Pathos

Logos

Ethos

Are all important to me. If I had to rank them it would be in that order. Pathos, then Logos, then Ethos. If you can get me to be emotionally invested then you are winning. Don't be afraid to make your gestures big. Project to fill up the room with your voice. Use your diaphragm. Do NOT yell. Do NOT use your throat.

T A K E. Y O U R. T I M E.

This is NOT a race. If this is a Speech Event (e.g. Prose, INFO, IMP, et cetera) giving me moments to marinate over can positively impact your score. This is NOT a race. Don’t rush over key moments or points of your speech. If this is a Debate Event (e.g. LD, Parli, WORLDS, etc) speed reading is counterintuitive for me. If I struggle to follow your arguments, it will negatively impact your score.

This is essentially my paradigm. If you can get me to be emotionally invested, you're doing good. If it makes sense, even better. Ethos is also important but not as much as the other too. Be respectful, on time, etc.

The only thing I can think to add is I love CONTRAST and silence. If you can do that well, you're probably going to win one way or another.

Hello! I am a parent judge supporting my oldest son's speech aspirations. Now in my 7th year as a speech parent, judge, and sorta coach I have judged 100+ rounds and hundreds of presentations across middle school and high school competitions - primarily in OO, HI, DI, Duo and more. I judged the NSDA nationals DI finals in 2022 which was an incredible round and experience. I also judged the middle school NSDA final round for storytelling in 2019 along with plenty of state and nat quals through the years. Across various events, here are my thoughts as applicable for your event...

I hope to be persuaded by your thesis or argument

I want to be engaged and moved by your presentation

Your characters should be fully developed and come through clearly and distinctly

Use sources responsibly to complement your work without overwhelming with stats and figures

Show creativity and something novel relative to other competitors

Most of all, own your work, have fun, and know that you are a winner just by competing. Thank you!

E-mail kaareanna74@gmail.com

About me:

• I am a Judge for Peninsula High School. Admittedly, I am more in my element judging IE, but I also thoroughly enjoy judging debate. I may know some basic concepts, but I’m still learning and possibly am unfamiliar with more specific terminology.

• I try really hard to be fair and objective to both sides of an argument. I do not let my biases or background knowledge taint who or how I vote each round. I vote for which team did the better debating, not which team is closer to truth.

• Style: Please speak slowly and clearly. Flow your opponents, and answer their main arguments sequentially. I prefer the debate to have an organizational clash that makes reasoned judgement possible.

• Quality: I care about argument quality, not argument quantity. I vote for the team that did the better debating. Source quality matters to me - if you read qualified sources, tell me their qualifications and read exact quotes (not debater biased paraphrasing) and it is more likely I believe it.

• Note Taking: I will take notes during each speech, to keep a record to better organize the debate to help evaluate which side wins.

• Rebuttals matter: In your last speeches - be sure to summarize the main points you want me to vote on and offer impact why that outweighs your opponents main points. I will limit my decision to solely arguments extended in the last two speeches. Completely new arguments cannot be first brought up in the rebuttals, because both sides need a chance to develop the argument in earlier speeches first. If new arguments are brought up, I will ignore them.

• Have fun, do your thing! Please treat each other with respect. 

Hello! My name is Theresa Ceman and I am currently an Orange Coast College student. I am taking an essentials of argumentation class so this experience as a judge will be helpful for class purposes. I will follow your arguments so as long as they are clear, and I would love to see good clash. Keep the jargon to a minimum. 

Thank you!

DEBATE: My preference for debate is that you make your case based on clear, cogent arguments. Elaborate whenever possible, explaining how your sources support your arguments (don't just say you "have a card" and thus assume your case is proved).

When making a technical argument, such as a dropped point, a failure to refute/counter a point, or when asking me to cross-apply a contention, always explain your reasoning. Do not just say "my points all flow through judge" or "their entire argument is discounted judge"; I will decide that based on the merits of your case.

Brief Intro about myself:

I am Programmer/Tech Enthusiast. I love learning about new technology coming every day. I have been judging for more than one year. In last one year i have all the forms of debate format.

Debaters i will prefer that participants don't do spreading. Its very important that i am able to understand what you want to present. There is no point of you providing information that i am not able to get to it. I understand you have lot to say but you need to make sure the judge is also following along. I am big believer of "Keep it Short and Simple"

As a judge, i will try to keep myself open-minded and not to impose any personal opinion what so ever.

Most important, please be respectful to your opponents and team mates. At end of day this is all going to be an constructive effort.

Good Luck!!!

I am old. I have been coaching and judging for over 35 years. This means that much/most of my experience predates the existence of Public Forum. I competed primarily in Policy, Lincoln Douglas (in its first year of existence), and Extemp. I have coached Policy (in the Dark Ages), Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Congress, and assorted speech events.

Speed does not offend me. That said, I am OLD and have carpal tunnel syndrome, so my flow is sloooooow. I will not punish you with points if you are fast and clear, but there is a risk I may not get everything you want on my flow.

I do not like surprises, not even good surprises. I always peeked at my presents as a child. Arguments should be extended in the summary speech if you want to win on them in the final focus. I favor line by line until the final focus, which should crystalize the debate and provide clear impact calc.

I think topic wording is important and that it determines burdens. I like it when teams are explicit about what the topic wording demands. A kritik is just an argument. If you can explain how it affirms or negates the res, it's all good.

Plans and counterplans are not allowed. Don't blame me. I didn't make the rules. You chose this event, despite the rules. That said, I think it is fair (and even a good idea) to talk about how the resolution would be implemented (assuming it calls for action and is not simply a question of fact/value). One can do this by looking at real world, typical proposals for resolutional action. I also don't think that the affirmative should be stuck advocating the worst possible way to implement the resolutional policy.

Evidence is important. Cheating is bad. Read author and date cites. I will grudgingly allow paraphrased evidence, but the full text must be available and easily evaluable. By this I mean that it is not okay to paraphrase evidence and then, when asked to provide it, hand over a ten page document with no highlighting/underlining of the bits that you claim to be paraphrasing. If you cannot say, "this paraphrases these three lines of text in the original document," or something like that, I'm going to disregard this "evidence." Neither I nor your opponents should have to read through the entire document to assess whether your paraphrasing is accurate.

I hate crossfire, especially the Grand Cluster F*!k. Please don't yell or speak over each other. I recognize that this aspect of PF is conducive to chaos, and that you are not responsible for this design flaw. That said, I will punish you with speaker points if you make the crossfire worse than it has to be.

Argument > Style. This is debate. Style is reflected in speaker points.

Background

I competed for two years (2021-2023) in collegiate NPDA, NFA-LD, IDPA, Impromptu, and Extemporaneous Speaking. I am now a senior at UCLA and preparing for law school.

Awards

Bovero-Tabor Top Speaker (top speaker in the country at the two-year level)

IPDA 2x National Champion

NPDA National Champion

Extemporaneous Speaking National Champion

2 Fish-Nelson Awards (given to the student who "exhibits the finest qualities in NFA-LD Debate")

Debate: General Structure, Organization, and Delivery

I believe that the best debates are highly organized. Arguments should be structured and delivered such that they are easy for experienced judges to flow and understand. Competitors should use tags, roadmaps, and signposts as necessary throughout the debate.

Arguments should be clearly articulated. Speaking in a manner that prioritizes speed over clarity is probably not a good strategy, especially when neither the judge nor your competitor(s) can understand what you're trying to say. The more technical forms of debate, such as LD, are (partial) exceptions to this principle.

LD

Please provide me with your cards, either physical copies or uploaded digital ones, before you read them. If you're uploading new cards in your rebuttals, please try to have them in order and in one document. This should not take a significant amount of time to do. Please do not end your prep time and then spend another 2 minutes trying to organize and upload your cards. Diligent preparation before the round is critical for being able to get your cards up efficiently in-round.

Feel free to spread through your cards, but I recommend slowing down at the tags to make it easier for everyone to follow along. More importantly, it's not enough to just spread through your cards. At some point, you also have to clearly articulate the logic of your argument, how your evidence clashes with your opponent's, and why I should prefer your advocacy over theirs. At the very least, this should be done clearly and succinctly in your last speech. I highly recommend ending with clear and specific voters that summarize the strongest reasons to prefer your advocacy over your opponent's.

Please collapse (your argument, not your body). In your rebuttals, you should work to narrow the scope of the debate to the most salient points of contention. Tell me what matters, what doesn't matter, and why you win on what matters.

Remember that, while you've presumably been studying the topic and preparing your case for several weeks, this is often the first time that your judge is being exposed to them. Your job is not simply to argue your case, but to do so in a way that is digestible for someone who is perhaps not as familiar with the topic as you are.

DEBATE: Please speak clearly and not too fast. I value evidence especially for bold arguments, refutation of opponents arguments, and respect given to fellow competitors.

SPEECH: Prove your interpretation to me, I go into every round with no agenda, and take my perspective out.

I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly, clearly, avoid any debate jargon, and be organized in your speeches. Give me a clear RFD in your last speeches. 

I’m an experienced parent judge. I’m unfamiliar with progressive arguments so run k’s and theory at your own digression. I value clear, logical arguments and appreciate solid clash. I’m ok with speed but please keep spreading to a min. If I have to refer to a document in order to understand what you’re saying, you’re probably going too fast.

Hello, I’m a college student at OCC and thought this tournament would be a great experience. I will follow your arguments so long as they are clear, and I’d love to see good clash. Keep the jargon to a minimum.

Debate coach. 3 year state qualifier with a focus in congress/extemp/public forum. I tend to focus on logic and argumentation first and foremost. While I appreciate good delivery, it won't overshadow analysis. I will be flowing the debate, so framework debate and dropped arguments will be noted. Try not to speak too fast, I can't give you what I can't flow.

Please give special attention to your closing speeches. Crystallize/summarize the discussion so that I can make sense of what is on my flow. I will not penalize you for every little dropped argument if they are ultimately extraneous to the debate, so please try to prioritize what is most important in the round.

Be good people.

I like frameworks and impacts back to the framework.

I'm probably too tired to keep up with top speeds. Go for conversationally brisk.

I have not been in the circuit scene for years. I'm guessing it's gone through some changes.

I'm an "OLD" former college NDT and LD debater when cards were actually on cards, I was a volunteer coached to HS and College teams. If you share cards with each other, please share them with me as well. Please be polite but I expect a clash, ad hominem attacks will ensure your lost of the round, and "I will tell on you." However, a friendly jab among friends keeps the debate fun and entertaining.

I am not a fan of speed, but I think I can keep up most of the time. I'll tell you to slow down if you're going too fast or being un-comprehendible. My big voters are IMPACT; give me "Dead-Bodies", Solvency, and Inherency. I'm a flow judge, extend your arguments and give me voters .

I love to see strategies and I do buy Topicality and Counterplan, but you better know it inside and out otherwise you can be heavily penalized. If you run T, please be specific. Time-suck T will be penalized, I love "turns" if you can sell it, and please carry/extend your key arguments, this helps flow and decisions.

I dislike BS contentions unless it's part of your "time-suck" strategies, or plans with no significant or inherency is an easy voter for me. If you catch the other team using it as a Time-Suck, call them out on it, and move on. Always tell me why and what you're winning. I appreciate a good off-time road map. I do not penalize speakers for NOT using all their speaking time...if you think you won the round, tell me where and how, you don't have to stand there and repeat.

I don't flow CX, that's your time for clarification and my time to listen

Parli/Ceda/UN etc. - Same rules apply. Value over value is a voter, even though plan/implementation is not required...realism, common sense, applicable arguments are.

I love to see debaters having fun and not taking things too seriously. Good Luck!

My name is Jordan Nunez and I am a student at Orange Coast College. I am currently taking a public speaking course where I have learned a lot about how to distinguish prepared speakers. Whilst judging this competition, I am hoping to see clash between the two parties. As someone who has participated in a debate a very long time ago, I believe the perfect argument should contain quick wit, whilst also being appropriate for the setting, with solid, logical evidence. 

Hello!

I am currently an assistant coach for Flintridge Preparatory, The Westridge, and Speech and Debate institute (SDI). I am also a former Public Forum Debater as well as Speaker in Dec, HI, DI, and Impromptu where I competed for 5 years.

PF

I believe in keeping Public forum debate in a format that is, as initially intended, in a format that is accessible to the public. That being said, rounds can still be techy and competitive just keep it clear and respectful. I am not a huge fan of speed in PF but if your style had moderate speed that is fine, within reason (do not spread), as long as you maintain understandability and enunciate you are golden. I will be flowing and comprehensively listening, therefore make sure to your contentions and rebuttals flow through otherwise they will be dropped. Remember, state your arguments clearly (have clear claims and links) and DON’T FORGET TO WEIGH. IMPLICATE YOUR IMPACTS/ RESPONSES!

*Speaks: BE RESPECTFUL, this is an educational learning environment therefore it is not a space for yelling (passionate speaking is different), being rude to opponents, or underhanded comments. If I am distracted away from listening to content because of overly aggressive debating it may cost you the round. (Don’t Spread)

K’s

I am open to hearing Ks as long as they can be justified and can clearly link in. I would highly suggest you only run K’s you are passionate about. (I will only mark you down if you are using these arguments in an abusive manner).

Speech:

Extensive experience competing in HI and DI, and judging in all forms of IE.

Extemp/IMP: Please have a thesis statement. Don't simply answer your question "Yes/No", and then jump to your points. I need to hear WHY you are answering Yes/No in a well-crafted thesis statement.

Oratory/Advocacy/INFO: You're here to teach! Teach me!

Interp: There is a difference between true interpretation and simply making somebody laugh (HI) or cry (DI). Good "Interpers" know the difference.

Debate:

***** PROFESSIONALISM AND COURTESY ARE OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE TO ME *****

***** IF YOU TREAT YOUR OPPONENTS WITH DISRESPECT, SPEAKER POINTS (AND PERHAPS RFD) WILL BE IMPACTED SEVERELY *****

***** YOU ARE HERE TO ATTACK ARGUMENTS, NOT PEOPLE *****

I am experienced as a competitor in Policy and Lincoln-Douglas. I am experienced as a judge in Policy, Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, and Parliamentary. See below for more info.

General: Debate is about your ability to understand, analyze, weigh, educate, and persuade in a contest of oral communication. Show me that you have developed these skills and abilities. I want to hear well-constructed arguments & reasoning, supported by relevant evidence and analysis. Depth means much more to me than breadth. During refutations, I want to hear true clash and expansion, not simple repetition of previously stated arguments. During final rebuttals, I want to hear a thoughtful bottom line -- the ability to sum up an entire debate is a very important skill. I can still make a decision without any of that, but good debaters will always demonstrate that they have learned the above skills.

PF/Policy/Parli: IF YOU SPREAD, I WILL PUT MY PEN DOWN, AND I WILL NOT RECORD YOUR ARGUMENTS OR EVIDENCE. Your speaker points will also reflect poorly. "Spread debate" teaches you (and me) nothing more than how fast you can speak and how fast I can write. The "spread" dynamic exists nowhere in the real world, except at debate tournaments. As such, I find spreading to be artificial and unproductive. If you never spoke at all, and simply pasted your cards onto a communal flow sheet with a series of arrows, you would reach the same endpoint as spread debate. So, please don't spread. Give me an outstanding LAY debate.

Lincoln-Douglas: I understand that these are values debates. But I see no utility in "stating your values" at the top of the speech (i.e. "My values for this debate are quality of life and egalitarianism.... now on to my arguments"). These opening statements mean very little, and I never write them down. I want to hear your case first. I want to hear solid background, arguments, and evidence, all of which SHOULD organically convince me of the values you support. You wouldn't make such empty opening statements about values in the real world, so I don't need to hear them in your speech. Show me how your arguments support your values, not the other way around.

I am a speech coach, with a background in theatre and a bachelor's in persuasion and argumentation. I have been coaching for 4 years and judging for 6. I enjoy adjudicating debate because it facilitates a process where we can adapt to one another. There should be speech folks in debate rounds, just as there should be debate folks in speech rounds, because that is good for education. I have not judged this topic yet, but am excited to hear the scholarship behind it!

I am a tabula rasa judge who is comfortable with debate jargon but does not have an ear for spreading. A conversational pace is advised, to keep the flow clean, along with roadmaps and signposts along the way. Outline formats are preferred. Style is an important consideration, because debate is as much a performance as it is an academic exercise. But the charismatic varsity student with unsound argumentation loses to the nervous novice student with sound argumentation every time.

My name is Cooper and I'm a new judge that is willing to learn and know more about what it is like to judge sessions. For me It would be best to keep the debate jargon to a minimum, but I would also love to see good clashes and good use of evidence and research. I also wouldn't mind incorporating humor or wit in rounds, I would love to see that. For speed, I would say go at a good pace, but not too fast because it would be too much and not too slow either. 

I value arguments backed by data and numbers. You must speak clearly and make sure i understand you. No spreading, I’m not a professional debate judge. Don't argue about minor details. I consider Impact Calculus. I like probability. I’m unlikely to decide the winner on technical points.

I appreciate good manners

Be attentive and non disruptive while other speakers are speaking

I am a lay judge with very limited experience with judging Public Forum. These are things I would like to see:
-off time road maps. Give me a quick guide to what you are going to say.
- sign post during your speech. Please clearly label/title your contentions so it will be able to track them.
-Clash! You need to argue for your points and refute your opponent’s. If this does not happen, it is just listing evidence, and that is not debate.
- no spreading. This usually does not happen in PF, but still, I just wanted to be clear.
-evidence sharing. Set up a way to share evidence before the round starts. this will save time and keep the event running on schedule.