry or POI if I can't tell which selection you're on. Build upon the theme in the prepared intro and fully list the authors and selections instead of just saying "a program."

Traditional.

Please do not spread.

Whoever persuades me overall on their position will get my vote.

Hi! I'm a sophomore at Harvard who primarily competed in extemp throughout high school. I also competed a bit in congress and oratory.

Extemp: I would consider myself primarily a content judge, so pay attention to everything the question asks and make sure to have a super clear substructure throughout your speech so it's easier for me to flow. I will notice if you are straying away from the question's intent or not doing justice to the nuance of a situation. Because I care a lot about rigorous arguments and substructure, I'm honestly okay if you go into grace (even 7:30. Just don't go over that). Though I pay attention to content, confidence, fluency, interesting delivery, and funny jokes certainly don't hurt! Please be memorable.

Congress: Grab my attention and be confident–it's a long round and it's easy for me to forget what's happened. That said, don't do anything unreasonable, and keep everything concise and within reason. Please be good human beings. Have a clear structure and make sure it's immediately apparent how your argument directly applies to the legislation (I likely won't have read over the legislation super closely, explain it to me). Don't rehash, please refute but make sure your refutations are substantial and interesting. Canned rhetoric is a no-go, it adds nothing to your speech and only wastes valuable time you could be using to develop your argument. I value substantive, nuanced, well-researched arguments and meaningful clash over theatrics/poorly-linked jokes. However, if your joke or rhetoric is well-linked, customized, and interesting, it will get bonus points. POs have to be exceptional to be ranked well in the round, and I will down you if there are significant issues or inefficiencies.

Also, please don't worry too much about congressional procedures or minute details about motions and orders.

PF: Consider me a lay judge. Absolutely no theory, K, etc. Be respectful and talk at a manageable pace.

For all events: racism/sexism/homophobia/any form of discrimination is an instant down.

Good luck!

Hey! I’m a first year out of speech and debate, and I competed in Extemp and Congress for all four years of high school.

For speaking events, I’m looking for a clear, logical, and interesting speech. In Extemp, make sure you ANSWER THE QUESTION! Be conversational; talk to me, not at me. For interp events, I want to be able to follow along easily, be entertained, and be interested.

For debate, be clear, don't speak too fast, and SIGNPOST! Extend your arguments/evidence throughout the round, and please state and weigh your voters at the end of the round.

Good luck everyone!

Speed: I can handle it, but I would prefer not to see it. I think that skills students learn in debate should be transferable to other activities outside of debate.

Arguments: I have experience both participating in and judging PF and LD. If framework is introduced to the round, I prefer to see arguments link to the framework. I also tend to vote for competitors who weigh impacts. In LD, I tend to prefer traditional LD arguments, but I am able to flow other arguments and will vote off what is said in the round.

Email for email chains: vhuggler@trinity.edu

I normally do not disclose at the end of the rounds. This goes for paneled rounds and elimination rounds as well. I also try to let the contestants time themselves, but if a team absolutely wants me to time as well, then I can.

I've judge the TFA circuit for about 6 years now, and judge just about any event there is. Although I only participated in LD and Extemp in high school, I have a grasp of just about every event there is and talk to other judges on the circuit to gain insight on resolutions and paradigms.

I am OK with speed, but not at the expense of clarity, so I'd like it if you could slow down for main contentions, taglines, your values, criterion, voters, etc.. I will also say that it is important to highlight your voters at the end of a round, and to give no more than 3. Honestly, 2 voters is a fine number as well. 1 voter would probably be too little, and 4+ would be too many.

Please do NOT just flat-out spread the entire round. If you must spread, then please do so during a card. I have never had to yell out "CLEAR," and hope I never have to.

I would suggest using all of your prep time and to not yield any unused time unless absolutely necessary.

I really shouldn't have to say this, but based off of what I have seen in the past, I feel the need to remind you that you need to respect your opponents and should not sass them. Please do not be rude or condescending towards them. I have voted people/teams down just because they were super rude, and that's despite them winning on my flow. Also, please do not be rude or unprofessional towards your teammates or me.

I love unique arguments and cases, but don't push too hard just for the sake of being unique. However, ways to be unique include giving me observations, telling me who has the burden and for what, and using clever definitions, standards, and tests. A lot of great work can be done with your framework so do not neglect it.

I also love it when you tell me what the turns are. A lot of arguments do turn on themselves, so if you point that out to me, I'll give you a lot of credence and that will work to your advantage on the ballot.

I do look at how well you work with your partner too (for PD and Policy), so teamwork and chemistry are a part of the ballot for me. Also, I do look at pathos, ethos, and logos. Pathos does not mean you should just yell the entire time. Please do not do that. As for ethos and logos, I will say that I went to law school, so I know a good source when I hear one, and I know how arguments tend to be flawed and I know how they can become more logical. With that said, logic is different from intuition. Keep that in mind. Logical arguments are great, but intuitive arguments can be strong as well.

For policy debate, I'm a cross between stock issues and policy maker. I love a good K and I really enjoy it when you can set yourself up during Cross-Examination and such. I don't like it when people start talking about space, and I think that extinction is overplayed. I have also voted purely off of T before.

I try not to overthink it. I always ask myself "who do I think should go to the next round?" At the end of the day, I do not want to think I let someone down by not voting for them, so I try to find peace and resolution with my final decisions.

A lot of times, confidence goes a long way, so even if you are unsure of yourself, portraying a sense of confidence really helps on my flow. The way I see it, you all are still young, so you have time to acquire knowledge, so what you need above all else right now is confidence. But there is a fine line between confidence and arrogance. Please don't be arrogant or cocky either.

On the whole though, I would describe myself as a pretty laid back person and judge. I am a bit quirky though, so my apologies in advance if I type something out in the chat and it throws you off.

Honestly, I'm almost never swayed by abuse arguments. That doesn't mean you shouldn't present them, but if you are, then make sure they are legitimate. I've seen too many compulsory abuse arguments. Look at the other side's intent. Can you prove it? Was it just an accident? Is your abuse argument about a fundamental issue, or is it just merely procedural?

I'll generally allow anything, but I am a bit old school and think that LD should still be Value-Criterion centric, CX should be policy, and Public Forum should be more communal, values based, and domestic. PF shouldn't just be another way for policy debaters to compete, but I also see PF as more than just LD with teams. I think PF is kind of a blend of the two where evidence and cards can be read, with some actual policies pointed out as well. But please don't turn PF into mini-CX.

Drops happen, so don't fret over accidentally dropping something, and if the drop was major, then please extend it and give me impacts and its significance. Please don't just extend without any kind of elaboration on the matter. Just telling me to extend doesn't really help me out, but an elaboration, justification, explanation, etc. will go a long way.

Crystallization is super important. Please tell me what the 2-3 main areas of clash are in the debate and why you should win on those grounds. These are essentially what your voters should be, but they should also help guide you with your rebuttals and the other speeches you have before the round ends.

Please don't forget to make extensions. Drops happen, but at least extend your own arguments. At times I've voted down a team that had a winning argument mainly because they failed to recognize it as a winning argument, and therefore didn't extend it properly.

Don't overlook the power of sportsmanship and following ethical guidelines.

Please type in the chat box how much prep time you have left and/or how much you have used. That would be very helpful.

I've viewed all of NSDA's Judge Training videos on YouTube and would HIGHLY recommend that all competitors view them as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yq8gnbXDO10&list=PLbRmCbS7bdKJn2GAhHcWe6xIRj2NWPpgk&index=1

Sometimes it helps to look at the videos for IEs and such too. Speaking style is a mode of persuasion, after all, and IEs can show deep reflection. Such deep reflection can be important in a debate round, but is likely more important when conducting your research and creating your cases and such.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLbRmCbS7bdKJLJUgov9kj8kGG1A75q5Nl&v=TEWolJf0F2g&feature=emb_title

If you have any other specific questions, then feel free to ask me before the round.

Please include me on any email chains. My email address is kevin.kalra5@gmail.com

Hey guys,

LD

I’m a parent judge, but I have some familiarity with more progressive argumentation. I’m going to do everything I can to make it a productive round for you, but please make sure you do everything you can to make sure that I’m able to do that.If you get put in front of me for a round, please make sure you do the following:

-Send a speech doc WITH basic analytics. I don’t need your speech word for word, but make sure it’s organized, in the right order, and make sure I can follow along.

-Send me a speech doc of the 1ac before the round. I will flow it and read it to understand.

-Don’t spread outside of contentions. If you go anything faster than conversational in the rebuttal, I will be unable to flow you. I will call clear if you’re unclear.

-I strongly recommend that you stick to utilitarian arguments, as those are the most logically true and easy for me to adjudicate. Make sure that you do a ton of impact calculus, as that’s what determines the round. Tell me why your side is more likely to cause extinction/is going to cause it faster, etc.

-If you HAVE to read another type of argument, do so at your own risk - it is entirely possible that I misunderstand an argument and can’t vote off of it. But here’s my thoughts:

-K - From my understanding, a kritik can function like a normal contention, but with different framework and impact. If you run something really bizarre and weird, I may not be able to understand it - something critiquing capitalism or racism might be easier to understand.

-Theory/Topicality - Don’t unnecessarily use this. I find it very difficult to judge this type of debate. If something actually happened, go ahead, but try your very best to avoid it as I don't know much about these arguments.

-Philosophy - I do not know how to judge this

-Tricks - I do not know how to judge this


EXTEMP

I don’t know if paradigms for Extemp is the norm, but I have one anyway in case you wanted to take a look.

I’m going to weigh both performance and substance quite highly. A well delivered speech full of awful analysis is just as bad as a badly delivered speech with good analytics. I will say that I have the most experience with Interp events, so I do enjoy a speech which is delivered in an upbeat, confident manner over a more monotonous dump of facts.

I’ll default to the following time signals
-down from 5 every minute
-C at 30,
-Count down from 10

Please give me at least 2-3 solid pieces of evidence per argument. Please don’t make blatantly false statements or give me a speech with fabricated data/analysis. A very well delivered speech talking about Barack Obama the Republican is not going to go over well!

As we’re online, I’m going to be very lenient to those with technology issues. If you drop out or cut out, I’ll do everything I can to make sure you get to give your speech in it’s entirety, at least as much as the tournament permits.

Please do not cheat! It is VERY obvious if you’re looking at your outline during your speech. I’ll give you a LOT of leeway, given that you’ll inevitably have to look at the timer, have your eyes stray from the camera, etc, but make sure that you just look somewhere near the computer for the entirety of your speech. Cheating on that helps nobody and certainly won’t help you grow.

Overall, just do your best, good luck, and most importantly - HAVE FUN!!

Hello! I'm a first year out of Speech and Debate. I primarily competed in Extemp and Congress in high school, pretty regularly on the national circuit. 

Extemp: The most important part of your speech is to answer the question. If you make strong arguments within your points, but none of them tie cohesively to the question, you are disregarding the most crucial content element of the speech. AGDs, no preferences, but making me laugh is always a bonus. Be conversational! I want to feel like you are talking to me, not at me. 

Congress: I prefer if the sponsorship to any legislation spends time explaining the bill, not just bringing up arguments related to it. Any speech past the first cycle of the bill should address previous speaker's arguments. Please try to not rehash past this point. 

Have fun and I'm excited to judge!

Hi there!

My name is Kai, I graduated from PSJA North HS in 2019, but now I am at THE University of Texas at Austin.

I am on the Texas Speech team and I am so excited to continue speech in College. In high school, I was the 2019 TFA State champion in DI, I made out rounds in DI and DUET at NIETOC in 2018 and 2019. I had also competed in UIL in Extemporaneous speaking, and Prose and Poetry with a state final in prose at the 2019 UIL State Meet. I was also a Poetry finalist at the NSDA 2019 National tournament in Dallas, and I also had an outround in DI and PRO as well.

In College however, I was the National Champion in Dramatic interpretation at the 2021 NSC Tournament, Made multiple outrounds at the AFA & NFA National tournaments in DI, POI, PRO, DUO and POE with an AFA final in Poetry in 2021, AFA Final in DUO in 2022, NFA Final in DUO and POI in 2022 and a 11th place finish in the NFA pentathlon in 2021. I enter my 4th year on the team and I'm so excited to share my knowledge and skill sets with you all.

For interpretation events, I obviously love a good dramatic story but lets not get to over dramatic with the script. BLOCKING IS IMPORTANT, you can accomplish so much with such little blocking. I believe in subtle blocking and its impact on the performance. I live by less is more, unless the scrip/program calls for that dramatic blocking then by all means RUN WITH IT!

But I am a sucker for those dramatic moments with just you and your audience, above all this performance should feel like a conversation with your audience; You shouldn't have to compromise the story for overdramatic blocking/acting unless the script calls for it!

I will forgive little stumbles because I know how tough the nerves can get (I see you, I understand) but lets try to be prepared!

In my opinion the introduction will make or break your overall argument! If you can create an argument that will:

1) Draw me in further into your performance,

2) Make me question your argument (or left wanting more)

&/or 3) brings in new insights/ideas/questions

then you have my vote!

sell me your story, and I will buy it!

Hello everyone! My name is KJ (he/him), I competed all 4 years of high school and now go to Texas State University.

I am primarily an IE person. I competed in every IE event including OO, Info, and Extemp. I as well competed in World Schools a bit too. I was a 4x state qualifier, state finalist, 5x state semi finalist, 2x NIETOC semifinalist, and a 3x NSDA qualifier. I was as well an All-State and All-American competitor with over 2200 NSDA points. What I am looking for is understanding of the piece. How well thought out it is and how much effort you have noticeably put into it goes a LONG way.

IE's

- Needs to be clean, concise, and have a deeper meaning as to why you're telling the story, interp is acting with a purpose

- Be proud of what you're performing! and have fun with it!

- Characterization is key, I want to see real peoples stories that I am actually able to connect to

- I want to know what's going on! Don't just throw us into the middle of everything, give us some exposition, who are you? Where are you? What is going on?

OO, Info, Extemp, WS

- Are you just telling me the facts? Or are you engaging with the information and the topic you've chosen and presenting it in an effective way?

- Charisma is KEY, you wrote this speech, be proud of it!

- How well thought out is your argument or topic?

- Are you speaking fluidly and confidently or are you using filler words and swaying nervously?

- Make sure that you're applying the facts that you give to the grand scheme of things, what are the implications?

Like I said earlier, I was always more of an interp person. However, I do know all of the rules and the ins and outs of debate! I may not be as adept as I am with speech but I know my way around. Essentially just treat me as a lay judge who knows a lot about the subject.

Debate

• Well thought out arguments will go a long way, the more you put into a speech the more you will get out of it, and trust me when I say that we as judges notice how much effort you put into it
• How well do you structure your speech? How well does it flow?
• How do you respond to questions and how do you interact in the round?
• Don't just tell me what you are going to do but also HOW you are going to accomplish it and WHY
• Add me to the email chain plz - kjamarino@gmail.com
• As far as flowing goes, I'm not a stickler for it during cross so don't worry about it
• I can follow spreading but if you'd like to have mercy on my soul and not that would be awesome
• I'm not a huge theory argument person, so if I feel you're twisting the resolution in a way that it most likely wasn't intended as may not work if its too far out there

All of these are just my personal opinions regarding judging, please do not change your speech or performance based on trying to get my 1. So long as you have fun, enjoy what you're doing, and you are proud of the work you've presented, that is all I ask.

Email: kjamarino@gmail.com

-I judge like a layperson- I enjoy speeches that are easy to hear (no talking at 300 WPM!) with clear transitions and a strong common theme.

-Bigotry or inappropriate comments will not be tolerated

Yes, Email Chain: mclelland0@icloud.com

Debated Congress, Extemp, PF, Policy and World Schools in high school. I am a well-rounded debater that understands the flow and structure of every event.

Public Forum:

My goal is to be as close to a tabula rosa judge as possible in PF. I am a flow judge and feel speed is okay in PF - let the natural course of the debate determine the speed. I live for solid clash. I will not hesitate to call for evidence at the end of a round if a card doesn't make sense or your opponent effectively convinces me your source/analytic is not credible.

While voters are important, I will vote on the entirety of the round. Don't mention something in your voters that didn't occur throughout the round. Make sure you weigh in your latter speeches - failure to weigh leaves it in entirely in my opinion of what occurred during the round.

Lincoln Douglas:

I am holistically a tabula rosa judge in LD. While I will accept any argument introduced in the round, I do not prefer K's, . This style of debate is value-focused - make sure that you provide me a solid weighing mechanism that aligns with your value criterion. Speed does not bother me - just ensure your opponent is at the same level as you.

While I typically won't decide a round based on theory, I will take it into consideration if abusive arguments or tactics are highlighted, not through a block and jargon, but a logical explanation of the theory and why it matters. Please... do not give me an off-time roadmap. The only time this is needed is for Policy/CX debate where I might have 8 million flows... in LD there's two flows - we can follow along.

Congressional Debate:

Reference my PF/LD paradigms to see what I look for from general terms on argument structure. I highly value clash in congressional debate. I do not like the congressional debate role play - use that time to make substantive and logical arguments. I pay close attention to evidence used in speeches - academic journals and case studies in addition to publications in the last two years will rank you higher. Congress speeches are short, so make you evidence use short, impactful and highly analytical to show your understanding - don't just read other people's work to me during your speech.

I fairly consider PO performance in my ranks. I will give the 1 to a PO that has zero issues with precedence/recency (speeches and questions), actually runs an efficient chamber (I should hear you talk as little as possible), understands Robert's Rules of Order (know the difference between majority and super-majority votes) and expertly manages the chamber (if there's no prefacing, rule down prefacing; stop speakers or questioners that go over time; enforce the rules that are set). Not everyone is GUARANTEED an opportunity to speak on every bill in this event. I expect a strong PO to strike down one-sided debate and use discretion to move to previous question without chamber approval for the sake of active debate.

Your ability or lack thereof to rebutt as a questioner and answerer in questioning will be considered in my rankings. Questioning is an exceptional opportunity to convince me of your ability to ask well-intentioned questions. As mentioned in the beginning of my congress paradigm... clash is vital to doing well on my ballot.

!! Note on Inclusion !!

Speech and Debate is SUCH a fun activity - which makes it even more important it's inclusive and accessible. Do not utilize CX time to assert dominance and/or privilege. Condescension, consistent interruptions of opponent, xenophobia, racism and classism are all behaviors that absolutely have no place in this activity. Your crossing of the above-mentioned lines will decimate your speaks and potentially get you dropped in that round whether it's round 1 or finals. There is absolutely no reason in this activity to make people feel unsafe or uncomfortable.

No preferences except for speed, speakers must be clear and concise.

Hello! I debated in high school (1995-1999) and have been judging debate for the past 20 years. Here is a quick recap of my paradigm

SPEED: no issue. Talk as fast or as slow as you want.

QUALITY > QUANTITY: it is better to have a few good arguments than many bad ones.

FRAMEWORK: important but not absolutely required. Helps to frame the round, but arguments are more important.

PHILOSOPHY: especially for LD, I think it is important to incorporate philosophy into your arguments. Not as important in PF, but it doesn't hurt to have it.

SOURCES: always cite your sources. I reserve the right to check your evidence during or after the round.

CIVILITY: be good to your opponent. This is a formal environment. Don't be rude or you will lose the round even if you have better arguments.

VOTERS: always give me voters at the end of the round. I will use them as a tiebreaker if the round is close.

CX: try to trap your opponent during CX. Don't waste valuable CX time asking for clarification questions, unless absolutely necessary.

HAVE FUN AND GOOD LUCK!

UPDATE FOR ZOOM: This is new for all of us. I will be as patient and understanding as possible, so long as you offer me the same. Please let me know if you have any tech issues, and we will find solutions as they come.

Email: neilpatel@utexas.edu

Five minutes before the round: I'm not a "traditional judge," but I enjoy debate for the educational activity, including progressive argumentation styles that foster critical thinking. I tend to disapprove of its unnecessary gamification. Here's what that means for you: I like K’s, DA’s, Phil. I don’t like tricks, skep, performance affs*, or unnecessary theory/T debates. I don't like the tech/truth dichotomy – I play by standard rules (etc. dropped arguments), but I won't vote for an obviously false statement just because the opponent didn't respond. (I will not grant any offense for clearly untruthful statements, and I do not expect untruthful arguments to be responded to). Please read my section on evidence ethics and on weighing. Ask me any questions you want––my goal is to make each round an educational experience for both debaters.

* see below for details

Weighing: Weighing is key to my ballot. I tend to value probability more than magnitude, especially in extreme cases of "apocalyptic impact with 0.001% probability." The further an impact chain gets from its initial causation, the less likely you can convince me of its unique link to the original event. If both Smoking and Poor Diet independently lead to Heart Disease which leads to Death, you can't conclusively tell me that Smoking caused Death, Poor Diet might have as well. Think about what the "Poor Diets" are in your arguments and those of your opponents.

Background: Graduated from Plano West in 2016 – competed in most debate events and extemp (won TFA, finals at Nats/TOC/ETOC). It's been a second, but I've judged LD, PF, and Congress extensively on the Texas circuit. Did a little bit of coaching at Anderson, Plano West, and UTNIF a while ago as well. I currently work in international development in Washington, D.C. – I would be happy to discuss that more after the round if you're interested in a career in foreign affairs.

Speed: Go as fast as you want as long as you flash me and your opponent a copy of your case. You will lose points for not sharing your case.

Arguments: I'm open to any argument or strategy you think will win you the debate as long as you’re not advocating for something racist/homophobic/sexist/genocidal, etc. The winner of my ballot will give me the most structurally-intact argument chain that leads to the strongest, properly-weighed impact. Try not to just extend arguments and leave me to do all the work on the final ballot.

Things I Like:

- Ks: I won’t necessarily vote for “alt can’t solve” defense, but I prefer a strong alt if you’re going to read a K.

- DAs: impact calculus please! and please make the links plausible

- Phil: I expect you to slow down on your own analysis and very clearly explain your warrants.

Things I Don't Like:

- I'm probably not the best guy to run theory/T on. If there's an obvious reason go for it, but tbh I usually just don't understand these. Remember that I don't come from an extensive LD background, so my definition of "frivolous theory" is probably a lot wider than other judges you come across. I also am not well-versed at all in the jargon involved T/framework arguments.

- Skep

- Performance Affs: I completely respect any debater's right to use their platform and the debate space to discuss important social issues. If you do run a performance aff, please be assured that you will have my complete, undivided attention. However, for the sake of running a tournament, I consider running a performance aff to be a voluntary drop because I don't find it fair to penalize your opponent.

- Tricks

- Lazy Extensions/Blippy Responses

- Blatantly false arguments: I disapprove of the tech/truth dichotomy. I will count dropped arguments for what they are, but if your opponent is citing something that is clearly untrue (the world is flat, China is in Europe, etc.), you don't need to waste any time responding to such a ridiculous argument because I won't give them any offense for it.

Evidence (PLEASE READ):

This is an educational activity. Evidence is super important to me, and integrity is right up there with it. I come from a research background, so I very much care about integrity when it comes to citing sources in the way the author actually intended. This also means that I am fairly well-versed in literature related to economics, development, international relations, or finance. I will probably be able to tell if you are making up evidence or misquoting prominent authors.

I might be familiar with some authors, but I might not be! Cover your bases and make sure you're explaining the logic behind each card. Just saying "Patel 2019 says x" won't do you a lot of good. Help me understand, even if briefly, how the author reached that conclusion. Also, evidence strength matters to me. If there's conflicting evidence, I will default to a peer-reviewed journal article over a random blog by a conspiracy theorist.

If your evidence seems a little too good to be true, I might call for your full card after the round. I'll try my best not to intervene, but if your damning evidence comes from a conspiracy theory blog or other sketchy sources, my threshold for buying any response from your opponent against that argument might be very very low. If you deliberately misquote evidence, you lose the round and get zero speaks – this includes paraphrasing to imply a conclusion the author didn't reach. This is an educational activity and maintaining your integrity is so much more important than looking for the easy way out to win a round.

In Round:

Let me know if I need to make any accommodations for you––I will always be willing to do what I can to help. I will disclose with a short summary after round, but please feel free to find me after the round/tournament to ask specific questions.

Please don't be rude, sexist, or patronizing to younger debaters in round. If you're repeatedly talking over opponents or being condescending, or if you take advantage of the fact that you're debating a complete novice and just bully them, it will hurt your speaker points. Be kind to each other!

If you've made it this far in this novel of a paradigm, at some point before the round, say the passphrase "Only a Sith deals in absolutes" and I'll give you one extra second of prep time, maybe.

Novices: If you have any debate questions in general, not necessarily limited to your performance in round, please feel free to ask away after the round. It’s not easy to compete in your first few tournaments, and I would love to help make each round a learning experience for you.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round. Good luck!

***** PF SPECIFIC STUFF*****

It's been a while, so I don't remember what the standards are for dropped arguments and when it's too late to weight and whatnot. Tell me how you want me to judge the round and I will weigh accordingly. Here's what I will say: I don't flow CX, so please make sure you repeat important information from CX in your speeches. Although I recommend that 2Rs respond to attacks made by the 1R, I'm not going to count it as a drop if you don't respond to it all. One of my pet peeves is when teams run overviews that say "x is inevitable give us all offense from the neg." Based on all laws of physics and statistics, it's hard to make the case that anything is inevitable, so do your diligence and prove to me why you can steal their offense, preferably earlier in the round if possible. If you want the ballot to actually reflect the debate and not my subjective opinion (I've got some hot takes!), you need good clash and proper weighing.

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

Organization is extremely important. The speaker should concentrate on answering the question. I look for a good casual tone with a slower paced speech which is both clear and concise. Documentation is important but should not overshadow the main topic of the speech. Transitions into topics should be clear, when the performer sign-posts their speech.

Begin with a good AGD and then carry it through the speech.

--Speech--

What are your stylistic preferences for extemp? I enjoy the traditional format of extemp speeches, but prefer them to be as conversational as possible. if you're going to have a standard opener that you use religiously, be sure it makes sense. also be sure it isn't the exact same as every other person on your team. Use what YOU know and lean into that so that conversation flows naturally.

How much evidence do you prefer? quality over quantity for me. cite your sources with the date included, and use varied sources. at least 3 different ones! and make sure if you're bluffing that i can't tell you're bluffing.

Any preference for virtual delivery? acknowledge the camera if we're competing virtually! make sure you are in a space where you can be seen and heard.

What are your stylistic preferences for Oratory/Info? CONVERSATIONAL. Do not make it seem like this is the umteenth time you've competed with this piece. The beauty of oratory/info is that this is, or should be, your passion piece! YOU wrote every word. and if you're going to speak on something for 10 minutes over and over again, you should love it. And no matter how many times you've run it, it should feel like the first time every time. Your topic is near and dear to you and it's your job to make it near and dear to us. Universality is key. Though I may not be a part of the community or group or conversation, I need to understand why i MUST become a part of it or aware of it. Your passion and excitement for your speech should be palpable. Make it feel like the first time every time because for most people in the room it is the very first time we've gotten to hear this speech. and you have ten minutes to use this room as your platform and speak on what's important to you. make sure we leave this room talking about YOU! Your goal should be for us to be at our family dinner table telling everyone who will listen about this moment we took away from your speech. your gestures need to make sense and be natural. do not simply fall into gestures that you see being done just for the sake of doing them. if you wouldn't normally use particular hand gestures or vocal variations DONT DO IT for the sake of a round.

How much evidence do you prefer? I need enough statistics to not feel like you're just giving me your own personal think tank. back up what you're saying with multiple different credible sources. offer viewpoints that challenge yours, and then back them up with your facts.

Any unique thoughts on teasers? Your teaser sets the tone for the entire piece. Think about how you want to introduce us to the next ten minutes that we are going to watch!

Any unique thoughts on introductions for Interpretation events? Make them personal to YOU! Tell me why this piece matters to you while also telling me about the piece. What qualifies you to speak on this? Why should we listen and care? If you don't know who/what you're speaking on don't waste your time. oftentimes we are lifting up and bringing awareness to a community or an issue that is very delicate. use your intro to tell us why you're doing this and why it matters. Even in HI!!! i LOOOOVE a good tie in to real life. leave us talking about what we learned regardless of whether we are laughing, crying, or everything in between. take me on a JOURNEY.

Any preferences with respect to blocking, movement, etc: Make every movement a moment. I should be able to snap a photo of you and tell what you're doing and where you are. make movements and pantomimes intentional and thoughtful. break the mold! take me somewhere I've never been.

What are your thoughts on character work? you absolutely must BECOME your character. you need to study people who have experienced what your character has experienced. embody them wholly. whether it's in a humorous or serious way. do not halfway commit to something and expect us to buy in.

How do you feel about author's intent and appropriateness of a piece? For example: an HI of Miracle Worker (author's intent) or a student performing mature material or using curse words (appropriateness)? Author’s intent- doesn’t bother me too much. Appropriateness is BIG for me. You’re in HIGH SCHOOL- crude sexual humor and excessive cusswords just aren’t necessary. It’s also cheap comedy IMO. If you’re that “mature” aim higher for your content. A few innuendos are okay, but don't get crazy. There are far more ways to get laughs then to take it literally below the belt.

Hello! I am currently a student at UT Austin and a former debater at Plano West Senior HS. I have competed and judged rounds of Public Forum, Congress, and Extemp. Please feel free to contact me with any questions at rishikaprakash@gmail.com.

PF/Congressional Debate Paradigm:

1. Argumentation: I am most focused on the logic and content of your speeches. As a judge, the easier it is for me to understand your arguments and their clash, the easier it is for me to evaluate your performance. Evaluate the larger context of your arguments and weigh impacts. I appreciate a good argument whether I support it or not, as a judge, I try my best to stay unbiased. I will not rank debaters that fail to support and strengthen arguments with evidence. And please weigh as much as you can.

2. Content (rebutting and extending): I expect refutations to be strong and supported by both logic and evidence (if necessary). If you are expanding on a previous speaker’s arguments try to highlight how you are furthering their contention. I do not find it necessary for later speakers to say the names of previous speakers, but if it helps to clarify the evidence or arguments you are referring to, I would recommend doing so. Do not restate previous speakers’ arguments as your own, that is not extending and will not help you. I expect speakers to have rebuttals and responses in the round that are backed by logic or evidence. If you do not fully explain the links in your refutation argument then it is not possible to weigh it.

3. Participation: Be an active member in the round with strong questions in cx and make your speeches relevant. Congress is a participation event, and failing to participate (speaking or questioning) will hurt your ranking. Do not use cx as a time to seem like you are participating in the round with fluff questions. I will only take note of strong questioning which requires paying attention. Make motions when necessary and try not to waste time.

4. Speaking: I appreciate a good and clear speaker, but pretty speaking isn’t enough to be successful in the round. Try your best to weigh and refute clearly and explain everything thoroughly. As a judge, I do not want to focus on your speaking style so try your best to have a speaking personality that isn’t a distraction but rather a strength.

I highly value respect for one another in congress rounds, so please remember that a strong debater is not a rude one.

Let’s have some fun, I can’t wait to see what y'all come up with. Good luck!

In all debate events, especially Congress, I highly value clash. Please make sure that you are staying respectful, but that your argumentation is warrant-level rather than claim-level -- do not name drop. Please have sound structure and don't be afraid to show personality in your speeches. As per delivery, since we are now using an online format, do not read off of your computer for your whole speech. Otherwise, just adapt to the round and have a fun time.

In speech events, please make sure that you balance your content with your delivery. I am a 50/50 judge. Otherwise, have fun with your speeches and don't be afraid to drop in a joke or two.

NSU '22

Hi, I'm Varun Rachakonda. I'm a student at NSU and did not do debate during high school.

Speech Events:

- I value confidence and clarity and will probably still like your performance even if the info isn't the best

- things I like - flow/cohesion, good tone, delivery, engagement (ie using hands, it might be tough bc online debate but looking at me/the screen), ENTHUSIASM (please convey that you are happy doing what you are)

Debate Events:

- email: varunrachakonda1@gmail.com

- same stuff above probably applies, not as much into content but will still try to follow, but delivery will influence how much I want to listen

- I will be more inclined to listen if there are jokes I find funny and enthusiasm

- cross ex is important - if it is clear you are knowledgable in what you talk about or make me interested in CX, you will be very set for the rest of the round

- Ks and T/Theory are a no bc I probably won't be able to follow. Collapsing, weighing, and analysis will be your friend

Interpret and public speaking, should leave a judge, wanting to know more answering questions I never thought of getting insight into a topic or character that is not just on the surface

Usually, I judge interpretation events such as dramatic interpretation, prose, and storytelling. At times, I have even judged congress; although, I much prefer speech.

For debate activities, I believe that I would be considered a lay judge. My experience is limited to the speech events so you will be required to time yourself and manage the flow of the round.

Some quick notes for any debate competitors that I judge:

- Please talk clearly and slowly; I will not be able to understand "speed reading."

- Take steps to ensure that your grammar is correct. I am an English teacher so speaker points will be awarded based on grammar and clarity. In particular, please make sure that your cases include proper subject-verb agreement; as well as the appropriate pronouns. Additionally, a lack of punctuation will result in heavy speaker point deductions.

- Use rhetorical appeals in your speeches (Pathos, Logos, Ethos, Kairos, and Topos).

- Do not assume that I have prior knowledge on a certain topic; if your topic is referencing a historical piece of literature, please provide detailed analysis.

- I expect for you to have a deep understanding of your evidence with a thorough explanation for each study and statistic.

- If you make political arguments please do not venture into the territory of misinformation.

My experience with judging online speech has been very positive and I hope that it translates well to debate. Good luck, and remember that you should always aim to behave like the best of those among us.

"There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self."

- Ernest Hemingway

I am a lay parent judge and have judged very few PF rounds before.

I prefer a normal speaking pace during speeches and crossfire.

I would also like speakers to provide an off-time roadmap before speeches and signpost during speeches.

I do not know much debate jargon.

Be courteous to each other throughout the round.

I would prefer a very clear and coherent speaking at a normal pace. Do not speed read. I value quality of the content and research with citations.

In a speech event, I value clear and engaging speeches rather than someone reading off the laptop screen.

In a debate event, I value moderate pace. Please be respectful of the opposite team while making remarks about arguments in cross exams and rebuttals.

INTERP EVENTS

- In speech/ acting events I focus on solid storytelling. The most important piece of the puzzle is the script, please don't forget to hold true the story as a whole even though we are only seeing ten minutes of it.

- Energy

- Characterization from beginning to end.

- Make big bold choices that you have perfected for this character, this story, this moment in time.

- Connecting to the audience, it's about telling the story to us, so a solid connection to the audience is important. We want to laugh and cry with you.

• Clean pantomime and connection with off stage characters
• - Take us on the journey with you.
• Take a deep breath and have fun!!! Leave it all out there and take your seat feeling like there was nothing else you could have done.
• Don't forget you are not speaking FOR them, you are speaking AS them. It is an ownership that you should take seriously. If you don't tell the story, how will they continue to live?
• Be honest. These are real people sharing real stories of their lives. Breath through their struggle and be honest.
  - Be you, you're enough.
• Believe in the story you are telling, be confident, be bold, own your time in front of us.
• Make sure everything you do has a purpose. If it doesn't have a reason, it begs the question of why do it?
• ENJOY! The more you forget about all of the static in your head the clearer the performance will be for us. 
• Finally, "Just be." You are enough.

SPEAKING EVENTS

• Be specific with the topic at hand

Make sure your speech flows and each point connects to the last and the next.

• - We may not know anything about the topic at hand, think of yourself as a professor sharing knowledge, teach us.
• If you stumble over your words, keep going forward, don't go back unless that information was so important you need to recover it.

- Strong supporting material is key, like any good research paper the more recent the source the better. And with that strong source material is also important to the strength and legitimacy of your speech.

- Solid confident delivery style

CONGRESS:
- Find ways to stand out bc three hours of Congress can get boring really quick

- I love unique arguments and good clash, that always makes a round interesting

- Don't talk too fast, while you want to get information out, presentation still matters for me

EXTEMP

- ANSWER THE QUESTION

I'm a coach, but I'm basically a lay judge. If you spread, you will lose.

For Congress:

I want to see you interact with the chamber. Ask good questions and point out logical fallacies while maintaining decorum. Your speeches shouldn’t be given too quickly as your constituents and colleagues need to understand what you’re saying. Don’t try to do too much in your speeches either, I’d rather see you adequately break down a single argument than try to address everything poorly all at once. I also want to see a bit of debate. Don’t just rehash the same points over and over.

Any claims you make to address arguments should have some sort of evidentiary support. This is what congress SHOULD look like, not what it currently actually looks like.

As a PO I want to see you in complete control of the chamber keeping things moving and following procedure. Gentle reminders should be used to maintain decorum and you should try to have a genuine relationship with the entire chamber. Congresspeople should not have to call you out about precedence!

Welcome to my paradigm! If you have any questions over this or have questions about things I did not mention, feel free to ask me and I will try my best to give useful and concise answers.

Overall: Speech and debate is an incredible activity and easily one of the most important activities in terms of preparing you for a successful post-high school life. With that in mind, I would prefer rounds are educational to some extent. This means that there is clash, CX/crossfire periods are productive and respectful, and there is critical thinking put into summarizing arguments and painting a picture of the round that easily shows you won.

Speed: I have no personal problem with speed. My biggest thing is that any word/name/date/title that you plan to use for extensions or other references is spoken clearly in the speech. If you are going to say "Smith 07" for extensions, then you need to make sure that citation was clear when it is first brought up. This same idea applies to any other content that you want to use frequently. For example, a key statistic within a paragraph that you want to use should be clear when introducing that information. I do not plan to say "clear" if you are not clear; the expectation is that you know how you are presenting (know ya self, know ya worth...ya know?).

Argument Types: Any argument type is fine for me in LD/CX. All that I ask is that you try and keep the round educational and respectful (watching a 3 minute crossfire where the AFF just asked the NEG what their counterplan is, when the NEG didn't know what that was, will never be an experience I want to repeat). In PF, I do not see the purpose of using more critical argumentation. I will evaluate the round regardless of the type of arguments made, but know that there is less room to adequately present and back-up critical arguments in an effective manner within PF time restraints.

Speaker Points: I do not do decimal speaker points (something I might change over time). For a 30, you need to be organized, have solid and well structured arguments, and overall show that you deserve to get the highest possible speaking evaluation. For a 28-29, you may be stellar in one or two areas, but you have room to improve in other areas of speaking. For example, you may have incredible arguments and speak without skipping a beat, but if you are jumping around the flow and not signposting properly, that would be a 28-29. A 26-27 is gained when there are more areas of improvement than stellar speaking qualities. Since decent argument formulation and coherent speaking are transferrable skills out of high school, I see the presentation side of a debate as important. I still value arguments>>>presentation, but having not-so-great organization may ruin the argument-side of things.....So...to get a 25...you most likely did something discriminatory or blatantly disrespectful in the round. This includes being racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, and/or being condescending to your opponent, judge, or both. I'd most likely talk to tournament staff if you received a 25. At the same time though, I have yet to give out a 25, so I've got confidence anyone reading this will keep that streak going!

Primarily a Congress/Extemp/Worlds judge.

Worlds- strategy is a big part of the game: what are you arguing and why? Find a framework/voting issues/whatever you're calling it and link arguments into the framework. Many debates come down to what the topic actually means and what the framework issues are- so tackle these head on and link your arguments into the framework.

Do a bit of everything- show the logic, weigh the impacts, think about effective delivery. I prefer arguments that are rooted in reality more so than hyperbole. Structure and logic matter a lot- stay organized, hold my hand, walk me down the flow. I like a good line by line debate, but make sure you're linking into the bigger story your team is trying to sell.

In later speeches, think through cohesion. Third constructives with brand new arguments or logic not already laid out by their teammates are likely to do more harm than good for me. Same goes with new substantives in the second constructive: I like them, but leave yourself time to develop them and don't blip them at me with 30 seconds left on the clock.

I love a good POI, but make sure you're asking something that matters and answer the question you were asked. Quality over quantity rules the day in this regard. Speakers should expect to take some, and questioners should not pepper the speaker with requests. For online debates, I prefer verbal POIs and verbal responses to those POIs (whether you take them now, later, or dismiss them).

Congress- First and foremost, this is a debate event. There should be clash, weighing of arguments, and healthy discourse. Argumentation should be realistic with clear links to the legislation. The later in the debate we go, the more clash is expected. New arguments as the 4th advocacy speech will likely not earn you much headway with me. I am particularly impressed by debaters who can synthesize debate well.

Strategy is a big part of Congress. Giving only refutations or only sponsorships does not show your range as a legislator. Parliamentary procedure should be used to advance debate AND your own interests. Debaters should be prepared to argue both sides of legislation- debaters who do so will never find themselves shut out of debate. Think twice before you volunteer to be the second consecutive speech on a given side of a topic- you're likely doing yourself a disservice. I will notice if multiple opportunities go by for you to get a speech in and you choose not to take it.

Questioning- ask strategic questions. You should be soliciting something from the speaker you can use later on in the debate or to defend points you've already made on the topic. When responding, be brief- don't ramble for the sake of killing time. Avoid leading questions that start with "are you aware" and "did you know"- if you're asking a question you already know the answer to because its fact-based, save it for your speech.

POs- I'm a big fan of an efficient, affable PO. You can absolutely get a 1 from me as the PO. The less I/the parli has to intervene, the better. Be free from bias, keep the room moving, and watch your word economy. Do not be afraid to lead. Use consensus motions to save time (e.g. "seeing no objection, I'll open the floor for docket nominations.") Run the room, don't let the room run you. Feel free to hop into the debate and give a speech if tournament rules allow.

A note on language- this should feel like Congress. I've never heard Chuck Schumer say "I affirm the bill" or Kevin McCarthy say "I stand with the negation." Model congressional behavior, not high school debate norms.

LD/PF- Here are a few things you need to know about me that you're probably not used to:

1. All time counts. Either it's a speech or it's prep.
2. No, I don't want to be on the email chain.
3. This is an oral communication activity, not a read-along.
4. Don't waste time, just debate.
5. If I want to see the card, I'll ask for it. I probably won't ask for it.
6. No, I won't disclose. I wrote you a ballot for you and your coach to read.

I'll vote on anything if you give me a good reason, a clear framework, and weighable impacts. I'm not likely to vote on arguments spurious to the resolution, so please debate the topic as presented. I'm not particularly interested in debates outside the scope of the topic. I do believe strongly that debate should be publicly accessible- while I can handle most arguments, a general audience should be persuaded as well as I am. As much as the line by line matters, it is how you use it to build a compelling narrative to vote for your side that really counts.

Evidence- I'm not normal when it comes to evidence. Just because you have a card doesn't mean the card is gospel. Look for the warrants. Challenge the logic, whether it has cards or not. I do not flow author names- if you say "extend the Warren card", I will have no idea what you're talking about. I very rarely ask to read evidence after the round and I'm ok with paraphrasing evidence as long as the full text is available in round. I have zero tolerance for waiting for evidence to be exchanged- if you're going to use an email chain, use it. Have all of your evidence ready to exchange the moment it is asked for. All time counts- either it's speech time or it's prep time. There's no such thing as 'off time roadmaps' and 'waiting to see the card'.

Speed kills- don't spread. You can go faster than normal conversation, but not by much. This is a communication activity after all.

Extempers- answer the question. That's my primary consideration. Sources are your friend. They should be recent and relevant. Also answer the question. Delivery should be conversational and engaging- show us your personality. Also answer the question. Think about feasibility of arguments. Then answer the question. Don't just tell me that things happened, tell me why things happened. Have I mentioned you should answer the question? Use research that is specific to the topic and shows your ability to access resources- if it's an internet-prep tournament, I expect to hear more than just what a google search pops out as the first five links. Find the good research. Then answer the question.

OO/Info- same as extemp, except replace 'answer the question' with 'defend your thesis'. I prefer OOs with interesting angles on topics and a unique perspective. In Info, I want a 'need to know'- what do you expect me to do with this information? There's a big difference between informative and persuasive: Infos that have call to actions or are describing problems in huge detail implying we should solve them aren't infos. Visual aids in Info should contribute to the understanding of the concept- I don't like VAs that are just for fun/entertainment. Note: VAs are not in fact required. If you don't need them, don't use them.

Interp- crisp, clear characterization matters. I look for continuity/flow in the cutting, believability and relatability in the performance, and a variance in emotion as the piece/cutting builds. The introduction should say something and give me a reason to watch the performance- there should be social significance and an argument laid out. Particularly for POI and program cuttings in Poetry, I'm looking to see if you have an interesting argument and if the lit says what you say it says. I want to see characters that feel real and grow as the piece progresses. Less is more- use all your communicative skills to convey emotion. There are ways to show anger other than yelling, there are ways to show sadness other than screaming.

A Note on Time in Speech Events- prepared events should not require time signals (you should know roughly how long your speech is). I do not believe the grace period is an excuse to add 30 seconds to performances, especially in extemp. I'll give you a couple of seconds leeway as a benefit of the doubt, but if you are clearly abusing the grace period, I will have issues.

All speech events:

For virtual, please stay in the camera frame. It is best if your hands are always in the frame as well; otherwise, gestures seem extreme when your hands suddenly enter the frame. Make sure you adhere to the constitution. For recorded (asynchronous) events, you are not allowed to edit the video.

Extemp/OO/Info:

I need a clear structure. You should have at least one source for each point. The biggest thing I look for is your explanation - you need to explain things in a way that makes it easy to understand without sounding condescending. Your examples and explanation should help me understand your ideas. Movements (5-point walk and gestures) should be smooth, helpful, and make sense. The constitution states you cannot be ranked first if you go over grace.

Interp:

Rankings most often are based on who creates the most believable moments and characters. There should be different levels to your characters and pieces—not everything should be intense, not everything should be quiet, not everything should be rapid, not everything should be slow, etc. If you use an accent for a character, then you need to be consistent with it. It is not necessary for you to have multiple characters; however, if you do, you need to create distinct characters. You should add meaning behind the lines through your voice, tone, and inflection. Cussing doesn’t bother me; I do prefer for it to make sense within your piece. I do not mind if you take a serious piece and put a humorous spin on it or a humorous piece being given a dramatic spin as long as it is not creating a caricature or making fun of a group of people. Movement should also make sense. Introductions should help clarify and set the scene; many events also require the author and title to be clearly stated in the introduction as well. The constitution states you cannot be ranked first if you go over grace..

For POI specifically: there are some judges who want to be able to tell a difference between the different pieces you use and will make a comment that your program “seems more like prose or poetry than POI”; I disagree with this—If we cannot tell a difference between your pieces, I think it shows how skilled you are at weaving your pieces together to create one coherent voice.

IE Performances

Performance material should be literature that is compelling and unique. It should be evident that the story fits the performer. Organization of structure and character arc should be evident. Multiple characters are a plus for me but the most important aspect is that the character/s you create are believable. Strong choices but nothing for mere shock value. (Do not prefer cursing, cuss words...but will overlook if proven appropriate for the piece) Time should be used well. As an audience member you should be respectful and appropriate when watching other competitors- just as important. New material is a plus. Motivated blocking. Clean transitions, variation in tone and pacing. Clear articulation.

Speech Events: IX, DX, INFO, OO

Debate

My paradigm

Debate is the test of the truthfulness of a claim, thus truth is important. I don't understand the tech over truth argument, nor do I want to.

Debaters should:

Speak slowly.

State the resolution, as that is what is being debated

Explain everything. Don't assume that I know what a K is. Because I don't. Don't assume I know what anything else is either. I probably don't.

Speak very slowly.

Explain what the big arguments are and why the opposing side is not winning.

Be nice to each other.

Give me a reason to vote for your side. Or more than one.

Speak slowly.

To summarize, in debate judging, I adopt most of the nuance but very little of the substance in this abstract on the qualitative vs. quantitative debate that Kenneth R. Howe espouses in the American Journal of Education Vol. 100, No. 2 (Feb., 1992), pp. 236-256 (21 pages) Published By: The University of Chicago Press. FYI, '92 was a good year for debate about debate in educational philosophy.

Speakers should:

Be entertaining, thoughtful, logical, organized.

Present evidence/sources (not so much in IMP maybe, but definitely in OO, INF, EX,

Don't go too fast, but instead go at the exact right speed.

Be entertaining. Try not to steal minutes from your audience's life (especially mine) by being boring. Try and pretend this stuff is fun.

Interpers should:

Be real, or sometimes in HI or humorous DUO, be so polished and perfect in your blocking, gesturing, and facial expression, that the hyperbole does not need realism.

Real acting is seen in the eyes. Are you believable? Is there anything about your performance that distracts?

I do my best to judge the performer not the script.

Hello! I'm a first year out of Speech and Debate. I primarily competed in Extemp and Congress in high school, pretty regularly on the national circuit. 

Extemp: The most important part of your speech is to answer the question. If you make strong arguments within your points, but none of them tie cohesively to the question, you are disregarding the most crucial content element of the speech. AGDs, no preferences, but making me laugh is always a bonus. Be conversational! I want to feel like you are talking to me, not at me. 

Congress: I prefer if the sponsorship to any legislation spends time explaining the bill, not just bringing up arguments related to it. Any speech past the first cycle of the bill should address previous speaker's arguments. PO starts at my 3, every mistake will drop you a rank. Please try to not rehash past this point. 

Have fun and I'm excited to judge!