What I look for while judging, in a nutshell:

Be respectful to your opponents or fellow participants, speak clearly and not too fast, cite your sources and give evidence to back your statements.

I am so impressed that you are here, participating in this. Have fun!

Hello everyone! My name is Conrad! I was in debate for all three years of high school at Farmington! I first started off doing PF, then I moved to LD to finish out my sophomore year! My junior year I started congress for my first tournament then I moved to Policy for the remainder of the year! My senior year I was the Vice President of our debate team and I did BQ most of the year with a little bit of LD towards the end! I know exactly what’s going on! Just be sure to respect each other and try your best!

I am a parent judge so I don't know much about speech and debate, but my daughter is teaching me.

Debate:

No spewing. I judge on your persuasiveness, and normally give the win to the person who addresses all of their opponents points

Speech:

I like a well delivered speech that includes eye contact, pauses for emphasis, and passion. I judge on your speaking fluency and style.

Hi I am Kaylie! I did speech and debate all 3 years of high school. I competed in Public Forum and took 2nd and 3rd in my region. Debate is stressful and I just want you guys to follow these rules

1. Know your topic
2. Have evidence to back up your arguments
3. Attack each of your opponents arguments (if you spend time stuck on one topic, you aren't taking time to attack the other arguments they have made and therefore they will flow through)
4. Be kind and respectful to your opponents (a good debater doesn't need to attack their opponent)
5. Have fun!

Hey everyone! I'm so excited to be your judge!

I am a freshman at the University of Utah. I competed for the Northridge High School debate team all 3 years. I was a captain my junior and senior years. I am a 3-time qualifier to the national tournament (2x in BQ and 1x in INFO). Please don't be intimidated by this, I just say this so everyone knows that I know my stuff LOL. My goal is for every debate to be judged as fairly as possible.

I want to flood you with feedback and comments. I cannot tell you how many times I got ballots with a loss or low speaker points, then just to get a comment that says "Great job!" and nothing else. I PROMISE that won't happen with me.

Note: If anything I say inherently goes against what you have already prepared (like my case preferences, for example), don't try to rush and change it. These are just general suggestions.

General Paradigm:

Cases: I expect you to provide the causality in your case. Never only read to me a bunch of cards, statistics, opinions, quotes, etc. and expect me to believe you; go in depth. Explain why your argument is important and how it links. A well developed case is a great first impression, so use it as a strategy. I'm easy to impress with a good case.

Framework: I don't really like frameworks like utilitarianism, pragmatism, cost-benefit analysis, etc. I'm voting on impacts and major concepts in the round, not who better upholds one particular standard. Burdens of proof are fine with me, but don't spend too much time on it. Establish it once and focus more on general argumentation.

Definitions: Please only provide definitions if they are absolutely necessary. I'm educated, I know what things are.

Cross: I will not flow anything said in cross. If it was said in cross and you want me to vote on it, bring it up in rebuttal. While I don't flow cross, it may have an impact on my decision and speaker points (that is, I take all things into consideration). Please ask concise questions and give concise answers. If your opponent is taking a long time to answer, I'm fine if you interrupt, but actually give them an opportunity to speak. It's a clarification segment, not a scream fest. Passive aggression in cross is so entertaining to me, but be cautious about it.

Rebuttal: Your rebuttal is not a constructive speech. Please do not start by going over your case again, I will have just heard it. Clash against your opponents points. If you want to cross apply your case to theirs, do so. I don't need you to reexplain the arguments I just wrote down. In rebuttals, make sure not to solely focus on nit-picky details. Go over the larger concepts of the debate. Remember not to bring up any new attacks past rebuttals; I will not consider such new arguments.

Impacts: PLEASE give impacts. Whether you do a full impact calculus talking about scope, magnitude, substantiality, etc. or simply compare the effects of the arguments, I need impacts and weighing. The goal of debate is never to get your judge to agree with you, but rather, to show why you debate better, which means comparing your arguments.

Voters: I expect you to give me the reasons why you won the debate in the final speech. Don't beat a dead horse by trying to prove your arguments, simply talk about the largest reasons why you should win.

Speaking: Your speaking should be clear, concise, and confident as you possibly can make it be. Avoid filler words such as "like" and "umm" as well as unnecessary phrases like "ultimately," "specifically" (especially not this one haha) or "goes on to show." Get to the point, I know how to follow a flow without the extra "fluff." Try not to speak too slow or contain too many long pauses in your speech. (If you are in policy, ignore this and read my event specific paradigm). Eminem rap battles and debate should have never been conflated, so please for the LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY DO NOT SPREAD. Thank you :)

Event-Specific Paradigm:

LD:

I prefer a traditional value/criterion structure. Your value should be as topical/close to the resolution as possible.

Avoid utilitarianism and pragmatism. Criterions should be measurable, and prag/util are very vague.

I don't like K's or anything crazy in LD.

Arguments about morality are more important to me than philosophy or statistics.

In the negative constructive, I prefer 4 minutes of case and 3 minutes of rebuttal.

Voting issues should be given in the final speeches.

PF:

Provide links for everything.

I care more about impacts than the warrants of your arguments. Convince me why your argument is more impactful, not more correct.

Rely on your partners.

If you call for one of your opponents cards and point out a flaw in it, you will look so smart to me.

In grand cross, I only want to hear the major points, nothing new or small.

Policy:

I will be 100% honest. If you get me as your judge for policy, I'm so sorry. I hate this event with a passion. That being said, I don't even care what you run, as long as it is done well.

Although I will secretly be dying inside, I'm ok if you spread in policy :/ please include me in an email chain

rylanearnhart2117@outlook.com

If you do spread, but you are all mumbled, lost in your place, stumbling or pausing a lot, I will reflect such in your speaker points.

I don't really like K's or theory, so be cautious. There needs to be an abundantly clear link, or else I don't buy the point. I really don't want to hear a Cap K, not that I'm secretly a raging capitalist or anything ahaha, but it just gets so repetitive.

Counterplans should be as specific as possible and should contain evidence.

Note: If ANY of your arguments are racist, sexist, ableist, nationalist, homophobic, religiously discriminatory, etc. in ANY degree, you will lose the round no questions asked :)

Please do not run a joke case, I'm taking time out of my day to listen to you and there are competitors who genuinely are trying to do well.

Remember to attack the arguments, not the people presenting them.

Debate is such a party! Have so much fun with it :)

Any questions on the feedback I give? Let me know rylanearnhart2117@outlook.com

Best of luck!

No spreading. I don't judge cross.

LD - I am a traditional judge, I do not favor progressive LD. I look for clash and a good morality debate. I also favor good communication. If I can't understand you, I can't flow.

PF - I am a traditional judge, do not favor progressive PF. See above.

I'm a first year head coach at Skyline High School. I have three experience as an assistant coach. I've mostly worked with speech events, but also congress and Public Forum with limited experience in Policy and LD.

Policy:

Overall: I don't believe I'm experienced enough to understand theory or be able to strongly evaluate Kritiks.

Speed: I'm OK with speed as long as you email me your speeches (tfhenry@granitesd.org) , but please slow down for your taglines.

RFD: I typically base my decision on the the stock issues of the plan on the Affs ability to defend it and prove that it is better than the status quo. The NEG wins if they can prove the plan is worst then the status quo or the status quo is better than the plan.

· Delivery: Clear and measured delivery that is not raced through. I like to be able to follow each point with time to flow the debate.

· Evidence: Should be from credible sources that are diverse in their spectrum.

· Argument style: Attack the issue, not the person or their style. A debater should be able to persuade a judge through strength of argument, never Ad Hominem attacks.

I will base my decisions on performance quality for each event. Clear speaking style, familiarity with script or case, accurate pronunciation, and the attitude toward and respect for fellow competitors.

I value clarity in rounds. I can absolutely follow speed, however it does not mean I like to. I am typically not a fan of spreading. I am a flow-judge, If I can't understand you, I will stop flowing. Quality is always greater than Quantity.

Know your evidence and your arguments. It is clear to me when you are presenting evidence but have no understanding of the material.

I like to see clash in a round. Strong V/C. Solid frameworks. Definitions. Impacts.

Hi my name is Carter I was in debate for 3 years doing Ld/Pf and occasionally BQ, I was also a member of my teams presidency for 2 years and taught several events so I know a decent amount about most events. My pronouns are he/him if you use pronouns other than what’s listed on tab just let me and your opponents know them before the round begins. First I’ll cover general paradigms before going into event specific ones, In general I like people to time themselves so they can keep track of their own time and I’m totally fine with timing your opponents but try not to use an alarm if it’s not for yourself because it will interrupt the round, when talking I prefer if you look at the judge rather than your opponents and also address your opponents as my opponent rather than as their names or anything like that. I also look for basic speech skills like being understandable, having a good tone/emphasis, and not talking too fast. I weigh speeches in a round even so if something is said in any speech even cross I will consider it just as much as the other speeches. This last part is very important if you accuse your opponents of cheating in a round and you don’t have evidence of it as well as a reference to the rule in the tournament rules or NSDA rules don’t even bother with it, I find baselessly accusing your opponent of breaking the rules to be a cheap way of trying to win the round and unless and actual verifiable rule break is happening I don’t want to hear it mentioned at all.

Ld: I mainly taught Ld on my team so this is probably the event I’m most familiar with. So for Ld the main thing is that I care for and will Vote on logic and morals rather than just stats and cards because that’s what Ld is all about philosophy can also be a strong point but it has to be presented very well in order to be a major voting reason. For all speeches try not to speak too fast I can keep up pretty well with fast talking but if you go too fast both me and your opponent will miss many of your points. If you are neg try to work in at least 2 minutes or more of attacking im your opponents case in your first speech rather than just reading your case for the entire 7 minutes I’m not going to be too picky about this but I find it really helps your side overall in the round. The last thing I’ll say here is that I like roadmapping preferably an off time roadmap so long as you don’t make it too long.

Pf: I have taught Pf and competed in it many times so I know this event well. While pf is more about facts and cards I also really like to see logic and morals enter the round especially if they compliment the facts you present, so for example if there is two stats presented and one is about money and the other is about human life I am much more likely to favor the one about human life because it not only ties into facts and cards but also logic and morals. Try not to just spit out cards in your card in a never ending flow of them because I’ve found that does happen a lot in pf instead have a few cards here and there and take some to explain the cards and how they tie into your case and your framework. For cross and especially grand cross I like to see a lot of clash and speaking from both speakers on a team I don’t want to see one partner just talking the whole time while the other just sits there so please have everyone include themselves in cross when they can.

Alright so overall just have fun and be respectful of everyone in the round and at the tournament aggression can be good but being mean or disrespectful is not and it will go against you in terms of speaker points and overall decision if you are either of those things. So that’s it if you have any questions about the round or my comments or paradigm feel free to email me at carterlobato@gmail.com

Salutations, I am Zeque (pronounced: Zeek) Murillo. I am so stoked for the exposure to the topics you are all bringing to the table and using this platform to bring attention to the passion of the future.

-----------------

BACKGROUND:

Competitive Experience: I competed on the high school level from 2010-2014. My main events of the competition level were Duo Interpretation, Dramatic Interpretation, Humorous Interpretation, Original Oration, Impromptu Speaking. I definitely understand what it's like to Double/Triple/Quadruple/Penta/Hexa - Enter, so I'm always understanding of individuals who do multiple events.

Judging/Coaching: I've been part of the judging circuit from local, state, and national level since the fall of 2014 season - Current. I've judged all speech categories and even up to a few quarter final rounds at varying national years. I was an Alumni volunteer assisting with the NSDA program for 2-3 years. I then started Assistant coaching specifically for speech from 2017- Current. My main expertise is in the Interpretation events, but I am also well versed in assisting with the Public Address Events.

JUDGING:

Interpretation:

Content: An introduction in the piece that states the title and author is weighed heavily into account. I also really enjoy the details in the piece and if it's from a play/book/media content that is typically longer than 10 minutes, how is it cut? I enjoy material that has a nice flow and reflects the message that you are trying to get across whether that is humorous or serious in nature. Your piece should still make sense and leave an impact.

Blocking: I do love seeing the choices that students make to elevate the piece and create an environment. I notice the details in pantomime and the consistency of items that you have created out of thin air. For example, if you are holding a cup and then all of a sudden it disappears because you never put it down, I'ma notice :) Blocking is such a beautiful technique to help transport me to the environment of the scene. I think it's super cool when you can play with the dimensions of your speech.

Characterization: I take into account the emotion that you flesh out in your characters and utilizing voice, attitude, posture, and mannerisms to create an easily recognizable character. If you have multiple characters in a piece, I also will evaluate the technique in how you are transitioning from character to character. Lastly, I also consider facial expression and emotional invocation that allows us to better understand the character.

Public Address Events:

Content: Originality of the topic or stance on topic is an item I will take into consideration pretty heavily. I also am dissecting how you structure your speech and how the information is flowing into each other to develop one systematic idea. If you are providing sources, are you citing the original source, & dates.

Delivery: How are you using your movement, tonality, & gestures to engage with the audience? I look for effective speaking tools through using your natural instruments as a speaking tool to elevate the information and bring us in. I also listen to the words you are emphasizing to show how you are highlighting the information and playing with pace.

Impact: I need to know your take/stance on the presentation. Why do you feel passionate about this topic or how do you truly believe this will be resolved. Why should we be listening to this speech and what will be the major take aways?

Lincoln Douglas:

As I flow your round, I’ll be looking to see how your value and criterion work in tandem to prove the moral rationale that LD rests; furthermore, I don’t like when crossfires engage in obnoxious back-and-forths with questions that don’t add any substantive value to the round. Lastly, it's imperative that you underscore the credibility of your cards, especially when making claims including stats, data, points, and political and historical claims that attack your opponent’s arguments.

Public Forum:

I enjoy PF and like to flow the rounds I judge to provide you with the best feedback I can. I love to see link chains and impacts that are substantial to the case; rather than just reading the cards, I’d appreciate you explaining and further reinforcing your points, data, and stats, to let me know that you know your case all around. If you speak too fast, I’ll try to keep up as I flow but once you’ve lost me, I’ll stop flowing. I am not a fan of voters that are reliant on ethos; I prefer you use logic in voters that explain to me what you’ve argued in round. Don’t forget that I’m also flowing the round so if your claim is that they’ve dropped certain points, I’ll refer to my flow to assess that claim.

Hey yall! I'm super excited to be able to judge and I hope you are super excited to compete!

I debated all through middle and high school. My main event was Policy, I did that for 7 years, but I also competed at least once in HI, POI, OO, Informative, Impromtu, Congress and Newscasting. My passion is Policy, but I am very familiar with speech.

All Speech events:

Clarity and an engaging tone are MORE important than content. Say whatever you want (without being offensive or rude), I don't care as long as your speaking skills allow you to get your point across. I will not judge you whether or not I agree with you, I only judge on how well you get your point across.

Hello!

As someone with extensive experience in extemporaneous speaking, I will primarily judge speech events. Here are some things I look out for (in no particular order):

1. A solid roadmap/outline. Let me know what you are going to talk about. Signposting is important!
2. Body language. Project confidence and allow your movement to guide your audience.
3. A solid stance. I understand that it is easy to fence sit, but give me a thesis that is nuanced or well-grounded.
4. Personality. Let me get to know you a bit through your performance. Show passion for your event and topic!
5. Diversity of outlooks. It can be easy to get wrapped up in statistics and sources, which is why I believe it is important to show the human side of things in a speech. How does your topic impact everyday people?

Best of luck, and remember to have fun!

I respect civility between competitors. Debate hard, but be courteous.

Watch your speaking pace. Saying points really really fast does not automatically make them count if they are impossible to hear and note.

I like clash much more than arguing debate technicalities.

Speak loudly and clearly, and understand the basics of your event. That's all!

Hi!

My name is Haylee and I graduated from Woods Cross High School and thus high school debate in 2022! I did LD debate all of my 3 years at Woods Cross and I’m absolutely delighted to see more people interested in it and helping foster other’s love for debate and hopefully see someone develop the same passion for change and debate that LD awoke in me!

With my history out of the way, here’s some things that I value as a judge:

-Refer to your opponent as such, ‘my opponent’, maybe this is something that just I was taught but using gendered or specific pronouns or even calling your opponent by name comes across as a personal attack. Not an attack on the case, but rather you trying to take a dig at your opponent directly. I do know not all opponents are kind, and their arguments can reflect that but still we want to remain civil.

-Passionate debate and speaking is encouraged! Get into it, enjoy yourself and have fun! However, passionate debate isn’t the same as hostile debate. There’s a clear difference between hostility and just being passionate. I don’t want this to be a volatile environment nor do I want anyone to feel unsafe anytime during a round.

-Talk as confidently as you can! You tend to talk clearly and in a comprehensible manor the more confident you are in a debate. I know this can be extremely difficult with time and other factors. As someone with a lisp and who wrote a lot and thus spread, I completely understand the need to talk fast. So, I will not use anyones speech impediment against them in my judging, I just ask you project your voice and be confident and clear in what you say. It makes it not only easier for your judge to understand you but also your opponent, and as someone who is also hard of hearing it is greatly appreciated.

-Water is not only allowed in rounds I’m judging but encouraged. Please take care of yourselves, I am begging.

If you wanna contact me about the round, email me. Livsick04@gmail.com Also, add me to any email chains in the round.

I debated all four years of high school and did just about every event there was. I mainly did policy and duo. I know what a round should look like, and I know how to judge them.

I was the type of debater to hate the teams who wasted a good round arguing theory. You can run theory, just don't make that the only thing you are arguing, and make sure you know what the entire theory argument is before you decide to run it. (violation, voters, interpretation, etc.) Don't run a ton of theory arguments unless the other team is really doing something wrong cause that's just a time skew, and I think it's dumb to waste time on that rather than your other arguments.

Topicality- Make sure you explain exactly why the other team is untopical. Have a full T shell don't just make something up. Don't run a T if you can't prove the aff is actually untopical.

Kritics- IF YOU RUN A K, PLEASE UNDERSTAND IT WELL. I hate judging rounds where the team running the k is just running it for fun. Make sure to know the alt., the world post alt, why this matters, and the origin behind it. I have run k's in the past, and I have a pretty good understanding of what should be in them, so make sure it's all there.

CP's- You can run as many CP's as you want. Just make sure they don't contradict. Understand the cp plantext.

DA's- Run whatever you want just make sure they actually link to the case. Also, make sure all the parts are there.

Basically, run whatever you want; just understand what you are running. I vote a lot off of the voters of the round if you don't tell me what to vote for, I get to choose, and some of you might not like what I decide, but if you give me no other option, that's what will happen. I will also only vote off of another team's argument they dropped if you tell me to in your rebuttals. Make sure you extend your evidence, or I won't flow it. If you state specific cards and what exactly in the card is good or why it goes against a point probs to you, it'll make you look better. I don't flow cross, so if there is anything you want flowed bring it up in your next speech.

Speaker points- Speak clearly. I'm really good with speed, so you can speak as fast or as slow as you want. Make sure you say and or another word in between your cards, especially if I don't have your cards, so I can make sure I flow everything.

Prep- flashing isn't prep but don't take forever to flash or email something. I'll time your prep just to make sure you don't use way more than you were given, but I will usually go off of what you timed.

I will time your speeches and give you a 30-second time buffer. After that, if you keep speaking, I won't flow it.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me in round or email me.

Hi! My name is Walker and I am currently a Sophomore at the University of Utah studying Finance and Pre-Medical studies. I did Policy Debate for all 4 years of my high school debate career and some research for the Emory University's Barkley Forum Debate Team while I was a freshman there.

As a judge, these are my main priorities:

1. Create an educational space for debate
2. Make you better debaters
3. Deliver a decision

I'm fine with nearly all arguments, weird or not. Ultimately, I am here to help, so please ask me if you have questions about debate, life, or the meaning of it all. I'm happy to talk.

Don't take yourself too seriously, relax and have some fun. Debate is stressful enough as is, and burnout is real, so give yourself a little slack.

Good luck!

I am a parent volunteer. The rounds I have judged have all been speech; this is my first time judging debate. Please keep that in mind as you present. Please keep your delivery clear, do not spread. I would like to hear a clear analysis of why you should win during the rebuttals, and I will value a polite and educational debate.

I'm a lay judge

Policy: I'd prefer you don't spread, but if you do, add me to the email chain ehbzhu123@gmail.com

Try and make everything understandable for lay debate (traditional debate)

PF/LD: Clear concise and talk well. Good arguments