Hi everybody, my name is Levi and I'm a decorated alumnus Speech and Debater from Kansas City, Missouri. I have competed in Speech and Debate for 6 years and have competed in Public Forum, Prose, Poetry, Program Oral Interpretation, Humorous Interpretation, Dramatic Interpretation, and Storytelling. I am a three year national competitor with a top 30 national ranking in storytelling (NSDA) and a double top 60 ranking in prose and poetry (@ NCFL and NSDA). All of this is to say that I'm well-versed in the realm of speech and debate and should hopefully be able to give you all constructive feedback!

LD:

1. First and foremost, this is a value debate. I thoroughly enjoy a great clash between values and criterions and feel as though it is necessary to win the value debate in order to have the best chance of winning actual arguments.
2. Second, be respectful of your opponents.Inappropriate facial expressions,outrightignoring preferred pronouns, or even blatantly attacking your opponents character rather than theirevidence will get you docked speaker points and possibly the windepending on the severity of the disrespect.
3. Third, speak clearly, slowly, and calmly. The challenge of speech and debate isn't "who can get the most evidence presented in the shortest amount of time", rather, thechallenge is presenting substantive evidence in a well-prepared, understandable, and confidence filled speech.
4. Fourth, I will most likely ignore any evidence that makes generalizations or doesn't specifically pertain to the topic/argument at hand.This may sound harsh but I think about it like this: everyone of us showed up to either to debate or listen to a debate about a certain topic, if your evidence doesn't pertain to that then it's truly a waste of the round.

Speech:

1. Oral Interpretation: This is by far one of my favorite events as this is what I competed in at NCFL and NSDA for two years in a row. SO, what do I look for in Prose and Poetry pieces?
2. Prose: PLEASE BE CONVERSATIONAL!!! This is NOT DI. If your piece relies upon over the top emotions and super large emotional climaxes then I would suggest trying Dramatic Interpretation next year. Prose should be a narrative presented by your character, it should retell atrauma/joy without the character actively living through the experience. Prose is also not a stylistic piece, the focus should be on vocal and emotional modulation and less on blocking and artistic movements.
3. Poetry: This event should have distinct differences from prose. Poetry performances should be far more stylistic in terms of blocking. Furthermore, the tempo and cadence at which you speak should have rhythm, I mean, you're performing spoken poetry after all. Poetry pieces CAN tell a single story, but the way in which the story is presented should not be as reflective/solemn as your prose.
4. Extemporaneous Speaking: First, have an interesting and fun intro! If I'm not hooked in to your piece by the time your intro/teaser is finished, it will be a lot harder for me to maintain interest in your speech. Second, make sure your try you best to tie in your intro throughout your transitions to different points. Furthermore, 3 MAIN POINTS IS NOT A REQUIREMENT!! If you can only come up with two good main points with substantive evidence to support them, THAT IS OK. Do not have two points that are expressing the same exact idea with slightly different wording. Furthermore, if your evidence is more than a year old in extemporaneous speaking I will tend to dock points, as the issues being discussed are described as "current fact and opinion on the designated topic as presented by numerous sources". Finally, your conclusion should not just retell your main points, it should cleverly tie in the topic of the teaser/intro as well as provide closing insights not yet previously discussed in your main points (in other words: please don't make me listen to an AP Language argumentative essay)

Traditional style LD. Not big on flowing.

Assistant coach for 5 years.

Taken from Tyler Gamble's paradigm, but holds mostly true for me:
I will vote on anything that is justified as a ballot winning position.
My flow is poor. The faster you go the more arguments I will miss. I am truth over tech.
I subconsciously presume towards unique arguments/funny like-able people. This doesn't mean you will win, but if the round becomes unadjudicatable more often that not I'll decide your way.
I don't believe in speaker points.
If you are directly oppressive, I reserve the right to not vote for you.
Please keep me entertained...
Please make jokes. I find terrible dad humor jokes that fall flat to be the funniest.

Taken from Ellen Ivens-Duran's paradigm:
Here are the things that matter:
I did not debate as a student.
I have judged and coached PF and LD for (5) years.
I don’t lean towards any style of debate, just convince me why I should vote for you and you can win.
...