LD

TLDR: First time parent judge — speak clearly (no spreading, please) and don’t run progressive arguments unless you think you can adequately explain them to someone who has never judged debate before. I want clear warrants and refutations. Assume I know nothing about the current topic, and err on the side of over-explanation, particularly when weighing, making case turns, and engaging in framework debate. Don’t forget to provide a roadmap/signpost.

The number one thing is that I would like you to write my ballot for me. This means clear weighing (both framework and contention levels), well articulated arguments, clean extensions, and clear refutations. If I am confused/unable to follow your train of thought, I am also unable to vote for you. For competing frameworks, please do not forget to weigh and explicitly connect your contentions to the framework debate. I want to see engagement with your opponent’s arguments and decisively prove why your side should win.

If your opponent drops an important argument, please highlight it for me AND explain why it matters.

Extra things:

• Keep your own time in round

• Please remain professional and courteous in round. Remember that everything you do in round is eligible to be judged, and that includes your etiquette. I reserve the right to base my final decision on any discriminatory/unsafe conduct that occurs (I will also lower speaker points).

• Please limit your use of debate jargon; I’m familiar with some terms but would greatly prefer that you avoid it. In other words, use at your own risk.

PF

TLDR: All of the above apply; due to the shorter speech times as compared to LD, clear weighing/extensions and signposting are even more important. I will also have a much lower likelihood of understanding progressive arguments.

I want to see clear impacts to your case and consider ease of understanding a key component of PF. Please make sure that I can understand what you are arguing and exactly where you are ahead of your opponent. Final focus should narrow the debate down to key voters.

If running a framework, I’ll be looking for you to prove that you uphold it better than your opponent.

Speech

I am looking for eye contact and a polished, compelling presentation. This means that informative events (extemp, info) should provide new knowledge. Make sure that you also have a firm grasp of the topic you’re presenting on. OO should have clear societal implications and persuade the audience (me) to care about your topic. All acting events should have a clear story with blocking/acting that makes your narrative easy to follow and enjoy.

Please remain respectful and courteous of the judge and your fellow competitors. Remember that everything you do in round is eligible to be judged, and that includes your etiquette.

I'm very much a traditionalist but reward originality and creativity.

Interp - I belive in maintaining the authors intent. Of all the events, interp has changed the most over the years and in my opinion in a good way. Today's interpers are unique, creative, and original. I have one steadfast rule in interp; I want to be drawn into the world the interper is giving me. If they can grab me from the beginning and keep in in that world throughout their performance then they have succeeded. Anything that distracts or pulls me out of their world minimizes thier overall performance (crying, etc.).

Limited Prep: I judge on a 50/50 ratio. The first 50 is organization, content, and delivery. Firm believer in the "walk-n-talk" philosophy that you walk only on transitions. The other 50 is content. If you make a statement, be able to support it. Make sure the question / topic is answered correctly.

Prep: Much like the limited prep but I reward originality on topics and their development.

I've been around for some time now and have seen how many things have changed. If I were to sum up my overall philopshy, I'm very much a traditionalist but reward originality and creativity. I competed in policy debate in hight school and Individual Events/CEDA in college. I am also a rules generated judge. If I feel you are on the wire or have leaped over it, I make mention of it.

On the IE side:

Interp - I belive in maintaining the authors intent. Of all the events, interp has changed the most over the years and in my opion in a good way. Today's interpers are unique, creative, and original. I have one steadfast rule in interp; I want to be drawn into the world the interper is giving me. If they can grab me from the beginning and keep in in that world throughout ther performance then they have succeeded. Anything that distracts or pulls me out of their world minimizes thier overall performance (crying, etc.).

Limited Prep: I judge on a 50/50 ratio. The first 50 is organization, content, and delivery. Firm beliver in the "walk-n-talk" philopshy that you walk only on transitions. The other 50 is content. If you make a statement, be able to support it. Make sure the question / topic is answered correctly.

Prep: Much like the limited prep but I reward originality on topics and their develoment.

On the Debate side:

Again, very much a traditionalist and don't particualy care for some "anitics" I have seen over the years. The affirmative must maintain burden of proof, counterplans are non-topical. negative wins one stock, they win the round. Rapid fire is okay as long as I can flow. If I can't flow it, I can't judge it. Depending upon the type of debate is how I judge it. Polcy debate must be fully supported with evidence. Public Forum is more on the philosphical (What the student knows and how they are able to communicate it), with LD being a combination of both support and philospical. Additionally, over the years some new "terms" have been develped. Basically, I don't care what you call it, all I want you to do is support it. If called for, I will give orals at the end but will not disclose my decision. The reason, I am not opening the the opportunity for the loosing team to debate me, that has happened a couple of times, I don't like the atmosphere when that happens so I have made it a rule never to disclose. I am also a firm believer in speakers roles and duties (don't accept open cross-x, etc.) . Each speaker has been give a role with duties and they are accountable for them.

I have a more detailed paradigm and once I locate it, I will attach.

I’m a former CX and Parliamentary debater and former assistant coach for the speech and debate team at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, Texas with 13 years of experience as a competitor, judge, and coach.

Talk pretty. Don't suck.

I'm a strict content judge; I don't care about the fancy metadebate (K's, Faux-topicality arguments, etc). Debate the topic and do it well.

Nice, clean, intelligent debate is why we do this, so that's what I'm looking for. There is a distinct difference between talking fast and Spreading. Speaking fast may be a necessity but spreading will never be. This is still a communication event, and the communication behind good debate is just as important as the content you are debating. There is just no need for it.

If you say it, it goes on the flow and if you don't say it, it doesn't go on the flow. I'm not going to make connections that you don't make for me.

Nine times out of ten I will vote on impacts (including impact calc but also feasibility). I will never vote on impacts with poor links or that are not feasible. For example, if you’re going to run nuclear war as an impact, you better do a good job convincing me that it’s feasible. Impacts should have three things; please don’t forget the brink.

Lastly, the reason that we do this activity is because these issues and topics matter. Make sure that you tell me how real people are affected by your plan/the topic. Don’t be afraid to craft a narrative; that is only going to increase your speaks, and, in some cases, will win you the round.

First Time Judging

No spreading

CD Rubric:

Speech:(0-1)

Sources?(0-0.3)

Dictation?(0-0.7)

Synthesis of previous arguments:(0-1)

Questioning:(0-1)

Base: 3

Total added:

Final points:

Points will be subtracted for rude speech

School Affiliation: Coach at The Episcopal School of Dallas

Coaching & Judging Experience: I have been coaching teams and judging tournaments since 2006. This includes LD, PF, Congress, CX and IEs at different schools in Virginia and Texas. I have had debaters qualify for NCFL and NSDA on multiple occasions which are both considered traditional tournaments.

Speed: Although I am personally not a fan of it, please make sure your spreading is clear and coherent. If I can't understand you, I probably will not flow it. If you see me stop flowing for an extended period of time then it would be in your best interest to slow down. I also heavily prefer if you go slow on your taglines, analytics and any theory arguments, especially during your rebuttals.

Types of Arguments: Although I prefer framework heavy debates, a lot of clash in the round, and good crystallization and overviews in your final rebuttal, I will still vote on topicality, counterplans, some theory arguments at times and kritiks if they are explained well by the debater. I am not a fan of non-topical Affs as I tend to favor whole resolution ACs. Make sure when you run T, that you are linking your violation to your standards/voting issues and that when you run a CP, you explain your net benefits and how it's competitive.

Theory Argument: If you run any disclosure theory or new affs bad arguments, make sure you thoroughly break down the reasons to prefer. Although I have never really been a fan of these types of arguments, I am willing to consider them if you can show the impacts of the abuse committed by your opponent and how this outweighs. Please make sure that whatever theory shells you plan on running are presented at a slower rate of speed.

Kritiks: Run at your own risk because I'm not really a fan of complicated philosophical arguments that have nothing to do with the actual resolution that should be debated upon. I'm not saying you can't win if you run them, but I might look at you funny and simply not flow the argument depending on the complexity of the K.

Speaks: Clarity over speed is prefered. If your spreading is incomprehensible, this will reflect on your speaker points. Any acts of rudeness or displays of an unprofessional demeanor towards your opponent will also be taken into account. If you go against an inexperienced debater or a traditional style opponent, it would be in your best interest to accommodate their format and invest some time clashing with or turning their value, criterion and contentions. Also, please do not ask me if I disclose speaker points. It's not going to happen. In addition, please do not use profanity at all during the round. It will impact your speaks and could also impact my decision so don't do it. Lastly, please refrain from attacking the character of any political figures or political parties as a whole. It's okay to discuss policies of the USFG but please avoid bashing politicians or parties that you may dislike as I consider that type of tactic in a debate to be very unprofessional and offensive. Debaters have lost my ballot over this in the past.

Tricks: Please don't.

Overview: Debate the resolution, clash with your opponent's arguments, provide framework, slow down during tags and analytics, throw in some voters at the end.

Email Chain: If and only if both debaters are sharing files, please include my email as well: kesslert@esdallas.org

Hi, I am a parent judge. I’m looking forward to a great debate from both sides, and I would prefer a clear and concise debate with well thought out explanations.  

Hi y'all! I'm Ellen, but you can call me Ellie. My pronouns are she/her. I’m a social sciences student at UT Austin. As a high school student, I competed in every IE available at the time, but my primary focuses were Oratory, HI/DI, Duet, and Prose in TFA tournaments. I also have experience competing in UIL, NSDA, NIETOC formats, among others. Since then, I’ve had some experience volunteer-coaching (mostly with the speaking events) and plenty more as a hired judge. I’m not affiliated with any high school. Here's the gist of what I want to see for various events, followed by a much longer version with more specifics.

My email is elliemarshall@utexas.edu

THE SHORT VERSION FOR DEBATE

I primarily judge speaking events, but I am familiar with many of the arguments popular in these events. Do not be afraid to cite them. I typically place the burden on the Aff to prove their world is superior to the Neg's status quo. I really, really, really dislike nukes as an argument. Avoid getting stuck rehashing the same points over and over. Move on to defending/attacking a new point if you find yourself repeating your arguments. Weighing is a very important part of your case: put a lot of care into it. I appreciate a heads-up if you plan on spreading, but I won't mark down for it. Avoid personal insults or being rude.

THE SHORT VERSION FOR SPEECHES (OO, INFO, EXTEMP)

Have a clean and engaging delivery. Do not spread. Organize your points in your introduction clearly. Specificity > breadth in your topic. For Extemp, have a clear, researched answer to your question. For OO, have a persausive core. For Info, aim to educate; avoid persuading as much as possible. While a personal connection to an OO/Info is desirable, do not overshare in a way that will cause yourself emotional harm.

THE SHORT VERSION FOR IEs

Inspire emotion and tell a complete, contained story. Don’t be excessively crude or graphic. Creativity, inventiveness, technical skill, and personal connections to the plot/theme are all big pluses.

DEBATE:

I am primarily an IEs/Speaking events judge. However, I at this pointhave a good amount of experience judging PF at this point, and a much more limited one with LD and CD. While I don't like spreading, for better or worse it's part of debate at this point, so I won't mark against it unless I literally cannot understand you at all, and you then refuse to slow down when asked. I do appreciate a heads-up that you'll be spreading, though. You can basically treat me as between a lay judge and a debate focused judge. I lack some of the debate-specific terminology when it comes time to give you feedback, but I am familiar with the actual mechanics they describe and the common arguments in most debate events, so do not feel you have to simplify too much for me.While it depends on the topic and framing, in basically all forms of debate I generally believe the Aff carries the burden of proving its world is meaningfully different from the Neg's. If you fail to prove this, I will almost certainly be siding with the Neg.

When it comes to PF, you have very, very little time to talk in this event. I find it is very common for PFers to get stuck in the muck, just reading cards to me for half the round.If the entire second half of the debate is rehashing the same one or two arguments, you're essentially wasting half the round. Don't concede points unnecessarily, but if you find that the debate is degrading into a stalemate over the same topic, just move to a new point. You either have already successfully defended the point and are wasting time you could spend strengthening potential weaknesses, forcing your opponents to defend multiple points, or otherwise securing your lead, or you have lost the point and are wasting time you could spend mounting a comeback elsewhere. Please be organized and familiar with your case. If you don't understand your own sources or cards, you have almost certainly already lost. I am happy to give my decision immediately at the end of the round, but I will always ask first if both teams want to hear it. I don't care whether you stand or sit to speak. Weighing matters a lot to me. Sure, I can compare your arguments and do so, but I want to hear from you why it matter. It's your case, champion it and don't make me argue for it.

I basically never judge CD, but if I do, I basically treat it as a bunch of micro-Extemps/OOs with a PF crossfire tacked on. I also will happily rank the P/O highly if I feel they deserve it. You should treat me as a lay judge in this and any other form of debate that's not PF.

In all forms of debate, I really, really, really, really dislike nukes as an argument. It's entirely unrealistic most of the time and is basically entirely negated by MAD. Pandemic, food shortage, climate change, etc. almost always accomplishes the same thing while being a more realistic outcome, please just do that instead.I won't inherently rule against nuke cases, but you'll have an uphill battle ahead of you if it's the crux of your argument. Obviously, if the topic itself is about nuclear in some way, you can disregard this section of my paradigm.

It should go without saying, I do not need to personally agree with your case in order to judge it on its technical merit or give it the win. Your goal as a debater should be to first craft the best argument possible, and second to tear down your opponent's argument. Avoid personal attacks, unsportsmanlike behavior, and unnecessary hostility towards your opponent. I will mark down on that heavily and include it on your ballots for your coach to read.

SPEAKING EVENTS (EXTEMP, OO, INFO)

I emphasize delivery, organization, and a strong, in-depth argument. Bring plenty of energy and speak confidently and clearly. Signpost the structure of yourspeech clearly in your intro. I find an argument that is in-depth on one area is generally preferable to a shallow overview of a larger topic. For all these events: do not spread.

I come in as a blank slate when I judge: I do not need to agree with your topic or point, as long as you make a strong argument. Your speech should always be able to be followed by someone hearing about your topic for the first time. Regardless of whether I have background knowledge on a topic, if you do not define concepts adequately enough for a lay person, it will likely impact your ranking. How much it impacts your ranking depends on how crucial the missing information is to your argument.

In Extemp I tend to play the role of a skeptic. Your goal should be to answer your question clearly, state your argument, then remove any plausible doubt from my mind by citing relevant sources. Extemp should include plenty of cited sources, but avoid merely summarizing a list of articles. Explain briefly what the source says, then spend the bulk of your time analyzing it and explaining its relevancy. I believe in quality over quantity. For some topics, three citations will be sufficient, for others you may need far more. Sources that are only anecdotes are bad choices outside of an attention-getting device in your intro or an appeal to ethos. Hard statistics are basically a requirement. Please use reputable sources. If I notice you lying, you'll get last in the room. You don’t have much time, so have purpose in everything you say. Enunciate clearly and do not spread. Vary your delivery speed, pitch and tone. Be funny when relevant, let dramatic moments hang, but be careful to keep an appropriate tone. Make eye contact to the best of your ability, and move with purpose. I’m more forgiving of stumbles or rushing than I would be in OO or Info, but it’s still a speaking event; delivery matters. Being a good speaker here is just as important as having a well-researched argument. According to TFA rules, you are allowed a notecard in prelims, but if you refer to any notes outside of those I will automatically rank you last.

For OOs, please make your solution realistic. This is my single largest pet peeve. If your topic is on a massive societal or international issue, acknowledge that, and offer day-to-day changes the audience can make instead. Petitions are another fairly common solution that, while I do find stronger than a vague appeal to contact your elected official, I still think tends to be rather weak. This isn't extemp, and you're not speaking to politicians. Policy changes are not always a feasible answer. Tailor your solution to the average, everyday person if at all possible. If your oratory is otherwise excellent, a solution like this won't sink you, but it has decided who gets the 1 and who gets the 2 from me before. I have watched so many oratory rounds in my life, so I really appreciate unique topics. It will never be the sole deciding factor--a poorly performed, researched, argued unique topic willl always lose to a polished speech on a common topic--but it may be the deciding factor if I feel you are otherwise tied with another perfomer.

For Info, the single most common thing I write on ballots is "this feels like an OO". Your goal should be to weave the facts and history of your topic into an interesting story that teaches me something, not persuade me. No, I don't expect a perfectly neutral perspective; we all have our biases. However, there is a difference between that and trying to sneak a call to action in. Oratory is an awesome event, but Info should not just be viewed as "OO With Props". Take advantage of the unique format of the event to tell me about something you care about! Creative uses of your visual aids are appreciated but by no means a necessity to get the 1. Be energetic and excited to share your topic!

For both Info and OO, PLEASE come memorized. It's always clear who has written a speech, and who is trying to improv off bullet points. This is something you’re performing for a whole season. It’ll be easier for you just to write a speech than re-invent the wheel every time you perform. At the same time, this is not an Interp event. Focus on the facts; including jokes or drama is great, but if it's too much of your focus I feel like I'm just watching a weirdly educational HI/DI. I am thinking especially of singing, which has become a popular attention-getting device recently. This is fine, but if you're still singing 45+ seconds in it better be because you're delivering your signposting through song.

Lastly, I prefer to see topics students in some way have a personal stake in. You’re picking these topics, and I’d like to know why it matters to you. That doesn't mean you need to include a deep-seated trauma, and I would rather you not share more than you are comfortable with. I just want to know what led you to this topic, do not share more than you are comfortable with just to try to win.

IEs:

Paradigms for IEs are a bit awkward. These events are far more subjective and your piece cannot nearly be as easily tailored to a specific judge. So let me be clear: If you are reading this before you go to my round, I don't want you to re-cut your entire piece just for me. Just give me the best performance you've got and ignore the rest of this for now. I wrote this so that instead of rehashing my specific ideology on ranking IEs on every single ballot, I can instead focus my effort on writing you the most in-depth, personalized feedback I can. Now, if you are wondering why I ranked your room the way I did after getting your ballot back, please continue.

Regardless of event, I always want to see three things: anemotional core to your piece, a complete, standalone story, and polish and creativity. The emotional core of an HI should be different than a DI, the way a Poetry performance tells a story is different than a Duo, and the blocking and characterizations used in each event varies greatly, but all of them should make me feel something. Happy, sad, angry, bittersweet, whatever.

The cutting of your piece is such a unique aspect of these events. Most of you probably cut your own pieces, and it's an awesome opportunity to get to be creative! Take advantage of it! You should revisit your cutting throughout the season. Once you have experience actually running a piece, maybe some of the emotional beats change and something originally left out would now be perfect. The most important thing for your cutting is that your story should also stand on its own. This is most directed at adaptations of popular movies and books. An audience member who has never engaged with the original should still fully understand what's going on. Even if I have seen the thing you're adapting, if I feel the cutting would be impossible to follow for someone who hadn't, I will rank you down significgantly.

I’m pretty flexible with cuttings that stray from an author’s original intention. Go for it, make it your own. You are artists, and as artists you should feel free to portrary controversial or difficult subject matter. However, I take issue with excessively dark, mean, or risqué material. Don’t punch down, don’t be unnecessarily graphic or crude, and don’t go for the ‘shock factor’. Spectacle for the sake of spectacle is uninteresting. Difficult themes are to be expected in dramatic pieces, but cover them tastefully and respectfully. You never know what your audience may have experienced in their own lives. IEs are an art. Put your heart into it, make whatever you’re performing your own. A personal connection to the subject matter is a potential plus, and if you have one, I’d love to hear it in your intro. But do not feel a need to share beyond what you're comfortable with. You also do not need to divulge your greatest traumas in your piece; please take care of yourself and know your limits.

As long as your performance made me feel something and has a clear beginning, middle, and end, you’re golden. Once you have that foundation, I’m most concerned with how clean and creative your piece is.Keep your character voices and physicality distinct and consistent. Enunciate and carry yourself with confidence. Be memorized. Block with purpose. A piece with no blocking is dull, but a piece that never stops moving is exhausting.Please make use of silence and pauses!!! It’s such an underrated element of a piece. Giving your audience (and yourself!) time to think and breathe in appropriate spots is maybe the single biggest improvement you can make to your performance. Inventive and creative blocking, cutting, or acting is also something I like to see, but don't let it distract from the core of your piece or otherwise muddle what else I've written in this paragraph.

For TFA State:

Interp: I am a pretty open minded judge when it comes to judging interp overall but there are a few things I look for in performances. Creativity and honesty will always be the most rewarded in my book because it is why we do what we do at the end of the day. Showcasing your own interpretation, but staying true to the core of the story is important to me. Character development and emotional shifts are super important especially over a digital platform to keeping us engaged with the story and showing us the meaning behind the words. Have fun with the choices you make as long as they are PURPOSEFUL, doing something that distracts rather than enhances makes us lose connection between what is happening in the story.

Speaking/Extemp: Big thing is show your own unique style and approach to speaking because this is what separates you from other. I am a big fan of humor, but PLEASE, I BEG do not make it feel forced or this is just awkward for both of us. In terms of depth of the speech, I like more than just surface level arguments and I want to see you get to the higher end issues and core problems effectively. Structure is important obviously to make sure we can connect all of the ideas and know how you are getting to what you are wanting to. Finally, have variation in your delivery, it is important to showcase the different levels and power of your arguments and statements and so we should feel very engaged with how you are saying and what you are saying.

Worlds School Debate:

School affiliation/s : Northwest High School

Hired (yes/no) : Hired for WSD

High School Affiliation if graduated within last five years (required): Northwest High School

Currently enrolled in college? (required) If yes, affiliation? No

Years Judging/Coaching (required) I have been judging for 5- 6 years.

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event (required)

I pretty much started off my first year judging in interp and PF and then slowly incorporated all other forms of debate the following year.

Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year (required): Since August I have judged about 40 world school rounds around Texas.

Check all that apply

__x___I judge WS regularly on the local level

_____I judge WS at national level tournaments

_____I occasionally judge WS Debate

_____I have not judged WS Debate this year but have before

_____I have never judged WS Debate

Rounds judged in other events this year : 75 rounds including PF, LD, Interp, Speaking, and Congress.

Check all that apply

__x__ Congress

_x___ PF

__x__ LD

____ Policy

_x___ Extemp/OO/Info

__x__ DI/HI/Duo/POI

____ I have not judged this year

____ I have not judged before

Have you chaired a WS round before?

I have chaired multiple WS rounds before locally.

What does chairing a round involve?

Chairing a round basically is keeping the round in order and ensuring a productive and efficient debate. The chair is in charge of calling up the speakers, leading the RFD for the panel, making sure people do not ask questions during protected time (which I discuss students should keep their own timer at the beginning so we do not have this issue), and making sure a fair debate is occurring.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else?

I would describe WSD as a form of debate in which you are arguing ideas and issues to show which side of the motion is the most logical. This is way different than Americanized debate where theory and jargon is utilized more, so it is focusing on the core issues of the debate. Worlds is suppose to make sense to anyone who is listening to the debate and therefore the arguments should make rationale sense to anybody.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate?

I am fortunate enough to have a full setup for my computer. I have two monitors and on the main monitor I watch the debate, and the second monitor has my tabroom ballot where I am writing notes over each speech and speaker. I also in front of me use a notebook to flow the debate to make sure I keep up with what is being said in the round.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

This just simply depends on the topic itself. I am pretty open minded when it comes to arguments and do not have a personal preference as long as it is discussed why you chose what to advocate for. This clarity is needed to really emphasize why that approached is needed and it's on the debaters to tell me why it is preferable.

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy?

I think strategy usually is overlooked in terms of how you want structure arguments. A speaker's strategy is how do you connect the claims you present and how you word things in order to be effective in elaborating on arguments presented by the other side. Picking the right way to argue things and how you say it are definitely things to be aware of for your strategy.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast?

First, I am glad to have not judged a WSD where someone was spreading, so let's keep it that way hopefully. If someone is just not effective with their speed and tone I usually deduct points from their style.

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

As silly as it may sound, I usually vote on simply what makes sense. Since we do not have to have the 20 minutes of calling for cards (thankfully), I simply view whos reasoning and rationale makes the most sense towards the topic and arguments presented in the round. Show me your thought process through your speech and it usually comes down to who can prove their claims in a clear manner, rather than the throw everything at the wall and see what sticks strategy.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

I look at how effective and clear some model is to make sure it sets the foundation for your ideas. Make sure you think through your model to answer any potential questions individuals may have about it. I do not think all motions need a model or countermodel, so just make sure if you use one there is a purpose to it.

--Speech--

What are your stylistic preferences for extemp? I enjoy the traditional format of extemp speeches, but prefer them to be as conversational as possible. if you're going to have a standard opener that you use religiously, be sure it makes sense. also be sure it isn't the exact same as every other person on your team. Use what YOU know and lean into that so that conversation flows naturally.

How much evidence do you prefer? quality over quantity for me. cite your sources with the date included, and use varied sources. at least 3 different ones! and make sure if you're bluffing that i can't tell you're bluffing.

Any preference for virtual delivery? acknowledge the camera if we're competing virtually! make sure you are in a space where you can be seen and heard.

What are your stylistic preferences for Oratory/Info? CONVERSATIONAL. Do not make it seem like this is the umteenth time you've competed with this piece. The beauty of oratory/info is that this is, or should be, your passion piece! YOU wrote every word. and if you're going to speak on something for 10 minutes over and over again, you should love it. And no matter how many times you've run it, it should feel like the first time every time. Your topic is near and dear to you and it's your job to make it near and dear to us. Universality is key. Though I may not be a part of the community or group or conversation, I need to understand why i MUST become a part of it or aware of it. Your passion and excitement for your speech should be palpable. Make it feel like the first time every time because for most people in the room it is the very first time we've gotten to hear this speech. and you have ten minutes to use this room as your platform and speak on what's important to you. make sure we leave this room talking about YOU! Your goal should be for us to be at our family dinner table telling everyone who will listen about this moment we took away from your speech. your gestures need to make sense and be natural. do not simply fall into gestures that you see being done just for the sake of doing them. if you wouldn't normally use particular hand gestures or vocal variations DONT DO IT for the sake of a round.

How much evidence do you prefer? I need enough statistics to not feel like you're just giving me your own personal think tank. back up what you're saying with multiple different credible sources. offer viewpoints that challenge yours, and then back them up with your facts.

Any unique thoughts on teasers? Your teaser sets the tone for the entire piece. Think about how you want to introduce us to the next ten minutes that we are going to watch!

Any unique thoughts on introductions for Interpretation events? Make them personal to YOU! Tell me why this piece matters to you while also telling me about the piece. What qualifies you to speak on this? Why should we listen and care? If you don't know who/what you're speaking on don't waste your time. oftentimes we are lifting up and bringing awareness to a community or an issue that is very delicate. use your intro to tell us why you're doing this and why it matters. Even in HI!!! i LOOOOVE a good tie in to real life. leave us talking about what we learned regardless of whether we are laughing, crying, or everything in between. take me on a JOURNEY.

Any preferences with respect to blocking, movement, etc: Make every movement a moment. I should be able to snap a photo of you and tell what you're doing and where you are. make movements and pantomimes intentional and thoughtful. break the mold! take me somewhere I've never been.

What are your thoughts on character work? you absolutely must BECOME your character. you need to study people who have experienced what your character has experienced. embody them wholly. whether it's in a humorous or serious way. do not halfway commit to something and expect us to buy in.

How do you feel about author's intent and appropriateness of a piece? For example: an HI of Miracle Worker (author's intent) or a student performing mature material or using curse words (appropriateness)? Author’s intent- doesn’t bother me too much. Appropriateness is BIG for me. You’re in HIGH SCHOOL- crude sexual humor and excessive cusswords just aren’t necessary. It’s also cheap comedy IMO. If you’re that “mature” aim higher for your content. A few innuendos are okay, but don't get crazy. There are far more ways to get laughs then to take it literally below the belt.

I am a new parent judge. No spreading. Do not be rude.

Please stay focused on your topic and the time allotted. Be clear in establishing your point of view. Speak slowly and clearly. Do not be too loud to express your performance. Also, I would like to see students choose a topic out of their original ethnicity/race/religion, etc., and perform about something that they are not well aware of but will have to research and learn to perform.

I have a background in acting and usually coach/judge interp & public speaking. I am looking for those hallmarks that make a story complete. In extemp, even as a person who has no knowledge base of the topic should at the end of your speech have a firm grasp of its background and you argument in the matter. Informative speeches should be clear and should include creative visuals, interesting takeaways, and a concise train of thought. Oration should be a place to share experiences either personal or researched. The personal experience should be authentic and tied to the topic. Oratory should be a place to advocate for the things you believe to be important. Hi, Di, Duo, Duet, Poi, etc, should have a story that through the acting/blocking is easy to follow and enjoy. Contestants should always be courteous in the round and respectful of competitors and judges. Final interp ranks are factored between story, technical blocking, acting, and overall effect.

I'm a volunteer and I've read over some information about this topic and watched a demo video, but I'm new to judging.

I'm a full-time teacher and coach in the North Texas area. I have experience coaching, teaching or competing in every event. I've been involved in Speech and Debate, as either a competitor or a coach, for 14 years.

PF

Theory and Ks - I'll evaluate and probably be able to understand these, but it's honestly not my preference to judge this kind of PF round. On theory in particular - please try to only run this if you believe you're the target of intentional and flagrant unfair behavior. Otherwise, I'd rather you just talked about the topic.

Speaking quickly is okay but please do not spread. The teams that get the highest speaks from me tend to talk at conversational or slightly faster than conversational speed.

If you're goal is to qualify for and do well at the TOC, you probably wouldn't consider me a "tech judge" ; I'll flow the round line-by-line in the case, rebuttal and summary but also want to see a lot of summation / weighing / big picture breakdowns of the round in the summary and especially in the final focus. I like a nice, clean speech that's easy for me to flow - tell me where to write things. Signpost more than you would think you have to.

Some answers to questions I've been asked:

-I think that it is strategically smart for the second speaking team to defend their case in rebuttal, but I don't consider it a requirement. In other words, if all you do in your rebuttal is attack your opponent's case, I won't consider all of your opponent's responses to your case to be "dropped."

-If you want me to vote on an issue, it should be present in both the summary and the final focus. The issue should be explained clearly by both partners in a similar way in each speech.

-If you say something about the opposing case in rebuttal and your opponents never respond to it, you don't need to keep bringing it up (unless it's a turn that you really want to go for or something like that).

-Speaker points - My 30 is "I feel like I'm watching someone debate out rounds at a national circuit tournament" and my 25 is "I'm going to go ask to talk to your coach about what I just saw." The vast majority of my scores fall in the 29-27 range.

LD

The question I get asked most often at tournaments when judging LD is "are you okay with speed?" The answer is yes, but you'll probably find that I understand your case/arguments better if you slow down during any analytics (interpretation, plan text, standards, spikes, etc.) that you expect me to write down or remember. You'll also probably find that unless you don't spread much, I won't achieve 100% comprehension of your "top speed." And I'm big on this one - if your opponent doesn't understand spreading, don't spread.

Another question I get asked a lot is "are you okay with policy-style arguments?" Again, the answer is yes, but with some caveats. The farther your argument goes from traditional LD or traditional policy case structure, the harder it will be for me to grasp it and the less likely I am to vote on it.

I used to have a lot of really negative stuff about theory arguments in my paradigm. My position on that has softened a bit. There is a place for theory arguments in modern LD debate, but I still generally think theory should be in the minority of LD rounds, and the abuse should be substantial, deliberate, and clearly demonstrable if a theory argument is being made.

I do not disclose speaker points.

Congress

I generally include the PO in my ranking of a round, although not as highly as the best speakers in a round. Expect a rank in the 3-6 range unless you screw up often, are an exceptionally good PO, or are POing a round full of very bad speakers.

A few particulars:

-It's a good idea to break down the what exactly a piece of legislation says and does as the first negative and/or first affirmative speaker. Never assume that the judge has read or analyzed the item you're discussing!

-Refuting or extending the argument of at least one specific person by name is mandatory if you're the fifth speaker on an item or later.

-From the second you step foot into a Congressional Debate chamber, my expectation is that you are IN CHARACTER as a member of the United States House of Representatives or Senate. Breaking character (even during recess, or AGDs) and acting like a high schooler will disappoint me.

-I care about how good your best speech was more than how many speeches you gave.

-I am rarely impressed with three-plus main point Congress speeches. Unless you're in a round that has four minute speech times, this is a bad idea.

-I want to see a strong debate, not parliamentary games.

Extemp

The single most important thing to me is whether or not you answered the question. Your three main points should be three reasons why your answer is correct. Somewhere between 7-10 sources is ideal. You should present an extremely compelling reason in your intro if you are giving something other than a three main point speech; 95% of your speeches or so should be of the three main point variety. Your speech should be over at seven minutes. Grace time is for you to finish a sentence that got away from you, not deliver a conclusion. I often rank people down for talking longer than 7:10.

Oratory/Info

It's important to me that I be able to tell, based on your oratory, how exactly you are defining your topic and what exactly you are proposing we do about it. This may sound obvious, but one of my most common negative comments on oratory ballots tends to be something to the effect of, "be more clear about what your persuasive goal for this speech is." Speeches should have a personal story. They should have a literary reference. They need to include some research.

The most important thing to me about your informative speech is whether or not you are actually informing me about something. Again, this might sound obvious, but I feel like many Infos are either disguised persuasive speeches or speeches that are repeating very widely known information (and therefore, no actual "informing" is taking place). I tend to have a "less is more" attitude when it comes to Info visual aids - this isn't to say that I penalize students who have elaborate visual aids; just that if you only have a couple unsophisticated visuals you could do still quite well with me if you have a good speech.

For both of these events, I want a balance of "hard" evidence (research, data) and "soft" evidence (anecdotes, stories, literary examples).

Interpretation Events

My overarching philosophy with all interp is that as a performer, you are baking a cake. The three main ingredients of this cake are "characters," "emotion," and "story." Everything else - blocking, accents, how your intro is written, suitability of subject material, author's intent, humor - is icing on that cake. Not totally unimportant - just not the first thing I think about when I'm deciding whether or not I liked it.

On the "what's more important, author's intent or creatively," I don't have a strong opinion, other than that is important to know and follow the rules for your event in whatever league you're competing in.

I prefer in HI, POI, and Duo fewer characters to more characters; 3-5 is perfect, more than that and it is likely I will get confused about your plot unless your differentiation between characters is exceptionally good.

I'm not the judge you want if you have a piece that pushes the envelope in terms of language, subjects for humor, and depictions of sex or violence.

My attitude towards blocking is that it should be in service of developing a character or making a plot point. I find myself writing comments like "I don't know what you were doing while you said XXXX" and "you doing XXXX is distracting" way more than I write comments like "need to add more blocking."

Policy

I judge this event extremely rarely, so if you have me judging you here, treat me like an old-school, traditional debate coach. You'll do best debating stock issues, disads, topicality, and fairly straightforward counter plans. I probably haven't judged many (or any) rounds on your topic. As I said earlier with LD, spreading is fine but probably not your "top speed" if your goal this year is to qual for/break at the TOC.

Experience: I am a jewelry designer, a first time parent judge

My expectations as judge:

Speak clearly

A few well developed arguments prove more persuasive than a large quantity of agruments

I value the analysis

Hi, I'm Greg Zarbo,  This is my first time to have the honor to be a judge for a speech and debate tournament.  I've have vast experience presenting speeches public speeches.  I have been a member of Toastmasters and was an MC at conferences and presented at lunch and learns and corporate dinners,