I love to see honest acting in interpretation events. If you have blocking, l'd like it to be clearly purposeful and clean. Most importantly, have fun.

In platform events I like you have unique analyses of your topics with clear implications. Again, above all else, just have fun.

In Oratory, Info, and Impromptu: I value your originality, creativity, and persuasive presentation of ideas of personal importance. Cite your sources, explain their importance, and tell me why it matters.

In DI, HI, DUO: It is crucial that you tell a story in a meaningful and impactful manner. Characterization, gestures and facial expressions, and, vocal variation will all add to the overall decision.

Overall speaking skills or/and argumentation are critical to winning! But remember the most important thing is that you learn!

Spread only if the speed you use also allows for enough enunciation that I can understand. I can keep up, but only if I can comprehend.

I believe in traditional debate. In LD, everything is about the V/VC construct and should apply to it. I don't really care about definition debate unless it is absolutely vital. Observations don't really matter to me unless both sides agree to them.

In, PF I try to take the position of a typical citizen judge and base "my knowledge" only on what you tell me in the round and not what I already know. Civility is still important in cross-examination so it is important to remember that with me.

In Policy, I am least familiar, so I base everything on my flow and which side has the most arguments standing by the end of the debate. Also, and I know it may be unusual, but I do care if the plan actually makes sense because I can't vote for it if it doesn't.

I don't listen to parenthetical documentation as a source. What does that mean anyway???

A good debate will always be a good debate and a good performance will always be a good performance, so my opinion is irrelevant.

Debate is an intellectual expression of the arts of reading, writing, speaking, and listening.

A strong debater presents well organized, intellectual content that rises to the level of artful, expressive and receptive communication.

The flow of the debate should be simple for me, or any other judge, to record if the debater's content is smoothly and succinctly presented. The debater(s) with the strongest content will earn the ballot. The artistic use of speaking, reading, writing, and listening add tremendous strength to any public speaking opportunity. The refined use of these tools advance the debate from weak assertions or argumentation to the classical expression of competing viewpoints found in all forms of debate.

If you are speaking faster than I can write, I'll put my pencil down so I can listen intently. At this point it would be wise for a debater to speak slower. Then I could return to flowing the debate so I have this documentation to review when completing the ballot and to help me make the right decision.

Hi all!

My name is Sarah Grace, and I'm a sophomore at Georgetown University studying International Politics with a concentration in Foreign Policy Processes and a minor in the Korean Language. If you're a junior/senior and you have any Georgetown-related questions, or questions about how debate can help you with the college application process, regardless of your school affiliation, I'm happy to help. You can best reach me at sgs100@georgetown.edu!

As for my speech and debate background, I debated all four years of high school. My three main events were Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Original Oratory, and Extemporaneous speaking. I'm the most experienced with Lincoln-Douglas Debate - I was both the 2021 State Champion and also competed at multiple national tournaments. I've competed in LD, PF, and Policy. I did OO sophomore-senior year, and I'm familiar with most speech events. My blind spot is interp.

This community has meant a lot to me, and I'm excited to be able to give back to it through judging, so I wish you all good luck!

Overall Notes

1.DO NOT SPREAD.

2.I will keep the official time, but you can also time yourself.

3. I give good speaker points, but you are only going to get a 30 if you were perfect in every way.

Debate Paradigm

1. No ad hom attacks/insults/slurs/etc. Be sensitive about the content you are debating.

2. You may give an off-time road map if you want.

3. I look for clarity, signposting, and solid logic in rebuttals. Please let me know WHERE you are and WHAT contention you are addressing. If you are addressing your opponent's first contention, please tell me so I can note it on my flow.

4. In rebuttal, give me impact calculus. Tell me how I am supposed to determine who has the more important impact (probability, severity, scope, magnitude). Please compare the affirmative/pro and negative/con worlds and tell me which one is better.

6. I like to see key voting issues that address major areas of clash in the final rebuttal speeches.

7. I can handle speed, but you need to enunciate. PLEASE DO NOT SPREAD.

8. If you use cards in rebuttal, don't just read them out, explain why it matters. Saying "Remember my Williams 2020 card" isn't enough. You should give me some additional analysis as to why it is relevant for your rebuttal.

LD Specific

1. I want to see value/value-criterion debate. Every contention should link back to the V and VC.

2. Give key voting issues in the 1NR and 2AR.

3. Logic-based arguments are fine. That being said, having evidence to back up your claims is also important. If you are saying something that is not entirely obvious, but pin it as "logic-based" I will weigh that in the round.

4. I will weigh the framework debate heavily if it is not collapsed, and if you do collapse the framework, you still need to make it clear what lens I'm judging the round through. If you win on framework, I still want to see solid debate on the contention level.

5. A bad CX won't lose you the round, but if you make a mistake/concession in CX and the opponent brings it up in rebuttal, I will weigh it.

Policy Specific

1. Please add me to the email chain. My Gmail is sgshurden@gmail.com.

2. I'm not super familiar with policy debate, so please make your arguments as accessible as possible. I need to understand what you are saying to flow it.

Congress

1. I treat Congress like a debate event. This means solid evidence, analysis, addressing other people in the chamber, and relevant questioning.

2. I don't like to see the SAME person stand up to give an aff and then stand up to give a neg right after. Pick a side and stick with it.

Overall Speech Paradigm

Dec, OO, Info

1. I'm familiar with Dec, OO, and Info. I know what the conventions are in each event, but in general, I will look for who the better speaker is.

2. Please don't judge how well you are doing based on my facial expressions.

3. Organization and evidence still counts. Even in speech. If I am confused about where you are, or the relevance of a point/piece of evidence, I will consider that when I rank you.

4. The speech I like the most won't necessarily be the one that gets the 1.

Extemp

1. Organization - The well-organized extemp speeches I've seen have a solid intro with a thesis, three points with several sources to back them up, and then a conclusion that links back to the intro.

2. Speaking - this comes back to who is the better speaker (inflection, tone, etc.).

3. Content - if you have 10 sources and they're all from the New York Times, I think you're probably making them up. Give me the month and year for each source. Ultimately, the analysis is more important to me than the source itself.

Impromptu

I look for most of the same things I do in extemp: organization, speaking, and content/analysis. Less emphasis on sources for obvious reasons.

Interp

I've never done interp before. If you get me as a judge, I have no idea what interp conventions are. I'll be judging on who I thought was the better speaker.

Email for document sharing/evidence chains: betty.stanton@jenksps.org

I'm the head coach of a successful team, and have been coaching for 14 years. I did CX in high school so long ago that Ks were new, and I competed in college.

LD: I'm a very traditional judge. I like values and criteria and analysis and clash. I don’t like Ks or anything based entirely on theory with no actual clash. I want framework debate to actually mean something.

PF: I’m a very traditional judge. If the round becomes a very short CX round instead of a PF round, we have a problem. I want evidence and actual analysis of that evidence, and I want actual clash. Again, I don’t like Ks or anything based entirely on theory.

CX: I can handle your spread and I will vote where I'm persuasively told to with the following exceptions: 1) I have never voted on T. I think it's a non-starter unless a case is so blatantly non-topical that you can't even see the resolution from it. That's not to say it isn't a perfectly legitimate argument, it's just to say that I will probably buy the aff's 'we meet's and you might have better uses for your time than camping here. 2) I do not traditionally like Ks because I feel like there is always a performative contradiction. If you run a K, you should firmly and continuously advocate for that K. 3) I, again, will always prefer actual clash in the round over unlinked theory arguments.

General Things ~

Don't claim something is abusive unless it is.

Don't claim an argument was dropped unless it was.

Don't advocate for atrocities.

Don't be a jerk to your opponents (This will get you the lowest speaker points possible. Yes, even if you win.)

Hey! I’m Vineeth! I’m a retired high school speech and debate competitor of 4 years and am now starting my first year of my collegiate speech and debate season.

I come from a speech background (OO, Extemp, Info), but I've competed in almost every type of debate (PF, LD, Congress, World Schools), with the exception of Policy. Below are what I find the most important qualities for a healthy debate in general and specifics for each event.

Public Forum:

- Evidence and good analysis are key to good arguments. I'll appreciate points that have a reasonable amount of evidence and analysis to back them up.

- Must speak at a pace where I can understand you, if I don't hear your arguments, then I can't judge them.

- I do not flow crossfire, but I envision a good crossfire as having equal engaged questioning between both sides.

- I want clash in your arguments. It's one thing to present your case to the judge, but it's an even better thing to prove why your opponents are wrong. Any team that can effectively clash with the other team's arguments will have a better chance at receiving my vote.

Congress:

- Speakers: Must be clear, poised, and professional. In questioning I'll look for the speaker who can respond back confidently to questions.

- PO: My only rule for judging a PO is seeing how well they are able to lead the chamber through debate and whether or not they displayed bias to their school when picking people for speeches.

LD:

- The main thing I want to see in this event is tying your value and value criterion into your arguments effectively. The debater that proves to me why their value and value criterion are integral to the topic will most likely receive my vote.

- Just like in PF, I want you to clash with your opponents arguments.

General:

- Be respectful, any team that slanders the other and is clearly offensive will not receive my vote regardless of argumentation. Speech and debate is meant to be a safe place to advocate ideas.

- Coming from a speech background I think good speaking is just as important as good argumentation. Anyone who can clearly articulate their points will be received positively by me.

- Have fun, I get this is a competition and we all want to win, but this activity is more than that. Make sure you enjoy yourselves with this opportunity!

Hey, I'm noa (they/them), a college freshman with 4 yrs of national debate experience under my belt.

Generally, if I'm judging you, I'm not gonna take your outfit into consideration. The norm of wearing suits kinda excludes those without an expendable income? So just look professional, but I'm never gonna dock you points for something out of your control. This also goes for a sore throat, stuffy nose, or lost voice. It does help to let me know before the round though. Also, if you need to leave after your speech, you don't need to ask me!! Trust me, I've been there, so I understand needing to leave for whatever reason.

Here's what u need to know (for debate):

• Above all else, be respectful, please. I will drop you (and your speaks) instantly if I hear anything hateful in your case, rebuttal, or any of your other speeches. Debate needs to be a space for people to express themselves, and if you take that away from those people, you won't be getting my ballot.

• With that out of the way, I'll buy any traditional argument (that isn't hateful, obviously) that is well-supported with evidence and plenty of warranting. I don't really understand progressive debate arguments, but I won't drop you for running them. Just read them slowly and make them make sense, because, despite four years in LD, I never fully grasped progressive args.

• Have all your sources ready in case they're challenged, just because it saves time.

• Cross-Ex isn't binding unless you make an argument that it is. IE - if your opponent concedes something in cross-ex, you need to point that out to me in a speech for me to weigh it in my decision.

• IF UR IN A RUSH READ THIS: To win, you're gonna want to write my ballot for me in your last speech. I'm a huge fan of line-by-line rebuttals, as I keep a pretty detailed flow, so if you point out everything your opponent drops, and that matches with my flow, that's all the more reason to vote for you. If you're going to collapse, convince me why I should buy it. In your final speech, please provide either a comparative worlds analysis and go deep into the impact calc, or at the very least give me some solid voter reasons.

• Also?? have fun. You're spending your weekend here, why not have fun with it? Be personable in your speeches, keep me interested, and make me care about what you say. Just don't yell at me (please). lol.

• Speaks are usually pretty ableist so I'll start at a 28 and will try and keep it in the range of 26-30. That being said, if you throw in a League joke or make a clever movie/anime reference, and I laugh at it, I'll bump your speaks up a point.

IF IM JUDGING POLICY, IM SORRY :(

send email chain to noaburnerlol@gmail.com

Hello! I’m Alex, and I am a Senior who focuses mainly on Interp on the Oak Grove Debate team.

I’ll be focusing on three things when judging your pieces: First, how effectively did you deliver your piece through the overall performance, did I understand the story, and is there a clear storyline. Two, how clean is your transitions and blocking/book tech, and to what extent you used these things to expand on your performance. Lastly, I’m a stickler for rules, so try and be knowledgeable about what you should and shouldn’t in both a round and your performance; I will dock points if I deem that you are disrespecting another competitor. Having fun and getting to know other competitors come first, the competition comes second.

As a fellow competitor, I wish you the best of luck in all of your rounds!