Speech Events Paradigm

Extemp / OO / Informative

I am looking for confidence in my speaking competitors. If you don't believe it, how can you expect me to?

Extemp - make sure that you communicate the question and your answer! Everything in the middle should support that answer. Source citation at this level will be the difference between the ranks. You've all proven throughout the invitational season that you know how to do this, now we reward the best of the best.

OO - This is your chance to really shine. It is without a doubt my favorite event and I love hearing your stories. If you have a topic that has burned you in the past because of the level of sensitivity then I am definitely the judge that you want. These are subjects that are important to you, I am only here to judge your technical proficiency in delivering the message not the subject matter itself.

Informative - You've got the hardest job of all. How do you inform the audience about a subject that is important enough to speak on without getting passionate enough to slip into persuasiveness? Those that can sell me on the value of their topic while maintaining that balance of info/persuasion will be rewarded with the better ranks. Also, keep in mind that at this level of competition your visual aides can hurt you as much or even more than they can help you. A badly produced prop will hurt your ranking more that just going without will. Don't throw something in just for the sake of having it, the purpose of allowing visual aides is to enhance the message, not detract from it.

INTERP - I am probably not your guy here.

It isn't that I dislike the events, in fact I love watching a good interp round, the problem is that I am highly volatile in my rankings. What appeals to me one day might not on another. I hate that my mood of the moment has that kind of influence over my ballot but that's why I'm disclosing now. I am not well versed in the technical aspects of Oral Interp so I default to voting for the performer that best channels their characters, makes me believe in them, and the literature that connects with me emotionally.

TRIGGER ISSUES - Rape & Child Abuse

If your piece contains Rape scenes please do us both a favor and use a strike on me or at least a Pref level 4

Head coach at San Angelo Central High School

Extemp:

The most important thing is that you answer the question as clearly as possible. This includes previewing your points, signposting throughout, and reviewing your points at the end that links into the conclusion. Adding a clear structure adds to the impact and value of your overall speech. It is to also help you not ramble on. It is also important to be creative with your attention getter, vehicle, and your conclusion. It will set your self apart in my eyes with creativity done well. Sources are very important, but answering the question your way is the most important, then use sources to back those up. Not the other way around. I look for all of those together and a good flow for my overall ranks.

Interp:

Everything you do in your performance must have purpose. I love creative movements, stories, and really anything as long as there is a purpose. I am ok with any theme or story being told as long as there is impact behind it. Facials, moments, and character development are all very important for the overall performance. DO everything you can to truly become your characters and be in the story you are telling. In close rooms, I always look at who does all of these things together the best.

Congress:

The most important thing in a congress room is to have a presence. Do what you need to do to stand out without personally attacking your fellow representatives. Always attack their points, speeches, and questioning to further strengthen your points, but not them personally. I look for how well you understand the legislation, how well you know the info, the impact your points have for fellow constituents, and the creativity of your speaking. You need to have passion and use points made in the round to help your own side out. I really like crystalization of points and not just continuing to repeat other people's points. Do these things and make me HAVE to put you at the top of the room.

LD:

I’m primarily an interp and speaking coach, so with that said, presentation of arguments is imperative. I still expect exceptional analysis on a substantive level, just know I judge debate as a speaking event first. The debater with the strongest link chain to access their impacts will win my ballot. The easiest way to win my ballot is in your voters section in your final speech, present your RFD for me. The less work I have to do at the end of the round the more likely it is you’ll win my ballot. Good luck and I'm excited to hear what you have to say.

I am very much a traditional Debate judge. That means I prefer a more communicative mode of debate. If your speed limits communication, it will be reflected on the ballot. In LD and PF, I prefer no kritiks, plans, or DAs.

Policy Debate:

I tend to be traditional when it comes to debate but, I am open to other approaches. I would like to see why an argument is valid/justified-don't make assumptions. I also prefer the round to be an argument of the resolution. I expect there to be evidence to support your arguments. Make your arguments clear so I know where to place them on the flow.

Speech:

Extemp: Properly structure your speech, quality over quantity for evidence, and you must stay on topic.

Oratory/Info: Persuade me and leave me with some realistic solutions. Solutions should be researched and have merit that they can solve the problem. Structure and transitions are important.

For Congress: I look for knowledge and understanding of Parliamentary Procedure. In speeches, I expect coherent arguments and fact-based support for those arguments. Questions should be to be point at hand and not an effort at another speech. Speaking style should be as fluid as possible. Presiding officer should be fair and able to run the house effectively.

For Policy Debate: I believe in the Tabula Rosa paradigm with the caveat that I expect clash.

Speech Events:

What are your stylistic preferences for extemp? How much evidence do you prefer? Any preference for virtual delivery?: properly structure your speech, quality over quantity for evidence (6 is a good number for me, but of course more is ok), no preference for virtual delivery - speaker's choice

What are your stylistic preferences for Oratory/Info? How much evidence do you prefer? Any preference for virtual delivery? - just persuade me and leave me with some realistic solutions. solutions that are not even possible for me to enact will be considered less than ones that I can actually do something about. I don't have the ability to change the entire educational system, so please don't tell me to.

Any unique thoughts on teasers/introductions for Interpretation events? intros are important

Any preferences with respect to blocking, movement, etc. in a virtual world? speaker's choice

What are your thoughts on character work? need to be realistic, I want to hear their story, not you pretending to, make it real

How do you feel about author's intent and appropriateness of a piece? For example: an HI of Miracle Worker (author's intent) or a student performing mature material or using curse words (appropriateness)? High school tournament = high school appropriateness. This isn't college yet.

Joshua Wimberley
Speech & Debate Coach
Midland Legacy High School

Address for the e-mail chain: joshua.wimberley@midlandisd.net

Debate is a game designed to build a specific set of communication skills. At the end of the day you are a salesman trying to get me to buy your idea. If you don't sell me on it you can't expect to win the round. That being said, if you think you can sell me anything more than a bus ticket at 250+ words per minute you are grossly mistaken... Leave that life to the auctioneers, we are here to communicate.

I will judge the debate you want to have to the best of my abilities. I would say you are better to debate what you are good at debating, than change for me in the back of the room. I do, however, have some predispositions and beliefs regarding debate that you should know. Absent a framework set-up during the debate, I will default policymaker. I prefer to watch debates with good evidence and oriented around a policy action. What makes evidence good is the analysis of the person putting it in action.

Theory Debates: I do not like to watch theory debates because they are generally just taglines with out of context sound bites and impossible to flow. Having said that, I understand the importance and strategy of engaging in a theory debate. I recognize that sometimes you just have to deal with what you're given. If you go for theory in the debate, go deep and slow to analyze the debate. Continuing to read front-lines with no depth of explanation will be bad for you. Try to make the debate about in-round implications and not centered around potential abuse or "how" debate should be in the future. In general, if you haven't caught on by the descriptions, I tend to find education arguments more persuasive than fairness arguments. But fairness is important.

Framework/Performance (or the like) debates: If the debate is a debate about framework or how I should evaluate the debate, please don't forget to talk about the other arguments in the debate. In other words, there should be something "productive" that comes with the way you want me to vote. Debates about how we should debate are interesting, but make sure you engage in some sort of debate as well. Reading scripted/blocked out front-lines is very unimpressive to me. Make it about the debate at hand.

Topicality: I do not vote for T very often but I do think it is a voting issue. If you read a T argument make sure to talk about "in-round" implications and not just potential abuse arguments. With the caselist, disclosure, and MPJ, I do not find potential abuse arguments very compelling. Linking the T to other arguments in the debate and showing the Aff is being abusive by avoiding core neg ground in the debate is what works best. Discussions about predictable literature outside of the in-round implications do not carry much weight because in most instances the Neg knew about the case and researched a good strategy. The exception is when an affirmative breaks a new 1AC, then the neg should be allowed to make potential abuse arguments--they didn't get disclosure and the caselist to prep. I generally prefer depth over breath education claims.

Disadvantages: I like them. The more specific the better. The Link is very important. Please make evidence comparisons during the debate. I dislike having to call for 20+ cards to access uniqueness on a Politics DA (etc) when they are highlighted down to one or two lines. Read the longer, more contextual cards than the fast irrelevant ones. I tend to not give a risk to the DA. You need to win the components to the DA to have me weigh it against the Aff.

Counterplans: I do not like Consult CPs, please choose another type of CP. PIC and Agent CPs are OK, but are better when you have contextual literature that justifies the the CP. Advantage CPs are cool. Affirmatives should not be able to advocate the permutation; however, theory abuse arguments can be used to justify this action. Condo is OK, but you shouldn't go for contradictory arguments in rebuttals.

Case Debates: I like case debates; however, these debates tend to turn into "blippy extensions" and force me to read cards to understand the arguments and/or nuances of the case debate. Debaters should make these explanations during the debate and not rely on me to read the cards and make it for you. I tend to try and let the debater arguments carry weight for the evidence. Saying extend Smith it answers this argument is not a compelling extension. Warrants are a necessity in all arguments.

Critiques: I generally consider these arguments to be linear DAs, with a plan meet need (PMN) and sometimes a CP (often abusive) attached at the end. Yes, I will vote for a K. When I was in college I read a lot of this literature and so I liked these debates. Now that I am almost 20 years removed from school, I tend to see bad debates that grotesquely mutate the authors intent. This is also true for Framework debates. Your K should have as specific literature as possible. Generic K's are the worst; as are bad generic aff answers. While I think condo is OK, I find Performative Contradiction arguments sometimes persuasive (especially if discourse is the K link)--so try not to engage in this Neg (or Aff).

General things you should know:
1. I like switch-side debating. While you are free to argue this is bad, it is a strong disposition I have to the game. **Read-Affirmatives should have a plan of action and defend it. However, because of this I usually give more "latitude" to affirmatives on Permutations for critical arguments when they can prove the core action of the aff is a good idea.
2. Potential abuse is not very persuasive. Instead, connect the abuse to in-round implications.
3. Engage in good impact analysis. The worst debates to judge are ones where I am expected to weigh the impacts without the debaters doing the work in the speeches. Sidenote: Don't expect me to weigh impacts you didn't analyze effectively.
4. Research: I am a big believer that what separates "policy debate" pedagogically from other forms of debate and makes it a better form to engage in is the research and argument construction that flows from it. Hence, I like good arguments that are well researched.
5. Don't steal prep-time! If you are paperless, prep stops when you hand the jump-drive to your opponents, not when you say I am ready.

Any questions, just ask.

Let me start with; You the debater are trying to sell me your side, don't yell at me and don't speak so fast that I can not hear all your points clearly, you are selling me on something of worth not on a late-night only on TV issue. Faster speaking does not make a better debater. Have many sources if you are only getting your information from one source then you haven't written a speech you have copied an article. Show grace while we are in the virtual world, technology has issues, pay attention and show courtesy if it happens to an opponent or judge. Spreading is becoming a hot topic, let me put it in the most simple terms, do not do it, there are very few people who can spread successfully. I am interested in your ability to discuss, promote and convince, over your ability to bully and perform character attacks. If you want to make a case using only hot button buzz words I will not give in to that sort of conversation, I would rather support a debater whose topic is completely against my core, but who has a great presence and amazing data, than someone whom I agree with but who can not think for themselves and must use the bullying tactic of fear-mongering to communicate.