*my email is babbonnete@gmail.com*

LD- I'm fine with speed. run whatever you want.

PF- Steps to getting my vote: extend, line by line rebuttal, collapse in summary, if you're speaking second then I expect your summary to address attacks made in last rebuttal. Also: weigh in EVERY SPEECH.

Policy-

Here are some of my personal preferences: I like K's. Signpost. I don't expect the 1AR to respond to a 13 paged card dump, just do your best by grouping arguments and responding in a way that allows you enough time to save your 1AC from falling into LOTR fire pit.

When it comes to interpretation events, I am drawn to performances that marry the synergy between literature, fully crafted performances, and effective blocking. I'll be looking for a well-crafted and engaging message that not only captivates the audience but also demonstrates a deep appreciation for the literary nuances in your chosen material. Ensure your content is not just spoken but embodied, utilizing effective blocking to enhance the visual dimension of your performance. Your delivery remains pivotal, so articulate your words with confidence, using your voice, body language, and strategic blocking to create a cohesive and immersive presentation. Pay attention to pacing and timing for a seamless and dynamic flow. Tell me a story, take me on a journey, and make me feel something!

amod.daherkar@utexas.edu

just signpost during your speech, please no fOR aBrIeF oFfTiMe RoAdMap (unless there's tshells on top of substance).

I debated for Vista Ridge (graduated 2021) and study Finance at UT Austin

Currently I am involved with Texas Debate and previously coached for Seven Lakes

I’m a “tech > truth” judge whatever that means to you

Paradigms I agree with for reference: Jonathan Daugherty & Jack Hayes

I want to see you become the character(s) you are portraying and have the most believability in the role. Often times in the speech world, I see so many students caught up in the “statement” of the piece, they are no longer focusing on the acting.

I want to see completely fleshed out characters and actors who have thought about each moment! Breathing, operative words, and event work is crucial.

Blocking should be creative but not steal focus. It should be used to enhance your piece and not done for the sake of doing so.

passion and creativity in OO, INFO, and Extemp is ranked highest! When everyone has the same great analysis, it’s the small things like the intellectual way you created your AGD or vehicle that make you stand out!

Confidence, voice projection, thought process/organization, eye contact and factual examples are the elements I would like to see during a speech and debate competition. Well thought out counter arguments can also make or break a competitor.

I am a new Judge, and I enjoy judging speeches. I have Judged several speech competitions this year. While Judging, I look for a strong introduction and conclusion and would like to hear more logical and supportive data and analysis of the stance one is taking. I do my best I can to judge each Speech on its own merits. I take notes during the Speech and rate the candidate on the style, delivery, content, analysis, examples/citations, and the strong introduction and conclusion.

When looking at a performance the biggest area I look into is commitment to the text. Is the subject matter taken beyond the surface level and is there critical thinking used through out the process. Which is evident by their perofmance.

I look to see if the performer has control of the audience.

I like seeing believability and authenticity. Something that goes beyond what is written.

I look for a clean speech that has vocal variety and does not sound over- rehearsed. Rather an organic piece that comes from the heart and not a paper.

All tactics will vary as the piece unfolds and I enjoy the unpredictability of it. Just like in life.

Personal Background/General Information:

My name is Murtaza Kazmi. I competed in Congressional Debate and International Extemp at Seven Lakes High School for four years.

I will not tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other form of prejudice or discrimination in round. If you or your partner display any of those characteristics, I will down you immediatley. I enjoy humor in round, but make jokes at your own risk. Debate is not a space for over-agressiveness. I understand sometimes speaking over each other, but do not be mean to your competitors - this will also lose points on my ballot.

Debate is a space to communicate, not to hate!

Congress:

Congress is both a speaking and debate event in my view - successful representatives will show skills in both facets.

Rhetoric should be used effectively (not just to fill in time in a speech).

Each argument provided must have quantified/qualified evidence (with sufficient sourcing including date) along with a tangible impact.

AGD's should be unique (not canned) and have an effective tie-in to the topic.

Speeches should have succinct "action claims" (etc. this bill will fosters economic growth).

Mention the different sections/resolved clauses of the legislation in your speech.

Speeches without conclusions (or ending with pass/fail) are incomplete speeches and will be marked down.

Refutation is expected and speeches without ref (with the obvious exception of the author/sponsor) will be marked down

Any rehash will be marked down

Go for alternative speech structures at your own risk (unified analysis, defensive points, etc.), but speech without offense is not a good speech imo.

Authors/Sponsors can do well on my ballot if they do a good job:

1. Explaining the Problem (with quality evidence)

2. Discussing the solution that each part of the legislation provides (with quality evidence)

3. Elaborating on the human impact of both the problem and the solution.

Crystal Speeches can do well on my ballot if they do a good job:

1. Group arguments from both the Aff and Neg into logical and general claims

2. Show new evidence and explains logically why one side is correct

3. Explores the argumentative and human impacts of one side being correct

Presiding Officers can do well on my ballot if they do a good job:

1. attaining or nearly reaching the maximum number of both speeches and questions in a session

2. maintaining decorum and parliamentary procedure at all times (including accurately choosing questioners and speakers)

3. limiting fluency breaks or awkward phrasing

4. making humorous remarks from time to time (when appropriate)

Extemporaneous Speaking (IX/DX):

Similar to Congress, I weigh both speaking and content with a slight preference for better content over better speaking.

Each speech should have a MINIMUM of 7 sources (1 in the intro, 2 in each subsequent body point).

You can try alternative speech structures at your own risk (eg. two points), but it must make sense in the context of the topic.

Intro must include AGD, effective transition, background information and significance, state question and answer.

All body paragraphs must have succinct claims with dated and quality sources with significant analysis and IMPACT.

I will appreciate book sources and local newspapers sources (in IX) a lot!

If your point doesn't make logical sense without the quantified/qualified evidence, it is not a good point.

You have to restate the question and brief answer in your conclusion.

Speeches without conclusions are incomplete.

Speakers that use tonal and speed variation, effective hand gestures, eye contact will rank better than speakers who do not.

Public Forum/Lincoln Douglass:

I am flay, leaning towards content, but bad speaking will lose a lot of points on my ballot.

I'm not well versed in theory or other progressive arguments, but if violations (eg. racism, homophobia, sexism, etc.) are made that are grounds for a loss, then you can bring them up in round and if I agree then I will down the other debater.

I prefer substanatiative debate over progressive (theory, disads, K's, etc).

If you do run progressive arguments, there must be a clear and solid link to the resolution.

Teams that explain their link chains and show their impacts and impact calculus better than the other team will win my ballot.

Weighing impacts is necessary to win my ballot.

If you drop an argument, link, or card and try to bring it back up, I won't weigh it.

Weighing should begin no later than the Summary speeches.

I am tech over truth unless something is blatantly wrong (eg. we will be extinct from a squirrel takeover of Earth).

My average speaks will be a 28 (from 25-30) and can go up/down depending on your performance in round.

Experience heavily concentrated from high school competition and coaching in IEs. However, I've judged debate for about 2 years so I'm aware of most of the nuances of the craft. I have a lot of respect for you all who do it- and respect for those of you who really know the ins and outs and the tech-y stuff (that phrase in of itself should be indicative of my in depth debate knowledge).

I'm a Novice college policy debater, so treat me as a semi-lay judge. I LOVE K debate (red flag), and honestly could care less for T debate, why lie. I have been told I'm a "progressive" LD judge. I approach debate from my background and knowledge of policy debate.

I view debate as above all else, an educational and safe space for all to learn and to express their ideas. With that said, be respectful of your fellow debaters, and if anything in the round makes you uncomfortable- let me know. Speech and Debate is a powerful forum for me to hear your voice, your story and see your personality and narrative. Those aspects are paramount to me as a judge.

Err on the slower side with speed, and don't be messy with your spreading. My background is in speech so you gotta earn your speaks with me- especially if you wanna go fast. Be charismatic in your speaking and present clear and well-articulated arguments, don’t use too much debate jargon or run uber-complex theory. Convince me why I should vote for you.

(Don't exactly know what all paradigms entail, but this is everything I like to see/hear during a debate round)

Clear articulation is a must! I judge very strictly on the content that I am given from the speaker (Criteria,Values, etc) and so for me to be able to judge you to the best of my ability I have to understand you.

Educate me on the topic. I'm not well versed in modern day politics so I'm going to need you to help me understand exactly what's going on and the why your case is clearly better than your opponent.

Topicality matters! I do judge on topicality but that being said don't bum rush me with excess info. If it isn't content that will help me understand your case, don't include it.

Be exciting! Don't just read me your case that's boring anybody can read. Show me some character that will get you some brownie points out of me.

Although frowned upon by some I like to know how ethics play into every case so have some ethics in there if you can. I will be impressed and entertained. Having ethics in your case will keep me interested

Last but not least, and you should already know this, Do NOT look at your opponent ever for any reason. You are here to sway my opinion not theirs.

IE judging is based upon overall presentation, material selection for the speaker, poise and polish. Introductions should contain relevant information and have a level of ease as they are delivered.

Oratory and Informative will be judged based upon application of information, data, and overall flow. Entertainment value will be considered as a secondary bonus in these events.

Hatful / demeaning content will be reported.

1. Overall Structure: I look for speeches that are well-organized and coherent. A clear introduction, body, and conclusion are essential, with smooth transitions between ideas.

2. Choice and Cutting of Literature: I assess the selection and editing of literature for its relevance, depth, and impact. The chosen pieces should resonate with the audience and enhance the overall message of the speech.

3. Social Relevance: I value speeches that address pressing social issues and offer meaningful insights or solutions. The relevance of the topic to contemporary society and its potential to provoke thought and discussion are crucial factors in my evaluation.

4. Portrayal of Honest and Truthful Moments: Authenticity is paramount. I look for speakers who convey genuine emotion and vulnerability, as well as honesty in their delivery. Authenticity fosters connection with the audience and enhances the impact of the message.

These qualities contribute to a compelling and impactful performance that resonates with both the audience and myself as a judge.

Hello,

I have been judging and coaching since 2016, before that I was a competitor in high school. My day job is a compliance director and pre-kindergarten teacher . My paradigms are pretty simple. In debate I vote by flow, show me the link chain, connections, and how your evidence or case is stronger than your opponent. If you provide a frame work, carry it through the round. I do not like spreading and super fast speaking, slow down and annunciation your words. Debate is still a speaking event, show off your public speaking skills . My pet peeve is interrupting opponents and rude manners, such as mumbling rude comments, if you ask a question, wait for a reply before moving on. Keep your comments to the case not other students. In IE events, I am looking for annunciation, smooth pace of speaking, use of gestures and showing a varied range of emotions. Best of luck in your rounds, feel free to ask any questions.

In all debate formats, I am looking for link stories and fully developed argumentation. Please fully explain your ideas such as debate theory and include impacts in your explanations.

Policy - I am a policy maker

LD - I'm slowly warming up to policy techniques in this format. Yet, value/criterion/framework will always be a priori when I make a decision. I like to see the connections of how the framework influences your cases and argumentation.

PF - I'm always looking for argumentation and clash.

Interp - I go down the questions on a ballot and look to see techniques like distinguishing characters and how you block.

Speech--

What are your stylistic preferences for extemp? I like good introduction that sets the tone of the speech. How much evidence do you prefer? I prefer a minimum of three pieces of evidence for each focus area. I think you get more analysis when you have something to analyze. I would like to hear good warrants with your claims. Implications are good. Any preference for virtual delivery? I’m in between. I can see standing up and moving to mimic in person, but it’s hard to hear. I can handle sitting down with good gestures and eye contact as well. I’m listening nite for speech. If round is close round then I start liking at technicalities and then the most persuasive.

What are your stylistic preferences for Oratory/Info? How much evidence do you prefer? Any preference for virtual delivery? Minimal evidence. I would like speeches to be unique or silly ideas in a new way. No preference for virtual

Any unique thoughts on teasers/introductions for Interpretation events? Love them. I like the tongue in cheek humor.

Any preferences with respect to blocking, movement, etc. in a virtual world? No

What are your thoughts on character work? Necessary

My name is Zainab Tafish (she/her). I did LD and speech in high school and some policy in university.

I want to see thorough explanation of arguments, i.e don’t just read out evidence. I want to see explicit clash between arguments.

My email is tafishzainab@gmail.com

Feel free to reach out to me with any questions you may have.

Hi!!!

If you don't want to read specifics or are in a pinch, scroll down to the end for the general notes. Speechies and novices: just do your best!!

My name is Faith, I'm from Southern California and I am attending UCSB as a freshman. I have done debate all 4 years in high school, and qualified to state (PF + Congress) in the last three, nats (PF) in sophomore and junior year (I did not compete to qual to nats senior year). At nationals, my partner and I made it to round 10 in PF both years. Most of the debate I have done in my life is lay given that I do PF/Congress, but I have also competed in LD/Parli/BQ/World Schools, so I have a decent understanding of just about every event.

I aim to judge to the best of my abilities, but know that I am new when it comes to judging. With that being said, here are my specifics.

CONGRESS KIDS:

I looooooove Congress. Be kind to your competitors, make clear arguments, ask plenty of questions. I appreciate humor, sass, and out of the box arguments a lot. Basically, don't be forgettable!

Most of the rest of this doesn't really apply to you, except for the note right below this. No bigotry!

Do your best!

If you say anything racist/homophobic/xenophobic/ableist/bigoted/etc, you will be voted down with 25 speaks. I won't tolerate anything like that in debate whether it's an insult to your opponents, to me, or in an argument. I have been treated unfairly as a debater, and I know what it feels like, so don't do it.

Speed: I can keep up with a fast speed as it can get quick in PF, but I will stop flowing if what you are saying becomes incomprehensible. I cannot and will not flow spreading! So, speak quickly if you'd like but PLEASE be as clear as possible.

Argumentation: Tech>truth. If you tell me the sky is purple in round and it goes unresponded to, then the sky is purple. Make your link chains clear and have solid evidence for me to buy the actual arguments that you are making though. Everything needs to be extended through the summary or I will not vote on it. If it wasn't in summary, it doesn't exist anymore.

Evidence: I don't have a preference going into round, but if you are making a comparison in round, you need to explain WHY I should prefer your evidence over your opponents. If it comes to it, I will call for evidence.

Weighing: I love weighing! It makes my decisions easier. PLEASE WEIGH! Please if you are going to weigh, make direct comparisons and make it clear. When I judge, I will base it on the argument with the greatest weight in the round. If I have to make that decision for myself, it might hurt you. Please don't make me do the weighing for you.

Cross: I will listen to cross, but it doesn't factor into my vote unless you bring up major concessions in your speeches. It will factor into speaks. Don't speak over your opponents, let them answer questions, let them ask questions. I love seeing a team that can dominate cross but be respectful. If your opponents are being disrespectful during cross, trust me, I see it and will note it.

Collapse: Do it if you can, it makes flowing & understanding the round easier.

TLDR: I'm a PF/Congress kid. Speed is fine, be clear. Tech>truth. Do evidence comparison, weighing and collapse if possible.

Overall- I want to enjoy watching the round! Have fun, be kind, and compete to the best of your abilities!!

My main preference is no spreading. Oftentimes students can be hard to understand when spreading not only because of the speed but also because enunciation gets blurred and speech itself becomes muddied. If I cannot understand you, you will lose points or maybe even the round.

Jaggard Williams

Me:

- Assistant coach at The Pembroke Hill School.

- I have history in Public Forum, (HS) Lincoln Douglas, and collegiate NPDA.

Preferences for round:

- Be polite. I don't vote for rude people.

- I can handle about half-flow speed, but super flow speed does not work for me. If you choose to run uber-fast speed, I will do my best to keep up, but I cannot guarantee anything. :)

- Utilize jaggardwilliams1@gmail.com for the chain.

- Give me roadmaps before speeches so I can get my flow in order.

- I don't love K debate, but if you can articulate it well, go ahead.

Here's my blurb:

I want to see genuine clash in the round. If you completely disregard your opponent's arguments just because you want to run some off-the-wall argument, I'm throwing it out the window. If you can link it to the round, then by all means run with it. If you haven't figured it out, I'll listen and ponder anything you throw at me, it just has to be clearly relevant to the round. Also - please don't be debate robots. I would love to see some humor, personality, and charisma in the round - in your speeches, arguments, articulation, mannerisms, whatever. Make it fun! Please, for the love of God, make it fun.

I love to see honest acting in interpretation events. If you have blocking, I'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.

LD

No excessive spreading where you are hiccuping and wheezing trying to breathe, or progressive arguments. I like to see direct contention class and Value/VC debate.