For performance based events, I tend to judge based on the believability of either the character the performer is portraying, or the connection to the message they are delivering. I enjoy more natural acting styles as I believe subtle emotion is much more powerful than over the top, unrealistic emotion. With humorous I am pretty simple; did I laugh? Was it clean? Was the script appropriately cut/ did the plot make sense? If every performer in a round hits all of these, it becomes all about which ones made me laugh the most.

When it comes to PA I find it necessary that the topic be something most people aren't familiar with OR a topic we frequently talk about with nuance brought to it. Additionally, the structure of the speech and conversational tone of the delivery is important to me. I also look for confidence, preparation, and accessibility of the information being presented, especially if it is a complex topic.

Hi! I'm Evelyn Huang (Louis D. Brandeis (TX), '22) and I competed in extemp, congress, and worlds throughout high school.

Debate: I'm flexible as a judge but I don't follow spreading and dislike progressive debate trends. I expect you to keep your own time and to keep your competitors accountable. Treat me like a well-informed lay judge. Don't twist or cherrypick sources to mislead a room, be respectful to your opponent(s), and make sure your lines of reasoning make logical/common sense.

Extemp: I hate canned intros and awkwardly forced humor as AGDs and transitions. I prioritize thoughtful analysis and nuanced approaches, not bad/problematic jokes to "break the tension." As long as your sources are credible and you have well-backed perspectives on an issue, you will do well in extemp rounds 99% of the time. In order of how I rank, 1. accuracy/logical sense, 2. presence/presentation, 3. uniqueness 4. structure. I don't expect you to come up with a revolutionary answer to a complex political/IR issue, so just present to me a fair representation of the topic and you'll do well. Prioritize intention in your speeches--what does that source specifically contribute to the argument? why specifically did you order your points in that order? how does your opinion outweigh the (probably) dozens of experts who have written about their contradicting opinions to yours, or what shortcomings/blind spots have they not considered?

Hi everyone!

I’m Stephanie and my background was primarily prepared speaking. 

IEs

I tend to be very critical of topics and this is what I will mostly rank on. However, I always like to see new and unique approaches so make this fun! For the info people, I will also take your boards into account and I judge based on if you interact with them and if they add to your speech. I also listen to what your sources are and I’d like to see y’all citing something more credible than a mainstream news source.

One last thing for the orators… your solutions are the most important part of your entire speech and I want to see nuanced solutions that create tangible change. I love hearing about organizations that are actively working to fix the problem. 

I’m excited to be judging your round and I look forward to hearing all your topics!

Debate

I love hearing nuanced and intricate arguments that apply to current events. I also want to see y’all tying everything back to framework… framework is really important! 

I don’t mind fast speaking, but please don’t spread. Other than that I tend to enjoy traditional style debate more and I will give you higher speaks if you follow that format. 

Put me on the email chain: stephaniemurraydebate@gmail.com

Best of luck and see you in round!

Howdy y'all,

I'm a pretty traditional judge who values performance highly. I like to see teams keep the debate from getting too fast and too analytical (K's and the like), so if you start spreading or running a crazy progressive style case I will look down on that. Additionally, I like to see good sportsmanship in the round because at the end of the day, we're all here to have fun!

Sincerely,

Evan Ricke

PS if you make an among us joke you lose all speaker points, that shouldn't have to be said good god its not funny.

Background: Competed in New Mexico from 1998 - 2001. LD, US Extemp, and nearly all Interp events. Competed at NMAA District and State competition. Former coach at Tom Glenn High School and Danielson Middle School in Leander, Texas. Began both programs when both campuses opened in 2016 and 2020.

Current: Independent coach (OO in Maryland), judging predominantly online.

Debate Paradigm: I'm a tab judge who prefers to be treated as a lay judge. I don’t love spreading but won't ticket you for speeding. Always provide a road map, with special attention to how well you’ve researched and read on your value/plan. My decision hangs on clash, solid sparring in cross, proper use of prep (pre-round and during), and voters - literally tell me how you want me to vote down ballot. Literally change my life with your compelling case.

Interp Paradigm: As long as you're convincingly conveying your interpretation and are deliberate with every movement, you're on the right track. Unless Duet Acting, interpretation requires you to interpret the authors’ work. Take proper care of the author's work.

Extemp Paradigm: Extemp is the first event I was successful in as a competitor and helped me decide that I wanted to coach. I like a traditional set up and will take notes down ballot on: Teaser/AGD, Intro, Question/Answer, Points/Subpoints, Loads of Mixed Evidence, Closing/AGD. I expect tight signposts with an approachable delivery.

Howdy Everyone!

I'm currently a student studying Political Science at Texas A&M University. I competed in speech and debate for four years, primarily in Extemp and Congress, but I also have experience competing in World Schools, Info, Oratory, Prose, and Duo. Basically, I've been around the block. I prioritize making competitors feel comfortable in every round and seek to help y'all grow through every ballot. I'm always excited to judge and do this because I believe in the value of this activity. I aim to make my paradigms an explanation for why I vote the way I do and do not expect competitors to change the way they compete just because I am their judge. Good Luck!

Congress

I prioritize unique and complex arguments delivered in a persuasive and passionate style. While I subscribe to the sentiment that "it's Congressional Debate, not Congressional Speech-Making," the delivery of arguments does play a role in my ballot. An ideal speaker should embrace the roleplay of congress and act as if the issue they are speaking on has real-world implications. Dramatic and humorous styles are fine with me as long as each style is used appropriately. Speeches should be delivered extemporaneously, and avoid reading off your computer or flow. That said, your arguments are the first and foremost factor in my decision (consider performance a "soft factor"). I like to see arguments that you couldn't make sitting in a round but rather are well-researched and take a more nuanced approach to the legislation. Source quality is a BIG factor for me. Avoid cable news wires and prioritize think tank and journal articles. If you do not have a single well-researched argument in your speech, your speech is a "round clarification" speech, or it only builds off the same thing other speakers have said, I will not look favorable on that speech. Being a yappologist will only get you so far. Additionally, BE CLEAR. SIGNPOST. PLEASE SIGNPOST. Also, and this goes without saying, CLASH. CLASH OFTEN. CLASH STRATEGICALLY. CLASH WELL.

I understand the impact of precedence and recency and am sensitive to understanding how that can impact the round. However, I will also stress that competitors are responsible for strategizing their precedence and recency.

Presiding officers should be accurate and efficient. A PO's best measure is how much debate time their chamber has. They should not detract from the debate or make mistakes in precedence and recency. They should correct any mistake they make. Basically, if you blend into the background, you are succeeding. I understand how hard being a PO is, so don't be discouraged to PO. I will take you into consideration in my ballot.

World Schools

I love Worlds and think that the event is at the intersection of the most important skills this activity offers. As such, I like a well-rounded team. First and foremost, follow the norms of WSD. I enjoy logical arguments that are straightforward and understandable. Make sure your argument has direct links that make sense. Speeches ought to be delivered in an extemporaneous manner. Avoid reading off your case word-for-word. Speak slowly and clearly but also passionately. Please act like you care about the topic being debated. POIs should be frequent but not frivolous- make them mean something. Communicate on the bench to ensure you are not asking POIs repeatedly or simultaneously. I do not have any ideological preferences between principled and practical arguments. If there is a principled argument, I'd like it extended and addressed as an issue in its own right, separate from practical impacts. Other notes:

• Focus on realistic impacts and explain why your impacts matter. Weigh impacts, please
• There is a difference between repeating your arguments and extending them. If you are parroting the first speech and aren't analyzing or comparing impacts, you are doing something wrong
• The reply should narrow the debate into a few key issues and extend the most important clash points. If something is not extended through the reply, I likely will not consider it. Explain to me why you won the round
• I reward teams that are well-researched and keep up with current events. If there is big global news or information pertinent to the rounds' topic, please bring it up. Especially in impromptu motions.