Parent Judge.

First, if you have any questions before or after the round, feel free to ask.

You MUST be respectful. I'm fine if you're assertive, but don't be rude. If you are racist, sexist, etc. in the round and your opponents call you out, you will be dropped and given 0 speaks. The most important thing is to use debate to get better at speaking and thinking, be more educated, and HAVE FUN.

I look for the strongest impact and then determine which team has the strongest link into it.

If you do not stay at a CONVERSATIONAL pace I will literally disregard anything you say because I won't be able to understand it or write it down (~750 word cases). Don't use excessive jargon with me, I only have basic knowledge of debate and I won't understand it.

I will try to take notes on the round, but I do not know how to flow. Make it easier for me by SIGNPOSTING every response, warranting EXTREMELY explicitly, and extending WITH WARRANTS in every speech. If something is important, let me know. Point out concessions, cross isn't binding. That being said, I'm not stupid, so don't be abusive (esp. in second FF). I will know and give you bad speaks.

Do not try any progressive argumentation or theory on me, I won't understand it and won't be able to vote for you. The most I will be able to handle is structural violence framing if you warrant and explain really well.

Good luck!

Hello! My name is Alexander Perdue, though you can call me "Judge" or "Alex". My pronouns are he/him/his. Outside of speech and debate, I am currently a PhD student in Political Science (MA '23) at Binghamton University.

My personal/"speech and debate" qualifications: I've been working as a judge, primarily for online tournaments, for my former speech and debate program for the better part of the last 4 years. Most of my experience is in judging debate, primarily LD and PF, but I have some Congress judging experience and a round or two of interp under my belt.

Prior to being a judge, I did three years of speech and one year of debate for Salem (Salem) High School in Virginia--competing in extemporaneous speaking (both IX and USX), impromptu speaking, and Congressional Debate (Virginia does not have a House/Senate split in VHSL events), winning the 2019 VHSL 4A Championship in Impromptu Speaking and making it to the 2019 VHSL 4A Finals in Congressional Debate.

As it stands, given my previous speech and debate experiences, the only thing I'd say is "out of my depth" right now are the primary NSDA events of Big Questions and World Schools...and Policy.

Policy / CX / Big Questions / World Schools

I have no real experience judging any of these and therefore have no specific pointers (for now, maybe one day) or preferences. For a more general overview of how I judge/evaluate, please see the following sections about LD and PF as guidance.

I will say that, in general, arguments should be big picture and not hyperbolic. The one round of policy I've judged had debaters discussing the harms of extinction. When it's not plausibly an effect of the resolution (maybe it is on the 2023-24 CEDA resolution, certainly wasn't for the high school resolution), don't argue it. I definitely get annoyed.

Lincoln-Douglas

I largely judge my Lincoln-Douglas rounds on the following evaluative criteria. These are not "perfect", but they are generally how I arrive at my decisions.

1. Who is showing a better flow through the round? Don't just come out in clash and assume that by clashing, I'll get it. I strongly encourage you to make the argument that you won by showing it during non-cross time.

2. Who does a better job of using their value and criterion through the round? Too often in debates I've judged, students have done a poor job of bringing up their value and criterion through the round, not connecting it to their specific contentions and therefore not really providing the values clash that LD, you know, is. Values and evaluation criteria should not be an afterthought in Lincoln-Douglas! Think about ways you can better tie things back to your criteria and value through your contentions, not only will it make you a better LDer, you might stand a better chance at winning a round judged by me.

3. Who better uses Cross-X? Shot and parry is the name of the game in Cross-X, especially in LD where the clash might be more stark than it is in, for instance, Public Forum. Successful debaters having me judge them will use their time in Cross-X to get that their opponents' values through their contentions. If you can show that your value is the better supported one in the round, and or the more logically consistent one, you will do well.

LD Specific Note: Off-time roadmaps are fine, and, in fact, I encourage them. I find they make it easier for me to follow things during the round.

Public Forum

When it comes to public forum, I have three main thing I would say I look for in regards to making a decision.

1. Get to the point and make your arguments easy to follow. That is to say: be organized and make things tight. If I couldn't write down your case, state your position, and know your contentions by the end of your first speaker's speech, something has gone wrong. Making things tight will also lead to better and more...

2. Efficient use of Cross-X to "score points". This is simple, make sure that you can find the argument in your opponent's case that you can seize on, clash with, and clearly show your own arguments are superior to. I strongly encourage you to make this very clear when you speak!

3. In the absence of clash, I simply have to determine whose case makes the most sense and which side does the better job of presenting its argument in its logical consistency. To avoid this, seek out clash! That's what we're here for! The best debates are always the ones in which there is a decent amount of clash because it makes it clear there is a choice to be made between two (relatively) equally-matched sides.

Public Forum Specific Note: Point out if your opponent has dropped one of your contentions. Oftentimes I pick up on it, but it shows too that you're paying attention to what they're arguing.

Congressional

This one is fairly straightforward: make an argument. Then, after you've made an argument (Aff/Neg), support your argument. This is not exactly the most complicated rocket science. Also, do make sure you're getting into the LARP of it all, especially if I (for some reason) end up as your Parli. The best Congressional debaters are the quick on their feet.

DEBATE SPECIFIC NOTE: I am strongly against the practice of spreading. This is for two reasons: it is unfair to me as your judge and it is unfair to your opponents. If I cannot understand you, I cannot fairly judge you. If your opponents cannot understand you, they cannot possibly debate you. That being said, some speed is alright, but make sure you are still capable of being understood. Regardless, if understanding is an issue, it will be reflected in your Speaks and could be reflected in my overall ballot.

Speech

As a former speech kid myself, a few very quick pointers and things I look for in judging:

1. Organization. This cannot be sloppy and expect to score well. It doesn't have to necessarily be a tight five paragraph essay, but it does need to be enough such that I can follow what you're saying.

2. Support. It doesn't have to be all academic articles or jargon (particularly in Extemporaneous or OO), but the best speeches have decent support behind them from reputed sources and people. I know my way around the world of reputable information, and Iwillcall it out in the comments if you're using something you probably shouldn't. In Impromptu, you have a thesis, what you say needs to be connected to that thesis. It's different "support", but it's still "support".

3. Variety. Perhaps it's just the system I trained in but, especially in Impromptu and Extemporaneous (and somewhat in OO), bring it home for us. Tell me why what you're saying matters. What are the implications (in Extemporaneous)? How can you forge a personal connection to the topic (in Impromptu and OO)? The best speeches not only have that organization and internal support, they also do a good job of making me realize that what they're talking about is important or actually showing a personal impact.

Interp

Caveat: I haven't judged this much competitively, but my program practices this thing wherein we get experience seeing everybody do their piece in every event. So, no, I may not "know" HI like a former competitor, but I know what to look for.

Three big things I'd like to say as key to my judging philosophy:

1. Smooth transitions. This one is quite simple, make sure your cuts between scenes or between characters are clear and defined, not choppy. Each character should bedistinct, as it were.

2. Clear characterization. Similar to the above, make sure that your characters are clearly different. For instance, if your piece has an old woman, a puppet, and a frog, make sure that you have an old woman, a puppet, and a frog in your repertoire, whether this be by different voices, different postures, different cadences, or some combination of things that makes it clear that your characters are distinct.

3. Feeling. Make me feel something. In HI or with a humorous piece, make me laugh. Sam Kennedy's winning 2018 VHSL Class 4A Humorous Interpretation piece is still one of my favorite pieces becauseevery time I saw it I could nearly keel over laughing. Similarly, in a dramatic piece, be sure to bring out the emotive parts of your piece. If it's supposed to be sad, make me tear up. Other emotions...same thing.