Coach since 2014

For the most part,you'll be looking at this paradigm because I'll be your LD judge. cross-apply these comments to PF as applicable and to policy if/when I get recruited to judge policy.

Speed and Decorum:

Send me your case. This should go without saying, but let me know that you've actually sent me your case. I won't look for your case unless you tell me to look. Speechdrop.net or tabroom share is probably best rather than email.

I don't care if you sit/stand. Really, I don't. Just generally try to remain in the room. I won't be shaking hands.

Please time your speeches and prep time. I may not keep accurate time of this since my attention is to the content of your speeches. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.

Debate:

I do not prefer theory. I'm usually left feeling that most debaters let it overcomplicate their arguments or worse. Some may even allow it to further make debate inaccessible (especially to those who are likely already crowded out of this forum in some other way). Please don't run it unless there you see literally NO OTHER WAY to respond to your opponent's arguments. Even then, I may not evaluate it the way you want or expect. If you planning to run dense or tricky theory, you should find a different judge.

You have an absolute obligation to articulate your arguments. Even if I’m familiar with the literature or whatever that you might be referencing I *try* to avoid filling in any gaps.

Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!

Tricks = no. Thanks.

I will not vote for arguments that are ableist, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. This should go without saying, but for the sake of anyone who needs to see it in writing, there you go.

Above all, strive to make sense. I do not prefer any “style” of debate or any particular kind of argument over another. Regardless of what you run, if your case relies on me to connect the dots for you or if it is a literal mess of crappily cut and equally crappily organized evidence sans warrants, you will probably be sad at the end of the round.

I've judged policy since the 1980s, LD and PF since around 2009.

In PF: I don't even like paradigms because I think your job should be to present a case that would work before an ordinary lay audience. If you want paradigms and jargon and spreads and goofy stylized arguments, you can do policy. Anyway, I want to be convinced about the overall merits of the resolution, and I want you talk like you are a regular person speaking to a regular audience. I can and do flow, but I don't want you to go so fast that I can't follow you (you bear the risk). I will look at the big picture, not technicalities, in deciding who wins.

Joellen Terranova (she/they)

Rookie Judge

Video Recording: I am unable to provide video recordings of your speech.

Me:

• Judge at PDSA Online Spring Classic (Poetry)
• Judge at PHSSL District 6 and 7 qualifying tournament (Congress, Dramatic Interp, & Comedic Interp)
• Professional actor and performer

General Approach to Judging:

HI/DI/Duo - A convincing dramatic or comedic performance is the result of several elements coming together in a seamless and believable manner. For drama, the actor needs to embody the character and bring a level of authenticity to their emotional responses, making the audience connect with the story and its themes. In comedy, timing and delivery are key to delivering jokes effectively, while also maintaining a consistent characterization. Both genres also benefit from the actor having a strong understanding of the story's subtext and being able to communicate this through their performance.

The performer should also have a command of their physicality, voice, and facial expressions, allowing them to effectively convey the emotions of the moment and bring the story to life. When all these elements are combined, the result is a compelling performance that draws the audience in and leaves a lasting impression.

I need to see poise and control over speed. Rushing through a piece comes with nerves. Being able to take your time shows you haven't just mastered the words themselves, but the emotion. Let moments breath and give them the space they deserve.

Most importantly, have fun! I'm here because I am championing your success.

Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, and Extemporaneous Debate are persuasive speaking events. Your speech must be geared toward the average, non-technical college-graduate-level audience. You do not need to 'dumb it down' for a Reality-TV audience, but if you are talking too fast, or using undefined jargon - even common LD terms like Utilitarianism or Categorical Imperative - you are hurting your chances. And refer to arguments by their substance, not name dropping - not 'My Plato Card' but 'the philosopher-king argument.' And you must be polite to your opponent, no matter how obnoxious they are.

In LD, your value and criterion count - this is how all of your arguments will be judged, as well as any impacts. If you prove horrible war crimes will be committed under your opponent's case, but have conceded the value of real politick and your opponent effectively argues those war crimes will improve the political standing of the perpetrator, then no matter how morally reprehensible the crimes committed, there is no impact under that value. Conceding the value is fine, if you think you can win under theirs, but understand the full ramifications of doing so are not merely saving time for your clever sub-points, but conceding how they will be judged.

A final note on LD - Lincoln Douglas is styled on an election debate - you are trying to get elected, persuade the judge to vote for you - you are not trying to cram in as many words as you can in hopes that one of them might give you the win, if only you speak so fast your opponent can't physically flow your speech.

In Extempt Debate, you only have at most two minutes - keep your evidence to statistics and use your own arguments - you really don't have enough time for anything else - which is the point. And avoid the temptation to try to fit 5 minutes of speech into a two-minute speech - if you are speaking too fast to take notes, you are by definition saying nothing noteworthy.

For speech events - clarity is the most important part of any speech - not just clarity of speech, but clarity of meaning and clarity of purpose. If you move, move for a purpose. If you speak oddly or with a heavy accent that is barely comprehensible, it still needs to clearly communicate something; the emotions of the phrase we can't understand, at the very least.

Finally, never tell the judge she MUST vote for you - the judge must vote for whom they think won - declaring yourself the winner is generally bad form, no matter how badly you have trounced your opponent. Forcefully argue in your voters or final speech why you think you won, but no mic drop.

My passion is geared toward the speech events as I competed throughout high school and college. As a judge I focus on enunciation, connecting with the room, tone, and inflection. Solid arguments backed by confidence not arrogance. Draw me into your words, make eye contact, and remember if you forget a part or mess up the order of your speech - I won't know unless it is written all over your face. Be proud of yourself and know I'm cheering for you. I do my best to provide helpful comments meant to aid in your improvement as a competitor. I used to be in your shoes (speech shoes anyway) so much respect to you!