Hello all. I am a Speech and Debate alumni. I participated in various speech events for 4 years and have competed in many national tournaments. I am very excited to judge and to provide as valuable feedback that I can. I know how much work the competitors put into their performances, and I want to give them the attention and feedback they deserve.

Interp: based on memorization, characterization, use of stage/movements, life of piece, and how well the piece flows.

Non-Interp: based on memorization, use of stage/movements, life of piece/voicing, and how well you present/argue your topic

I am a parent judge who has judged both debate and speech events.

In debate:

I want you to show that you are listening to your opponent(s) and responding to their points. I am not a fan of spreading. I need to hear that you are making arguments that have contextual relevance to the debate you are in and not just rote responses for the general topic. If you tell me your opponent didn’t address your issue when they clearly did, I will mark that against you. I expect your closing to be strong and persuasive. Cross arguments should not be personal. You should give valid reasons why your framework is preferable and give reasons why your opponent’s framework is weaker.

In speech:

I'm looking for a fluid and consistent delivery. I want to see a story with a beginning, an arc, and an ending. I also want you to make a connection with your audience (me). I should not be distracted by other things you are doing. I want to be completely drawn into your story. That means I need to be able to hear and understand you, I should easily understand the sounds and other noises you put into your speech, and I that your examples make sense. Also, if you make a mistake, pick up and move on. Don't point it out to me or apologize. Assume I didn't notice or it didn't happen.

I am a parent judge and former high school debater. Please speak clearly and not too fast. I would like to hear all of your arguments laid out in an easy to understand format.

I am a high school English teacher at Lambert High School, working mainly with 9th and 10th grade students. I am the Assistant Coach of the Debate Club here at Lambert, where I work closely with our Head Coach. While this is only my second year in this position of being an Assistant Coach, I have been learning greatly from the head coach, who has ten years of experience in judging debate. I have judged our Big Questions tournament and practice rounds. I have a Bachelor's Degree in English and Elementary Education. I studied public speaking in both high school and college. Additionally, I have been teaching high school English for six years, where I have experience in debate, argumentation, persuasive writing, and open-discussion.

I have completed the NSDA Cultural Competency training, and have worked in a variety of diverse schools around the country. I treat each debater as a unique individual worthy of respect, regardless of background or lifestyle, but you need to tell me a story, connect the dots, and support theory with examples to win.

When judging, I am looking for a logical progression of ideas and argumentation. You need to articulate so that I can understand you; it should be easy to follow and understand. Furthermore, this includes consistent use of definitions, frameworks, and logical arguments. Ultimately, students who present their argument in the most clear, logical, and consistent manner will win.

Email chains are good for evidence ethics and accessibility, spreading or no spreading.

Email: f38132@forsyth.k12.ga.us

I am best described as a parent judge. I listen to your arguments and take notes. I will vote on the team that makes the most convincing arguments in the rounds.

Be nice to each other and be respectful.

I debated LD in high school and then debated in college Policy Debate at George Mason University for two years. I have not kept up in relevant topic literature but I do keep up with general news/politics and I still care a lot for debate. Education is good!!!

For LD debate, I prefer the "old school" structure as opposed to bringing policy debate aspects into it. LD is geared towards more of the theoretical and ethical, while policy debate relies on immediate real-world application, so please keep that in mind. I can handle speed but start to dislike spreading and DO NOT clip your cards - I will put it in the RFD. Framework debates are important only if the framework is significantly different; if the competing frameworks are similar enough, I would rather see some time spent on the evidence and argument of the debaters' contentions.

For Policy debate, I can pretty much go either way whether it's policy or theory debates - though I will say that anything fairly high theory will have to be thoroughly well explained for me to grasp it. You probably shouldn't read performance arguments if you're going to speak for others' identities.....I just can't see those arguments holding water. I can handle spreading as long as you are CLEAR, especially with difficulty in these virtual debates, it's harder to hear than normal. I alert all teams that I prefer to have docs on hand so I can better follow along and flow your arguments.

General debate:

BE POLITE unless you don't care about your speaker points and don't care that I won't like you in the round. All pillars of presentation are IMPORTANT and give you real-world practice. How are you going to effectively network and work in teams if you're rude and annoying?

I value evidence very highly - I prefer for there to be discussion of relevance and date of the evidence so there is a better understanding of the context of the evidence. Considering evidence is the backbone of any argument, I find it very important for any debater to investigate the warrants and intent of evidence and how they would apply in the context of these debates.

I do care about how cross examination goes - I will want answers gathered in CX to be brought up in rebuttals, otherwise CX might as well be wasted time.