In my day job I am a teacher of teachers (specifically teachers of mathematics), where my self-stated goal is to lead people to love others through teaching. I enjoy a good discussion but cannot tolerate a lack of respect during the sharing of ideas/perspectives. I will be leaning on the intent for the speech/debate/event and how participants are being instructed to speak and/or interact and the ideas that are presented and I will evaluate according to the stated indicators for that particular event. For debate events, I am looking for logical arguments that are presented in accessible language during (and not outside) of the time allotted for the speeches/conversation. For speech events, I am looking for accessible language and/or understandable talk.

Some experience has shown me that when I am asked to give overly elaborate time indicators (every minute of a ten minute timing period) I am somewhat distracted in making sure I am giving those signals then paying attention to the performance, which is tough especially for the beginning of a performance when context and orientation are being established. I would suggest timing signals that start with under 5 minutes remaining in a speech event...just my opinion to put the best light on the performance.

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

I am a lay judge, so please refrain from spreading! Err on the side of more explanation of topics than less so that I can follow the flow of debate. I will not disclose after the round ends.

I am open to any argument, as long as it makes sense and is backed up with evidence. The tagline must be what the card actually says.

In rounds, my main pet peeve is unclear tag lines. Be sure that you clearly enunciate the tagline if you want me to take it into account.

For critiques and theoretical arguments, make sure you clearly explain both the argument and its implications.

I try to be open-minded and fair about any arguments presented.

Hey y'all! My name is Luke Broussard (he/him), and I competed for 4 years at Teurlings Catholic High School in Lafayette, LA. I currently attend Tulane University in New Orleans, LA. Roll Wave!

My main events throughout high school were Original Oratory, Impromptu, and Declamation. I also have some experience with Congress and Interp events.

SPEECH:

1. Be respectful of fellow competitors while in the round. Phones on silent; be attentive to those performing.
2. Don't rush! Speak slowly and be sure to articulate.
3. I love powerful content, but inflection, articulation, and vocal proficiency will always be most important to me. In other words, you can have a great piece, but your speaking skills and actual performance matter, too!

DEBATE:

I've never competed in any form of debate, but I have watched many rounds and judged a few. I am the definition of a lay judge. If you can explain your case clearly and tell me why your argument is superior, you'll earn my vote.

For judging I am incredibly easy when it comes to judging.  I like good debate that is clear and easy to follow.  I'm not a huge fan of spreading.  Especially in debate formats that it isn't meant for.  I will pretty much flow anything in the round with in reason.   If you stretch too radical then I'm not inclined to buy into your thoughts.  I've been judging world schools the last 9 years so prefer to stick to the ideals of world schools.  Definitions should be clean and easy to follow, nothing squirrely.

I value technical skill in your speaking involving your clarity, voice inflection, and overall presence. I do not like speeding in your speeches and would prefer your words to clearly speak for themselves. As for your debate style, I really appreciate a clear line of reasoning and organization. I find listening to multiple different strings of thought in one speech confusing and would much rather you speak towards one purposeful stance. Just remember you are persuading me and not fighting your opponent. While I appreciate some push back, a calm, organized debate is always better in my opinion.

Just remember to have fun and that this is all a learning experience. I believe all students have potential to be great speakers and self advocates. Good luck!

I have judged Speech events for the past 2 years and started judging PF events in the 23-24 school year. I am very comfortable listening to different types of arguments and different opinions, I would like everyone to keep in mind that if I cannot follow your train of thought because you're going too quickly, I would not be able to utilize that information in my judging. Please be mature and respectful to each other. Thank you!

Thank you so much for this opportunity to see you in this arena.

I am a parent volunteer, but I bring a background of performing arts, writing and literature, marketing, and education as a foundation for my judging. I am incredibly passionate about helping young people improve their thinking and communication skills and would love to discuss anything with you after I've submitted scores for your competition.

DEBATE

As I become more familiar with structures of the various styles, I will provide more specific feedback on those. But for now, my perspective will be based on the following:

✅Strength of argument- TARGET: argument is clear and structured in Claim-Evidence-Reasoning format, sources are reliable and relevant, fallacies are avoided

✅Strength of rhetoric- TARGET: standard structure that flows from point to point, audience consideration, strategic word choice and phrasing, variety of methods of argument (ethos, logo, pathos), tone is respectful (see below)

✅General presentation- TARGET: clear and interesting vocalization, professional and confident body language, professional and clean dress, etc.

✅Rebuttal/Cross- TARGET: paying attention during opponent's speech, asking clear and specific questions that undermine their argument, answering questions asked

✅General civility to opponents and other viewpoints- TARGET: Verbiage remains respectful and collaborative. Any language or attitude/tones that marginalize others, belittles others' viewpoints, etc. will result in lower ranking/score. Examples include:

❌using religious perspectives in the argument where not specifically warranted

❌using phrases like "pipedream," "ridiculous," and other phrases that are more subjective and belittle others rather than creating a relevant argument

❌microaggressions, ableist language, etc.

These are tactics used by many news outlets and their followers, so it may be that your influences imply these are ethical ways for argument, but they are not. In fact, they weaken your own argument when in the presence of logical debate.

FORENSICS

As I become more familiar with structures of the various styles, I will provide more specific feedback. But for now, my notes will be based on the following:

✅Elements of performance- TARGET: Volume and enunciation vary as appropriate for the piece and allow audience to hear clearly; careful considerations for tone, inflection, characterization, etc.; using space to enhance the performance

✅Strength of rhetoric- TARGET: standard structure that flows from point to point, audience consideration, strategic word choice and phrasing, variety of methods of argument (ethos, logo, pathos), tone is respectful (see below)

✅Consideration of the audience- TARGET: Piece is selected with judges and peers in mind; performance engages audience through eye contact, vocal interest, etc.

✅Intention- TARGET: Performance steps outside the safe zone to make an impact and further reinforce the intention of the performance. It's a risk, but so is playing it safe.

✅Strength of argument (where applicable)- TARGET: argument is clear and structured in Claim-Evidence-Reasoning format, sources are reliable and relevant, fallacies are avoided

✅General civility to opponents and other viewpoints (specifically to those events that are argument/information based)- TARGET: Verbiage remains respectful and collaborative. Any language or attitude/tones that marginalize others, belittles others' viewpoints, etc. will result in lower ranking/score. Examples include:

❌using religious perspectives in the argument where not specifically warranted

❌using phrases like "pipedream," "ridiculous," and other phrases that are more subjective and belittle others rather than creating a relevant argument

❌microaggressions, ableist language, etc.

These are tactics used by many news outlets and their followers, so it may be that your influences imply these are ethical ways for argument, but they are not. In fact, they weaken your own argument when in the presence of logical debate.

Please send any requested information to my email at taracloudclark@hotmail.com

CX Debate

I consider myself to be a Tab judge, but I also have more of a traditional background. I'm comfortable evaluating the style of argumentation presented in the round. However, I don't have as much experience evaluating policy debate rounds this year as I typically would because of the online format. That means I'm not as familiar with the literature, so be mindful of that. I recommend that you explain to me how there's a path to vote for you in the rebuttals. Tell me how you think arguments should be weighed in the round.

Speech

In interp, I look for a clear storyline and development of characters. I expect to see a teaser and an intro that justifies the selection/tells me why the performance matters.

In platform and limited prep, I listen for effective speech construction, meaningful content, and smooth yet conversational delivery. I like the use of humor and other elements to add personality to the speech.

Hi, I am a parent judge. I appreciate well-organized speeches that are creative, informed, and delivered with conviction.

Remember to speak slowly and clearly and to the entire audience in the room.

As a judge, I am looking first and foremost at speaking skill. A well planned and spoken speech ranks high on my radar. I also place value on evidence based speeches. Your evidence should be current and relevant. Confidence, kindness, and professionalism are key, as well.

Congressional Debate:

I have judged and/or been parliamentarian at local, regional and national tournaments, including Isidore Newman, Durham Academy, the Barkley Forum and and Harvard. My students have found success at both the national and state levels.

POs- I default to you. Remember, your tone as PO has a big influence on tone of the chamber. Be efficient, clear and consistent and have fun.

As far as the round and debate within the round, consistency is important to me. The way you speak and vote on one piece of legislation should most indeed influence your position on similar limitation unless you tell me otherwise. Debate and discourse does not exist in a vacuum.

Acting/characterization is fine as long as there is a reason and has a positive impact.

Finding a balance of logos, ethos and pathos is important. Difficult to accomplish in three minutes? Absolutely. The balance is what gets my attention.

I'll be honest. I don't like when debate jargon leaks into the chamber. SQUO, affirmative/negative, counterplan, link/turn, etc. This event is it's own unique event with norms.

Additionally, Student Congress is not Extemp-lite. If you are trying for three points in a speech, how do I know what to focus on? If everything is equally important then nothing is important. Take a stance, go for the impact and make the balance between logic and emotional to persuade. Include previous debate points, elucidate your point of view and have fun.

Hello! My name is Anna (she/they). I was a high school debater for 4 years competing in primarily PF, Worlds, Poetry, and Informative Speaking. I have also experienced and have knowledge in Congressional Debate, Prose, and Duo Interpretation.

My goal as your judge is to make sure that you feel comfortable, are able to take away something important from the round, and have fun! As such, feel free to contact me about any questions you have through my email (annakang613@gmail.com).

Now, here is some important judging criteria for the following events:

Overall Comments for Debate:

- Please speak a bit slower. This allows me to write as much as you want me to judge. Refrain from spreading if you can, and I'll note in the round if you are speaking too fast for me to write. I want to at least get as much as I can to properly judge.

- If you go overtime in your speech, know that I won't flow from that point. Additionally, just know you are keeping yourself from ending the round earlier than you would be.

- (Just my own little pet peeve) I will want you all to refrain from saying, "my opponent made a mistake" or anything that sounds like you are directing comments to your opponents. I want you to focus on the arguments, not directing the mistakes to the opponent. This won't change any differences in points, but it might just be a little thorn on my side throughout the round.

PF:
This is a debate that needs evidence but most importantly elaboration and ability to translate that evidence to your argumentation. I don't want the debate to be based on spreading and ultimately getting confused on what the opponents are arguing. Make sure you are speaking clearly and clarifying your argumentation along the way to win the round. Here are some other things I want you to note:

- I need you to weigh. I am going to heavily emphasize on the fact that I want to see the summary speech be used to not only clear up some misunderstandings, but also be the key deciding factor of the weighing aspects of the round.

- Argumentation should be carried throughout the round. From rebuttal, to summary, and finally final focus. If I don't see that trend, then I can't carry your argument until the very end. Make sure to collapse when you need to, and plan accordingly so you don't get overwhelmed at the end. It makes it easier for me to judge as well.

- I will not be flowing cross. I will still listen in and see how you all act during that time, but I will only flow the content that was taken from that time if you bring it up in your other speeches.

- I will default to a cost/benefit analysis framework if none are given at the beginning of the round. Please make sure to provide argumentation as to why your framework should stand if you are going to provide one. If your opponents are able to adequately answer to it or negate the reason for why we need such a framework, then I won't consider it.

LD:

TBH, I sadly don't know much about this field. All I know is that you have to substantially provide evidence for your value and criterion with your contentions. Follow the comments above if I am your judge for LD, and I will do my best.

Congress:

If I ever judge this, just know that I want to see professionalism, funny remarks, and good speeches. I also really appreciate good questions, since this tells me you are paying attention.

Policy:

I don't know much about this debate form as much, but I will do my best to follow, so bear with me as I try my best. You guys have lots of time in comparison to other debate forms, but I understand the feel and need to fit more information during that time as well. Make the debate not as a speed-race for how many words you can get in, but I would like to see the arguments getting thrown back and forth and engaged with by both teams. Similar to my points in PF, I will judge most of the arguments based on those particular points made above.

Worlds:

If I ever judge this, I can provide more specific comments after round. Most importantly, I want to see teamwork and flowed argumentation throughout the 3 speeches. I love to see how future speeches will respond to the ones that happened earlier and provide answers to certain substantives. Clever remarks and team lines will also give extra points from me.

Overall Comments for Speech:

- Show how much you are passionate for your topic and event. This can differ from each event, but if I see that particular enthusiasm for the topic, you can definitely pull me in and keep me on my toes.

- Speak clearly

- I will provide hand signals and give you ones that I think are necessary for that particular event. If you have specific signals that you would like, feel free to ask me to do them! I have a phone timer for that reason :)

- If you have any more questions, feel free to ask before you begin!

Austin Keefe (he/him)

University of Arkansas (akeefe@uark.edu)

Public Forum/Congress/Lincoln Douglas/IPDA

Howdy, I am a former public forum/Lincoln Douglass and a current IPDA varsity debater for The University of Arkansas and have been doing debate for about 6 years competitively. I'm a simple man, any homophobia, racism, xenophobia will immediately lose you the round and 20 speaker points. Just don't, it's not worth it. Please time yourself, if I have to call you out for a time, it'll hurt speaks so just time yourself.

Public Forum

I am a big framework guy so for me to flow it to your side it needs to be thoroughly tied to your case and brought up often. If you do concede to your opponent's framework then I need a card or an extremely valid reason why. Weighing and magnitude also don't hurt when flowing as it gives me a lens for the debate. Personally, I believe debates peak during crossfire. Use your time wisely and don't ask cupcake questions that drag out time. I am an aggressive-style type debater and love it when there is a high-volume clash and argumentation. I don't want free melatonin in the form of a lame crossfire so make the most of it. Lastly, signposting will be crucial to cross-applying arguements. I need to be able to understand your arguments to be able to clearly lay out your case. That being said I can understand spreading but if you do, there will need to be a speech doc shared beforehand.

Lincoln Douglas

Traditional LD is my stuff and I'll be able to follow a case very well. I have had Progressive rounds so I will still be able to flow K's, meta-theory, disclosure theory, tricks, etc... I don't specifically have a preference over the other but I do prefer a traditional case-vs-case debate but if you bring in a K, I'll be able to follow. If you don't need to fill the speech time, don't. I'd have a better time flowing your arguments to you if you condense it down to 5 minutes rather than trying to ramble on for the extra 2 minutes.

Congress

I love congress speeches because they are able to provide humor in the serious world of debate. Funny and entertaining intros will help me tie your case to your points and enjoy your speech more. Evidence is just as important in these speeches though and I will take all of your speech with a grain of salt if there isn't a source to back it up. Also, if we have spent 40+ minutes on a single bill, please do not run a constructive speech (unless its new information) that just reiterates past representative's speeches. It makes your speech appear weak and ill founded. Refutation speeches are pretty rad as it provides clash in the debate so try to do that.

Literally any other debate style

Just speak clearly and I think I am capable enough to follow through with your case/argument.

Speaks

The worst amount of speaker points I'll give is a 27 (unless you are being rude, yelling, racist, you know, the no-no stuff). I throw a 30 here and there but I'll need very good signposting, crossfire, and speeches. But in general, if you speak well enough to understand, a 28 is in your grasp. Going overtime will hurt your speaks (over the 10 second grace period) so don't do that.

Misc.

All in all, its you vs. your opponents where y'all are yelling about topics way above our pay grade. Just enjoy it, it's an event where people are forced to listen to you rant about stuff you spent too much time researching. Spend 5 minutes before your round watching this video rather than spam-prepping. Have fun g.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APJZeNY6dKo&ab_channel=Lucasamiel0406

I'm an administrator at Northland Christian that has been traveling with our debate team for over 10 years. Over the years, I have judged a variety of events like PF, Congress, and IEs. Each year, I judge at a couple of tournaments for our school like Berkeley and Glenbrooks. When making a decision, I will look mainly at content and style. Students should not speak too fast and should make logical arguments throughout the debate; they should be considerate to their opponents and the judge throughout the round. I will not keep a rigorous flow throughout the round, but I will take notes to help me make a decision. For Isidore Newman, I will be judging Worlds. I have seen a couple of practice rounds and understand the style and expectation of students in this format, but this will be the first time I judge this event.

Hello! I am an English and AP Capstone teacher at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX. I typically judge speech events. When making decisions I will be looking at:

• Speaking style & audience engagement
• Number and quality of sources
• Students presenting a well-thought-out argument
• Representation of material presented/author intent of the piece

Best of luck, and have fun!

I am an assistant Speech and Debate coach, but mostly work with Speech events. I know the basics of Debate events, but I am not a pro, so I prefer when debaters speak at slower speed rather than spread.

I'm ok with either progressive or traditional style debate (I'm ok with running K's for the most part)

The most important things are to be kind and have fun :)

Willing to give progressive a chance.

Hi, I am Ella Salazar. My pronouns are she/her. I competed for four years at Teurlings Catholic High School in Lafayette, LA. I now attend Tulane University (Roll Wave!), and I really only judge for the Newman tournament yearly.

In general, do what you do best, make smart arguments, be clear, and be unproblematic. I don't really care about being on the email chain. However, if you want me to be (I don't mind) email me at ellaesalazar04@gmail.com.

My main events were forensic events, although I did dabble in interp events. Listed below are my preferences in rounds etc, just general housekeeping.

Debate: (rly just LD and PF b/c I don't judge Policy)

• I don't really care what case you run, I'm pretty familiar with all of them. There are some I know more than others, such as policy, traditional, stock k's, T, theory, phil, and more complex K's. I really don't know much about tricks, but I can follow along enough.
• I don't mind spreading, I can usually keep up pretty well. However, if it comes to a point where I truly cannot understand you, I will stop writing down anything that you are saying in my personal flow.
• An argument is a claim, a warrant and an impact. If your "argument" doesn't have one of those three elements, I will not be voting on it!
• Please be respectful to your opponent! I do not tolerate any hateful or derogatory speech.
• Other than that, I don't really have any outstanding preferences that you should know about :)

Speech Events:

• Please make sure that you are respectful of the people in the room. I do not tolerate hateful speech and if there is hateful speech it will be reported!
• My voting on speech events varies from event to event, but I would say that I generally am an experienced judge in Speech events.
• I love listening to all of the pieces, so please have fun! I love seeing your voice through the pieces. Let your individuality shine through your pieces!

Overall, I want you to have fun! I enjoyed all my years in speech, and it is a pleasure to be able to judge you!

Hey, I'm Cade (he/him). I debated and did extemp for Teurlings Catholic on the Louisiana and national circuits for four years. Now I compete for LSU (Geaux Tigers!) and occasionally coach/judge for Isidore Newman.

Generally, do what you do best, make smart arguments, be clear, and be unproblematic. Also, I do want to be on the email chain. My email is cadetsavoy@gmail.com.

For Louisiana tournaments/traditional rounds:

I enjoy lay/traditional debate as much as I enjoy circuit debate. Sometimes, though, I find it frustrating. To avoid frustrating me (and to get more speaks and my ballot), I suggest avoiding the following practices:

-- Spending a lot of time on the framework debate when it really doesn't matter. Don't be afraid to concede framework if you think you can weigh your impacts under your opponent's framework. 39 times out of 40, the "value debate" has no weight in my decision-making process. Ask yourself how winning the framework debate affects your overall chances of winning the debate.

-- Not collapsing. Pick one or two arguments and go for them in your final speech. This allows you to develop your central claim much more fully than you otherwise would be able to in a 3-minute 2AR. I promise you will not be able to properly extend all of the offense you read in the constructive in your final rebuttal. Trust.

-- Not having real impacts while reading a consequentialist framework. Your impacts should be a scenario. Try to paint a clear picture of what the world of the aff/neg looks like. Err on the side of over-explaining your impacts. Also, weigh them against your opponent's impacts in terms of probability, magnitude, time frame, etc.

Housekeeping:

1] Post-rounding is good! It promotes education and keeps judges accountable. Feel free to ask me as many questions as you like after my RFD. However, I will be capital p Pissed if your coach comes and fusses at me after the round has already ended — especially if you didn’t ask me questions when you had the opportunity. My only obligation as a judge is to make the best decision I possibly can. Sometimes, those decisions will be flawed. But under no circumstances will I ever be interested in engaging in any flavor of weird national circuit politics.

2] Don't be bigoted. Tech and truth go out the window the second you make a blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise exclusionary argument/remark.

3] For online debate: keep a local recording of your speeches in case someone loses connection. I really don't want to hear a rebuttal re-do.

LD/Policy

I'm putting LD and Policy in the same section because I think most of my relevant thoughts regarding LD and Policy apply to both events. If I have a thought that I think applies to either LD or Policy but not both, I'll flag it as such. Be mad if you feel so inclined.

Run whatever you want. I'll be fine. Still though, there are some arguments that I'm more experienced/better at evaluating than others. Here's a pref shortcut:

1- policy, traditional, stock Ks

2- T, theory, phil, more dense/complex Ks

3/4- tricks (depends on the level of density)

1] An argument is a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I won't vote on anything that doesn't meet that threshold. I also won't vote on an argument that I can't explain back to your opponent in the RFD, so be clear.

2] Impact framing is really important in every debate, regardless of whether its a standard DA/CP v case debate or a K v K smackdown. I don't see myself connecting the dots for you, so, again, be clear.

--add on: I've found that I'm very reluctant to vote on vague/poorly explained impact scenarios. Err on the side of over-explaining the story of your impacts. I might care about it more than other judges.

3] I think I'm alright at flowing, but I would really appreciate it if you slowed down on tags and analytics, especially when you're reading theory. I'll say "slow!" or "clear!" as much as I need to, so I won't feel bad not voting on an argument because I missed it on my flow.

4] I think I'm fairly neutral in most K aff v T Framework debates, but I'm more receptive to T Framework arguments that leverage education/clash as impact instead of just "pRocEDurAl faIRnEsS." But in these debates, I think the side that paints the clearer picture of what their model of debate looks like typically wins.

5] For LD specifically, I don't understand what it means to defend the resolution but not defend "implementation." "Defending implementation" seems to me to be a logical consequence of fiat.

6] Also for LD specifically, I wish phil debates focused more on the logical syllogism of whatever normative theory is being debated than a bunch of poorly developed reasons to prefer.

7] I have a couple of defaults that dictate how I evaluate the round. They can all be changed with proper argumentation.

• competing interps
• DTA unless it's something that's irreversible like T
• No RVIs
• Epistemic confidence
• No judge kick
• presumption goes to the side whose advocacy deviates least from the squo
• permissibility goes neg
• comparative worlds

8] Debate means different things to different people. Be cognizant of that.

9] Be accessible. In the context of debate, this means not doing things that would jeopardize debate as a site of inclusive, constructive, and critical discussion. I think most people intuitively know what "accessibility" means in debate, but, just in case, I'll outline a few implications of the "accessibility" maxim:

a] Don't be a dick.

b] Don't be shady. Obviously, don't clip cards or falsify evidence. If you do, you'll lose. But also, be forthright about the arguments you're making. Don't act like you don't know what a floating pik is in cross. Don't send a doc with only some analytics (i.e. sending eight out of your nine frontlined responses to T but not the "I meet").

c] If you're debating a novice or a traditional debater, consider reading arguments with which your opponent can substantively engage. I won't penalize you for going for any particular strategy, but your speaks will look better if you make an effort to make the round productive.

PF

All of the stuff from my LD/Policy paradigm apply to PF too. It's worth noting that I only competed in PF like three or four times, so I evaluate PF rounds the exact same way I would a policy-style DA v case debate in LD. I don't see why that would be problematic in any way, but it might be worth considering. Here are some of my PF-specific thoughts.

1] I think a lot of PF teams get away with really lazy extensions. It's not enough to just jump to impact weighing without explaining the link story of the argument you're going for. I won't vote for an argument that isn't properly extended.

2] It irks me when grand cross is dominated by only one debater from each team. I view every speech as a performance, and cross-ex is no exception.

3] PF rants and side quests:

a] Why are evidence ethics in PF so bad? Paraphrasing is stupid. I will give you +.3 speaks if you read highlighted sections of the actual text of what you're referencing. If you're going to paraphrase evidence anyway, put the full text of the card in the doc and highlight the parts that you're referencing. Also, every card you read should include the name of the author(s), the title of the piece, the date on which it was published, and a link/DOI if applicable.

b] Why are email chains in PF so weird? It seems incredibly inefficient to send cards your opponent calls for after the speech has already ended. Just send a complete doc before the speech starts! I will give you +.2 speaks if you send the doc before the speech starts.

I judged many different forensic events over the last two years, both online and in person. My favorites are POI and storytelling. I appreciate a well written and performed piece, particularly light-hearted ones. My least favorite event is Extempt - if I could follow politics and current events I'd be a debate judge! I will still try my best. I always find something positive to say and I try to offer constructive suggestions. I want to watch you learn and get better. I think debate and forensics can offer skills well beyond school. I am looking forward to another year.

I went to Caddo Magnet High in Shreveport!

Currently a Political Economy and Environmental Studies student at Tulane.

I competed in national mock trial, youth leg., and work a few legal internships over the years, so I'm pretty knowledgable about public speaking, debate, and politics (especially SCOTUS decisions and environmental economics).

Note the following:

• I value clarity and concision in any debate (I'm a fan of the FIRAC structure, but as long as the argument follows a clear logic it's fine.) If you want to look into this, do research on case brief structures.
• Don't spread. I want you to show your public speaking ability. Be emphatic. Be persuasive.
• Don't be rude/condescending to the other debaters, but a little theatrics are fine.
• If you don't respond to the other teams' arguments, then I will give them the point.
• Every argument you make should be backed up by a CREDIBLE source.
• Bottom line: I may personally agree with one side's politics more, but at the end of the day I will give the point to whoever constructs a better argument.

I am a junior high speech and debate coach. While I do tolerate some speed please do not spread. Please make sure to signpost. Impacts are important please make sure you connect them back to your value/criterion. Have fun and be kind to each other.

I am a traditional LD debater and judge. I can flow. I can follow spreading to a point but if you lose me that's on the debater. I don't care for the critiques and counter plans that have influenced LD in recent years. Give me values, a criteria to judge the value and solid philosophy to underpin your arguments.

Public Speaking:

Above all diction, passion, and persuasion should be your goal. Inventive turns of phrase and clear lines of analysis are what will earn you high marks. What I am looking for to set you over the edge is originality and cleanliness (both rhetorically and visually)

Interpretation:
Most of my ballots will be active coaching. As I'm watching your performance, I'm likely just going to to type what I think you can do better; ask you questions about your character and choices to provoke greater consideration of the piece; and perhaps a few compliments here and there. The more I write the more you should work on, the less- you're on the right track.

Debate: God help you.... Slow down, persuade, and tell the story.

Qualifications - Competitor 2011-2015; Lanny D. & B.J. Neilgan Dramatic Interpretation Champion - NSDA, 2015