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, as long as you aren't spitting across the room. I'm fine with progressive args, run whatever you want but everything needs to be extended through your 2 rebuttals for me to use it as a weighing mechanism. (If you are a non-traditional LD'er ... refer to my policy paradigm for more potential tips)

PF- Steps to getting my vote: extend all cards you intend on using through round through to summary (no sticky defense), line by line rebuttal, if you don't address a turn made on case I will consider it a drop, collapse in summary, if you're speaking second then I expect your summary to address attacks made in last rebuttal. Also: weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh in EVERY SPEECH.

Policy: I am a tab judge

Here are some of my personal preferences: Don't go for too much. I'd like if you collapsed down to one position in your 2NR. Never finish a speech early, use that time to clarify arguments or bring down your opponents. I tend to be partial to K as long as it is very well done (it's fun..ner?). I need clear impact and link stories, the flow should be immaculate, and you should be able to signpost well enough for me to easily vote without rummaging through my sheets. 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. Two most important things in the round: IMPACT CALC & SPLIT THE BLOCK.

GENERAL: don't be unnecessarily rude to your opponents, it doesn't make you look cool. I WILL dock points for any mean or snide behavior, as well as asking circular questions in cross that don't allow your opponent to generate an answer. If your opponent is noticeably less experienced then you, do NOT take that as an opportunity to patronize them.

7 years of experience judging various forms of debate and speech events on local/state/national levels. Currently the coach at St. John's Upper School.

Consider me a tab judge for events: no event specific expectations on what should happen, I prefer everything to be spelled out in round.

I default to reasonability if left to my own devices, but will entertain and vote on all arguments.

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. 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.

-

-

FOR TOC SPECIFICALLY

Name: Jon-Carlo Canezo

School Affiliation: St. John's School

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 7

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 7

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 4

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? All of them.

What is your current occupation? Speech and Debate Coach at St. John's School

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery: Because I'm old and sometimes technology is bad - I often can't keep up with very fast speeches (ie policy style or what people might call "spreading") but that doesn't mean you have to go slow or conversational style. I will only evaluate and write what I hear.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?): Generally I prefer line by line in early speeches and more of a big picture in the latter speeches.

Role of the Final Focus: To summarize the round, weigh the arguments, describe why I should vote for one team over the other.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: Must be done manually. Defense might be sticky, but that's still some thing you should at least talk about to carry through.

Topicality: Fine if it's a very clear topicality violation, not splitting semantics.

Plans: Sometimes necessary depending on the resolution, but not out of the blue.

Kritiks: Just not enough time in PF.

Flowing/note-taking: I do these things.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Argument over style.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Both.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Required? No. But it's generally a good idea to do so.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No new arguments.

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here. Nothing more than this summary and the things above this summary.

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 NSDA Nats 2021*

*Updated for Chey East 2020*

*Updated for Alta 2020*

*Updated for Evanston 2020*

*Updated for UMich 2020*

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: 50+

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

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. *UPDATE:* 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, however 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

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).

*UPDATE: 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 this year, reading Prez Tix DAs two days before the elections is frustrating and the uniqueness probably overwhelms the link.

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.

*UPDATE: 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

**UPDATE** 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

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.

~~NSDA Nats 2021 Philosophy~~

My Background

I am a college coach over at Diablo Valley College, where I coach Paliamentary debate (NPDA), IPDA, and, to a somewhat lesser degree, Lincoln-Douglas (NFA-LD). I've been doing that for about 8 years. In terms of high school forensics, I've done coaching work for Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas for several years now, though I think it's most fair to say that my judging style is most informed by college debate and not as much by high school norms.

What I Like to See in Rounds

First and foremost, I think debaters have a bad habit of putting a lot of stock in their refutations and not doing any real impact 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. Unless you don't do any of the impact weighing.

What I don't mind seeing

I'm comfortable with theory debate. I don't live and die for it, but if you want to read a theory argument, I'll know what you're doing. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to go for theory arguments when they're not called for, but for my part, I'll do my best to vote based on my flow.

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?

While I will base most of my K decisions on the flow, at the end of the day, many K's claim to have real world impacts based on how I vote in the round. If that's true, then I believe I should have some amount of say in how I affect the real lives of the people in the world around me. I'm not going to blindly take an action I don't belive in which has signficant reprecussions just your opponent happened to drop an argument.

How am I on speed?

I can keep up with speed. If you're going too fast, I'll call slow. I won't silently punish you for your speed, and I won't miss the arguments you're making because I'm too shy to admit you're too fast for me. 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. It's Nationals. Get it together.

Will I disclose?

I always tell debaters that my preference is to just give lots of constructive feedback that will help both sides in future rounds. I'm a big believer in positive momentum. I think it's in your best interest to move on from Round 1 to Round 2 feeling positive about the things you did well and maintaining a high energy level and enthusiasm. I think a lot of debaters tell themselves (and tell me) that they can handle finding out they lost, but then that Round 1 loss will throw off their game for the whole tournament.

But despite telling that in every round I judge, 95% of debaters will say want me to disclose anyway. And if you ask me, I'll tell you.

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.

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 am the debate coach at Truman. I have previously coached high school debate in Missouri and Kansas. 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.

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.

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.

To the Competitors:

You got this!

- I am more excited to enjoy your performance than critique your performance.

- You are brilliant.

- Your worth is not defined by the outcome of this round.

- Above all else. HAVE FUN! If you have fun, we have fun. Fun doesn't have to be funny.

Thank you for being vulnerable and sharing your stories.

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 solely skill)

- Was there a 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

Former 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

Former 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

National Final Round Judge for AFA National Championships

Coach at University of Texas National Institute of Forensics (UTNIF) 2004-2021

Current Head Speech Coach for Quarry Lane School

Old Paradigm was very long, decided to shorten it. For those who have had me judge before/are familiar, nothing's changed, just more word efficient (hopefully)

***Background***

Assistant Director of Debate with Binghamton University & Assistant coach for Broome County Debate Alliance

Conflicts- Broome County Debate Alliance, George Mason University, Binghamton University

***TL;DR Version***

I prefer you do what you're best at, stuff below is biases, not set in stone. You're far better doing you than adapting to me on most things (though if it's a panel I understand)

Clarity > Speed, but idc about the speed you're talking at I will yell clear if you aren't.

I do want to be on the email chain (dwoodward92@gmail)

Have fun, be cordial

Don't say offensive things, I reserve the right to end debates IF I think an issue has gone too far or is inappropriate for the situation at hand

Online Debate Specific - As of now my WiFi where I judge rounds is mediocre, sometimes it cuts out/goes bad, as a result I don't have my camera on outside of RFDs. Because of my own limitations I do not care if your camera is on or off.

***Novice Debate***

Is good and appreciated, and in this day and age needs to be embraced/helped.

Will generally follow the rules of the tournament as stated, regardless of if I agree with them or not.

***Topicality***

Is a voter

Hard for me to vote aff if no we meet/counter-interpretation is extended

Hard for me to vote neg if no standards/interpretation are extended

I prefer competing interpretations over reasonability

End of/Start of Season/Core aff etc. type of arguments are not persuasive

2021-2022 Topics- No current trends/thoughts I have on either topic to be fair

***Counterplans***

I reward teams punishing aff mistakes. This means exploiting things that aff authors say in the 8 sized font, or later in the article. Not there's no fed action key card in the 1AC.

I don't kick the CP for the neg if extended in the 2NR

Aff leaning on most theory questions

I like smart/specialized permutations versus generic perm do both that morphs in the 1AR.

**Important Theory thing** - Can be persuaded that anything but perm theory = reason to reject, Limited Condo is good, more than 2 condo is bad unless the aff is new. Kicking planks is always bad. New Aff/NDT/GSU means neg gets to do what they want is not an argument.

What I've found since i've been up front about this. I am more strict on what is my line for voting on theory (unless dropped) but still sympathize with aff teams when negs do wacky stuff theoretically. Ask on other specifics, will say PICS are the one type of CP where I lean neg theoretically.

Affs where the 2AC is 20 seconds/10 words on condo -> 3 min of the 1AR are just as unpersuasive as 2NCs to condo that are 15 words/20 seconds.

***Disadvantages***

Are good- I enjoy a clear DA + Case debate (I don't know who wouldn't)

Up to the debater to tell me if the link or uniqueness determine each other and what that means.

I will listen to/vote on politics DAs but general args about how unlikely it is to work or happen are persuasive.

Analytics can beat a bad DA/bad ev.

***Critiques***

You will, more than likely know what you're talking about more than I do.

Easiest way to get my ballot is to explain your argument - Even IF I understand what you're saying the burden is on you to explain it. Teams who usually get my ballot with critical arguments are exceptionally good at breaking down their argument and explaining it along with strong line by line and framing. The more specific you make your critique to the aff (evidence, CX questions, etc.) the better off you'll be

If you're aff vs a K, defend your stuff. Aff teams are too cowardly these days- IF you have a specific thing they're critiquing, the first response shouldn't be to no link it- you should have a defense of the state/law/language/your specific impact or solvency mech. Sometimes it's ok to big stick aff our stuff OW's vs a K if that's what you have.

***Critical Affs/Clash Debates***

Aff should be in the direction of the topic and do something

Aff should explain how/what they do, the impact and why I should vote for you - remember I don't know your arg better than you

IF, as an Aff team you say in 1AC CX that X DA links to your aff, it will not bode well if that turns out to be a lie (unless the neg just doesn't read a link)

Offense is good

Neg stuff

Fairness/Ground more persuasive on framework than portable skills type of standards.

Aff specific K/DA/case arg > Framework > Generic K in terms of options

Unless it's dropped the aff gets the perm

***Not-Policy Formats***

Overall treat me like a judge who flows but knows very little about current trends/topics.

Parli/Lincolin Douglas Debate - I know little about either of these, other than speech times. at most I have read some random articles, have judged some LD debate but have never coached OR participated myself. Just tell me how to vote, what's important and what is involved. I'm ok with Policyish LD because most of my background is in policy. I will have not done topic research.

Public Forum - Spring 2021 is my first time actively being involved/researching or thinking about Public Forum debate outside of helping at some summer camps/back when I was in High School. I will flow, I don't care about speed but I also am not used to what has changed about PF since 2009.

Based on my judging history I have learned 2 things.

1. I generally vote in a "lazy" way, not lazy as in i don't pay attention/flow but lazy as in the team who best tells me what to do, whether that is via a framework argument, impact analysis or simply the other team dropped x arg, this is most important thing in round, is more than likely to win. You are also likely to lose if your Final Focus is less about why you should win and more on responding to the other team. Points are usually higher in the debates where at least 1 team does the needed work versus ones where the teams do not direct me to a way to evaluate my ballot

2. in the world of online debate I do not like the trend of simply copying-pasting a link, OR a card w/o citations, etc into the online platform chat. As a result I've decided to try something new for PF.

Teams who share evidence in ways that are not simply pasting a link/unformatted card in the zoom/NSDA chat will gain bonus speaks in front of me.

.2 for using/sharing a google doc

.5 for using email chains (for the entire round)

1 full point if proof of updating your wiki/online with the round that was just judged

May keep this bonus to incentivize better evidence practices once we go offline again, stay tuned.

3. I generally am down for whatever yall can justify, just impact it well

But overall, just do what you do best.

***Misc Things that will apply regardless of debate format***

Don't troll debates- we all have invested time into being there for the period of time, would make my life easier if you wanted to forfeit/flip a coin/play a game/something vs running meme/joke args for no reason. If you do so you get a loss 15, if you do it but you're funny you get a 25 instead. Don't waste my and your opponent's time please.

Be nice- you'll see each other many times over the next few years

Clarity > Speed

Tech > Truth (within reason)

Should be a given but don't say rude/racist/offensive things.

Please don't cheat, if you do and you're caught, all proper things via the tournament will be pursued. IF you accuse someone of cheating and are wrong just don't.

Long overviews that attempt to replace line by line are not it, please do not do them - need direct line by line for best results.

Explain your args- spin/analysis means a C+/B- card can beat an A card with no spin. I try not to read evidence unless I absolutely have to, OR if the work to compare the pieces is done

Bonus speaks (to my discretion) to good League of Legends or Smash Bros references/jokes.

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.