speed is fine as long as you make an email chain/speech drop - email is obinnadennar@gmail.com

im fine with all types of debate. i love critical arguments/case positions that engage with various types of philosophy. k debate is my favorite. cool with everything else.

one note on theory: i do not like frivolous theory (i.e. down my opponent since they are wearing socks - yes, i have seen this shell). if your opponent gets up in the next speech and says this is stupid and don't pay attention to it. i will discard it and i will not see it as a voting issues. that being said, if there is actual abuse in the round, theory is not only fine but welcomed. competing interps over reasonability.

please feel free to ask any questions before the round. ill be more than happy to answer them

Hey! I competed in Congressional Debate and FX for 4 years on the local, state, and national level. I went to Lamar High School.

I believe that clash is extremely significant in different debate events, including Congressional debate. While I do value clash, it should not be rude or degrading, and should be based on evidence/warrants.

In PF/LD, I don’t mind spreading, but make sure that the arguments are clear and that you are speaking coherently and not insanely fast. I would also say that I’m tech over truth when it comes to arguments. Last, please give a roadmap before speeches so that I can properly flow.

Thanks for competing and good luck to you! Please no spreading because I don't want to miss anything you say. I appreciate a clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.

Seven lakes High School '21 | University of Texas at Dallas '24

contact: pkasibhatla4@gmail.com

Debate experience:

I mainly participated in PF debate throughout high school at both local and national tournaments

PF:

- I am a standard flow judge who evaluates tech over truth.

- Okay with any arguments along as they are not offensive, racist, homophobic, etc.

- I am fine with speed as long as everyone in the round can clearly hear the arguments. I do not like spreading.

- Evidence: Paraphrasing is fine as long as you don't blatantly misconstrued the evidence. When providing paraphrased evidence please give the specific line that you reference. Evidence ethics are important, call your opponents out for any misconstrued evidence, false claims or any lies.

- Speaker points: Speaker points are awarded based on strategy and obviously how well you speak. As mentioned above, I will dock both speaker points and drop you if you have bad evidence ethics. Moreover, i'll give bonus speaker points if the round is entertaining and respectful. Being rude and loud will only decrease your speaker points so don't do that

- Give a roadmap of the speech beforehand and signpost throughout the speech.

- To extend an argument you must extend the contention name, the name of the cards and more importantly what the card says. You can't just tell me to extend 'x card' without telling me why the card is important to both your argument and the round. Speaking of extensions, the round should flow from your constructive to the final focus. The second rebuttal should respond to all offensive arguments or I consider them as drops. First summary must extend arguments and defense if it's responded to in second rebuttal. I will more than likely be voting on both the cleanest argument.

- Weighing is great, the more you weigh throughout the round the easier it is for me to vote. Please start weighing during rebuttals. New weighing after second summary is too late and I will not evaluate that.

- Any arguments or concessions during Cross must be brought up in speeches.

- If you read a framework, read warrants. The Framework debate must include weighing.

- Final focus should have the same arguments as summary

Email me if you have any questions!

Tom McCaffrey

In Public Forum and Extemp: I prioritize reasonable framework and clear analysis supported by evidence from credible sources. I'm interested in the big picture, and more in the significance and impacts of arguments than the quantity. I can't vote for points and impacts I can't hear or understand, so slow up for key points and explain them clearly. Be smart but be kind, don't yell at me or each other. I often see a negative correlation between persuasion and volume or intensity. I assign speaker points from 27-30, which may reflect positive and negative behavior, and may include partial points when allowed (e.g. 27.5, 28.75).

In Congressional Debate: I value natural delivery of points and impacts, and reasonable positions; talk pretty. I look for acknowledgement of prior speakers' points and clash leading to good argumentation and refutation, and for purposeful questioning leading to clarity, understanding, or insight. Knowledge of and adherence to Parliamentary Procedure is expected in the chamber. Skillful Presiding Officers make sessions a positive experience for all and will be ranked accordingly.

World Schools: a great debate event that should not sound, look, or feel like any other event. Please demonstrate that you understand, use, and respect this event's differences, norms, and value.

In Oratory, Info, and Impromptu: I value your originality, creativity, and persuasive presentation of ideas of personal importance. Cite your sources, explain their importance when not obvious.

I like POI as the most wide-open opportunity we have to connect and weave an unexpected and dazzling array of related choices to elevate an important advocacy.

In DI, HI, DUO: I think of everything we do in Speech and Debate as storytelling. Tell me a story! Among chiseling tools I prefer the precision of a scalpel to the raw power of a jackhammer. It's easier to get and keep my attention with thoughtful, meaningful, measured creative performances of cuttings that preserve a storyline than with more frenetic or extreme choices.

I believe speaking skills can, do, and should win tournaments. There are only two outcomes, and they're both great: you win or you learn. And you keep and add to the learning forever! Be kind and have fun!

For TFA State:

Interp: I am a pretty open minded judge when it comes to judging interp overall but there are a few things I look for in performances. Creativity and honesty will always be the most rewarded in my book because it is why we do what we do at the end of the day. Showcasing your own interpretation, but staying true to the core of the story is important to me. Character development and emotional shifts are super important especially over a digital platform to keeping us engaged with the story and showing us the meaning behind the words. Have fun with the choices you make as long as they are PURPOSEFUL, doing something that distracts rather than enhances makes us lose connection between what is happening in the story.

Speaking/Extemp: Big thing is show your own unique style and approach to speaking because this is what separates you from other. I am a big fan of humor, but PLEASE, I BEG do not make it feel forced or this is just awkward for both of us. In terms of depth of the speech, I like more than just surface level arguments and I want to see you get to the higher end issues and core problems effectively. Structure is important obviously to make sure we can connect all of the ideas and know how you are getting to what you are wanting to. Finally, have variation in your delivery, it is important to showcase the different levels and power of your arguments and statements and so we should feel very engaged with how you are saying and what you are saying.

Worlds School Debate:

School affiliation/s : Northwest High School

Hired (yes/no) : Hired for WSD

High School Affiliation if graduated within last five years (required): Northwest High School

Currently enrolled in college? (required) If yes, affiliation? No

Years Judging/Coaching (required) I have been judging for 5- 6 years.

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event (required)

I pretty much started off my first year judging in interp and PF and then slowly incorporated all other forms of debate the following year.

Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year (required): Since August I have judged about 40 world school rounds around Texas.

Check all that apply

__x___I judge WS regularly on the local level

_____I judge WS at national level tournaments

_____I occasionally judge WS Debate

_____I have not judged WS Debate this year but have before

_____I have never judged WS Debate

Rounds judged in other events this year : 75 rounds including PF, LD, Interp, Speaking, and Congress.

Check all that apply

__x__ Congress

_x___ PF

__x__ LD

____ Policy

_x___ Extemp/OO/Info

__x__ DI/HI/Duo/POI

____ I have not judged this year

____ I have not judged before

Have you chaired a WS round before?

I have chaired multiple WS rounds before locally.

What does chairing a round involve?

Chairing a round basically is keeping the round in order and ensuring a productive and efficient debate. The chair is in charge of calling up the speakers, leading the RFD for the panel, making sure people do not ask questions during protected time (which I discuss students should keep their own timer at the beginning so we do not have this issue), and making sure a fair debate is occurring.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else?

I would describe WSD as a form of debate in which you are arguing ideas and issues to show which side of the motion is the most logical. This is way different than Americanized debate where theory and jargon is utilized more, so it is focusing on the core issues of the debate. Worlds is suppose to make sense to anyone who is listening to the debate and therefore the arguments should make rationale sense to anybody.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate?

I am fortunate enough to have a full setup for my computer. I have two monitors and on the main monitor I watch the debate, and the second monitor has my tabroom ballot where I am writing notes over each speech and speaker. I also in front of me use a notebook to flow the debate to make sure I keep up with what is being said in the round.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

This just simply depends on the topic itself. I am pretty open minded when it comes to arguments and do not have a personal preference as long as it is discussed why you chose what to advocate for. This clarity is needed to really emphasize why that approached is needed and it's on the debaters to tell me why it is preferable.

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy?

I think strategy usually is overlooked in terms of how you want structure arguments. A speaker's strategy is how do you connect the claims you present and how you word things in order to be effective in elaborating on arguments presented by the other side. Picking the right way to argue things and how you say it are definitely things to be aware of for your strategy.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast?

First, I am glad to have not judged a WSD where someone was spreading, so let's keep it that way hopefully. If someone is just not effective with their speed and tone I usually deduct points from their style.

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

As silly as it may sound, I usually vote on simply what makes sense. Since we do not have to have the 20 minutes of calling for cards (thankfully), I simply view whos reasoning and rationale makes the most sense towards the topic and arguments presented in the round. Show me your thought process through your speech and it usually comes down to who can prove their claims in a clear manner, rather than the throw everything at the wall and see what sticks strategy.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

I look at how effective and clear some model is to make sure it sets the foundation for your ideas. Make sure you think through your model to answer any potential questions individuals may have about it. I do not think all motions need a model or countermodel, so just make sure if you use one there is a purpose to it.

My experience as a competitor spanned my 4 years at The Woodlands High School where I regularly competed in Congressional Debate and Extemp Speaking. Throughout my time there, I also spent over a year competing in both PF and Info so would also consider myself adept in those events.

When judging Congress, I try to equally weigh all aspects of the round but unlike some judges, I will listen to your claims, warrants and impacts and expect to see clear linkages. Furthermore, I also place an emphasis on clash as this is still a debate event. I like to see competitors directly clashing with others' claims, both during their speeches and during CX.

As for extemp, I will equally weigh your presentation and analysis, but since extemp speaking is the one IE that is a bit different than the others, I try to pay close attention to the analysis and like to see how your points support your overarching answer to the question.

Last Updated: 01/07/2022

Add me to the email chain: nrsonwalk@gmail.com

***FEEL FREE TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ABOUT MY PARADIGM BEFORE ROUND***

LD:

*Please IMPACT your arguments; even if you're winning an argument, if you don't tell me why it matters, I don't have an incentive to vote for you

*Voters in the 2NR and 2AR please

*Make sure your warrants are solid

*Extend warrants not author names

*Flex prep is chill as long as both debaters are okay with it

*Make CX productive please; I do consider CX to be binding

*Make sure you extend and explain your LINKS; you can say x leads to y, but tell my WHY it does so. If you find an issue with your opponent's links, point them out explicitly!

*Clash is CRITICAL! Don't skirt around what your opponent is saying; DIRECTLY address it!

*Be sure to have proper citations for evidence

*ROB should somehow be topical/resolutional

*I prefer that you have some sort of framework that I should evaluate the round under, and make sure to explain the framework debate throughout

*I will consider that T/Theory doesn't necessarily take priority in the round/ isn't valid; you don't need a counter-interp necessarily structured (although it organizes it), you can just explain it to me.

*If you run a K, please have an alt! Even if you win the argument that there is an issue, if you don't tell me why your side is solving the issue, I don't have a compelling reason to vote for you!

*Please explain what type of perm/HOW you are perm-ing.

*I love traditional debate just as much as LARP/progressive debate so run what you are comfortable with! I don't need it to be perfectly structured as T/Theory/K/LARP, but at a minimum, have claims, warrants, and impacts to what you are saying, and I will consider your argument equally to an argument more technically structured.

*Be respectful and have fun!!

*Speaks:

Below 27: There was a clear issue somewhere in the debate, ie, you weren't respectful, you had a significant issue in presentation, etc.

27-28: You did everything you needed to, but there may have been a couple of issues in strategy, content, and/or presentation that can be fixed

29-30: Excellent strategy, content, and presentation

PF:

*Same as LD! Ask me any specific questions before round

*I have a higher threshold for quality of any progressive arguments in PF. That doesn't mean that you can't run them, they just have to be done very well. I think that running PF as a "public forum" debate that is understandable to any judge is essential to what it is, so keep that in mind!

Congress:

*New and unique arguments tend to make the debate more interesting; be creative with what you're saying

*Clash in your speeches is essential

*Have a good balance between evidence and commentary; I want to hear solid analysis but make sure you have sources to back it up

*Fluency, enunciation, and non verbal communication/presentation matter; don't discount them!!

*I tend to give more weight to content over presentation, BUT that doesn't mean that I give no weightage to presentation quality. Essentially, if your presentation is excellent, but what you're saying makes no sense, I won't rank you as high

*PO will be judged on understanding precedence, parliamentary procedures, and moving the debate along well.

*Participate in questioning! I judge you based on not only what you present but how you interact with what others present.

*Speaks:

1-2: There was a clear issue somewhere in the debate, ie, you weren't respectful, you had a significant issue in presentation, your content didn't make sense, etc.

3-4: You did everything you needed to, but there may have been consistent fluency breaks, and your content might have been repetitive from previous speakers. Not really any clash was provided. You didn't balance well researched evidence and analysis.

5: Great strategy, content, and presentation. Few fluency breaks; new arguments and clash, unbiased and strong evidence, interacting with the round and not just the legislation.

6: Excellent strategy, content, and presentation. Close to no fluency breaks; very unique arguments and constant clash and interaction with other speeches, unbiased and very reputable and strong evidence, compelling language and presentation.

*Be respectful and have fun!!

Extemp:

*Answer the question! You can have great analysis and sources about the context of the question but make sure you are answering the actual question as well!

*Have a good balance between evidence and commentary; I want to hear solid analysis but make sure you have sources to back it up

*Fluency, enunciation, and non verbal communication/presentation matter; don't discount them!!

*I tend to give more weight to content over presentation, BUT that doesn't mean that I give no weightage to presentation quality. Essentially, if your presentation is excellent, but what you're saying makes no sense, I won't rank you as high

*Be respectful and have fun!!

IE:

*Be PASSIONATE about what you're presenting!

*Make sure your content makes logical sense; it should be cut to flow well together and provide a solid and clear line of reasoning and narrative.

*Clean and well-prepared blocking makes a huge difference in your overall presentation

*Fluency, enunciation, and non-verbal communication/presentation matter; don't discount them!

*Be respectful and have fun!!

*I love to see that you're having fun presenting! That shows that you're passionate about your topic/piece!

Pronouns: they/them

I also alternate between she/her and he/him, but if you don't know me well enough to know how to use them I would recommend you stick to they/them.

Contact: micahsturgeon@icloud.com

Congress:

Preview in your introduction.

Credibility of sources is very important and I will not credit a point that has no sources at all. We are not looking for opinions only in Congressional debate.

Clash- This is a debate event and the only time for no clash in a speech is if you are the author or the sponsor or the first negative speech.

Do not repeat the same info over and over again in later speeches. What do you have to add to the previous speeches. Pay attention to what each prior speech has given us.

To PO's: Make sure you know what you are doing and handle yourself and the round in a way that moves the round along by the rules.

I expect civil discourse. Rude or abusive behavior in any aspect of the speech is unacceptable.

Debate in general:

No personal attacks, attack the arguments and not the person (play nice)

Speaking quickly is fine as long as you realize punctuation still adds to understanding, (spreading for no purpose other than speed is discouraged)

If it is a debate, there should be a clash.

Enjoy the civil, social discourse.

I/E Events

It is a performance. Each and every movement and utterance should add to the delivery and performance.

INTERP EVENTS

- In speech/ acting events it should be incredible storytelling. I need to see a full story even though it is just 10 minutes of a script.

- Exude energy and build all of your characters.

- Connecting to the audience by trying to evoke our emotions.

- Have fun and give it your all.

SPEAKING EVENTS

- Clarify your topic from the beginning.

- Don't assume we know anything about the topic, enlighten us.

- Credibility of sources is imperative.

- Deliver with confidence and enthusiasm for your topic. Be very polished.