I am open to all arguments and will do my best to adapt to you. I am very focused on my flow so be mindful when moving from one card/argument to the next to leave a gap or say "and" to clearly indicate motion. Slow down on authors and dates please.

CX: I'm a policy maker but am always open to other arguments. My main concern is whether or not you've proven the resolution is true or false.
Topicality/theory: I default competing interp. If there aren't good extensions or if it's a wash I probably won't vote here.
K: If the lit is obscure you'll need to explain it to me a little more than popular Ks. Feel free to ask.
Case: I want the aff to extend in every speech. I will likely not vote exclusively on case defense, so negs please have another voter.

LD: I'm very line-by-line driven, and focus on the flow. Be very specific with voters.
Value/criterion: Not a must-have, and in many rounds I judge I find debaters will spend time on this without ever impacting it as a voter. If you go for this, that is totally fine, but give a clear reason why it matters in determining the resolution's truth.
Pre-standards/observations: Fine with these, but I feel the more outlandish ones need a little more work to actually matter. In any case, it is important that these are answered and not dropped.
Off-case: totally fine and love to see it, so long as whoever runs any off has an understanding of how to run that argument.
NC: I tend to be less persuaded by strats that try to spread the aff thin and just go for whatever they drop/undercover, and while I won't stop you from doing that, I begin to err heavily in the aff's favor when they have four minutes to answer 4 off, respond to your case, and defend their own. In my opinion, it's better for debate for you to demonstrate your skills by thoroughly arguing a really good voter rather than throwing half-hearted args at your opponent to see what sticks.
Aff: The most frustrating part of judging LD is watching 1ARs that try to do line-by-lines on everything and drop part of the flow. I want to see a 1AR identify the reason the 1AC theoretically wins, extend that and respond to attacks against that premise, identify why the neg would theoretically win, and respond to that. The aff does not have to win every single argument in round to prove the resolution true, so show your skill by covering what you absolutely must in this small period of time. Too often I see 2ARs make good arguments that are too little too late, so do whatever it takes to give a 1AR that doesn't drop anything important (only drops stuff that isn't important) be it taking extra prep, going with opposing framework, etc.

Hello! My name is Jessica Apodaca-Burks (she/her) but feel free to call me Jess!

I went to Grapevine High School and graduated back in 2020 and I am so excited to be judging and stay connected with that activity :)

When I'm judging, I look for a few key things-

• Cleanliness
• Understanding of the material
• Do you know the intent behind what you're saying/doing?
• Are you hitting your events/ operatives?

Keep calm and have fun when you're performing, the number one thing that will win you the round is being comfortable and confident with your piece and performance :)

I'm not a debate person so if I'm judging debate please treat me as a lay judge because it is Not my strong suit.

I am a parent judge. Looking forward to your speech.

I am conflicted with Cypress Park Hs.

Individual events: I look for strong characterization, rhetorical appeals, vocal variety and inflection, expressive facial/ body movements, clear enunciation, confidence, and creative delivery.

Debate events: I look for conversational tone of voice, clear and average paced speaking (No spreading), Rhetorical appeals, strong reasoning and logic, current and credible evidence, and impactful connections.

Tab judge. I have coached, or actively coach events, on local UIL, TFA and national circuit for over a decade. For Debate, please ask specific preference/style questions before round and in the presence of your opponent(s).

Interpretation: Very open to community standards and performer specific interpretations of literature. I try not to bring any preconceived understanding of literature into the round. I do prefer a teaser of some length before the introduction. Blocking and vocal characterization should be as distinct and clearly separate throughout performance.

INFO: I do prefer the use of a visual aid throughout the speech. Topics that are creative and challenging, or inspiring, are most intriguing and tend to separate themselves in a section. Sources are not as important in quantity, but the information should be presented in a fresh and relevant manner.

Extemporaneous: I prefer a balance of information and speech fluidity and personality. Clearly answer the question with a unified answer and give enough background/context in the introduction. Sources should be used significantly throughout the speech, but do not sacrifice a personable delivery simply to provide facts/analysis.

--Speech--

Hi y’all! My name is Fernando Cereceres. I’m a speech judge who specializes mostly in the interps.

Overall, within any speech, I like to see both physical control of your body within the space and verbal control over your speech. Facial expressions are EVERYTHING!!! Even within Extemp, oratory and info, showing us that you know/care about what you’re discussing is extremely important.

EXTEMP:

First and foremost, I judge based on who answered the question best through their 3 points. I then look at the content of each point and see how your sources/analysis tie back into your Q&A. Delivery/hand gestures in extemp are important as well. Make sure that your delivery matches the theme of the content you’re giving. For example, it’s probably a good idea to not have a super upbeat/happy vocal delivery when discussing international conflicts. Same goes for hand gestures, make sure they’re motivated and not just used for filler.

OO/INFO:

For both INFO and OO, I usually judge based off of topic, solutions/implications, and delivery. The topic should be something fresh and interesting, something that makes the audience go “what? I’ve never heard of that. That's so interesting.” This isn’t to say that if I’ve heard about your topic before then I’ll down you, but it’s all about how you present/perform the information as well. Solutions and implications should also be fresh and well thought out. They should be thought provoking for both the judge and the audience and should make us see your topic in a more nuanced way. Delivery should match the content of your speech. Whether it’s serious, funny, or impactful, your vocal delivery and gestures should match that.

INTERP:

I judge interps based on topic/argument, character work, and moments. The topic/argument of your piece should be fresh and intriguing. Why is your piece important for the audience and how does your argument introduce a new way of thinking for us? Character work is also extremely important within interp. Do you embody your character? Are the choices you make as the character authentic to who they are? Lastly, moments are extremely important within interp. What I mean by “moments” are the occurrences within the piece that you, the performer, decide to give special emotional significance to. For example, the climax of the piece should always be a “moment” where we get to sit with your character at the peak of their emotional journey. There are also moments outside of the climax where people layer the performance with emotion and subtext that contributes to character/plot development. Choose your moments wisely and commit to them 100%. I’m also a sucker for silence within a piece. Silence, if done right, can communicate much more effectively than words can.

Author's intent: I stand by the author's intent unless it’s part of the performer's argument to perform something outside of the literature's intended purpose. In that case, it must be explicitly stated within the intro as to how/why the performer decides to do something outside of the author's intent.

I debated for 4 years in Texas in LD and PF and also competed in OO, INFO, IMP, and EXT. I currently compete for the Texas Speech team in Extemp, Impromptu, and public address events.

In terms of my preferences for LD/PF, I heavily value the framework debate and would rather you emphasize that than simply reading off numerous cards with no real clash.

As a judge, clear signposting is also very important.

I will make sure to extend arguments across the flow, but you need to explain what the argument entails, not just the card.

Speed is not necessarily a problem (if used well and appropriately), but I would prefer you avoid spreading and make sure to enunciate, especially tags and impacts.

On that note, aside from the framework, I weigh impact heavily.

Most importantly, please be civil. I know that CX and GCF have the tendency to get heated, but I don't think there is any place for disrespectful behavior or actions in a round that make anyone feel unsafe, unheard, or discounted.

For extemp, unified analysis is my preferred speech structure. I think it enables the speaker to showcase their existing background knowledge of a topic (something I would like to see demonstrated) as well as the new argument they're constructing during prep. Have your tags and sources memorized when you come into the round. Make sure, especially in FX, that your analyses and impacts are not from an ethnocentric view and take into account a broader perspective than just your own.

Public Forum: I like to see clearly articulated, cogent arguments. Outrageous claims are a distraction from a good debate topic. I know there is a lot of information to cram into the argument but volume is no substitute for a convincing, clear delivery. Declaring that building a house causes global warming is not defensible unless there is a clear explanation of the component that links the assertion.

If both teams are making solid arguments, the one that is most understood and clearly heard will likely prevail.

Oral Interpretation: Connect the dots in your interpretation. The union of topics/literature must be clear. Your observations must end with a high point that is easily recognized. Think of this as climbing a mountain of discovery, realisation of the summit or else the bad alternative. A plot twist needs to be pretty clear and not confusing. Just because you understand it doesn't mean audience will.

Use your blocking as a voice/pivot point. Two characters, locations, situations = Blocking + voice.

Extemporaneous: Structure, Clarity, Good references are essential

Everything: Ethos, Pathos, Logos

Facts and clear links between steps. No jumps without information to support the jump. Reduced spreading if possible please.

I am a parent of a student at Anderson High School

I have judged speech events ocassionally for two years and PF during one tournament this season

Truth over tech

Please don't say "We have clearly proven" since that is subjective :-)

Extemp -

Please make sure you answer the question while being engaging and conversational - I want to see your personality shine through your speech. Analyze your points thoroughly. Tie your conclusion back to your AGD or intro. Use solid, clear, logical structure and depth in your speech.

I look for students to show the hard work put into an IE selection.

I like to see polished pieces (not rough drafts). Students should show they have an understanding of the selection they are presenting. It's appreciated if the selection is entertaining and has merit.

I don't look down on speeches past 7:00, but 7:20 is a little risky.

Link back to the question always. Tell me why you are answering questions.

Your speed should feel like a conversation (read: easily understandable), not like you are trying to fit in as many words as possible in the time limit. Fluency matters insomuch that I can understand you.

I like it when I learn something I didn't already know. Teach me! I love coming out of rounds and telling people, "I was in this OO/Informative/Extemp round and I just learned that..." A decent amount of evidence with full citations is expected.

Purposeful and refrained movement is much better than constant movement. I know when you're moving on to a new point - you've stopped talking about it and are transitioning with your words. Some movement is key and good - constant movement is tiring and distracting.

Please don't try and pass off an OO as an Info or Info as OO, if cross entered, make sure you follow the different requirements of each event.

Hi there!

My name is Kai, I graduated from PSJA North HS in 2019, but now I am at THE University of Texas at Austin.

I am on the Texas Speech team and I am so excited to continue speech in College. In high school, I was the 2019 TFA State champion in DI, I made out rounds in DI and DUET at NIETOC in 2018 and 2019. I had also competed in UIL in Extemporaneous speaking, and Prose and Poetry with a state final in prose at the 2019 UIL State Meet. I was also a Poetry finalist at the NSDA 2019 National tournament in Dallas, and I also had an outround in DI and PRO as well.

In College however, I was the National Champion in Dramatic interpretation at the 2021 NSC Tournament, Made multiple outrounds at the AFA & NFA National tournaments in DI, POI, PRO, DUO and POE with an AFA final in Poetry in 2021, AFA Final in DUO in 2022, NFA Final in DUO and POI in 2022 and a 11th place finish in the NFA pentathlon in 2021. I enter my 4th year on the team and I'm so excited to share my knowledge and skill sets with you all.

For interpretation events, I obviously love a good dramatic story but lets not get to over dramatic with the script. BLOCKING IS IMPORTANT, you can accomplish so much with such little blocking. I believe in subtle blocking and its impact on the performance. I live by less is more, unless the scrip/program calls for that dramatic blocking then by all means RUN WITH IT!

But I am a sucker for those dramatic moments with just you and your audience, above all this performance should feel like a conversation with your audience; You shouldn't have to compromise the story for overdramatic blocking/acting unless the script calls for it!

I will forgive little stumbles because I know how tough the nerves can get (I see you, I understand) but lets try to be prepared!

In my opinion the introduction will make or break your overall argument! If you can create an argument that will:

1) Draw me in further into your performance,

2) Make me question your argument (or left wanting more)

&/or 3) brings in new insights/ideas/questions

then you have my vote!

sell me your story, and I will buy it!

Extemp: I'm a big believer in the AGD - make me want to hear more. Be as creative as you'd like in coming up with an AGD or "hook" - but you definitely need something to make me sit up and pay attention. Answer the question. The more sources, and the more variety in the sources, the better. Be engaging and conversational - I want to see your personality shine through your speech. Don't forget to answer the question. Analyze your points thoroughly. Tie your conclusion back to your AGD or intro. Make sure you answer the question.

OO/Informative: Defend your thesis throughout your performance. Be engaging and conversational - I want to see your personality shine through your speech.

POI: Don't forget to refer to your manuscript throughout your performance - this event is not memorized. The best pieces are the ones that transition between genres seamlessly - unless the sharp contrast between prose, poetry, and/or drama is intentional. Characterization is huge - let me see the personality of your characters.

HI/DI/DUO/DUET: Please don't confuse me with too much blocking, or blocking that is overly specific and detailed. I want to see YOU - not some tiny imaginary thing you're holding. Be animated and as engaging as possible.

Hello. I am new to judging this year and have no prior experience with speech and debate so I look forward to developing a new skill.

Delivery: Clear enough to be understood. Loud enough to be heard. Controlled enough to be taken seriously. Confident enough to command attention.

Content: Organized, logical, creditable supporting evidence , understanding of argument and its opposition

I am a parent with no speech or debate experience:)

no spreading, understandable pace

I strongly dislike filler words 

I’m a teacher ????‍???? 

don’t say anything problematic (racist, homophobic, sexist, etc.)

funny theory encouraged

I like an intellectual sense of humor 

take risks!!!

Overall (Speech):Speech is a game of engagement with the audience, and your efforts should be towards engaging the audience with the message of your piece. My ranks are always based primarily on this. Of course, there are many tools to engage an audience, and your choice to use them and your effectiveness with them will vary.

Oral Interpretation: In interpretation events (HI, DI, DA, DUO, POI, PR, PO), I am looking for a performance that creates a significant personal or social meaning from the literature chosen. I am also looking for a performance that shows emotional and tonal complexity and a range that is both suitable for the piece and is demonstrative of the skills of the interper.

There should also be intentionality in the decisions made in the interpretation of the piece. For example, all the blocking employed in the piece should have a purpose and should not seem haphazardly included in the performance. This also goes for what is included in the cutting of the piece, for the words spoken, the emotions, sound effects, etc. conveyed should all contribute to the message you are trying to convey in your interpretation.

Public Address: In Public Address or Platform events (IX/FX, USX/DX, OO, INFO), I am looking for speeches that add novelty and insight to the topic of the speech. Making the topic relevant and understandable to a general audience is necessary for success in these speeches.

Speeches in these categories are more effective and engaging when they employ a variety of pacing and tone that convey to the audience the significance and emotional stakes of the points you make. On top of clear speaking and style, one needs to create the engagement for the audience with their voice through these tools. In general a conversation

Speeches should be well organized and easy to follow for the audience. They should have clear but original signposting to help the audience keep track of where they are in the speech.

Lincoln-Douglas:

I'm a speech coach, and this is not my preferred event. That being said, I am rather traditional when it comes to judging LD with heavy emphasis on the battle of values and achievement of the value criterion through your use of your evidence.

I have some debate experience through high school, but consider me more of a lay/UIL circuit judge.

Speed is okay if you are understandable, but I should not have to read along to understand you, if I can't flow it, it didn't happen. Elements of progressive debate such as theory and K are fine but have to be well justified within the context of the debate, otherwise, I'm not sure it'll make it to my flow.

Speaks are awarded on quality of debate based on speaking and presentation with 28 being the average debate performance, lower being, well, lower, and being among the best I've seen will be awarded a 29-29.5. If you are somewhere in between you will be awarded somewhere in between.

I think that public forum is, at its core, the melding of sound argumentation and solid speaking. You should present not only well-structured, rational, strongly warranted arguments, but you should also do so in a way that can be relatable to whomever is in the back of the round.

That being said, I don't mind some speed - but be sure you are articulate and clear, especially with tags and authors. Sacrificing quality for quantity is a poor choice if you cannot handle (or your judge cannot handle) the speed. Make wise choices.

In terms of 'atypical' arguments. I think that it is very hard to run a K argument well in PF. I don't believe that it cannot be done, just that it is very rare. If you are running theory, then you better have extremely solid warrants and you should have it explained to the level of access of understanding fitting to this style of debate. DO NOT just read cards that you got from your Policy friends/teammates and call it a day. ALSO...YOUR ADVOCACY SHOULD MATCH YOUR ACTIONS. Do NOT use theory arguments as a cheap tool to surprise unwitting opponents and get the ballot when you have engaged in no actions that match the advocacy of your theory arguments. If you are running disclosure theory, there better be a history of you disclosing at EVERY round and you engaged in multiple forums, workshops, discussion boards where you are ACTIVELY engaged in increasing disclosure in a way that promotes education and fairness. If you get up and read disclosure in front of me and do not have this, it will be an automatic loss. I am not joking.

I think that framework is a solid strategy - if there is a purpose. Frequently teams have f/w just to have it and then don't touch it for the rest of the round. If it is there, then you should extend.

On the issue of extensions, be sure that your arguments are carried through the debate. Do not read at the beginning and then bring back up in the final focus and expect me to grant them to you.

Finally, there should be a clear advocacy in the round - and a clash between teams. I hate debates that are like ships passing in the night - no clash.

Updated Longhorn Classic '21

Chris O'Brien

he/him

forever student at UT Austin

please put me on the email chain: chrisob26@utexas.edu

I debated policy in high school all 4 years in Athens TX, and have been judging/coaching on the Austin circuit since 2013.

Also, if anything in this paradigm isn't clear enough, feel free to ask me before the round, I'd be more than happy to clarify.

General Thoughts

I am tab but default to policymaker if not given a clear alternative evaluative framework.

The most important thing is that you give me the easiest path to the ballot. Tell me how to vote, on what, and why. Other than that, give me overviews, keep the debate organized, and please extend things correctly. Technical debating ability determines your speaker points in large part, unless there is reason to dock speaks for hate speech/immoral arguments.

I am generally more confident in my ability to evaluate policy v policy and policy v k debates, than k v k due to a literature knowledge deficiency, especially in high theory kritiks (read: Baudrillard, Heidegger, Deleuze/Guattari, etc.), so expect to explain the thesis of your critical position and how they interact with the topic thoroughly when reading those arguments.

Performance Affs are fine as long as you are very thorough in your explanation of what my role as a judge is and what the ballot does.

I will try to evaluate rounds to the best of my ability based on the information I am able to flow from your speech. That means despite what is in the speech doc, I will only be evaluating what you actually say in your analysis and a lot of close rounds are won or lost in the rebuttals over this issue. There should be clear extensions from the 2AC to the 1AR/Block to the 2NR and 2NRs/2ARs should be going for a specific strategy that is writing my ballot.

Tech over truth in most cases. If an argument is dropped, I still need a proper warrant extension and implication given for that drop to matter, unless given some other model of judging the round. I will rarely decide a round on a single drop and that argument must still be implicated in the broader aspects of the round.

I flow on paper despite the advances in technology since I first started debating. Speed is fine, but in a world of virtual debate please slow down. I expect any theory standards to be read at a pace that gives me adequate pen time, if not they should be in the speech doc.

I will always listen to CX - open CX is fine, but do not talk over each other. Flashing/Email doesn't count towards prep unless it is egregious.

Don't be offensive, rude, homophobic, racist, ableist, derogatory, sexist etc.

Always try to have fun - if you're not acting like you want to be there, it is a real drag to judge your round.

Framework/T-USFG

I default to debate is a game, and I think the k aff bad debate comes down to a question of fairness, whether used as an impact or an internal link by the neg. I am not usually persuaded by topic education vs critical lit education through an aff specific method since that doesn't interact with the fairness question a lot of the time, and the aff team usually has better evidence about the importance of their particular educational outlet anyway, especially given the fact that they know what it is and can adequately prepare for it. The most important way for the aff to get me to vote for a non-resolutional based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. However, I grant K affs a lot of grace if there are clear resolution-based links that are able to answer ground loss claims.

My threshold for granting neg offense on clash is directly determined by how abstract/immaterial the aff explanations of the k method are.

TVAs are under-utilized in my opinion as ways to take out Aff standard offense. SSD is a must-have argument to even compete on the education debate.

I default to k affs getting perms but have a pretty high threshold for these arguments in context to the ground/clash debate, if brought up.

Topicality

I default to competing interpretations, but can be persuaded otherwise in round. Bad/unpredictable T interps are worse for debate than predictable ones, so I expect neg teams to read interps that are actually making an argument about what the literature base should be for the topic. Barring the block dropping reasonability, I will most always focus on the standards when evaluating the T debate, so teams that do the work on explaining how limits are improved/destroyed by the other team, what case lists/neg generics look like, and which interp provides the most sustainable form of debate for the year are most likely to win.

I typically don't vote on RVI's here unless there is a multitude of T's that the aff meets on face, which puts the neg more in the realm of reading frivolous theory, not just T args.

Kritiks

I really enjoy policy aff vs k debates, however I have very limited knowledge of critical literature outside of Cap/Neoliberalism, Abolition, SetCol, Security, Biopower (Foucault/Agamben), and small amounts of Ahmed. As said above in general thoughts, if you are reading a kritik you feel I may be unfamiliar with, or are pulling multiple theories from critical bodies of literature, I fully expect you to clearly explain the thesis of the criticism and how your method is able to possibly resolve the links you present.

I am very tech based in my evaluative approach to kritiks and hold a high standard for both teams in order to win the sheet. I evaluate the K sheet first by framework then K proper, where the line-by-line is very important - reading massive overviews that don't specifically interact with 2ac arguments hurt your chances of winning those parts of the K if the aff does the work you don't do in the 1ar. I believe the aff should be able to be weighed against the kritik, it is up to the neg to win why that is not the case in this round with a clear counter-interp.

Links are important and must be contextualized to the affirmative, but it is also just as important to be able to explain how the alt method is able to resolve those links. I hold alt solvency to a high regard, you must be able to explain what the alt does to create change in the world after I vote neg. I have found that there is big trend recently by neg teams to ignore solvency deficits/turns because they aren't specific to the (usually obscure) alt method the neg is choosing to read this round - you still need to interact with those arguments and disprove their warrants!

I think perf con is voter as long as there is a clear link in contradiction of advocacies - I believe the neg is able to spin out of this, but depending on the positions read that might be hard at times.

Floating PIKs are bad, but if you get away with it, I will still vote on it.

Disads

I would love to hear a good DA+Case collapse in the 2nr. I believe the top level of the disad should be thoroughly fleshed out in the block and there be clear turns case analysis given that is contextualized to the aff scenarios/solvency. Generic link walls are fine as long as you are doing that contextualization as well. I don't think winning case outweighs is all the aff needs to do when turns case analysis is competing against it, but I do think it is underutilized in the 1ar when paired with other arguments on the disad proper.

I really enjoy politics disads when their scenarios lean closer to plausible rather than just fiat spin +"and x is at the top of the docket now". I think warrant interaction on the uniqueness/link uniqueness question is where this sheet is usually won on either side. Generic pc is fake and winners win args aren't too persuasive unless contextualized to the current political climate.

Counterplans/Theory

I really love good counterplan debate. Generic counterplans are necessary and good. I think specific counterplans are even better. Counterplans that read evidence from the 1AC or an aff author are even better than that! I think process cp's are legitimate but prefer neg teams to explain how the net benefit is still a disad to the aff. Plan plus multi-plank advantage cp's are my new most hated CP on this topic - do with that info what you will.

Neg teams need to be sure to have a clear story/explanation for how the aff/perm links to the net benefit and the CP alone avoids it. I do not think the answer to solvency deficits is to go for "lens of sufficiency" or fiat, you need to explain how those deficits still allow the cp to solve the aff/avoid the net benefits. Severance/Intrinsic perm debates seem to be less common these days, but I still think they are important tools against "creative" aff perms.

I am okay with aff teams making multiple perms but those perms need to be explained and how they work before the 2ar is going for them. In that same regard, solvency deficits/perm shields the link analysis and implications must not be made for the first time in the 2ar either. Aff should be leveraging their "creative" permutation with their cp theory if the cp is even close to abusive, but I really don't like when rounds come down to just a theory question.

Theory that is more specific to the argument it is read against will typically have a higher chance of being viewed as a voter. I typically lean neg in most cases, except for bad PICs or convoluted process cp's. I think theory should also be used as a justification for other arguments you make in the round based on substance, not just a reason to reject the team.

My threshold for condo is very easily shifted by circumstances, but I generally believe it is a good idea for the aff to read condo in the 2ac if the neg is reading 3 or more counter-advocacies, though the likelihood of me voting on it largely depends on the amount of in-round abuse/sand-bagging strategy the neg is choosing to do. Aff needs to have a clear interpretation, and I find "no difference between 2/3/4 off" not very convincing by the neg, especially if the aff gives any type of intelligent analysis on time tradeoffs.

I believe frivolous theory bad is a voter, especially on procedural questions that the aff/neg themselves violate, but you need to do the work of showing how in round abuse is occurring and how the theory is frivolous.

On judge kick - if the neg tells me to and it's unanswered or the neg is ahead on the question of whether I should, then I will. Neg teams, you should tell me to do this in the block if you want it to be considered for the same reason 2ar condo strats are bad, you wouldn't want the aff to win on 5 minutes of judge kick bad in 2ar and it gives the aff plenty of time to respond/not respond to it by the 2nr.

As a IE judge I look for a clean and polished performance. Good Analysis and Interpretation of characters and a powerful performance.

For Speaking events - Structure and Sources are important as well as a polished performance.

For Debate - LD I prefer a traditional format and value debate. PF I want to see clash, evidence and a clear job going down the flow to show rebuttals of arguments.

I am conflicted with Cypress Park High School

Experience: Teacher and Coach of Speech & Debate! Although I have a few years of experience I am BIG on public speaking skills!

What I look for: A speaker who keeps the audience in mind by applying speaking techniques that keep the listener interested. (Eye contact, non-verbal communication, body language is important to get an overall perspective of the speaker).

Each speech or performance needs the basics: intro, body conclusion.

For extempers, I love to see the waltz during your delivery.

I am always open for the speakers to find their own unique ways to make their topics interesting and purposeful! I am all about the persuasion and emotion behind a performance (THINK ethos, pathos and logos).

*Treat the round as a "communication experience" and remember to have FUN!!

For debaters, DO NOT spread during a round. I like to flow during rounds and understanding your arguments is most important.

I enjoy clash during CX and voter reasons! (Remember part of a debate is in the art of persuasion)

Quality over quantity. This not only applies to the number of speeches you give but also the amount of evidence you have and refutations you give. I would prefer deeply thought out refutation and clash rather than naming everyone who spoke before you. In so far as presentation I do not care about how you look or how your voice sounds, I care about mindful pacing and thoughtful presentation.

Hello! My name is Alejandra (Ale) Vadillo. I'm a speech judge who specializes in limited prep and public address speeches! I competed in Nebraska in high school, on the Bradley University Speech Team my freshman year of college, and have been on Texas Speech for two years now. <3

IN GENERAL:

I am looking for confident speakers who engage with the judges and the rest of the audience. The best speakers show that they are knowledgeable about the topic they are speaking about and are genuinely interested in sharing it with others. Speech does not exist without the audience, so it should be your top priority.

EXTEMP:

I judge extemp largely based on content and argument. Great delivery will put you over the top! I need you to answer the question coherently and give me three reasons why you chose your answer (unified analysis). Ideally, I would love to see at least two sources in every subpoint, but it is not an exact science. Please make sure that you are accurately citing your sources, looking past the headlines and daily newspapers, and that your sources are as recent as the topic allows.

As an extemper, the analysis in each of your subpoints is what proves if you know how to memorize a flow or actually understand what you are talking about. The best extempers don't try to prove that they are the smartest in the room, but instead, that they are the best teacher of the topic that they selected in those seven minutes. Try to keep delivery conversational and hand gestures meaningful.

***For econ questions - If the crux of your speech is numbers, I will be disappointed. We care about the human impact, not percentages and statistics.

OO

I judge OO on topics and solutions. Is your topic timely and relevant? Do you have agency for the topic? Do your solutions actually solve the problem? I love solutions that allow audience members and judges to take action. You made us care about the problem, how do we fix it? I appreciate VAs, but they are often overdone. Too many VAs are unnecessary and take away from the speech more than they add to it. Speakers must be comfortable with the mechanics of their VAs as they deliver the speech. Delivery and gestures should be conversational and not appear over-rehearsed. If there is humor, please commit to the bit. I will laugh! But not if you make it awkward!

INFO

I judge INFO on topics and implications. Is your topic timely and relevant? Are you teaching the audience something new or giving us a new perspective on something we already know? Are your implications actual implications or just stating things that have already happened relevant to the topic? Your implications should be thought-provoking and leave us wondering what the future of the topic you just taught us about might look like. Conversational delivery and gestures. VAs should add to your speech, not just be an arts and crafts show. If they are being used, they should be clean and manuvering them shouldn't distract the audience from the speech you are delivering.

INTERP:

I judge interps on topics and arguments. Why are you doing this topic? Why should the audience be interested in learning more? What do you want the audience to gain from this performance? I think the best way to build a good argument is to have a clear cutting. Does your storyline make sense? Is it easy to follow?

Delivery is almost everything in interp. Have you taken the time to develop your character's subtext? Do we feel like we get to know your character(s) by the end of your piece?

Author's intent: I stand by the author's intent unless it’s part of the performer's argument to perform something outside of the literature's intended purpose. In that case, it must be explicitly stated within the intro as to how/why the performer decides to do something outside of the author's intent.

My name is Clint Wenk and I am a Westlake High School speech judge. I have a student in the program and am excited to get to be a part of speech competitions.

I competed in Humorous Duo and Radio Speaking events as a student and found it to be a very rewarding experience to grow my confidence in public speaking and to take risks in performance. I also developed some great friendships along the way.

In judging, I'm looking for confidence, strong characterization, and distinctness between characters in interp. I appreciate surprises, when intended, and good blocking. I appreciate actors who take risks with the material when appropriate.

I really enjoy interp and duo events. It's a great way to try on different personas and see how it might feel to be that person. I encourage you all to explore and find out who you are in the process.

Good luck!

Clint