In Congressional Debate: Analysis is the most important factor. Sources are paramount. Clash is expected. Delivery is secondary.

In Extemp: Give a CLEAR answer to the question, need good time allocation, good sources. I consider this public speaking, not interp.

In OO/Info: Need clear structure with sources. I consider this a public speaking event, not interp.

In Interp: Need different levels, clear characterization. I need to be able to follow your story.

*my email is babbonnete@gmail.com*

LD- I'm fine with speed. run whatever you want.

PF- Steps to getting my vote: extend, line by line rebuttal, collapse in summary, if you're speaking second then I expect your summary to address attacks made in last rebuttal. Also: weigh in EVERY SPEECH.

Policy-

Here are some of my personal preferences: I like K's. Signpost. I don't expect the 1AR to respond to a 13 paged card dump, just do your best by grouping arguments and responding in a way that allows you enough time to save your 1AC from falling into LOTR fire pit. 

be good = you win

1. I don't mind a faster pace of speaking but caution should you speak faster than I can type I can't promise I'll hear everything you say. I don't ascribe to the recent practice of emailing opponents and judges your cases and then consequently reading their case rather than hearing what is spoken. I do not accept any evidence outside of what the debater presents orally.
2. In a value-debate I'm less likely to vote for extreme values as the average voter is less likely to vote for extreme values. If you advocate for destroying half the world's population that's a hard sell. In policy debate I might be more likely to ascribe to this theory of if it's passable and presents solvency it's valid.
3.  I'm less likely to vote on topicality and off-topic kritiks. If a case is obviously off-topic I won't weight it in the round. 
4. I usually don't weigh extreme impacts such as nuclear war, the end of the human race, etc. If both the affirmative and negative sides conclude with nuclear war it tends to lose its impact.
5. I spent seven years studying and completing communication research. I tend to have a solid grasp on common philosophy, cultural values, social groups, critical theories,  etc. That being said if you utilize an abstract theory and don't define key concepts I will vote as if I don't know those concepts. With the caveat that if you misrepresent those concepts I will note it and not weight it in the round.

I've been judging various forms of debate and speech events on local, state and national levels since 2013. Head coach of St. John's School since 2020.

I have no event specific expectations on what should happen, I prefer everything to be spelled out in round. I do not like intervening.

Speaker points are a tie-breaker, so I am a bit more conservative with them, but that doesn't mean I'll tank your points unless you're unclear, have frequent speech errors, go over time, or if you're rude. Expect an average 27.5-29.5 range in PF/LD/CX and a range of 68-72 in Worlds and a 3-5 range in Congress. Perfect speaks reserved for those who truly exemplify great public speaking skills. Rudeness can also be a cause for a team losing.

Don't assume I know anything, explain as if you were talking to someone non-specialized in whatever subject matter you're speaking on.

Ask before round any further questions you might have.

-----

WSD - I will be following the conventions and norms set out by the mandatory judging training that asks us to think about these things on a more holistic approach, that we should nuance our argumentation and engage on the comparative; that the principle level argumentation is key and that the practical should make sense in approaching the principle; that we are not here to engage on tricky arguments or cherry picked examples; that we are debating the heart of the motion and not conditionally proposing or opposing (that we are debating the full resolution); that we reward those that lean into their arguments and side; and lastly that we preference thinking about the motions on a global scale when applicable.

Heather Collins

Typical Judge for Speech Acting Events: HI, DI, Duet, Duo. 

Also like to just, Extemp. O.O., and other such similar events. 

When judging Debate events, I prefer the students don't rush. They make a clean, concise argument and stick to the point. Distracting with off topic details is something I frown upon. 

Policy:

I'm happy judging whatever crazy, creative argument you think you can make me believe (which you will do by providing awesome evidence, links, etc.) BUT you better enunciate those crazy arguments clearly. My number one pet peeve in policy debate is debaters who try to spread but stutter and stumble through their speeches. I can flow as fast as you can speak, but if I can't understand what you're saying, I will say "clear" once or twice, and then simply not flow what I can't understand.

I'm fine with tag-teaming in cx.

If the round is shared via email chain, I'd prefer you still make an effort to say actual words.

A few caveats to the "I'll buy anything" -

I'm fine with Ks, but it's got to be a pretty killer kritik for me to vote on one K alone - it's more likely I'll weigh it as part of a larger strategy.

PICs are abusive as they take too much affirmative ground, BUT occasionally there's a PIC that justifies the existence of PICs, and those make me happy.

Run topicality if it's justified. If it's not, and you're running four Ts as a time-suck, I won't buy any of them.

I prefer textually competitive CPs. If it's only competitive through a link to a DA, then I'm going to give it the stink eye. Never say never - I do periodically vote for arguments I claim not to like - but you better advocate for that CP really, really well.

IN summary with the PICs, Ts and CPs - just run a good, relevant argument. If you're throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks, I'm probably going to dismiss it as crap. But if you're confident it's an awesome argument, tell me why I should buy it; it's distinctly possible I will, just understand those arguments have a higher threshold for me.

Signpost, give me clear voters, be polite. When a team starts showing contempt for their opponents, I start looking for reasons to vote against them.

And have fun.

Lincoln Douglas:

Value/Value Criterion Clash - I expect you to have a clear value and value criterion, but I use them as a way to evaluate the round (framework), not as a voting issue (unless they're really, really bad, abusive, or maybe unexpectedly brilliant). Show why you meet your opponents' v/vc as well as your own, or why yours makes much more sense in context of the round, then move on. It's probably not going to be a big independent voter for me.

If you're doing circuit LD - please don't make it dumbed-down policy. Arguments still need to be fully developed, relevant to the topic, and coherently articulated.

If you're doing traditional LD - I appreciate someone who can talk pretty, I really do, but I want to see CLASH. Weigh arguments. Compare sources, and delve into what cards actually say. I like to vote for debaters who can help me see the big picture in the round, but can also weave a convincing narrative out of all the minutiae.

As with all debate - be confident, be aggressive, but don't be a jerk.

Public Forum:

I'm fine with speed in PF - but same as other debates, enunciate clearly!

More than any other debate, I expect PFers to be respectful of opponents. Be confident, be aggressive, never show contempt.

Please maintain a consistent strategy between both partner's speeches - you need to be on the same page as to what you're going for and how you argue things. If I'm seeing two different debates from one partnership, I don't know what I'm supposed to vote for, so I'll usually vote for the other team.

Most (not all, but most) topics benefit from a framework, so have one! Tell me how to evaluate the round so I can judge the debate on what's debated, not on my preconceived notions of what's important.

With the new pilot rules, the summary speech has become paramount for me, and I expect it to be somewhat similar to a 1AR in policy - cover it all. If you're just giving me a slightly longer version of the final focus, it's a wasted opportunity. You can give me voters if you want, but I expect the final focus to be all about those.

I was an Interper for four years in high school and now I am a debate coach- who would've seen this coming? not me!

Interp: Ah yes my real bread and butter. I love all the interp events but each one has their own niche. I do have some overall comments that apply to all interp events.

Yelling is not an emotion. Before you yell in your interpretation, examine why you are making that choice.

Fake heaving to cry. Either get there and cry or find a different way to emote.

Ensure that if there are multiple characters, each one is distinct and different.

Please make sure that hair is not covering your eyes or your face, your face helps you create and convoy the emotion in your piece! Don't hide it.

HI: In HI I am looking for people who understand how to flow with the writing of their piece and take advantage of their natural comedic timing. If you are utilizing character "pops" ensure that they are crisp and clean. HI should have an energizing performance and maintain that energy throughout.

DI: I am looking for some original material here, DI really has so many options. I dislike fake crying/heaving, it truly takes me out of your performance if you are not making it emotionally to that spot yourself.

Duet and Duo: Here I am looking for strong partnerships, with partners who can work symbiotically off of each other's energy. Your piece should be cut to demonstrate the strength of each partner equally and not so much relying on one partner to carry the team. Again, transitions need to be crisp and clean, and if there are multiple characters, distinction between each one.

Oratory: Give me a call to action at the end and ensure that your resources are current and relevant. Additionally, topic originality is important. If it is a speech or topic I have heard numerous times, ensure that you have made your unique stamp/spin on the information.

Informative: Ensure that your VA's have a purpose and not just showing me pictures, there is big opportunity to make your speech stand out here so do not waste it. Again, originality of topic is important or at least putting your own unique spin/stamp on the issue at hand.

DEBATE:You can include me on the email chain if you prefer- bdomino1@kleinisd.net- just put KISD first in the subject line to get past spam filters.

Do not spread- the roots of this organization is to use research and critical thinking skills- you do not achieve these goals by reading as fast as you can off of a sheet of paper, in an effort to fool or lose your opponent. Spreading is weak sauce.

You really should weigh the round for me- if you do not tell me why you should be chosen over your opponent, then I am going to assume you do not know why you should win the round either.

Sharing a last name from your research means nothing to me if you are not summarizing and presenting that research. Much like I tell my students in the classroom, do not just name drop and expect me to understand the significance of your evidence if you do not share it with me.

I take good sportsmanship seriously- if you are purposefully mean or condescending, or display any acts of homophobia, transphobia, racism, sexism I will give you low speaks and have no problem discussing my reasoning why with your coach.

*Updated for 2023*

Experience:

2018-Present: Policy Coach at Rock Springs High School

2007-2011: NPTE Debate at University of Wyoming: Highest national ranking: 4th; 4x national qualifier for NPTE; attended NPDA/NPTE 6x’s (between both tournaments); highest placing at National Tournament: Semi-finalist; Between 2009-2012 ranked top 20 in NPTE points receiving First Round Bids.

2004-2007: Debate at Rock Springs High School in Rock Springs, Wyoming

Approximate number of rounds judged per year: 35+

Please add me to the email chain: etcheverryj@sw1.k12.wy.us 

Note: Over the past seasons, I have seen numerous teams use the ‘small schools’ argument on theory and procedural positions. Moving forward, I will not listen to, flow or evaluate these types of arguments. Being from a ‘small school’ with limited financial resources and limited ability to travel nationally, these types of arguments suppose that we as competitors have also a limited ability to intelligently evaluate and present competitive arguments due to our position in the community. Utilizing these arguments in order to establish a model of debate based in assumptions of limited abilities of teams, such as ours, is marginalizing our ability as competitors and individuals, it also places unrealistic perceptions of who we are as policy debaters, thus please refrain from reading these arguments. Fight against, what Brian Delong of IU calls "The Cult of the Card". Taking no notice of this position in round can effect speaker points awarded.

Note 2: NO NEW OFF-CASE POSITIONS IN THE 2NC, I WILL NOT FLOW IT!!!! (unless warranted by offensive language/actions, ethics violations, far-reaching 2AC abuses/skews)

Paradigm:

Average Speaker Points: 28.5

Spreading---X--------------------------------Conversation

Spreading is fine, speed is important but clarity is more important. Slow down on analytics, include them in the email chain. Also slow down 20% on tags and authors. Differentiate between tags and the internals of your cards. With the online format, make sure that you are either decreasing your speed on analytics or you are sending them out in the speech doc. I have noticed in cases that some analysis can get missed with the tubes of the internet.

Tech---------X---------------------------------------Truth

If it’s conceded it’s true; I'll pic out of really terrible arguments (racism, sexism, otherization, etc.), also reading more cards that aren’t true, doesn’t mean I will prefer.

Policy-------------------X---------------------Ks (Aff or Neg)

I am good with either a policy debate or K v. K debate; just make sure to explain your argument thoroughly.

Analytics---------------------------------X--Evidence

Analytics have their place, however they should be based in the literature, this also includes theory and theory blocks. Speaker points check...cite literature as an argument and I will bump up .5! (make sure I hear it!)

Conditionality good--X----------------------------Conditionality bad

Conditionality is generally good, but I could be persuaded otherwise. This is a vote down the team theory approach.

Actor/PIC/Consult/Process CP good--X------------------------------- Actor/PIC/Consult/Process CP bad

The CP is an essential tool for the Neg, all are strategic. That being said I am open to theory objections and if won by the Aff, I will reject the argument (if indicated). For Courts CP, run them, but be able to clearly articulate how the Courts would be able to hear the Aff plan; be it a test case (include your test case, or be able to defend the timeframe deficit awaiting the next available test case) or defend SCOTUS using a Writ of Crit to rule. Also, it would be wise to include the basis of ruling within the text of the CP. Args directly questioning the mechanisms by which the CP functions and can be very persuasive for me.*

Politics DA good------------------X------------Politics DA bad

Read the appropriate Tix DAs and you’re good, however, as in 2020, reading Prez Tix DAs two days after the elections is frustrating. DO NOT DO IT!

1AR gets new args--------------X----------------------1AR doesn’t get new args

I will give the 1AR room to present new extrapolations of the Aff positions and to respond fully to the block, however running a new position/link turn/mpx turn or a new response to a Neg position isn’t the best and it’s probably too late in the debate to truly develop said position.

UQ matters most-----------------------------X---Link matters most

A solid link into an argument is incredibly important, no matter how unique an argument is, if it doesn’t apply, it doesn’t apply!

Love T-X---------------------------------------------Hate T

I love T!! Evidence again is very important and please read it. I will prefer your standards if you have evidence supporting. Explain your mpx, violation and why you should win. Make sure that if you are going for T, either send a doc with analytics or ensure that you are clear.

Limits------X----------------------------------------Ground

Generics solve your ground claims, all though they might not be the most in-depth or educational, they do provide access to clash, and even if they are generic, there is evidence that supports those claims which is still educational. Limits, however, means that the Neg can produce in-depth arguments due to having a limited research burden and lit base.

Fairness is an mpx--------------------------------X-----Education is an mpx

Debate is a game, but, it is a game is which the motive is academic.

Reasonability------------------------------------X---Competing interpretations

Reasonability opens the door for judge intervention, what I believe is reasonably topical and what the next person does, is inherently different. I’d rather hear the mpx of topicality weighed as a net benefit to the presented interpretations.

Longer ev--------------------X---------------------More ev

Whatever way you want to present your evidence is up to you. Your evidence represents your argument, not the tag, if the tag is misrepresentative or an embellishment of the ev then that argument will be given less weight in the round*

"Insert this rehighlighting"--------X---------------I only read what you read

I will only evaluate only what is read during the speech act, unless told to evaluate a rehighlighting (should be sent in the doc) or told to evaluate a card vs. another card.

Durable FIAT solves circumvention--------------------X---Durable FIAT is not a thing

There are a number of ways that a position can be undermined that FIAT cannot account for. However, FIAT would protect teams from args like “plan doesn’t pass”.

Secrecy-----------------------------X-Disclosure

A team doesn't need to hide their argument or not disclose their arguments, not disclosing makes for a sloppy debate and a bunch of people not knowing what is going on.

Analytic Perm-----------------------------X-Evidence-based Perm

The words "Perm Do Both" (or similar analytics) mean nothing to me unless you explain how it functions, what level of competition the perm is testing and read evidence indicating a net benefit to said perm. BTW...I love the perm debate!

Existential Mpx---------------X-----------------Systemic Mpx

Tell me how to vote and what mpx to evaluate. This is also more of mpx weighing analysis, not framework. Framework is how debate should be or included within the realm of debate. Mpx prioritization is a question of the specific magnitude of that mpx.

Letter of the Plan Text-X------------------------Intent of the Plan Text

In regards to construction of the plan/counterplan/advocacy/permutation texts, I have a high threshold for properly written texts, meaning that text must do what is indicated that it will do. In a number of rounds, I have found that teams seems to misunderstand or misrepresent what the letter of the text actually would do. This can be as easy as using the wrong diction, syntax and/or semantics...for example using "apart" meaning not a part of vs. what is intended "as a part of" in the text. Just the simple change to this verbiage means that the functional implementation of the policy would be drastically different and not uphold what the solvency advocate intends. Prior to the round please evaluate texts, and the opponent texts as I am willing to vote/reject on miswrote texts in round, however it does have to be on the flow for me to vote.

Overall:

Speed (Spreading): Don't spread if you can't do it properly! Speak quickly but if I can't understand you...I'm out.

Flow (Prep Time): USE YOUR PREP TIME! It is there for a reason. If you drop something or your argument isn't well rounded and you didn't use your prep time....hmmm...see the problem here?

Style (Interaction): I prefer the debaters to not get nasty towards each other but I also want you to stand your ground. There is a style to doing this without sounding like a teenager who isn't getting their way.

Arguments: You have your case...present it. Ask the questions that are needed.

I am a fairly quick thinker so if you miss some of the lingo that's okay but be sure I can pick out what is what in your argument. It should be well developed and structured so that both the judge and opponent(s) can flow your case.

LD: I prefer a round that is both debaters giving their cases at their best. Don't look for what I "prefer" or care about seeing; just give me what you've got and leave it all in the room.

Policy: I think my policy paradigm is the same as my LD. I love a good cross; it's there to ask as many questions as you can and get as much info as you can...be aggressive here if you have to.

sarah.gonzales@rcisd.org

No spreading.

Will not be giving feedback in the room.

Not open to K arguments.

If your impact is nuclear war, the link needs to be very solid.

Thanks!

Judge Name: Laurence Howard

sechs.laurencehoward@gmail.com

No School Affiliation

Years Judging: 3

Specialty: LD

Specific Paradigm(s): Games Player & Speaking skills/communications

Importance of (Scale of 1-10):

- Evidence (Inclusion of "hard" empirical evidence): 8

- Analysis (Logical claims explain the inherent problems): 8

- Clash (Refutation of opposing positions): 10

- Questions (Answers to questions clarify with precision): 9

- Delivery (Speaks smoothly, clearly, controlled, and polished): 10

Other comments: For me, the most important things are the ability to follow the logic of your arguments and refutation of opposing points -- why are your points important?  why do they outweigh the arguments from the opposing side? Delivery and speed are super important to me as well; I'm glad you are providing evidence to help your position, but if I, and even your opponent, are unable to follow you because of speed or the constant use of the word "like" that becomes a problem.

For Interp Events: I like to see relatable pieces. I enjoy seeing how your passion comes through as your give your speech. I also appreciate preparation; along with a topic that is close to you, I want to see that you have sufficiently practiced and are ready to give your speech. (besides impromptu and improv of course)

I require extensive statistics and proof of credentials to accept and effectively compare an argument. I have several years of experience as a PF competitor and judge.

Hi! I competed in LD, PF, and CD in high school, along with several platform events (OO, Info, DX, FX). I did interp events in middle school, but didn't we all? I'm in college now and basically spend every weekend judging debate tournaments. If you have any specific questions about my paradigms or a decision, please reach out to me. My email is graceejudicee@tamu.edu! I love providing feedback!

LD

I don’t like spreading. The purpose of a debate round is to use critical thinking skills to convince your opponent/judge of a specific argument, not speak so fast that you lose your opponent and gain the upper hand in the round.

Generally speaking, I prefer a traditional style of debate. However, if you chose to go for a theory shell argument, I will flow it. Just be careful. If you ONLY/MAINLY go for theory, there is a good chance that your opponent will have an adequate response, leaving you with very little offense.

When it comes to evidence, if you are sharing it with your opponent, share it with me as well (graceejudicee@tamu.edu). Don’t just give me a card name and date and expect me to value its importance. Convince me that it is important, accurate, and more reliable than your opponent’s card.

PF

Doing the weighing for me is like an insurance policy. In rounds where there is a lot of clash, some arguments turn into a wash. When you weigh, in addition to extending arguments across the flow, you are giving me more reasons to vote for you.

When it comes to evidence, if you are sharing it with your opponent, share it with me as well (graceejudicee@tamu.edu). Don’t just give me a card name and date and expect me to value its importance. Convince me that your evidence is important, accurate, and more reliable than your opponent’s card.

If I hear something in final focus that wasn’t brought up in summary, you’ve just wasted your own time.

If you are second rebuttal, you need to frontline.

Congress

A great PO will make my ballot, but I always prefer great speakers. I know it is difficult to find a PO in lot of rounds, so I always appreciate volunteers.

If you aren’t the first affirmative or first negation, I expect some sort of clash. Refer back to your fellow representatives. I don’t want to hear 3 speeches with the same exact points.

Questioning is important. If you have great speeches, but fail to participate in the rest of the round, that will result in a lower ranking.

Don't speak just to speak with zero preparation if you know it will be a terrible speech! I'd rather a chamber move to previous question after 3 speeches than hear someone speak for 2 minutes off the top of their head. Keep in mind, this is different than writing a speech during recess. I always appreciate those that offer to write during recess to keep the round going.

I'd rather hear one "6" speech from you than three "4" speeches.

Once you enter the chamber, stay in "character", even during recess. Compared to other styles of debate, delivery and presentation is more important.

IEs/Extemp

Make me laugh. I love humor, but forced humor and stock introductions are awkward. Cringe.

For extemporaneous speaking, PLEASE provide a clear introduction with a source AND a preview of your three points. Extemporaneous speeches without some sort of preview/roadmap during the introduction are often unorganized. Also, actually answer the question. This seems like a no brainer, but you'd be surprised.

Delivery and presentation always matter, but CONTENT is SO important.

In out rounds, I expect the time of your speech to be pretty close to the time limit on the TFA ballot. Basically, 4 minute extemporaneous speeches in semi finals won't fly with me.

My Background

I coached for about 10 years at Diablo Valley , where I coach Paliamentary debate (NPDA), IPDA, and, to a somewhat lesser degree, Lincoln-Douglas (NFA-LD). In terms of high school forensics, I've done coaching work for Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas for several years now.

What I Like to See in Rounds

Good link refutation and good weighing. In most rounds (that don't involve theory and so on) I'm left believing that some of the aff's arguments flow through and some of the neg's arguments flow through. Your impact weighing will guide how I make my decision at that point.

What I don't mind seeing

I'm comfortable with theory debate. I don't live and die for it, but sure, go for those arguments if they're called for.

What You Should be Somewhat Wary of Running

I understand Kritiks. I've voted on many Ks, I'll probably vote on many more. But with that said, it's worth mentioning that I have a high propensity to doubt the solvency of most kritiks' alternatives. If you're running the Kritik, it might be really important to really clearly explain: who does the alt? What does doing the alt actually entail in literal terms? How does doing the alternative solve the harms outlined in the K?

If your K claims to have an impact on the real world, I should have a say in whether I want to cause that real world effect. I'm not gonna make decisions in the "real world" based on someone happening to drop an argument and now I have to murder the state or something.

How am I on speed?

I can keep up with speed. If you're going too fast, I'll call slow. With that said, it's important to me that your debating be inclusive: both of your opponent and your other judges. I will encourage your opponents and any other judges to please call "speed" if you're going too fast. Please slow down if that happens.

Other Debate Pet Peaves

Evidence sharing. Have your evidence ready to share. If someone calls for a card, it's not acceptable for you to not have it or for it to take a lifetime to track the card down.

Please feel free to ask me more in-person about anything I've written here or about anything I didn't cover!

My name is Bhavna Malhotra, and I'm a parent judge who has experience judging some local tournaments in both Interpretation and Public Address events.

Interpretation Events: I highly value strong characterization, clear introductions, and expert blocking. Be sure to really flesh out your characters and make them thorough, have the introductions be concise, but also provide a connection to the story, and have the blocking not overpower but aid in driving the narrative.

Public Address Events: Content is king. While strong speaking is definitely a plus, and varied vocal tone is great, the content of the speech itself must have a clear structure, must provide topical and pertinent examples for the subject it is tackling, and the entire oration itself needs to flow.

Katy Taylor 2015-2019

UT '23

Congress:

- Argumentation > presentation.

- Clash is Really Important. I do like to see more rebuttal the further on we are in the round, but I'll take one really clear, direct argument against a previous speaker than 5 arguments with no substance in an attempt to address everyone in the room. Address your competitor's argument specifically! I'm here for well-constructed, direct refutation.

- Link to your impacts, please! Otherwise they don't make sense. Really strong links are impressive.

- Neg speeches need active harms somewhere, not just "this won't work-" otherwise there's no harm in trying.

- Use good evidence- really need to see more than a one-off line pulled from your source.

PFD:

- Good on speed but quality > quantity

- Line-by-line rebuttal is the best way to go for me. Also, make it obvious where you are in the flow- "under their second contention, subpoint A," "their Valeri card, which states ____" - all good! (Author name specifically is less crucial here, just explain what the card is saying so I know where you are.) Just tell me where to flow! I'd rather focus on the content of your argument rather than try to figure out where you are.

- If you're dropping an argument intentionally, make that clear. Also explain any extensions or turns.

- Final focus should be big picture.

Email me at clarisseman02@gmail.com for any questions!

Debate:

I prefer evidence over pragmatic analysis, yet pragmatism over philosophy.

I am willing to listen to and judge a theory argument even though I may hate having to do it.

Theory over kritiks, but traditional debate over both.

Valid, relevant, credible evidence is a must. If your evidence is from questionable sources, or biased, or generally in contrast to what I know about the topic I am going to put more weight on analytics as a sort of check on reasonability.

Clarity and content over spreading. I’m too old and have been to too many concerts and don’t want to try and decipher what you are saying.

Less emphasis on topicality, higher burden of proof.

Don’t rely on voters to win your round, I will flow your round.

Sort of a combo of: stock issues, tab, games, speaking, hypothesis.

Conviction.

Speech:

Make it interesting and enjoyable to listen to, quality evidence over quantity, don’t throw out a bunch of garbage evidence just to fill your speech. Virtual delivery is tough, I am proud of all of you in this manner.

Any preferences with respect to blocking, movement, etc. in a virtual world? Do your best in this crazy time.

If character work adds to the quality, it's great. If it does not, it’s a distraction. Use it when necessary, the more differentiation (when you have multiple characters) the better. Don’t rely on character work if your characters all sound/act the same, it gets confusing.

Author's intent and appropriateness of a piece: Tough/mature topics are difficult to do,if you do it well, it goes far. It takes conviction for sure. It needs to be believable, some students just arent ready to speak on these types of topics. I will not drop you because of appropriateness so long as you can, with conviction, speak on the topic or with the language.

I am a Tab Rosa judge. I will not make arguments for you, and if it is stated in the round it needs to be substantiated. Don't just make a wild claim and consider it as truth. If you can provide back up on each claim, I will value it in the round. I'm perfectly fine with all arguments, as long as they are run properly. If you speak fast and unclear, it makes it harder to value the arguments in the round. Please speak clearly.

Speech I look for who gives the best speech with 6 or more sources. What I am looking for is clarity as well as if it is a good speech. If you have great points, but the speech is just fact after fact and monotone, I will have a hard time ranking you up. That being said, I also don't want TOO much style. If you've got a funny, entertaining speech, but the analysis is lacking I will have a hard time ranking you up. I am looking for a perfect blend of the two.

CX

1. no excessive speed.

2. K's must apply to aff, have impact, must provide a weighing mechanism. I don't vote for a K that simply reflects a wrong in SQ.

3.Ultimately weighing adv , disads is critical

LD

1. Value/ crit can be critical, but often depends on the topic.

2. When topics are policy oriented, I can vote on policy.

3. I find standards to be important.

Extemp

1. Make sure your address the topic.

2. While number of sources cited isn't terribly critical, I do expect facts, etc. to be supported with sources. One two sources is not enough.

3. I prefer a natural delivery.

Oratory

1. Good unique topics appreciated. Substance, significance of topic takes a slight edge over delivery, but only slight. A little humor along the way is always good.

POI

1. I prefer a POI that recognizes a manuscript is being used. At least a little, please. A variety of emotional appeals works best.

2. I want to "see" in source in the program. They must be distinct and woven to enhance message of program.

HI, DI

1. HI should make me laugh or smile really hard. I look for development of characters, if possible.

2. DI should build to climax, both in selection and performance.

Congress

1. Be an active member of the session.

2. The least effective position to take is one that has already been given by a previous speaker. No re-hash.

3.Congressional debate requires debate. Rebuttal points/naming specific speakers, gets the most positive judging response.

4. Don't be afraid to be PO. I appreciate a good PO, and will take that into account when ranking.

Parent judge, extremely little experience.

I don't understand debate very well, make things clear.

Crossfire is really important in the round--It shows how much you know.

Presentation is the main point of debate, be sure to present yourself well, speak slowly and be persuasive.

I will vote on the argument that I believe to be the most true.

When voting, I will take presentation first before arguments because the point of debate is to persuade people.

My main preference is no spreading.

HI.

I did LD, Impromptu, and Policy in high school.

Add me to the email chain pls: alina.wang@berkeley.edu

I don't mind if you sit during CX

off-time road maps don't offend me - I prefer you tell me the order of your arguments.

LD/Policy

Framework debate(MOSTLY FOR LD) - one that answers the question: which framework is more superior in the round?

Tabula Rasa for me.

Explain it well.

Clash and links.

Make sure links are clear and that your argument is easily traceable.

WEIGH your arguments/impacts.

If you are going to spread, slow down at the taglines for your own sake.

Theory

I don't like theory. Do not run theory unless there is an obvious reason for you to run theory. I won't vote on it unless it's necessary or credible.

I hate Disclosure theory. If generations of debaters can win without it, I don't see the point in you wasting my time.

K's

Always love hearing a good K.

Plan/CP

Internal Links should exist.

PLEASE DONT SHAKE MY HAND. Give me a fist bump instead.

If you have any questions about my paradigms, please ask me before the round starts.

I have previously coached high school debate in Missouri and Kansas, and I currently assist Lansing and Olathe East. I was a policy debater in high school. I have taught at debate and speech camps and I frequently judge policy debate, LD, PF, and speech.

EMAIL CHAIN: jeriwillard@gmail

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

GIVE THE ORDER AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SPEECH.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speech - Strong analysis and organization is key. MAKE SURE YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION! I evaluate heavily on the use of evidence to back up clear, logical analysis. Communication is key - it is your job to communicate with me, not my job to work to understand you - keep this in mind and consider what structure to provide in your speech to make sure your concept and analysis can be easily followed.

Interp - I judge interp based on storytelling, characterization, and performance technique. In dramatic selections - I am looking for depth of character, honesty, realism, and believable character relationships. Make sure you have moments and aren't just presenting dialogue. Character arcs are also important and should be part of your storytelling. In humorous selections - I am looking for strong, committed acting choices with strong polish and technique. Storytelling is still hugely important - the story should be easy to understand and clearly focused. Characters are the most important. I am looking for strong characters that feel realistic and react in the moment. The comedy should drive largely from character reactions. Popping technique is also very important - should be polished and clean with distinct physical and vocal choices.

This is all about YOU and I am here for YOU. I'm on your side!

JUDGING PREFERENCES

- Were the rules of the event followed? (Can I tell it is poetry and not prose)

- Was the performance clean and polished? (More to do with effort than sole skill)

- Was there palpable energy to the performance? (In-person or through a computer screen)

- Was the student having fun? (Could I relax and watch someone reveling in doing what they do best)

- What did I learn? (What do I know at the end of your performance that I did not at the beginning)

BACKGROUND & EXPERIENCE

Member & Captain of the IE Squad at the University of Texas at Austin

-AFA Poetry National Champion 2005

-AFA Eight National Out-rounds, Five-time National Finalist

Member & Captain of Speech Team at Wheaton Warrenville South High School

-IHSA State Champion of DI and HDA (Humorous Duet Acting)

-IHSA Six-time State Finalist

National Final Round Judge for AFA National Championships

Coach at University of Texas National Institute of Forensics (UTNIF) 2004-2022

Current Head Speech Coach for Quarry Lane School

For those of y'all who know me, nothing has really changed. This restructuring of my paradigm is just for making it more concise and to clarify some things that this past season made me realize about how I evaluate rounds. But I will specify those as needed. I do want to be on the email chain, my email is woodward@binghamton.edu.

Super short, you don't know who I am and you have 5 minutes.

Head Coach/ADoD? @ Binghamton University (2020- Current)

Debated/Coached/Judged @ George Mason University (2009-2019)

I generally vote on anything you wanna do, as long as it is not harmful to someone in the debate.

At this point I've seen just about any type of argument at least once, my most common rounds judged are either clash debates or policy v policy rounds

I think K affs are fine and good and important, same time framework is also a viable, if tired out strategy.

Explanation is key! The more you specify the better off you will be

I am a sucker for framework or other judge instruction decisions.

Affs should do something, and either be in a topical direction, or have strong reasons for not doing so.

Longer, more detailed info starts here.

Novice/Junior Varsity

If I'm being honest, I think these divisions matter more than varsity most of the time. They are our lifeblood, we need more people to be in this activity and have it grow, and to do that we need more and larger JV/Novice divisions. As a result, I will give as much energy as I can to help younger debaters grow within round in whatever style they wish to pursue. That being said.

1. I am very anti-packet. I don't think it is helpful for anything other than helping new programs get started with evidence. I think there are a multitude of ways it can be fixed to be better for debate but until those happen I am not certain it is a net positive. This doesn't really change how I'd vote, so for example if I'm at a Packet tournament i'd follow the rules but I think it's a disservice of helping novices grow as debaters.
2. I also am fine with novices doing whatever they feel comfortable/want to. My expectations for argument extension/answer will be lower than in JV/Open.
3. I do not care if you do or do not read a plan in novice. I would prefer you do, OR if you don't you defend common DAs and are actively in the direction of the topic (so you'd have to answer topic DAs/CPs). This only applies for 1st semester.

Topicality

1. Is always a voting issue and is never a reverse voting issue
2. I default to competing interpretations
3. 2NRs/2ARs should be explaining visions of what the topic should or should not be and have a definition
4. I will inevitably add more topic specific thoughts but generally I default to whatever allows for more affs to be topical/a larger expansion of topic interpretations. For a easier metric, using this past topic. I think T Subsets was far more persuasive vs Manoomin affs, than granting all rights to Oceans type of affirmatives. If you have questions, asked.

Disadvantages

Only thing I can think to say is that I'm not a big fan of the Politics/Elections DA. I think it's solid education for learning about political processes but it's just not realistic in the current political climate. I will vote on it if won but these arguments might be the only ones in debate that are too ridiculous to take seriously. If this changes i'll mention it here. Otherwise, turns case args are good, and a good DA + case debate is enjoyable to see

Counterplans & Theory

1. they're good- I prefer counterplans that punish aff mistakes that are based on their evidence vs random processes or fed action key warrants for competition
2. You need a solvency advocate
3. I will never kick the counterplan for the negative in the 2NR without prior instruction + no aff pushback. I think it's one reason for neg terrorism
4. I am not a fan of large conditionality, i.e I lean aff if there are more than 2 conditional advocacies in a round
5. I default to Theory is always a reason to reject, but requires proper investment and impacted out reasons to punish the negative for their action in round. Conditionality is the easiest place but anything can get my ballot. I will say my standards for theory being a round winning option have risen.

Critical Debates (Aff & Neg)

1. I need explanation, you will be more read than I am, but I will always give your arguments a fair shake. But the more explanation you give the better it is for you
2. I'm a sucker for judge instruction- the more you use your critique to impact out what is or isn't my main priority the easier it gets for me to prioritize your arguments. In some cases proper framing can overcome technical drops, but I'm still a more tech over truth judge
3. Framework matters. I default to weighing the aff vs the alternative, and view framework as what should I prioritize in debates. As a result especially in Policy Aff vs K Neg debates I need aff teams to come up with more direct or beneficial ways to tell me how to evaluate a certain round. "Weigh the aff vs the competitive option" doesn't do things for me. I need more explicit evaluate xyz first. This can be as simple as saving lives, or fighting climate change or whatever is best for your aff but that style of framework gets you far more offense and ways to push your aff vs the critique vs assuming you don't get your aff. Now you should have standards that defend getting your aff/fiat if you think the 2NC framework will do so but it's not the beginning and end of your framework debates. As for the critical teams, framework needs to be offense. You don't need to only go for fiat not real means vote neg, go for education/epistomology/etc of the aff being bad, their form/content or whatever else you think is persuasive. TELL me what it does and how it shapes a debate.
4. Perms - specific ones > generic do both, plan in all non competitive areas, you do you, we do us etc. But you should make sure you're specifying your permutation a bit. at the same time grouping perms on the negative is a dangerous practice that should be taken more advantage of, especially if you have a timeframe or intrinsic perm that can shift out of neg offense.
5. Don't forget your impact or link

These are just 5 bullet points of what I look at in rounds, but the big thing is simply tell me what your arguement is, how it links to the aff, how it outweighs the aff and why I should prefer it. Also I don't need an alt to vote neg.

Critical Affirmatives

1. Need to do something and be in direction of the topic (OR have good reasons for why they shouldn't have to)
2. they are good, and I am happy to listen to them
3. Explain what is key, your method and why it works. i'm not super big on presumption w/o specific evidence but bad explanation/no explanation on how your aff will work against you

In Framework debates- I've found a few things about how I evaluate them. First is that I'm getting tired of them, I need some new innovation or ideas. Or better yet just read T. I think going for topicality in a more traditional sense + some topic edu DAs is possibly more persuasive than framework definitions, I could be burned out on seeing very similar debates at various levels for a long period without innovation. I still think the theoretical args (limits, ground, fairness) are more persuasive as impacts than portable skills. I still would prefer a Framework debate over a Cap debate if you had to choose between the 2 generics vs critical affs, but I honestly would prefer to see more specific and nuanced strategies come out in these debates against aff teams. I think conditionality is still bad even IF the aff isn't defending the resolution but I don't count framework as a conditional advocacy. I also think you need to have specific engagement with aff offense against frmaework

In K v K debates- I don't do a ton of these but I could see some changes. I think teams shouldn't be afraid, or ideologically opposed to sometimes reading T vs other critical teams. I think case debates are a lot stronger/more persuasive here. I think PICs or arguments against the 1AC performance are very telling. But the biggest thing for me is i think there's an argument for perms shouldn't exist. I used to think that not allowing a perm in a method v method debate was silly, but after this season I am not so sure, debate it out and i'll have a clearer idea then. the big thing for me is simply that I just need explanation and good instruction and i'll happily vote for whoever does more of it.

Misc.

Speaker Points have lost their way and honestly I don't know if they can be saved. I generally don't want to be the person messing up your chance to clear so this is how I look at them at the moment. I don't believe in 30s outside of CEDA/NDT and it's your last tournament ever as a senior. But I am going to adjust this slightly for next year I believe. But this is what I did/aimed for in the last few seasons speaks wise.

1. JV/Novice I average around a 28.6 if I think you should clear, and if I give a 29+ I believe you should be debating in a higher division, or at least once you are ready to move up you will do fine.
2. Nationals - If I think you could clear my average is around a 28.7.

Less is more. I'm sympathetic to the "strategy" of large 1NC offcase numbers, but I honestly think in a lot of cases this is a waste of time. I can understand where it is needed but those times are rare and distinct. As a result I prefer rounds where teams read 4 good 2NR options with their case debates, versus teams reading 8 offcase where 5 have 0 world of ever making it into the 2NR. Interpret this as you wish.

I would like debates to be chill. Not to say a "snarky" or "heated" debate is bad to judge (On the contrary I kind of like these debates a bit) but there's a line between heated and being an ass to your opponents. Please don't push it. DEFINENTLY don't be an ass to your partner. But we'll see each other somewhere between 1 tournament to 5+ years, let's try and be decent people. Also do not say things that are hurtful or damaging to others.

Cheating? do not. I've had to deal with this type of scenario once, and it was awful, but it was also an evidence question, not a clipping thing. But for starters, Round ends from the challenge, there is no restarting, you will need a recording, and if you're wrong you lose with minimal speaks. I fortunately have not had to deal with this a lot and am grateful.

Clarity. I will yell clear if I cannot understand you. If we are in an online debate THIS is exceptionally important. ]

Speaking of Online debates, my camera is not great, but I will have my camera on barring technical issues or terrible internet. I will not care if your camera is off so long as you are understandable and clear, especially if you need the camera off for connection issues. Speak slower because not all headsets/Mics/speakers are created equal.

Trolling Clause. I think debate is a good, fun activity that has plenty of benefits. If you don't want to debate, just forfeit or go through the motions, have a conversation i do not care. Just please do not troll me or your opponents for no reason. If I feel you have been trolling/deliberately wasting time, you get a L15, if you're funny it's a L25. But please do not troll.

Non Policy Formats.

Assume that I am a judge who will be flowing but will have done 0 topic research. Outside of Public Forum, I do not have a ton of experience in other formats (Lincoln Douglas, Parli, Worlds etc.) I will know basics/speech times but not much else. I will vote on rounds in the same manner I would a Policy debate round. Persuasive speaking alone will not win ballots from me but will boost speaks. I do not care about how fast you speak as long as you are clear and your opponent hasn't made an argument/asked you to be more accessible.

Specific Notes for diff formats.

LD: I'm a policy coach most of the time. doing policy things is better for my comprehension than more traditional LD. Some of my debaters have explained to me about the frivolous nature of LD theory. I am prob ok for some theory, like conditionality, pics bad, etc. I am very bad for absolutely frivolous theory. I also do not believe in RVIs. I do not know what "tricks" are for LD outside of theory.

Public Forum: I last coached PF during Covid, worked at some camps, and debated it in high school (think 2007-2009) era. I've done policy debate most of my time otherwise. My 2 biggest pet peeves are lack of crystallization at the end of debates and evidence. I am a judge that is amicable to judge instruction i.e If you tell me to evaluate xyz first and your opponents do not push back, I will default to it 9/10 times barring exceptionally large amounts of technical drops. I'll evaluate any argument so long as it doesn't harm others in the debate. Finally, evidence norms in PF are atrocious. Paraphrased evidence isn't acceptable. Evidence should be formatted, it does not need to be in a style like "cards" but the evidence should be with citation (author, quals, title, date, a way to access the document etc.) and read fully, not summarized when presented the first time. I will reward good evidence practices with extra speaker points (Email chains, proper formatting, disclosure on wiki etc.). I will punish bad evidence practices with lowered speaker points (Paraphrasing, refusal to show evidence to opponents, only posting links in classroom chats etc.) Either way, I'll judge the round presented to me.

I am a parent of a high school student speech & debater, not a speech coach or debater myself.

It is very important to me that you have fun, and work your best to adequately express your points / arguments in a clear and concise manner.

In debate, if you spread, it is highly likely I will not be able to understand you or follow your side of the debate. I value personal, well thought out, convincing arguments, and rebuttals with supporting facts and sources much more than opinions, feelings or cases written by others that you simply read verbatim.

Since I am a "lay" or "community" judge, I encourage you to provide me with verbal roadmaps, signposts, frameworks, etc. when appropriate.

Speech: For Oratory and Informative speaking, I look for a unique perspective on the topic you chose. With Informative, inform me. I don't mind advocacy, but I am not looking for a Persuasive speech.

Interpretive: I want to give you my full attention with no distractions. If you can make me forget that I am timing you, or looking at your surroundings, that is a great thing indeed, as it means, you took me to a new place, time, thought and away from the real world for the moment. That means you hit the mark! I enjoy all types of selections, those with many characters and those with one. I judge on how well done you set up and performed that selection.

TIP: In the virtual events, please work to keep controllable distractions (e.g.,spinning ceiling fans, kitty cats meowing, and dogs licking your camera lens, etc) to a minimum. Yes, I have seen all of these during live virtual events this year. Please know, I will downgrade your ranking if I spot or hear any of these or very similar controllable distractions during your debate/performance.

Otherwise, have fun, and show the utmost respect for the rules of your event and for your fellow competitors.