FOR CX:

Hi! My name is Emily Abrego and I am a student at UT. I did CX throughout highschool until my graduation in 2021, so I've been in yalls shoes. I have provided a few paradigms below, but if yall have any additional questions, dont hesitate to ask! P.S. Remember to have fun :)

Overall: Speed is fine, just please slow down on taglines and authors/dates out of courtesy for your judge and opponents. Please stand and face the judge when CXing. Framing and impact calc I like a lot, especially in last two rebuttals. If you call out power-tagging or do a line-by-line, that is also nice. K affs are fine. I personally prefer soft impacts over big stick, but I will vote based on how they are run rather than my preferences. Open or closed CX is up to your opponents, but I will notice if one person is clearly answering/asking all of the questions, so try to not use your partner unless necessary. Flashing between your partner during one of yall's speeches is also up to your opponents, but no verbally prompting your partner while speaking. New in the 2 is fine

Topicality: I dont vote on T unless it's run properly with all its planks AND the plan is clearly abusive or the other team fails to properly answer T. If youre running it as a time suck, please do so properly; Ive seen teams waste half their 1NR on their own time suck.

K: Same as T, I do not vote on unless run properly. I also think that a good alternative should be provided; if you cant answer the K, why should they.

In speaking events, it is extremely important that you always keep the interest of your audience with relatability, organization and good vehicle. Delivery should feel conversational with a good pace and easy to understand. Speeches should have good organizational structure that makes it easy for the audience to follow along and sources that help build credibility. Lastly, speaking events should include motivated gestures, facial expressions and a variety of vocal expression.

In interpretation I appreciate natural acting and blocking with a purpose and feeling the real emotion. The audience should feel the emotions of the characters. I also look for believability of the characters.

In debate, I should be able to follow along with the story created which means you should have clear explanations. I do not appreciate being rude or aggressive towards your opponent and I do not appreciate excessvie spreading. If I cannot understand what you are saying, it makes it hard for me to take in your arguments. It is not how many arguments you can get in, it is who has the strongest case.

If you plan on emailing the case to your opponent, please include me in email: cassy_molina@yahoo.com

In interpretation, I appreciate natural acting in most events with the exception of Humorous. I believe you can be fully animated in Humorous Interpretation. ALWAYS have a purpose for your blocking. If you have blocking just for the sake of blocking or tech, I will rank you down. It is better to have real emotion than "fake crying" or a "crying voice." Always be true to your character(s). Have a purpose or theme for the piece that is chosen.

In Congress, I look for three simple aspects of a clean and organized speech, stay true to yourself in the round, have a true passion for the topic that you speak on. Some other things I look at is your presence in the room please do not be rude to other competitors. Make sure to have enough knowledge on the topic that is spoken on.

I am a traditional judge. I normally judge speaking events and interpretation.

In interpretation, I appreciate natural acting in most events with the exception of Humorous. I believe you can be fully animated in Humorous Interpretation. ALWAYS have purpose for your blocking. If you have blocking just for the sake of blocking or tech, I will rank you down. It is better to have real emotion than "fake crying" or a "crying voice." Always be true to your character(s).

In speaking, speeches should be delivered at a pace that is easily understandable. Organization is key as well as keeping the audience interested with a great vehicle.

I do not flow spreading. I believe debate is a communication event, not who can get the most arguments in the least amount of time (there is not a difference in "fast speaking" and "spreading").

I will vote you down if you are rude or aggressive towards your opponent. It is one thing to debate and clash against an argument, it's another to attack your opponent.

If you plan on emailing the case to your opponent, please include me in email: lyn_esquivel@yahoo.com

For any events: Communication should be Articulate, Clear, Sincere, Authentic, and Expressive! 

For debate events: NO SPREADING (that is not good communication!) Content should be Pertinent to the case, Evidence supportive of valid points, Quality over quantity; Use Persuasion and Logic to convince me who has the best case (policy or value debate), supported by the most appropriate and valid arguments.

Enjoy!

Hello all! my name is Erick Mancilla, and I Graduated from Mary Carroll High School in corpus christi in 2022. A little about me, I was very active in my high school’s Speech and debate team, I even got the chance to attend the state tournament in 2022, getting to semifinals in Humerous interpretation. I also got the chance to have competed in UIL speech and debate, where i was 2nd place at the UIL 5A State meeting for prose reading. although I love all interpretation and speech events, my favorites would definitely be HI,POI, and Duet!

My Preferences For Acting Events (PO, PR, HI, DI, DUO, DUET) Are The Following:

• Clean tech! (wether that be popping, transition sounds, binder tech, and/or blocking.) make sure that whatever you are doing is as precise as possible and that it has a purpose. although creating excessive tech can be appealing, purposeful and meaningful tech is best!
• Characterization! make sure that if you are creating a character, you stick with it throughout the whole performance. for example, make sure to keep the same accent throughout a piece.
• Levels! something that I made a mistake of a lot during my first few years of participating in speech and debate was that I thought the more impactful I was (yelling louder, crying harder, extensive punchlines) the better I was. as a judge, I now prefer that pieces are balanced! although a yell here or there can be effective, consider balancing it with softer moments as well!
• MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL!!!!!! please have fun! you guys have already proved yourselves by getting to state, now just live in the moment and make your piece the best it can be. :)

My Preferences For Speech Events (INFO, OO, FX, DX) Are The Following:

• Structure! make sure that in whatever event you are doing, you always have a clean structure and let us in. giving a "roadmap" is always helpful no only to me, but to all judges! (the most common roadmap is always "first we will, then, before finally.)
• Understanding! one of the best things one can do as a speech giver is not only understanding your topic to the fullest, but making sure your judges do as well. always approach your topics like you are speaking to someone with no relation to the topic, explaining to your full extent!
• Seriousness! although these categories are always seen as more "serious" and "boring" they are not and do not have to be! do not be afraid to throw in a punchline every now and then, this helps judges stay more focused on your selections!
• MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL!!!!!! please have fun! you guys have already proved yourselves by getting to state, now just live in the moment and make your selection the best it can be. :)

Hola, my name is Manuel Martinez but please for the love of everything good call me Manny :)

In high school I typically did informative speaking, domestic extemporaneous speaking, and I kinda dabbled in a little LD and OO too. I typically PREFER to judge speech events (OO, Info, extemp, etc) but I don't mind doing LD. 

If you have the unfortunate luck to have me judge any of your interp, congress, or even policy/PF rounds im so sorry, like truly. Please don't hate me... I will try my best to rank the room properly.

Speech Events (OO & Info):

Info/OO- imo these are the best speech events in speech and debate, so I love judging them.

      -Speech- I look primarily at your delivery of the speech, clarity is key. These events can either be entertaining and engaging or just plan boring, so I would like to see some character thrown into the speech, like jokes or puns (even if you think no one will laugh still say them! This lets me know that your trying to engage with the audience and the judge!) Also, does the content of the speech offer any NEW information/perspective that the general public might not have known or considered before hand? 

      Boards/Props- I love creativity! That's basically it on boards/ props... so slay right :)

Extemp- I look primarily at your delivery of the speech, clarity is key, but content is also important! 

Fun and creative AGDs get extra points, your AGD should link to your topic, and I would love to see you lay some basic background of the issue/topic so that I kinda have a general understanding of the topic and its significance, a have a clear roadmap of what you're going to talk about. If the prompt requires you to answer yes or no, answer it. If the prompt is more open ended ,then elaborate. 

Make it known somehow that youre moving onto the next point of your speech.  

I have been in your shoes before so I know how nerve racking this event can be sometimes, so if you ever blank JUST KEEP GOING AND DONT STOP, I typically don't mind if you have the occasional stutter it happen to the best of us.

LD- I primarily look at your performance In the CX and the rebuttal portion of the debate. Lets see if you can handle the pressure kinda thing. 

There's really only 2 things that I ask when judging LD debate;

1.) Speak at a moderate pace for the love of god!???? I can flow pretty decently but I dont want to potentially miss any key argument or point that you might make. If I miss it then guess what? I cant really give a proper and accurate judgment of who wins and who loses now can I? 

2.) Sportsmanship. Im super big on sportsmanship. This is a civil debate, civil is defined as "courteous and polite" Really the only thing I don't want to see are low blows during the debate, and constant and frequent interruptions. If I see that you are just being a douche then you will lose the round, plain and simple. This does not mean I don't want clash, I love clash! Im also not opposed to aggressive questioning during CX or the rebuttal portion of the debate.

I will keep my own personal time through the debate but I ask that you keep your own time.

If you at any point in the debate say "slay" or make me laugh bonus speaker points!

Interp- Im so sorry if you're reading this portion because that probably means that Im judging your interp round, and if so, please accept my apology????

• Ill look at the delivery, message and blocking for POI (Bonus points if you make me laugh or cry)
• Creative blocking and technicality for HI (Bonus points if you make me cackle)
• Storytelling, delivery, emotion, and blocking for DI (Bonus points if I cry or get teary eyed)
• Creative blocking, delivery, and technicality for Duo/Duet

Congress- Lawd I know nothing about congress. Im so sorry????

Policy/CX/PF- I absolutely know nothing. From what Ive heard it always goes to nuclear war? Idk how but I just find that funny. ????

Hey! My Name is Conor Rice

I am one of your traditional style judges! I am an NSDA Alumni and I used to compete in the various speaking events.

What I Look for as a Judge:

Speaking Events (OO, INFO, NX, DX, FX)

I look heavy on the content side of these speeches because good content is what makes a speech truly effective. I also do expect a performance of a good content speech is pointless if it is not well presented. I want to feel that personal reason why I should care about the topic. Bring me into the topic and hit me with the facts through an engaging speech. For INFO I want to see the true connection with the audience do not let your props become an obstacle.

Acting Events (Prose, Poetry, HI, DI, POI, DUO, DUET)

I want to see the story (beginning, middle, and end) of your piece and you truly feel it. The pieces that make it the furthest are the ones where you can see the person having fun and loving it. I want to be able to tell this piece is well-rehearsed and not thrown together minutes before the round. I love good blocking and choreography and will always highlight it in the feedback I write. I also look for the small details the attention to detail in the blocking. Ex: How you hold and pick up things.

Debate Events:

LD/PF:

I am looking for a clear framework and articulated argument with a clear structure. Tell me your value and crit and side post so I know exactly where you are in the argument.

WSD:

I need to see a clear framework and structure for the speeches and arguments. In the reply speech, I really want to see you clarify your team's argument and crystalize it, don't use this time to attack the other case.

Sincerely, Conor Rice

Affiliation: Winston Churchill HS

email: s.stolte33@gmail.com

**prep time stops when the email is sent, too many teams steal prep while 'saving the doc'**

Updates 24-25

-I did not spend my summer looking at IPR evidence or cases coming out of camp. Like zero. Do not assume based on past knowledge that I know what the acronyms you are using or what your plan does. You should be explaining things as you would to any other judge who did not work a summer camp/does not know the topic well

-maybe this is really "get off my lawn" of me, but the correlation between teams who under-highlight evidence and who are incomprehensibly unclear is becoming increasingly frustrating to me. It won't necessarily lose you the debate, but surely these practices don't help anyone

Do what you do well: I have no preference to any sort of specific types of arguments these days. The most enjoyable rounds to judge are ones where teams are good at what they do and they strategically execute a well planned strategy. You are likely better off doing what you do best and making minor tweaks to sell it to me rather than making radical changes to your argumentation/strategy to do something you think I would enjoy.

-Clash Debates: No strong ideological debate dispositions, affs should probably be topical/in the direction of the topic but I'm less convinced of the need for instrumental defense of the USFG. I think there is value in K debate and think that value comes from expanding knowledge of literature bases and how they interact with the resolution. I generally find myself unpersuaded by affs that 'negate the resolution' and find them to not have the most persuasive answers to framework.

-Evidence v Spin: Ultimately good evidence trumps good spin. See above statement about highlighting, but it's hard to buy an argument when the card read supporting it consists of like 3 disparately highlighted sentences and no warrants read. I will accept a debater’s spin until it is contested by the opposing team. I often find this to be the biggest issue with with politics, internal link, and permutation evidence for kritiks.

-Speed vs Clarity: I don't flow off the speech document, I don't even open them until either after the debate or if a particular piece of evidence is called into question. If I don't hear it/can't figure out the argument from the text of your cards, it probably won't make it to my flow/decision. This is almost always an issue of clarity and not speed and has only gotten worse during/post virtual debate. Things you can do to fix this: pen time on theory args, numbering responses, not making a bunch of blippy analytical arguments back-to-back-to-back.

-Inserting evidence/CP text/perms: you have to say the words for me to consider it an argument

-Permutation/Link Analysis: I am becoming increasingly bored in K debates. I think this is almost entirely due to the fact that K debate has stagnated to the point where the negative neither has a specific link to the aff nor articulates/explains what the link to the aff is beyond a 3-year-old link block written by someone else. I think most K links in high school debate are more often links to the status quo/links of omission and I find affirmatives that push the kritik about lack of links/alts inability to solve set themselves up successfully to win the permutation. I find that permutations that lack any discussion of what the world of the permutation would mean to be incredibly unpersuasive and you will have trouble winning a permutation unless the negative just concedes the perm. Reading a slew of permutations with no explanation as the debate progresses is something that strategically helps the negative team when it comes to contextualizing what the aff is/does. I also see an increasingly high amount of negative kritiks that don't have a link to the aff plan/method and instead are just FYIs about XYZ thing. I think that affirmative teams are missing out by not challenging these links.

FOR LD PREFS (may be useful-ish for policy folks)

All of the below thoughts are likely still true, but it should be noted that it has been about 5 years since I've regularly judged high-level LD debates and my thoughts on some things have likely changed a bit. The hope is that this gives you some insight into how I'm feeling during the round at hand.

1) Go slow. What I really mean is be clear, but everyone thinks they are much more clear than they are so I'll just say go 75% of what you normally would.

2) I do not open the speech doc during the debate. If I miss an argument/think I miss an argument then it just isn't on my flow. I won't be checking the doc to make sure I have everything, that is your job as debaters.

3) I'll be honest, if you're going to read 10 blippy theory args/spikes, I'm already having a bad time

4) Inserting CP texts, Perm texts, evidence/re-highlighting is a no for me. If it is not read aloud, it isn't in the debate

5) If you're using your Phil/Value/Criterion as much more than a framing mechanism for impacts, I'm not the best judge for you (read phil tricks/justifications to not answer neg offense). I'll try my best, but I often find myself struggling to find a reason why the aff/neg case has offense to vote on. I don't offhandedly know what words like 'permissiblity' or 'skep' mean and honestly everytime someone describes them to me they sound like nonsense and no one can actually articulate why they result in any sort of offense for the team reading them

6) Same is true for debaters who rely on 'tricks'/bad theory arguments, but even more so. If you're asking yourself "is this a bad theory argument?" it probably is. Things such as "evaluate the debate after the 1AR" or "aff must read counter-solvency" can *seriously* be answered with a vigorous thumbs down.

7) I think speaker point inflation has gotten out of control but for those who care, this is a rough guess at my speaker point range 28.4-28.5 average; 28.6-28.7 should have a chance to clear; 28.8-28.9 pretty good but some strategic blunders; 29+you were very good, only minor mistakes

In dramatic events, I am looking for clear characterization, strong emotional connections, and understanding of the piece. I want you to draw me in and let me feel with your characters.

In humorous events, I am looking for clear and concise characterizations that are easy to differentiate and follow, and a good sense of comic timing with the piece.

Duo and Duet, I am looking at the same things, but also strong interactions between the different characters.

In Informative, Oratory, and the Extemps, I am looking for a good conversational style with good use of gesture and confidence in your speeches. Know your stuff, or at least look like you know your stuff.

I am overall going to also look at technique and seek for it to be clean and clear.

As a judge, my main objective is for you to deliver your best performance and enjoy the process. If you're not finding joy in it, then something's amiss. Remember to engage in respectful and effective communication with your peers.

In Speech/Interpretation:

1. I generally look for effective use of voice, tone, diction, eye contact, suitable gestures, and intentional movement.

2. I value believability and your ability to embody the characters.

3. I appreciate captivating teasers or attention grabbers – make me sit up and pay attention!

4. Your delivery should be clean and clear.

In Debate:

1. I expect a clear understanding of the resolutions being debated.

2. I discourage the practice of spreading.

3. Good use of credible evidence and sources is crucial.

4. Effective diction, tone, and appropriate gestures are important.

5. Always maintain a kind and respectful demeanor.

I have been a volunteer judge for 18 years for East High School. In those 18 years I have judged all levels including TFA state and Nationals. In 2022 I had the pleasure of judging P.O.I finals at Nationals. Over the years I have judge everything from debate to i.e events. I am a firm believer that speech and debate gives the competitors a voice. It teaches them to see all sides of an argument so they can make an informed decision.

Debate: When it comes to debate (CX,LD,PF). Linking evidence is important. When it comes to LD and PF, there is no need to spread. In Policy debate, if you spread, make sure everyone can understand you. If I can not understand you I cannot flow. In all debates I like to see clash. When making my decision I take the entire debate into consideration. I always leave my personal opinions at the door, there is no place for them in speech and debate. I strongly believe that debate should be a safe place for kids and that they should be treated with respect.

Congress: I vote on actively within the chamber. I look at speeches, questions, and how you answer those questions. I also look to see if you have paid attention to what other representatives have said. I like to see engagement within the chamber. Please do not just read your speech! I also like a P.O to run a smooth organized chamber and know the rules. If a P.O is new and is trying I do take that into consideration. I know it can be hard and stressful doing something you normally do not do. It is import and that kids are able to give their speeches without being criticized or distracted.

Extemp: I want to hear evidence from good sources. I look for original takes on the topics. I do not like kids reading their speech’s. I want to hear their opinions and take on it. Remember, tell me what you are going to tell me, tell me, and then wrap it up in a conclusion.

I.E: In POI and OO I look for pieces that are important to the competitors. This is a great platform to allow competitors to express their views on different subjects. I want to see that passion to speak out and get that message across.