For debate: Quality of the argument and evidence is paramount, but presentation and confidence can add to the quality of the argument. Make sure to support your arguments with evidence, and respectful debate is always a must.

For speech: Presentation and flow is important. Make me feel something by using good examples in an impactful way. It should feel organic and natural, not rehearsed.

DEBATE EVENTS:

I am a practicing attorney who occasionally moonlights as a debate judge. Over the past 30 years I have watched competitive debate deteriorate from a program of teaching students effective communication to a program contrived to win debate rounds by any strategy, including so-called "progressive" tactics that are designed to confuse and overwhelm opponents with tangential and obscure minutia rather than inform and persuade judges with impactful, well-reasoned argumentation.

This is ironic because in real life, in a real courtroom, I will only win a trial if I win the hearts and minds of the jury---presenting artfully crafted arguments that accentuate my personal ethos, while balancing appropriate appeals to logic and passion. If I tried to "spew" or "spread" my arguments to a jury, I would lose the case. If I tried it in front of a judge, I would get kicked out of the courtroom! If I tried to win every case by overwhelming the judge, jury and counsel with every "card" I ever stumbled upon (even remotely related to the case), I would lose all my cases and my clients with them.

The same goes for nearly every other professional communicator. No teacher would teach that way. No news broadcaster would report that way. as far as I can tell, the only job opportunity available to a "progressively" trained debater is to deliver the annoying legal disclaimers at the end of radio commercials.

I realize that my views are hopelessly outdated. No one reading this paradigm statement will ever select me as "1" on a judge preference sheet. Nevertheless, if you have the bad luck of getting me in a round anyway, here are some tips on how to get my vote:

(1) Speak at a normal, conversational rate;

(2) Look me in the eye;

(3) Begin with a clear, real-life illustration of how the Affirmative or Negative case effects real people;

(4) Make me laugh;

(5) Make me cry;

(6) Make me care;

(7) Help me understand what the resolution means;

(8) Help me understand why your ideas are right;

(9) Help me understand why your opponent is wrong; and,

(10) Organize your ideas in a way that makes sense.

I realize that this rhetorical model is profoundly outdated (it is in fact about 2,500 years old). Nevertheless, in the spirit of learning something useful (rather than simply winning another piece of shiny plastic today for speed-reading), please give these ideas a try!

SPEECH EVENTS:

Many Debaters [and coaches] consider speech events to be "throw-away" events---something to do when debaters are not in a "real" debate round. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Speech events teach students about the power of pathos---of making human connections. They provide a wonderful balance to the logos-heavy debate events. To capture my vote [or the vote of most ordinary human beings], a student must be prepared to do the following:

(1) Speak at a normal, conversational rate;

(2) Make consistent eye contact (for interp. events hold a steady, consistent locus);

(3) Give a clear, real-life illustration of how your topic effects real people;

(4) Make me laugh;

(5) Make me cry;

(6) Make me care;

(7) Help me understand what you mean;

(8) Help me understand why your ideas are right;

(9) Help me understand why any competing viewpoints are wrong; and,

(10) Organize your ideas in a way that makes sense.

Don't treat Speech like it is another debate event; it is an altogether different animal that requires a somewhat different, more empathic skill set. Don't be intimidated by this [if you happen to be a hard-core, card-flipping, evidence-stacking debater]. Instead, embrace the opportunity to learn a new [and equally real] way of communicating.

Larsen, Hunter

Judge for: Hurricane High School, UT-US

Background: 4 Year HS Debater, 9 Year Judge (Debate: CX, PF, LD) ( IE: O.O, FX, DX, Impromptu)

Events: Policy(CX), LD, PF, O.O, IMP, FX/DX

LD Paradigm: LD isn't "Policy Light." LD is a difficult exercise in philosophical reasoning, stylish presentation and persuasion. The LD format requires the use of a value and a value-criterion. The value is the abstract good to be achieved. The value-criterion is the standard used to measure success in achieving the value. If you would like a high score, don't either focus exclusively on public policy outcomes, or use a lot of policy debate jargon. Spend some time analyzing and answering the following questions: What does it mean to achieve your value? Why is it compelling and preferable to your opponent’s value? What is your standard? What makes it a good measure? What is your opponent's standard? Does your opponent’s value-criterion succeed or fail as a good measure? If it fails, don’t just say so; explain your reasoning, and prove it! Persuade me!

PF Paradigm: To understand my paradigm, you'll need to know a bit of PF history. CNN founder, Ted Turner was one of the early sponsors of PF. For a while, PF was called "Ted Turner Public Forum Debate." PF is based upon version 1.0 of CNN's television show, "Crossfire" (1982 -- 2005). My paradigm: During each and every moment of the round, you are on-camera being watched by a national television audience. You are never off-camera. Thus, you'll need a TV persona. I’m looking for brief argument with traction. Get in there. Stay organized. Make your points quickly. Argue persuasively. To do PF well, you must learn the forms of rational and reasonable argument, the figures of speech and the logical fallacies. Most importantly, however, you must learn how to handle an intractable opponent while simultaneously persuading and motivating an audience.

CX Paradigm: Stock issues: In order for the affirmative team to win, their plan must retain all of the stock issues, which are Harms, Inherency, Solvency, Topicality, and Significance. For the negative to win, they only need to prove that the affirmative fails to meet one of the stock issues. I dislike newer arguments such as kritiks and some theoretical points.

NO SPEWING!!!!

SPEECH:

When It comes to speech I am looking for articulate and prepared speakers.

O.O: I am looking for clear well written original speeches, the speech should be persuasive and articulate. The speech should be something you are passionate about.

DX/FX: Your speech should be informative and have at least 3 clear sources. The presenter should be prepared and knowledgeable on the topic chosen, they should also provide clear points and strong arguments on their point.

IMP: I am looking for clarity, clear points and a compelling speech on the topic chosen. (If it's funny, sad, serious, ect. make me feel it.)

My judging paradigm aligns most closely with the Stock Issues paradigm, but with a nod toward the Appearance paradigm. Logically reasoned negative arguments can singularly defeat reasoned affirmative arguments. Presentation is also important, so clarity of speech and projection is paramount, whereas speeding/spreading should be avoided.

My judging paradigm aims towards speaking skills and communication. I want to observe an organized presentation that is well structured and flows with a beginning, middle and end. Persuasion should be articulate backed up with references and reliable data, and presented arguments need to be appealing. Pace should be at a level that the listener is able to follow along and understand speech.

My background is in policy debate, but I coach all forms of debate. For policy, I'm generally a stock issues judge, at the end of the round, I see who won on stock issues and/or who won on impact calculus. I tolerate spewing/spreading and progressive debate, but I want to see you impact your arguments (explain to me what your evidence means in the round). If you run Ks, DAs, I want to see more specific links, and generally view generic links as weak. I prefer more traditional debate with on-case arguments. I also look at good reasoning, good clash, and good presentation/persuasion delivery in the round.

Old school debate judge. Preference towards comprehensive speech and evidence. Semantics are fine, fallacy, logical args. appreciated. 1 1/2 years Policy experience, 1/2 year Lincoln Douglas experience, experience in Congress and most speech events.

DEBATER PREFACE: Speaker points are to be earned through quality of presentation. Spreading is fine so long as it is comprehensible. If an argument is being presented so quickly it cannot be understood, I will not be able to consider it while judging. Personal kritiques to be avoided unless there is substantiated backing.

I participated in speech and debate in high school and have been judging for a few years. My paradigm comes from Aristotle. I am looking for pathos, ethos and logos. Pathos- Is there an emotional connection? Is it personal? Why should I care? Ethos-Are there reasons to support your credibility? Logos- Do you have a logical and reasonable argument?

More specific to Debate: I understand that debaters have a lot of evidence to present, but if you speak so fast that I do not know what you are saying than you will likely rank lower. It is important that you know how to pronounce words, otherwise it doesn't seem like you know what you are talking about. It is vital that you cite sources to support your case. I will be flowing and trying to give weight to arguments that best carry through. Please avoid personal attacks. ln LD, your case is stronger if the value and criterion line up with contentions.

Dislike: nitpicking about rules.

I expect everyone to be respectful of one another, in speech and in action, during speaking and listening.