While I don't have a long history of being involved in debate, I can follow a good argument. My primary concerns are 1, your argument is topical and argue the resolve; 2, your contentions are based on evidence with sources; 3, you have claims, warrants, and impacts; 4, you attack the opposition case with logic and reasoning to expose vulnerabilities; and 5, you successfully defend against attacks on your own case using logic and evidence. I try to vote based on the best cases, speakers, and arguments of the round. I appreciate a traditional debate.

Also: Any sentences that begins with "Judge, you cannot vote for them," or "Judge, you must vote for our case," will make me not want to vote for you. Don't tell me what to do; I will do what I deem the best and most fair. However, saying things like "Judge, Their contention fails on this point," or "Judge, our case should win because of..." are acceptable, as are detailing the voters.

I appreciate a polite and civil debate. If you show disdain for your competitor, I will have a hard time wanting to vote for your position, however a solid case and sound logic will win over likeability. I just won't be happy about it.

I do not disclose, unless the tournament asks us to, nor do I give critiques. Giving critiques is basically the same as disclosing, since I have no poker face.

Howdy! My name is Linnea Brashears, and I am a current student at Texas A&M University in College Station, TX. I graduated from Veterans Memorial High School in Corpus Christi in May of 2020. I was very active in TFA Speech and Debate tournaments, and competed all four years in Interpretation and Speech events! As a judge, I recognize implicit bias, and it will never influence the result of a round.

For Interp Events (including PO, PR, POI, HI, DI, DUO, DUET) I request that:

The speakers utilize strong, memorized, and captivating intros, after a preview of their pieces. Binder work should be clean, and choreography/transitions should be crisp! I'll be looking for authentic presentations and realism in pantomime. I want to feel what your characters are telling me they are feeling!

For Speech Events (including INFO, OO, FX, NX, DX) I request that:

The speakers utilize strong, supported, and captivating intros that are well memorized and are relative to the speech being presented. As a judge preference, I like when speakers utilize the orator's triangle, however, it is not totally necessary. Transitions and intro sentences to each topic should be relevant, and the organization of the speech is very important! I also look for creativity and originality within topics. Remind the audience of the significance of your speech frequently. Visual aids should be neat, necessary, relevant, and should only aid the audience in understanding the speech.

For Debate Events (LD, CX, PF, BQ):

Speakers do not spread and I would always appreciate an off-time roadmap. I like to see good sportsmanship. It is debate, not an argument. Lay judge

I look forward to seeing your talents!

Background:

I've competed in OI/DEC, EXTEMP, IMPROMPTU, and PF for a combined 5 years on local, state, and national circuits. I've had multiple final round placings at various tournaments and a qualification to NSDA Nationals in EXTEMP. I have experience with OO, EXPOS, and am familiar with all other interp events.

I'm now a student at Duke University (though not competing on the collegiate level). I coach public speaking and debate privately.

Limited Prep:

-Command the room; you are here to share your knowledge and interpretation of the prompt

-Support your arguments/claims with context; assume I'm not an expert on the topic

-IMPACT ANALYSIS (long and short term)! Ex. who are the stakeholders, why should they/I care, ...

Interp:

-Don't tell the story, BE the story - passion goes a long way

-Make any structural and piece-related transitions clear

-Facial expressions and blocking should complement your movements and feel natural to the character development

Debate:

-ROADMAP and SIGNPOST

-Give clear links (warrants > evidence)

-I highly value thorough impact analysis

-Give voters to help me weigh my decision

-Be respectful! Have fun.

*Not the biggest fan of spreading

Read bolded portions if you’re in a hurry! Add me to email chain: mariademarco93@yahoo.com

Background:

I competed in circuit congressional debate in high school and NPTE/NPDA for 4 years in college. During 2 of those years I also competed in IEs and attended the AFA-NIET. If you have any additional questions about my background, where I’m at now, or anything else regarding my judging philosophy, please feel free to ask at tournaments or add & message me on Facebook.

General:

I love good debates! <3 That is all. I do not enjoy being in the back of rounds when debaters are clearly unprepared, disinterested, or otherwise demonstrate a lack of engagement; there are too many individuals who make enormous sacrifices for students to not reciprocate by investing all they can. This also extends to my personal role as a critic. I care about the rounds I watch and will not be a judge who carelessly makes a decision.

What you can read in front of me:

*LD*

I'm a progressive/flow critic so feel free to read whatever you want. I will vote on the flow and the arguments made to reduce judge intervention as much as possible. One thing to note is that I do not view values as offense in and of themselves. Just because you have a good value framing does not mean you have a good advocacy which reflects/achieves that value, so I will never vote on a value alone.

*Policy/Parli*

Read any argument you want but be mindful of theory. I do not prefer one type of debate over another, and do not have any favorite arguments. Though I read the K, performances, and other identity arguments for the better part of 3 years, I read straight up policy arguments for most of my senior year and fell in love with that strategy.

Feel free to read (almost) anything & please do not make assumptions about what debates I like to see – simply use the best strategy given the topic and your own personal preferences.

If you are considering breaking a new position or wondering if you can read creative arguments in front of me, go for it. I have read a wide variety of arguments from policy to afrofuturism, feminist rap, etc. and I love hearing unique positions. If you don’t talk about the topic, great (although specific topical links are preferred). If you talk about the topic, also great. I do not necessarily require specific links to the resolution if you are reading a “project” or other argument about the debate space rather than the topic.

However, perhaps my strongest opinion at the moment is that I am *very* over frivolous theory debates. This refers to theory that (and I’m being generous) is overly “nuanced” to be meaningful. I will reluctantly vote on these arguments if you decisively win them, but will be less receptive and have a higher threshold if you go for 3 sheets of theory in the block without collapsing, or read a canned/irrelevant “specify your ethics” argument when it is a very, very thinly-veiled time suck. Unless there are legitimate violations or these arguments are clearly applicable, there are almost always more strategic and pedagogically productive interpretations that have the same utility. To quote the wonderful David Worth, “I am tired of debates that are mostly logic puzzles.”

Theory that is going to be an uphill battle with me as your critic:

- please don't read "speed/spreading bad" args

- multiple sheets of theory which are not collapsed in the MO

- ethics/philosophy SPEC

- any CP theory that is not conditionality

- PMR theory

That being said, I do not have predispositions to viewing a theory debate any other way than how you tell me to evaluate it. I do think that most arguments function through competing interpretations; for example, reasonability is often just another way to interpret the rest of the debate that follows. I would also appreciate having a copy of any interpretations that are particularly complicated to avoid confusion and intervention.

A note on Politics DAs:

I don’t always feel the most comfortable in evaluating politics disads. Though I frequently read ptx, it took me longer than normal to fully understand how the politics scenario would break down. If you choose to read politics, it would be best to slow down slightly on the links. Also, tenuous links are a no-go. If you are creating several internal links that are only tenuous, I will have a hard time finding a way to vote for you because it’s unclear whether you even garner an impact.

How to win my ballot with the K:

Please ensure that you know what your K does, and that you are able to articulate that clearly. It’s fine to be more ambiguous in the beginning, but by the end of the round, I want to have a clear understanding of what your solvency mechanism is and what it will do to solve the main points of clash in the debate. If you are going for proximal impacts and your solvency mechanism is predicated on your K doing something in this particular room and round, you need to win why those impacts are more important than other impact calculus like timeframe/magnitude/probability/severity.

More importantly, you need to ensure your solvency mechanism addresses the impacts you are going for. For example, do not go for proximal in-round impacts if you’re reading a K that claims to solve capitalism. This does not apply if you clearly explain that in-round solvency is a prerequisite or has inroads to solving other impacts in the future. However, doing that type of analysis requires warrants (not assertions) that it might lead to something later. For example, a Cap K with dialectical materialism or similar solvency for gaining class consciousness within a certain round also needs to explain how a few people gaining consciousness could realistically translate into solving capitalism writ large.

A note on answering Ks:

Always read a perm! There is rarely a reason not to and I will be sad if you are decisively winning the rest of the debate but lose because you did not perm.

RFDs/Speaker Points

I intend to write RFDs that minimize personal biases, though I have zero problems docking speaker points for insensitive comments regarding sexual violence, racism, misogyny, etc. I have participated in too many rounds where teams read Nietzche, Buddhism, or similar Ks and thought it appropriate to inform me that sexual violence and abuse are inevitable and ought to be embraced. Not only are these arguments often traumatic to hear, but they are also gross mischaracterizations of actual philosophy; if you do not fully understand said philosophy then avoid debating it altogether. Weaponizing nonsense like this for the sake of a ballot is just not the move, and if you find yourself resorting to verbal violence to get a W, it demonstrates a general lack of care as well as skill. However, do not take this as an open invitation to pretend that violence is happening in an attempt to win by saying to prefer "tech over truth" if nothing offensive has truly happened. Tech and truth are not mutually exclusive.

I try to stick to the most commonly used speaker point breakdown. A below average debate will be around 26, average will be around 27-28, and above average will be around 29. 30s are reserved for speeches that I thought were near-perfect. If you have questions about an RFD or how you might improve speaker points in another debate in front of me, please ask for more feedback.

Speed:

Use it, go for it, it's great. Frequent judging and coaching means I can keep up and my flowing is not rusty. That said, make sure you clearly signpost.

Leader speeches/1NCs and rebuttals:

I was a double leader for almost my whole career. I love LOCs/1NCs that have lots of case turns, and would prefer a few turns that are related to your off-case position(s), but are combined with more turns that garner external offense. I am willing to listen to an LOC that is straight case but have rarely seen it done well.

I also do not enjoy flowing rebuttals on separate sheets of paper. If you feel the need for me to flow them separately, it should be because the debate was particularly messy or if it is the only way you have learned to give the speech.

I love impact calculus and it is an absolute necessity to compare and weigh your impacts against your opponent’s impacts throughout the speech. I do not prefer certain impacts over others, but I do need clear reasons why your impact is more important; i.e. magnitude does not matter in a world where the impact is improbable. I also need a clear thesis and overview at the beginning of your speech that is at least one sentence explaining why you win. It is okay (and sometimes necessary) to give a speech that answers back line-by-line arguments in the block, but I would prefer if you group arguments or simply tell me what the most important issues are in the debate because it is generally more efficient. You can also provide a brief explanation about why you are not answering a certain argument with a line that says something like “the most important argument on this sheet of paper is X – the others do not have terminalized impacts.”

Warrant comparison in rebuttals is a great way to boost your speaker points. It is crucial that I know why your warrant is a better indicator of an impact than the opponent’s, especially if you are going for the same impact. For example, a round where both teams are going for an Econ impact but disagree on whether consumer confidence or investor confidence is key to the economy needs to articulate why their metric is preferable. Please also make sure you do not mix up your warrants by changing what argument they correspond to from speech to speech.

For people new to parli:

As someone with minimal debate experience prior to joining college parli, I am unsympathetic to the notion that the NPDA format is wholly inaccessible to people who do not have a debate background/did not come from policy. That being said, I am 100% understanding of the substantial learning curve when it comes to Parli, especially for teams with limited resources/coaching/travel opportunities/etc. Please let me know if you are in need of additional resources and I will do my best to help you!

I like logical arguments that make sense and are easy to follow. Originality is great as well. Please do not spew, I cannot follow it. You can still talk fast, just make sure I can understand what you are saying. Try to avoid filler words as much as possible .Eye contact is also important. Voters/impacts are also great. Tell me why you win the round. For LD, I enjoy a good traditional round, don't lose the framework (value/criterion).

I am like a debate dinosaur. Maybe not a dinosaur, but a majestic unicorn that wants to be understood. I have been doing this activity since 1991 and I have literally done/coached every event. I believe that this is a community and we should all treat each other with respect.

I can flow. My skills are not what they used to be, but I can flow. Please be super clear in your organization and if I can't understand you, I will let you know. I am good with theory and enjoy it when done well. I was debating in college when critical arguments became widespread. I understand them and value them. I don't have argument preference...do what makes you happy and pick a strategy that you thing you can win with. Please be clear with your decision calculus.

In debates:

It is your job as a debater to convince me of your position. The competitor who does that most effectively will win the round. This often means you have to have more than just good argumentation and evidence. Anyone can have that. Indeed, everyone SHOULD have that. That's just the basic substrate from which debate is built. But can you argue with clarity and panache? That's what perks up my ears. Give me goosebumps and I'll give you the ballot.

In speech:

I expect you to use all of the tools at your disposal to good effect. Material should be interesting and authentic, and delivery should be effective in making me think and feel what you want me to.

In general:

I highly value clear delivery. Watch your cadence. Let your movement have purpose. Enunciate!

she/they

I debated for West Orange High School for 4 years in PF (& a little Congress). Let's be real, none of us really care about my competitive record. You can look it up on the NSDA website if you want specifics.

Crucial stuff first, then event specific stuff further down. If you still have questions after reading my paradigm, please do not hesitate to ask! And ALWAYS feel free to reach out with any further questions - my email is niamh.harrop@gmail.com :)

And, of course, don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, classist, etc!

EVIDENCE: This is at the top of my paradigm because it is the most important issue for me. If you are found to be falsifying/misrepresenting evidence, you can expect to lose the round. I will not call for evidence unless told to do so, as I believe that to be a form of judge intervention. That doesn't mean tell me to call for every single card, but if you believe something to be misrepresented, tell me to call for it and I'll do so at the end of the round.

Evidence calls should not take forever. If you take more than two minutes to find a card, I'm going to assume you don't have it and will likely drop your speaks. Once three minutes have elapsed, I'm going to ask that you drop the card and move on. If you provide a cut card and the opponent subsequently asks for a PDF, I'll give you a little more time to pull it up and locate the cited portion.

Also, the NSDA allows you to make a formal challenge against evidence, which will end the round at the point you issue the formal protest and defer judgment on the evidence to me. If you are right and the evidence is falsified, you win, but if I don't believe it has been misrepresented, you will lose. I believe evidence challenges like these are a fantastic tool when used correctly, and if you truly believe that your opponent is violating the evidence standards in a crucial way, I encourage you to utilise this tool.

JUDGING STYLE: Tabula rasa in terms of the topic. I like clear, easy-to-understand extensions - nothing blippy, no extensions through ink, just pure warranted extensions. If you want me to consider an arg, make sure it's in your final speech.

SPEED: I'm fine with speed, but I hate spreading. I think it's ableist and prevents newer/less funded programs from breaking into the top tiers of debate. Nine times out of ten I will vote against it. Complain about it if you want, I'm just trying to caution you.

If you choose to spread, I'm not going to stop you, but I do ask that you add me to the email chain (niamh.harrop@gmail.com) before the round begins, and please send me any cards that you spread in later speeches. Also understand it is going to be much harder for me to follow logic/warranting that you spread but don't include in the email chain. I can do the whole "clear" thing if you like, but chances are I'd be saying it a good amount. I will happily evaluate everything that is read into round if I can follow and comprehend it. However, there may be something you read into round that I miss because of spreading, and by choosing to spread, you accept and understand that this may occur.

PF: I tend to give a little bit of leeway with going over time. I'll flow until about 4:10 in the constructive, for example, but once you hit 4:15, I'm putting my pen down and I'm done paying attention. If your opponents go over time, don't call it out, bc I promise I'm not flowing or considering it. Call it free prep :)

I don't typically flow author names in the constructive. If you prefer to refer to your cards by author name in sum/FF, it helps me if you extend the warrant into rebuttal/sum as well.

Given that you now have three minutes for a summary, I'm a little harsher on what strategic choices are made in the summary speeches for both teams (I only had two minutes and yes I'm just a tad bit salty). I'm not going to vote on terminal defence so it's cool to leave that out of later speeches.

CONGRESS:

I know a lot of Congress competitors don't read paradigms. I can always tell when people don't read mine, and I don't really hold it against anyone in rankings or anything. My paradigm is here to help you understand how to best impress me and earn a high ranking.

I evaluate speaking style as much as I evaluate argumentation. Rehash sucks, we all know it, and after 3-4 people making the same arguments on each side, it's probably about time for something spicy and new. I'm more inclined to rank those with fresher argumentation.

I rank the PO about half the times I judge, and it comes down to a fair and efficient chamber. If you can run things smoothly, fairly, and painlessly, please consider POing.

If there's one thing I can't stand in Congress, it's the constant fight to be the one to "run the chamber" by calling for every motion. IMO it doesn't project the dominance you think it does; I couldn't care less who motions to move to previous questioning. I see this a lot more on the local circuit, but yeah, I'm not a fan.

Related to that is the issue of "politics" and gaming the chamber so that your competitors don't get to speak. In that regard, fair game. I view Student Congress as a mirror of the US Congress; if they set an example and you follow it, I can't fault you for that. That being said, don't allow the push to prevent people from speaking to descend into a mess and waste time (i.e., if you take up 3 minutes arguing over whether we should move to previous questioning, you've prolonged the discussion enough to prevent their speech). If this kind of filibustering occurs, I will probably be harsher in my rankings on the people who filibustered, and will be kinder in my rankings to the competitor who was unable to speak.

I debated policy for three years in high school. I am a policymaker and expect you to weigh the round. Tell me why you win and/or outweigh the other team. I believe topicality is important and, if blatantly nontopical, I will vote for it. I have debated in fast rounds and judged fast rounds but I PREFER a more slow to moderate speed round. Case debate is important and more clash/turns the better. Kritiks and CPs are fine but convince me why you win it. Have not judged a lot of Ks so please be very concise in explaining it to me. Be clear on your sign posting. I love and will listen to your CX - I don’t mind open CX. I value your arguments equally with your passion and speaking skills. Your final rebuttal should tell me why you win! Reading a bunch of pre-written arguments or analytics doesn’t do much for me. You can impress me if you do line by line. cmhund@hotmail.com

Experience: placed top 32 in policy debate at NCFL nationals, was Kansas 4-speaker state debate champion, was Kansas 2 speaker debate state champion class 4A

I was an assistant forensics coach for 10+ years in Kansas at Blue Valley Southwest. Placed top three in sweeps in class 5A twice.

General things/background:

• Pronouns - she/her/hers

• Currently a college student majoring in theatre and cognitive science

• I competed in interpretation events throughout all 4 years of my high school career on the local, state, and national circuits, reaching the final rounds at state and the elimination rounds nationals (4x). I’ve also competed in LD and Congress and am familiar with speech events and PF.

IE Events:

I probably have the most experience with IE (especially DI, prose, POI, OIL and poetry) since they were my main events throughout high school. I won’t write a paradigm for each IE event, but here’s the general breakdown:

Teaser and Intro:

• Teasers should draw the audience in and set up the story. Ideally, they should provide some background on your character and/or introduce a scene that is key to the story.

• I think intros are often overlooked, but they can be so impactful in tying your piece together. A good intro will not only introduce your story, but will also tell us what the main message of your piece is (your “so what” point that you want the audience to take away). Why are you presenting this piece? Why is this piece important?

• Make your transitions from teaser —> intro —> story clear, and it will be much easier to follow your piece :)

Piece (cutting and selection):

• There isn’t any strict guideline for how you should cut your piece so feel free to place the climax wherever you want (I’ve seen pieces that don’t even have a climax do very well), structure the story however you want, but no matter how you choose to cut your piece, make sure that your story is clear!

• For piece selection, I’m open to anything. However, I’ve found that the best pieces maintain a good balance of humor and seriousness and are very effective in getting you to either feel something and/or think about something in a different way. Above all, your piece should have a point and a message that you want us to take away.

• For speech events, I’d also love to see a balance of humor and seriousness. I’m looking for sound arguments, a cohesive narrative, and a compelling key message that you are trying to get across to your audience.

Interpretation and delivery: *100% the most important factor in my final rankings*

• I’m looking for polished, clean, and passionate performances. At the most basic level, this means clear enunciation and articulation, clean technique (character pops, melting, sound effects, binder techniques… etc.), and facial expressions and blocking that enhances your performance.

• The best performances aren’t necessarily ones that have the flashiest techniques, but rather, ones that make you feel like you aren’t even watching a performance - you’re a part of the story itself. For speech events, this might look like engaging the audience through your speech: draw us in and get us to react to what you’re saying. For interp events, this might look like making us feel that we are getting to know your character for who they are - characterization is everything in interp. Regardless of the event, as the performer, you need to not just command the stage, but command the room.

• Additionally, in pieces that rely on drama, I really value realism and authenticity. You don’t need a ton of sobbing, yelling, or screaming to make me feel the pain your character experienced - sometimes the subtlest change in facial expression is more effective than being loud. Show me the layers of emotion behind each line, capture the dimensionality of your character, and present your character in all their humanity and beauty. As with any piece, everything that you do should have a purpose. Realism and subtlety are some of the hardest techniques to master, but if you can do it well, they can take your piece to a whole other level.

Other important things:

• DO NOT COPY SOMEONE ELSE’S PERFORMANCE - I’ve seen people take the exact same intro/cutting/interpretation/blocking from pieces on YouTube or NSDA rounds and try to pass it off as their own. If you plagiarize, you will be ranked last regardless of how well you performed/imitated the original.

• Have a message. As you can tell from the rest of my paradigm, I really value the main takeaway of your piece. I want to know that you are performing a piece because it speaks to you, and not because you think that it will place well. No matter what category you are in, I want to know what your message is: why is this piece important? Why is its message important? Be honest. Be passionate.

Debate:

Even though I’ve competed in LD a few times and watched a few rounds, I’m still a pretty lay judge and prefer traditional debates over progressive ones

Do:

• Give roadmaps and signpost (also helps me flow lol)

• For LD, have a solid framework debate - convince me why your value/criterion should be highest in the round and prove how you fulfill that standard best

• Make clear links, remember impacts and weigh, give voters

• I won’t flow crossfire/cx so be sure to extend your arguments

• Warrants >>> evidence - obviously evidence is important in debate, but analyzing that evidence and explaining why it matters/supports your side makes your argument much more compelling

• Quality >>>>> quantity - just because you dropped a point doesn’t mean you’ll lose the round. Imo it’s better to have insightful arguments on significant issues and miss some points on the flow than covering everything but having weak analysis on significant points

Don’t:

• Spread - honestly not a great idea anyways with everything being virtual + possible technology issues/internet lagging

• Make new arguments when your opponent won’t have the opportunity to respond (ie. in the 2AR) - I won’t consider nor flow them

• Run theory and kritiks if you aren’t going to explain them really well - I am familiar with them but definitely not super well-versed, so making your points clear is key if you choose to run these

• Make up stuff and try to pass it off as “evidence” - I’ll call for any cards that seem sketchy

Congress:

I’ve competed a bit in Congress at local tournaments, but nothing on the national circuit or anything so I’m a pretty lay judge here too.

Do:

• Be succinct and to the point with whatever you say - don’t drag things out just to fill up time

• Scrutinize arguments - ask questions that probe at how sound the arguments presented are

• Ask coherent and relevant questions - don’t ask a question for the sake of asking a question

• If you choose to amend the legislation, make sure it is with purpose and with good reason

• Be fair and conduct the debate with precision and clarity if you are the PO. I will rank you :)

• Maintain a high degree of courtesy and decorum in session - don’t be rude

Don’t:

• Make a speech for the sake of making a speech - present unique arguments that are actually meaningful and insightful

• Abuse time limits - follow parliamentary procedure and congressional rules

Overall:

• Be kind. If you’re being disrespectful to any person or group for their race, ethnicity, religion, gender identity, class, nationality, ability, or sexuality, you will automatically be dropped and I will tank your speaks. Your competitors are people, so treat them with the same respect you’d want to be treated with.

• Have fun! You chose to do this as an activity so enjoy it :)

If you have any questions, feel free to reach out!

1. Please be polite/respectful to your opponents in round. You don’t earn any favors by being rude.
2. I did debate in high school so I know how important the flow is. However, after judging for a few years I realized it’s easier for me to leave you real time comments on your ballots rather than spend the whole round tracking your flow and frantically try to write my comments after. This doesn’t mean I don’t care about flow! I’m still following along even if I’m not writing it down. Make sure you’re telling me what on the flow I need to pay attention to.
3. I will not provide time. I think it’s actually better for you to keep track of your own time and will help you feel more confident in the round! But mostly, it’s just too hard for me to provide good thought out comments on your ballot and track the timer. With this I don’t really care about grace periods. Finish your thoughts and be done.
4. I’m fine with whatever speed you use. Just remember, if your opponent can’t understand you, the whole round is going to be a mess for both parties. That makes it hard for me to leave good comments if there’s nothing good to leave them on, you know?
5. I don’t judge on crossfire so you don’t need to impress me there! However, I am in the room so my first point still stands. Be aggressive! I don’t care. Being rude probably won’t get you any more answers though.
6. Most importantly, as absolutely cliche as it is, just have fun! You and me probably won’t remember a single thing you said after the 1 hour period we spend together, so don’t take it too seriously!

That’s it! If you have any questions for me asking them right after round when the whole thing is fresh in my brain is usually best, but feel free to email me too! (Or I guess you can approach me in that weird cautious walk like I’m some scared endangered animal wandering the hallways and ask your questions!)

Email: makayla.mail@gmail.com

Experience:
Policy debate student- Kearns High 00-03
Debate coach- Juan Diego Catholic High 2011-2022

I'm a progressive LD judge, moderate CX judge. I hate the idea of a judge paradigm. I don't believe my preference should determine what is presented in the round. I am not opposed to particular issues or topics, nor do I prefer certain issues over others.

The expectation for any round is that you present well formed arguments, provide support for your case, and refute your opponents case. I can handle any speed you can deliver, however it is your responsibility to be clear.

I vote strictly off my flow. If you are not clear, I do not flow. I will not tell you to clear up, it is your job to know if you are being an effective communicator. Likewise, if you don't tell me where to flow something (for example, on my opponents second contention), I will flow it straight down -which may not bode well for you.

In any round, you need to give me a reason to prefer you. Impact your arguments. Well formed, quality arguments will be reflected in speaker points.

I look for quality evidence that's well articulated and individuals/teams that have solid follow-through after constructive(s) to not only attack the contentions of their opponent(s) but to resubstantiate/resupport their own points in response to their opponent's attacks or what their opponent has dropped. Pre-crafted arguments about what your opponent has said or dropped that are obviously pre-crafted because they're inaccurate for the round will hurt your overall score -- it demonstrates a lack of listening and adaptation.

I want good offense and defense without lacking professionalism. Ad Hominem attacks will work against you.

She/Her

I competed for two years at West Orange HS in Florida and now compete at the college level. My competitive experience is in speech, but I have judging experience in debate events.

Most of my feedback will probably pertain to your speaking style (that doesn't mean I am discounting argumentation, I just may not be as technical as ex-debaters). I prefer if you don't speak quickly, but if you're going to speak quickly make sure you speak clearly. If I can't understand what you are saying and arguing for, I'm not going to be able to judge you fairly.

It's important that you have your cards ready if you're going to use them. If your opponent calls for a card, it shouldn't take you forever to find it. It damages your credibility and may cost you speaker points if you are unable to find a card/take an excessive amount of time to find it. I will only call for cards when asked, I'm very expressive so if it looks like I don't understand a card you should probably ask me to call for it.

Anything that's going to be in final focus should be in the summary. If your opponent drops your argument, make sure you call them on that if you plan on going for that argument.

If you say anything racist/sexist/homophobic, you will automatically lose. I use my crossfire time to write feedback, so I will be only paying a little bit of attention to you at that time. I do know what rudeness sounds like so ensure that you are always treating your opponents with respect.

Debate: Debate is about clash. That being said, if you decide to run a "K" and it does not logically fit with the topic, or opponents spend the debate arguing topicality rather than the topic, this could cost points/ranking. Contentions, frameworks, plans, etc. need to be clear. Roadmaps are helpful, but not required. Be ready to show evidence and have logical connections to your contentions, reasoning.

If you are speaking too quickly for me to understand, I will give you a signal. If you continue to go too fast for me to understand, and not seem to acknowledge my signal, this will impact your scoring.

Congress: I am looking for a well-presented argument on the bill presented. Memorization is good, but not key. However, you should not be reading directly from your speech, especially further into the debate season. Evidence and logic are preferred in your speech, with references to your sources. My scoring is based on how many quality speeches are given, how many quality questions you as between speeches, and how knowledgeable you are about the topic you are presenting. Being a quality chair who is able to control the house/senate is key as well.

Speech: I am looking for a good speaker, someone I would enjoy listening to, and watching all day. Speakers should have clear voice, appropriate tone, and gestures, as well as props appropriate to topic (as event permits). Speeches should also have clear organization which matches topic and tone. Appropriate presentation and dress are a must.

In all events, be respectful and polite. Attack your opponents case, not your opponent, and always leave, if not as friends, at least acquaintances.