Last changed on
Sun March 21, 2021 at 4:02 AM MST
Do not spread!
Updated 3/21/2021 after Arizona District National Qualifying Tournament.
As the season winds down I have had the opportunity to judge outstanding speakers and debaters at national qualifying tournaments across the US.
What has distinguished IE speakers has been the ability to convey authenticity and a sense of spontaneity in their performances.
Extempers who are able to maintain direct eye contact throughout their speeches have been rewarded.
Congressional debaters who have extended the debate and engaged in cross-examination linked to later speeches have distinguished themselves.
Finally LD and PF debaters who have argued at a conversational pace and focused on warranting and analysis over evidence have advanced. I have had the opportunity to see LD cases which are deeply focused on values and ethics and not policy. These LD teams have advanced.
Speech and Congressional participants can scroll down to see my comments on judging IEs and Congress.
I am a lay judge. All debaters should speak at a conversational pace, DO NOT spread. Leave your camera on!
I repeat, all debaters, please DO NOT SPREAD!
I completely support the efforts for inclusiveness in the debate and speech community. As you will see below that commitment to inclusiveness in debate means your presentation and argumentation should include the broadest audience. Therefore NO speed k, progressive debate or theory. My experience this season has been that consistently in rounds I judge conversational paced traditional debate advances.
Please be at the round as instructed in the tournament directions. In order verify functioning technology, to respect the entire community and not delay the tournament I strongly urge you to be early.
I have judged PF, LD, Congressional Debate, Extemp and IE during 2020 and now 2021 in Zoom ( NASD campus) and over the past ten years. See below for preferences in all these events. Congressional Debaters should scroll to the bottom and read my comments!
I will first say I admire and appreciate the ability of high school speech and debaters to adjust to this new world of zoom. This year I have seen amazing IE performances and extremely high level debate.
You should consider me a parent, lay judge. Most of the following paradigm will relate to debate. I trust that the comments outlining my PF and LD philosophy will provide sufficient information for Congressional debaters.
Speech
You may choose whether to stand or sit during your performance. There are pros and cons to each strategy. Please remember that the camera will exaggerate all of your gestures and facial expressions. Prior to the round be certain that you have the camera and microphone set at the appropriate levels and you have marked your performing space so that you will always be with them the camera. It is my preference that you end your performance without a thank you. Your performance is thanks enough.
Do not leave the frame of your camera. both extempers and impromptu speakers should note this direction.
On Zoom less is more, the broadness of gestures traditionally used does not translate well to the camera. Likewise consider your volume. You should critically evaluate your recorded performance, this is a great opportunity for you to see if your intent is conveyed.
As an IE judge I am open to and admire all types of material. My focus will be on your performance. I will try to provide an engaged audience for your performance. I am particularly interested in your ability to convey emotional depth and authenticity through your use of physical gesture and vocal variety and intensity.
Extempers
I am much more impressed by warranting with clear analysis than a recitation of evidence. While many extempers have advanced ability to retain up to a dozen pieces of evidence that's far too much for a 7 minute speech. I would imagine that three or even four pieces of evidence from diverse sources would be sufficient.
That said give a full citation for your evidence particularly if you obtained it off the internet that is if on the day of the tournament you accessed a 2000 article I would think you would give me both the data the original article and the fact you accessed at the day of the tournament.
Extempers maintain consistent eye contact with your audience into the camera. This may be due to any number of factors but advancing extempers always maintain consistent eye contact.
Don't be afraid in your presentation to show your pleasure in giving the speech. Appropriate use of humor either in your intro, in the conclusion or in the body of the speech is always welcome. Note that humor should be appropriate. Also carefully consider your use of personal reference or example in your speech.
Debate
I have become concerned with evidence, evidence ethics and evidence exchange in addition to spreading.
You should exchange evidence within one minute.
I work from the assumption that you have cut your evidence ethically. I do not place a great deal of my decision on conflicting evidence. Just give me a warrant. If a debater provides me with an analytic or comparison on a card I will accept it if not rebutted. However if I call for one of your cards you should be concerned. If I find you have cut the card out of context or in a misleading manner that will impact my decision.
Evidence exchange should be quick. Recent debates have had extended time periods of clarifying what evidence is to be exchanged. Know your evidence have it immediately available to send in the chat or document file. it should take less than 30 seconds for you to request evidence and less than 30 seconds to send.
In PF, LD and Congress I will flow the debate and consider both the speeches and cx as the basis for my ultimate decision. Varsity debaters should consider me a parent judge. I do not handle speed - DO NOT spread. If you are unsure about your speed SLOW DOWN - you are talking too fast. If I cannot flow your argument I cannot evaluate it for decision.
I am a traditionalist so debate the topic. What I mean by this is we come together to explore a topic. Not a theory or an alternative view of the world. Therefore let's debate the topic - no progressive debate in the round and no k. I always vote against theory, k and progressive cases.
For those of you still reading. Clearly do not spread. Let me be very clear. If one debater spreads and the other debater argues at a conversational rate I ballot traditional debater who speaks at conversational speed. As I've indicated in this paradigm if I cannot flow I cannot evaluate. Please try to walk the walk that our community is advocating for in terms of inclusiveness and diversity and include me in your argumentation for traditional debate at conversational pace.
How I'll evaluate the round:
With my flow.
Please frame the debate for me.
Weight impacts
Clearly make links
Analyze magnitudes
Give voters
To win my ballot make a clear traditional framework analysis.
Warrants: I need to understand why and how a claim creates specific impacts. If I don't understand your warrant or if it just doesn't follow, the only way I'll vote on it is if your opponent drops it entirely. Remember reading evidence is not a warrant.
Finally debaters should be respectful to each other and have fun. There is no reason to ever be disrespectful. In the unlikely event this happens it will be reflected in reduce speaker points and a note on the ballot for your coach.
Do not spread.
I don't believe that theory or kritiks should be a part of Public Forum of LD debate. If you run either, you will almost certainly lose my ballot. If you encounter kritik or theory in a round and I am your judge, all you need to say for me to dismiss that argument is that PF and LD debate is intended to be accessible to all people and should directly address the topic of the resolution, and then continue to debate the resolution.
I am among the most traditional, perhaps old-fashioned PF and LD judges you are likely to encounter. I believe that PF and LD should remain true to its original purpose which was to be a debate event that is accessible to everyone, including the ordinary person off the street. So I am opposed to everything that substantively or symbolically makes PF and LD a more exclusive and inaccessible event.
Quality over quantity.
CX: Ask questions and give answers. Don't make speeches. Try not to interrupt, talk over, and steam-roll your opponent. Let your opponents talk.
If you persuade me of your narrative and make your narrative more significant than your opponent's, you will win my ballot - regardless of how many minor points you drop. On the other hand, if you debate with perfect technique and don't drop anything, but you don't present and sell a clear narrative, it's highly unlikely that you will win my ballot.
This is also important. in summary please collapse the debate. In final focus give voters and way. Do not run the flow in either one of these speeches. You want to simplify the round for me and give me clear voters for your position.
Moreover be certain that you warrant your arguments. Repeating a card or evidence is not a warrant. A warrant is a logical argument for your claim. I will disregard claims that lack a warrant in my decision. Remember a warrant is not evidence
VALUE AND VALUE CRITERION: I think that the value and the value criterion are essential components of Lincoln-Douglas debate. They are what most distinguish LD from policy and public forum. If your advocacy is NOT explicitly directed toward upholding/promoting/achieving a fundamental value and your opponent does present a value and a case that shows how affirming/negating will fulfill that value, your opponent will win the round – because in my view your opponent is properly playing the game of LD debate while you are not.
It’s your job as a debater not just to say stuff, but to speak in the manner necessary for your judge to receive and thoughtfully consider what you are saying. If your judge doesn’t actually take in something that you say, you might as well not have said it to begin with.
Because I prioritize quality over quantity in evaluating the arguments that are presented, I am not overly concerned about “drops.” If a debater “drops” an argument, that doesn’t necessarily mean he/she loses.
As a round progresses, I really hope to hear deeper and clearer thinking, not just restating of your contentions. If you have to sacrifice covering every point on the flow in order to take an important issue to a higher level and present a truly insightful point, then so be it. That’s a sacrifice well worth making. On the other hand, if you sacrifice insightful thinking in order to cover the flow, that’s not a wise decision in my view.
If you present a ton of evidence for a contention, but you don’t explain in your own words why the contention is true and how it links back to your value, I am not likely to be persuaded by it. On the other hand, if you present some brilliant, original analysis in support of a contention, but don’t present any expert testimony or statistical evidence for it, I will probably still find your contention compelling.
front of me as your judge is a forfeit of the round to your opponent.
PROFESSIONALISM: Please be polite and respectful as you debate your opponent. A moderate amount of passion and emphasis as you speak is good. However, a hostile, angry tone of voice is not good. Be confident and assertive, but not arrogant and aggressive. Your job is to attack your opponent’s ideas, not to attack your opponent on a personal level.
Congressional Debate
See above comments as well.
I consistently rank the PO. If the PO does an exceptional job I will rank the PO first in the round. I say this to encourage Congressional debaters to take on this vital function. I have been impressed with a number of Arizona Congressional debaters who PO. I admire beginning or novice Congressional debaters who take on the challenge to PO. Please do this! When completing my overall ranking if two debaters a PO and a member of the House or Senate are close I typically favor the PO.
To experienced Congressional debaters it is my view that it is your responsibility to the event and to our overall debate community to give back and PO.
Do not stand up and speak just to give a speech. As a judge and a parliamentarian I routinely rank highly one quality speech over three speeches which contribute nothing to the debate.
The smaller chambers in the zoom environment this year guarantee that every member who wishes to deal and has an argument to make will have the chance. So rather than strategic, I appreciate speaking order that advances the actual debate rather than a pre round prepped speech or reading of evidence. I value warranting and analysis over paraphrasing evidence.
If you are speaking second or third on a side on a bill and present no extensions no new arguments or no summary you should not be speaking. I will routinely rank you below someone who doesn't speak because this type of presentation later in the debate contributes nothing therefore is negative rather than neutral.
If the PO conducts themselves and the debate with precision and clarity I routinely rank them in the top three and during this debate season in over 15 rounds of congressional debate I have ranked the PO first five times.
At a recent debate a four-year Congressional debater was in a room with novices. The debater convinced a novice to PO the round because the experienced thought they would be ranked higher as a speaker rather than PO. I admired the novice for taking on this daunting challenge and ranked him above the experience debater.
