I appreciate a conversational speed delivery. If a speaker delivers too fast, I have a harder time flowing the debate. I am looking for clear analysis of why you should win the debate in the rebuttals.

Hey everyone, I am a parent judge approaching three years of experience in both debate and speech.

• I am a standard tech > truth flow judge (meaning that I will write down everything you say, even if it’s illogical). That being said, it’s your responsibility to address the fact that your opponents are running something very illogical if it happens

• Signpost. Tell me what contention you will be refuting/defending at all times - this makes it so much easier for me to effectively judge

• In the case of a prepared debate, be sure to cite evidence for your claims, but also have the logic for why it is true. Debate is both evidence and logic-based, and I expect to see both

• Lastly but most importantly, please keep your arguments at a reasonable speed. If I can’t understand what you’re saying then I won’t be able to flow it

Judge Paradigm: Steven Davis

• Retired teacher of 40 years, with 15 years offering assistance at Washburn Rural High School, Topeka, Kansas
• I am judging for Cary Academy, North Carolina during this National Tournament
• “Yes” – old enough to be your grandparent (and then some maybe).
• I have re-developed -- for me -- a genuine enjoyment of judging in the last 4-5 years, and I strive to be as fair as possible.
• I hope that my love for all things speech and debate has been evident throughout these so many decades of involvement with these activities.

[Over the past several years, I have judge 20+ Public Forum Debates, including numerous debates at the National Tournament two years ago. Because of some health reasons, I was unable to judge any debates this past year.]

I tend to enjoy Public Forum as an activity … although I lack the experiences with national circuit nuisances as they have evolved over the past decade. That said … it is wise to consider me a very stylistic conservative judge. Now, what does that mean?

1. I consider debate to have two primary objectives: resolve the resolution and emphasize communication with your audience/judge.

2. CLASH:I evaluate the debate and place a premium on clash and resolution of arguments introduced. I anticipate that the debate will strive to narrow and focus on final reasons for voting for or against the resolution in the final rebuttals. In the absence of a clear story by the two sides, I will probably just toss a coin. In other words, you do the work, I will strive to make my decision on the relevance of arguments and resolution thereof.

3. COMMUNICATION:I live by a simple adage, "Speed Kills!" In other words, slow down and communicate clearly with your audience/judge. If I can't follow you, I can't flow you, and if I can't flow you, I will probably make a decision at the end of the round that neither debater nor debate team will value. [If I think you are too fast, or unclear, I will give you some kind of verbal cue . . . if you adjust, great, if you don't, don't expect very good speaker points.]

4. If you use some form of SpeechDrop, etc., please include me in the chain. Here is email if you need it: davisste@usd437.net. I do prefer full speech docs for constructives that might be prepared ahead of the start of the debate. I do believe that these documents help all of us keep in tune to what is being argued as the respective sides are presented in the debate. Additionally, please note that if either team raises questions regarding specific evidence, I anticipate that the evidence will have been shared with me in advance of that discussion. Then, if there are challenges made, I expect them to be resolved within the debate (speech time and/or Crossfire time) . . . all this while I have access to the evidence. Given modern age technology (!!!!!), I expect to be able to resolve issues AND I will then not call for evidence after the round, I will have had access to it during the challenge/discussion thereof.

5. And speaking about electronic speeches, briefs, etc. If you use them, I expect that you will do more than just read to me from a computer screen. I applaud most of the new age technologies, but I still expect that you will be the speaker and will communicate accordingly. If all you will do is read to me, then you might as well just let me read the speech on my computer and work from there. AND I DON'T WANT THAT!

6. CROSS FIRE: Ivalue this time and strive to take notes during your Crossfire periods. And if you make a valid point in Crossfire, then I expect that the argument will be presented in the following appropriate speech.

7. THE EVOLUTION OF THE DEBATE:I view the debate as like a teepee on its side . . . I expect arguments to be initiated in open constructive speeches, AND then expect the debate to narrow as it progresses. To me, by the end, there is virtually no way a team can still be defending all arguments initiated . . . so choices are necessary and weighed appropriately.

To me, and we may not all agree, there are 4 constructive speeches . . . at that point in time I anticipate that Summary speeches will create focus on the key issues that either Pro or Con believes will ultimately be the heart of their respective positions. AND then, I anticipate that the FINAL Focus will just be that. Each team will present in a clear manner the actual issue or issues they want the debate to hinge upon. It is these Final Focus speeches that lay out the framework for me to resolve the debate and render a decision.

8. TOPIC BIAS:Let's be honest, it is hard to not have some bias towards an issue or topic. All I can strive to do is put my bias in the back of my mind and allow you to "sell" me your competing views.

9. MAYBE THE BOTTOM LINE:If you talk policy debate fast, I will easily get lost and not be able to flow your arguments. Speed is your choice, but it will be a risky decision on your part. Also, make observations and contentions clear! Evidence needs source and date without fail. Clash - extend - make your final focus clear as to what you want me to vote on.

10. FINALLY... Most likely, not all will agree with a specific end of debate decision at the conclusion of the round, but that is the nature of this special “game” called DEBATE! Strive to enjoy yourself!

Good luck! The best to you in your future debate endeavors! I truly hope you enjoy yourself during this year’s National Tournament!

I’ve competed in and judged debate for many years, and though I mainly have background in CX/Policy debate, I really enjoy judging PF debate. I am meticulous on the flow, and can keep up with speed, but appreciate sign posting (letting me know) when you switch arguments. I really like to hear strong link and impact arguments, regardless of the type of argument you choose to run. Weighing your arguments throughout the round is a must in my voting decision. Ask me any specific questions for clarification and have fun with it!

I have been judging PFD since 2007. I am a coach and I am currently working with our school's PFD and Congress teams. I would not say that I am an expert, but I have definitely spent a great deal of time helping my students write pro and con cases. I believe that if you talk so fast that I cannot understand your contention, then you didn't say it. I like cases to be clearly signposted; this helps me to keep up with the cases better. I do not like condescension. No one is better just because they come from a school with more resources. Rude behavior of any kind is intolerable. Also, saying something many times does not make it true. I believe a team should clearly link evidence to contentions.

I am first year Judge - please speak slowly and clearly.

» Completed Cultural Competence Course «

- - - - -

I have judged speech and debate events for more than 15 years, and have been a coach for about 10. I primarily coach interp and public speaking events, but I've also judged Public Forum Debate for years, and assist with coaching PFD. I have judged final rounds of PFD and DUO, as well as many break rounds, at the National Tournament.

I do not judge LD, WSD or Policy.

General thoughts

No matter what event I judge, I will do my best to be as prepared, professional and fair as possible. I expect no less from competitors. If you are unprepared, exhibit unprofessional behavior, are sloppy or waste my time (or another competitor's time), you won't be rewarded. Be professional. Be present. Be courteous. You will not be rewarded for being rude.

Public Forum Debate

My approach to PFD is pretty traditional. Be clear! Convince me you should win. Because of my speech background, I value presentation. Yes, I want your words and arguments to bring me to your side, but how you say those things is important (vocal variety, emphasis, eye contact, gestures). As you present your case, you've got to convince me your arguments are the right arguments, and guide me through your case. Your presentation skills — or lack thereof — play a big role in this process. I also expect you to be professional in every aspect of the round; you should look and play the part. Abusive or overly aggressive language or attitudes will not be rewarded. And, if you never look up from your laptop, tablet or pad, you're missing an opportunity to sell me on your case.

I've heard PFD was never designed to be Policy. It started out as Ted Turner Debate. Extreme speed or arcane debate jargon or argumentation theory won't win points with me. I am looking for persuasive and logical arguments that are clear and accessible. If you speak so fast that I can’t flow your argument, then how can it be on my flow?

While your analysis needs to be solid, I do want good information. Support your arguments. Cite your facts; I want to know where your information comes from. Good information is important, and I don't like teams that cite only one or two sources over and over — or rarely cite arcane sources. Solid warrants and citations will be rewarded, assuming you link everything together.

I try to intervene as little as possible, and I will not discount an argument because I strongly disagree with it — as long as you can support it and I understand it. I value facts and will judge a debate based on the information presented — not my opinions. How well do you support your contentions? Do you have sufficient warranting? Clear impacts? Do you understand the resolution beyond what is in your cases? That's the information that will help you deliver solid blocks and control cross. Some judges discount cross; I don't. If you don't know the subject, this is where it will show.

Time yourself (and your opponent, if you want), but I will also keep time using a dedicated app. I'm not a stickler for time — if you go a few seconds over time to finish a thought or respond during cross, that is OK. Just don't abuse it. And keep those off-time roadmaps super brief.

Interp/speech

I realize I don't need a paradigm for speech events, but since competitors do occasionally ask, why not? Here are a few general thoughts:

» Delivery: Clear, fluid delivery, whether you're presenting an oratory or doing a character in a DI, is a must. If I can't hear or understand you, or clearly identify your characters, that's an issue.

» Time signals: By default, I don't provide them. If you ask, I am certainly going to provide them, though I prefer something simple — three down, for example. At local tournaments, especially early in the season, time signals can be helpful as pieces get adjusted and you adjust to them. At national-circuit tournaments, while I certainly will provide them if asked, I find the increased reliance on time signals disappointing. Memorized pieces should be precise and within a few seconds or so during each performance. What will you do anyway? Cut a few parts? The reality is that is tougher than just getting it precisely memorized and timed. In summary, it's a crutch that you should work to avoid as the season progresses.

» Oratories, Expos, Info: I look for an interesting topic, clear points, effective and persuasive speech, good support and fluid movement/gestures. For an Info, a clear, effective prop need not be complex or consist of 50 things. Sometimes, simple is best. Does it add to the speech? Does it help the audience understand the speech better? If it controls you, then it's not effective. Do not neglect eye contact with me and the rest of the audience. If you don't connect with me, how can I connect with your speech? Finally, why do I care? Why should the audience care? Bring it back to the audience and let us know why we should care. In an OO, you are likely advocating for something. Tell me why I should care, or at least listen. In an info or an expository, what's the impact? For example, if the extinction of a little bug will cause a bigger bug to also become extinct, that's impact. But it's not necessarily the final impact to the audience. Bring it to us: The extinction of this little bug will cause a larger bug to become extinct, potentially impacting our food supply. An informative should tell me more than how to do something; it should tell me something (or an angle on something) I didn't know. And then, it should explain to me why I (the audience) care.

» DI/HI/DUO/POI: A good piece that is cut tightly and effectively is a great start (don't underestimate the cutting). From there, I look for good, clear, distinct and effective characterizations (TIP: focal points may be somewhat ignored these days, but I'm one of those judges who still look for them, and I like good eye contact with the audience during narration), effective blocking and purposeful movement. Tech is OK, if it doesn't overpower the presentation but rather enhances the piece. For DUOs, tight cue pickup, distinct characterizations and creative blocking are rewarded. In POI, do the pieces continually support your argument or thesis?

A note about POI: Per the NSDA, "The use of a manuscript during the performance is required." I expect you to refer to your binder, turn pages and — if you wish — use it as a prop. Never turning the pages or looking at the binder is not what I am hoping to see and won't be rewarded. Also, POI is not a DI — onestory — with a few poems thrown in as spice. It's a program.

» EXT: I look for clear structure, good support, good facts, fluid delivery. Answer the extemp question you received: Pivoting to some other angle of your preference won't be rewarded. Be sure, too, that I know your answer: be clear! Canned intros can work, but they need to be pertinent, and many are not. Sourcing is important; if you have (for example) three points, I'll look for two reputable sources per point. Varied sources work best and help support your overall argument. Do not neglect eye contact with me and the rest of the audience (if any). If you don't connect with me, how can I connect with your speech?

Final thoughts

Don't read too much into any of this. It's my opinion and opinions are cheap. At the end of the day, the most important thing is that your experience is fun and rewarding, and that we both learn something. If that happens, we were both winners.

Stay focused, and good luck!

-Lay parent judge

-Speak at a normal pace

-Be respectful

-Will be taking notes throughout the round

-Don't collapse on arguments, be thorough

-Facts are important, I may ask for cards

-Repeat: Be civil and respectful!!

-Overall, enjoy the round :)

Hello! I’m a 1 Diamond Assistant Speech Coach with 8 years of speech coach experience and 25 years of active participation in the speech and debate community. I competed interpretation events as a high school student between 2000-2004. I have 22 years of speech judge experience on the local and national circuits.

In interpretation events, I appreciate strong character development, unique and distinct characterizations, and authentic and meaningful storytelling.

In public address events, I appreciate a clear and persuasive thesis/argument, extensive examples, a compelling analysis, cited research, and strong performance elements (e.g. use of humor, interesting topics, excellent speaking skills, and thoughtful gestures/movement).

I have no experience judging or competing in Congress. I have only judged 1 round of LD, and less than 10 rounds of PF.

I’m a parent who’s judged at local tournaments (in both speech and debate events) for the past four years.

First, please speak slowly and clearly- it’s a lot easier for me to judge if I can understand what you are saying.

I do flow rounds. Please make sure you have clear evidence supporting your claims. It’s also important that you explain why your argument is stronger or more relevant (or why your opponent’s case isn’t accurate). Telling me something is true won’t make me believe it unless you have support.

Most importantly, please show me and your opponent the same kind of respect as you would an in-person tournament. That means no multi-tasking, side conversations, eating, etc. Mute your line when your opponent is speaking-that'll make things easier for all of us.

Thank you!

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

I flow each speech and, as a result, use my flow as my primary decision-rendering tool. The flow is especially important to me when deciding between two debaters with nearly equal performances. I also value clear, distinct voter issues and look for debaters to use voter issues to connect multiple ideas across the debate. Additionally, I look for clear frameworks to set up the round for each debater and for each debater to use these frameworks to present deep analyses of the main issues in the round.

In general, I prefer you speak no faster than a brisk, conversational pace. Trying to “out-speed” your opponent or overwhelm them by spreading will not earn you points in my book. If you speak so quickly I cannot easily gather your main points, how am I supposed to flow them and weigh them in the round?

Final Thoughts

At the end of the day, I am just one judge with one set of opinions. Speech and debate is meant to be a fun and educational activity. I hope your experience is rewarding, educational, and, above all else, fun.

Good luck!

I did 4 years of PF and Speech with Unionville and graduated in 2010, and have judged national circuit regularly since. Most recently, I judged PF at Yale 2021.

I appreciate evidence, but value argument structure and critical thinking/logic more. Cards should be used as support for, and not in place of contentions. Please set up a weighing mechanism for the round as early as possible; I will expect the round to be distilled into voting issues by the time we get to Summary and Final Focus.

If frameworks/definitions are a crucial part of your case, I expect it to come up in the first constructive and reiterated throughout the round.

Likewise, key contentions and responses must come within constructives/rebuttals. Summaries and Final Focus are for refining arguments, not for raising entirely new points your opponents have no time to respond to.

If you do not extend your arguments, I will generally not include them in the final weighing. If you do not quantify your impacts, i will have to use a judgement call to decide what each one is worth.

Cross fire will not be flowed, but will be evaluated in speaker points. If you make a point in Cross fire that is important, please include it in the next speech.

The round will be flowed, and I'm generally ok with speed, but if you spread to the point where I can no longer flow, I will stop flowing.

Calling for evidence is fine, but I expect you to have your cards organized and accessible enough that locating them when called for is straightforward. If it takes an excessive amount of time for you to find the card, I will drop it from the flow.

Being professional/not condescending means I won't slash your speaks.

shubo.yin@aya.yale.edu

Flow judge. Clean rounds are nice. Please have evidence. Please display critical thinking.