Heidi Atkin she/her

Hello! I’m a judge for corner canyon high school, my son competes in policy this year. I have limited judging experience, mostly async speech events like lip synch and newscaster and some experience in judging OO, interp, impromptu, and extemp. I have never competed in speech and debate before.

Overall I really like voice inflection being used to show me how to feel, creative speech topics, and telling me why your speech matters.

you will make me happy if you use the word flabbergasted in your speech.

p.s. This paradigm was written by my son (a passionate 7 off policy debater, yall should join policy but like be worse than me so that I can beat you but also expand policy debate because it’s cool) so don’t assume I know what a paradigm is or what the rules of this event are

To help with the flow please assume that the judge is always ready. No need to ask me. You have my undivided for the time of the round.

Please no spewing! This is very rude to not only the judge, but also to the judge. It is hard to judge you if I can not understand what you are saying. Make Sure that you are talking at an intelligible speed.

However, with that said please do not assume what is spewing to the judge. IE debating the paradigm will not win you the round. STAY ON TOPIC!

I am a volunteer judge. Using the guidelines and rules set forth in the West High Speech and Debate Judging Handbook I strive to evaluate and then rank the contestants accordingly.

Overall presentation: Is their premise stated clearly? Is their argument supported by resources or facts? Is their conclusion logical? What did I learn from their speech? Did it intrigue me? Did it convince me?

Performance quality: How clearly did they speak, including diction, enunciation, pacing?

Engagement with audience: How did they use body language, gestures, eye contact, and their space to connect with their audience? What is the emotional impact?

Creativity and originality: What was their hook, how have they set the stage? How have they used or interwoven resources/materials to build their positions and support their assertions? Have they used different emotions, for example interspersing some humor within a serious topic? Are character transitions clear and consistent?

Have the speakers adhered to required parameters such as time limits, memorization, utilization of space or props?

Keeping these considerations in mind I rank the speakers.

I am a traditional judge. I value topicality, and I like signposting by both sides so that I can flow the round. I do not flow cross ex, so if you have points to make based on cross-ex, you will need to include them in your rebuttal. I will not read a case that is submitted to me, as I believe that you should do the work of debating your case vocally. If your spreading prohibits my ability to flow your case, you are not likely to win your round. I am seldom swayed by complaints of "unfair"--it just sounds whiney.

I am a high school teacher. I have a degree in theater, psychology and English. I took debate all four years in high school and have been head coach for state champion speech and LD teams for years. I competed equally in policy and in Interp events.

I can follow most spreading, but I would rather not.

I am not a fan pf progressive debate - no performance or outrageous K's.

I appreciate the ability of a debater to think logically for themselves and not regurgitate cases written solely through purchased evidence files or a college coach. With that said however, you better have more than analytics to back up your arguments.

I typically won't vote for lack of fair education - unless the other team is very egregious is their abuse.

In partner debates I expect each partner to debate strong enough on their own that tag-teaming is not necessary.

I expect debaters to frame their arguments with a weighing mechanism with which you want me to view the round. Tell me why your argument is better - don't expect me to to just get it. If you want me to judge based on your defined values, you better explicitly state them.

You could win ten arguments to their six, but if their six have more weight, you will still lose.

As a Public Forum judge, what I look for and vote on in each round is that your team has effectively shown or told me why you should win. You need to prove to me that the contentions or impacts that are presented by you are superior to your opponents’. When it comes to beginning your speeches, please provide a brief, off-time roadmap that includes the order and name of your contentions, as well as any framework that will be presented. Please do this before every speech.

As a Lincoln-Douglas judge, I want to be shown how you win the round. You should show me this by effectively upholding your own value/criterion AND either by upholding your opponent’s value/criterion through your own contentions/case OR disproving the effectiveness of your opponent’s value/criterion. And most importantly, I want you to tell me HOW or WHY your argument is more important that your opponent’s; do not just simply state that it is more important. Prove it to me. And as per above, please provide a brief, off-time roadmap that includes the order and name of your contentions, as well as any value/criterion that will be presented. please do this before every speech.

Hello! I've judged speech events for a year now and have a background in government and public service. I place a high emphasis on a clear, organized speech, with strong clarity in structure and meaning. I like references that support and extrapolate the topic, allowing for an argument with more nuance and interest. Instead of just explaining why the topic is relevant, I appreciate speakers who take the idea to a new level, anchored with personal anecdotes and strong references. Thank you all for participating and I'm looking forward to judging!

amanda072086@gmail.com
Speak clearly. Any speed is fine as long as you slow down and read your tag lines and main points very clearly. Spreading is fine. Give clear indication of when you have reached the burden you set out.

LD: I am a true values debate judge in LD. Tabula rasa judge. Flexible to any kinds of cases and arguments as long as they are respectful. If your case is not topical or abusive and your opponent argues and proves that in their speeches then I am willing to vote based on topicality, education and abuse.

PF and CX: Be respectful and cordial to your opponent. I’m open to most anything in Policy rounds. Always stay on the debate topic, don’t wander off onto an irrelevant subject because it’s more enjoyable to argue about than the topic is. Always allow your opponent the opportunity to complete their sentence before continuing to cross.
I’m a Tabula rasa Judge especially in Policy debate. If you don’t tell me how you want me to weigh the round and set a minimum burden for each side to have to meet within the round to win then I will default to judging based on the block and will turn into a games playing judge and will make voting decisions based on what my flow shows and dropped arguments or arguments that were lost or conceded will very much factor into my vote. Impacts, Warrants and links need to be made very clear, and always show me the magnitude.

I am a parent judge. As a student I participated in several student debate events. I have judged multiple debate and speech events. I am a practicing attorney with over 16 years, and have a great deal of experience with oration, delivery and making evidenced based arguments under pressure and within time constraints in both academic and professional settings. I am a frequent public speaker and have great deal of experience preparing and delivering speeches. I have reviewed the rules for all speech and debate events and strive to judge fairly. Thank you.

I am comfortable with all types of debate. Please run whatever you want. I will flow.

Tech > Truth

Impact Calc > nearly everything else

Definition debate < value-criterion debate (LD-specific) < everything else

Here's my email: jacksontridges@gmail.com

I'm a parent judge. I've done several tournaments, mainly with speech events.

I look for evidence, a tightly constructed, succinct argument.

Thanks!