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!

As a judge, I approach CX debate with a commitment to fairness, rigor, and intellectual engagement. I believe in evaluating rounds based on the quality of argumentation, evidence, and logical reasoning presented by both teams. My philosophy revolves around the following key principles:

• Clarity and Organization: I value clear and organized presentation of arguments. Debaters should structure their speeches logically, signpost effectively, and articulate their points with clarity. A well-organized case enables better understanding and evaluation of arguments.

• Argumentation: I prioritize substantive arguments supported by credible evidence. Debaters should develop coherent arguments, anticipate and respond to opponent's arguments, and use evidence effectively to support their claims. I assess the strength of arguments based on their relevance, logic, and soundness.

• Critical Thinking: I encourage critical thinking and analysis in CX debate. Debaters should not only present arguments but also critically evaluate them, identify logical fallacies, and engage with the underlying assumptions and implications of arguments. Critical thinking skills are essential for effective persuasion and engagement in debate.

• Clash and Engagement: I value substantive clash between teams. Debaters should engage with each other's arguments, refute opposing claims, and defend their own positions effectively. I look for depth of engagement, including direct refutation, rebuttal, and extension of arguments throughout the round.

• Fairness and Respect: I expect debaters to uphold principles of fairness and respect in their interactions. Debates should be conducted in a civil manner, with mutual respect for opponents and adherence to rules and norms of debate. Any breaches of fairness or respectful conduct will impact my evaluation of the round.

Overall, my philosophy centers on the principles of clarity, argumentation, critical thinking, clash, and fairness. I approach each round with an open mind, carefully evaluating the merits of arguments presented by both teams and rendering a decision based on the strength of those arguments and adherence to debate norms.

And no spreading.

Hello! I am Christy Cruz from Travis Bryan High School.

I am a parent/Lay judge and I usually judge in the novice divisions, but in case I have to judge varsity, here are my Preferences.

1= I know and comfortable judging.

2= A little confusing, but I can understand.

3= Very confusing, but I will try to understand.

4= Way to confusing and likely won't understand. (Strike)

Traditional/UIL style- 1

LARP/Policy- 2

K- 3

K/Performance Affs- 4

Topicality-3

Theory- 4

Philosophy- 1

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

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!

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

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.

I am a traditional judge. I normally judge speaking events and interpretation. I have also judged LD.

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, 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"). If you spread, you'll get low speaks and have a hard time winning my ballot.

Debate was created to communicate and compare your points against your opponent's points. If you don't create a clear story and explanation, I will not vote you up.

I will immediately 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: molina_kody@yahoo.com

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.

I prefer a blend of slow and rapid conversation speed. The rate of delivery does not weigh heavily on my decision. I will not vote against a student solely for exceeding my preferred speed. Considerations in determining a winner are structure of the argument, framework level argumentation, and offense back to the standard. I feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case. The use or jargon or technical language during rebuttal should be kept to a minimum. I keep detailed notes throughout the round. I encourage open and professional interaction while discouraging emotional outbursts and rude behavior. Who persuades me more of their position will be most successful.

I competed for several years and was recognized at both the state and national level. I am currently a student in the BFA Acting program at The University of Texas at Austin, and am excited to see honest acting, a clear storyline, and a clear understanding of relationships and the characters point of view on the world. As for speech events, I am looking for clear points, confidence, and a new perspective on the topic at hand.