LD: I'm a pretty traditional judge. I like philosophy and will vote on clash first (both framework and the flow), then I'll look to see that arguments were responded to, but I care a lot more about winning the most important arguments than the most arguments. I do not want to hear theory or spreading. I'm a history teacher and I value giving historical context to arguments to prove you understand what you're talking about.

Policy: I come from the LD/PF/Parli/Speech world, so I would say I’m going to be as Trad as possible. Because of that, I’m probably going to be a little biased against K AFFs, big reaches on topicality, and extinction impacts, but I’ll listen to anything with an open mind and I’ll pick whose policies are still standing at the end of the round. I care a lot about accurate historical context and valid economic theory, as I mention in my other paradigms. I will flow and I will listen.

PFD: Don't do policy. I don't really like statistical debates and I'll generally ignore any argument that you say will lead to the end of the human race, kill millions of people, or cost/create trillions of dollars. Just win the round by arguing the resolution and accept that there are two valid sides. I'm a history teacher, and I value giving historical context to arguments to prove you understand what you're talking about. I'm also an economics teacher, so if you're going to run any kind of economic argument, make sure you know what you're talking about.

PA Parli: I have personally authored most of the rules as well as the guide for this event and fully understand their intent. Make sure you follow them. Remember that logical arguments and cards bear equal weight and I won't listen to outlandish cards and impacts against solid logical argumentation. Please do not run a topicality or call a point of order unless you really know what you're doing.

I have been judging Speech and Debate for 4 years. I have judged almost every event. For congressional debate, I let the presiding officer and Parliamentarian do everything and just judge the speeches. I weigh speech and questioning section equally when considering your rankings. You need to be able to question, defend, or attack your's or other's points effectively.

I don't particularly mind jargon, such as um-ms or aah, but I prefer a slower speech compared to speeches that are padded by nothing. I keep a running note on what is said and who said it. I try to get the most important points down on the flow. I value argument over style, but will consider style if needed.

Hello! Glad to be your judge for the Round! I know that Speech paradigms are considered unnecessary because you can't change anything mid-tournament, but nevertheless, I think that this is useful to competitors, coaches, and myself. I consider myself to be a pretty laid-back judge, and I enjoy seeing everyone have fun and doing their best. I did Forensics in high school and judge in speech. I qualified to the state tournament twice and qualified for the CFL National tournament, so I've seen a lot of different performing styles, critiques, and surprises. That said, I also know I haven't seen it all, so I look forward to you wowing me as well! There are a few factors I judge by: how well did you live up to your piece, were you clear and concise, and could I feel your piece? That last one is pretty tricky, but don't worry, all you have to do is portray emotions and build connections with your audience. I also try to get feedback in ASAP and am a firm believer in the concept of giving clear and constructive feedback. I also have different criteria for each category, which goes as follows:

Dec.: If you're giving me a famous speech or some sort of TedTalk, I want you to whisk me away to where and when it happened. Remember to maintain a certain level of professionalism but also a bit of you in there as well. If, for example, you were to deliver Patton's speech, I want to feel like I'm there listening to Patton giving the speech, but have to stop for a moment and say "Wait a minute, this isn't Patton, this is a student!"

DI: With DI, the main thing I look for is where the drama matches the piece. If you have a piece on a hit and run accident, I don't want your level of drama to be as if you were suffering from cancer. Also, if you're going to have a trigger warning, make sure that the trigger warning actually implies a heavy piece. Don't say to me: "I would like to issue a trigger warning before I begin. This piece tackles heavy topics and involves swearing." Unless the piece explicitly talks about a heavy topic (suicide, abuse, murder, or anything particularly gory), I don't see a need for one.

Duo: The main thing I look for when judging Duo is how well in sync you and your partner are with each other. Is there any dead space between lines that shouldn't be there? I also check for interactions as well, as admittingly, you can't look at your partner the last time I checked (2021-2022 season). This means, don't give your partner a high-five during the piece, shake their hand, anything that would be two-people. In these cases, you just want to turn the other direction and do the gestures instead.

DP: Obviously, it's impossible to properly judge DI and HI in the same room. One group is on the verge of making me cry with tears of sadness and the other on the verge of making me cry with tears of laughter. Instead of judging by "Did I like your drama and did I like your comedy?" I judge by "How well did you measure up to the first letter?" D or H. I also judge by looking at what's happening in the piece. Is it the same thing over and over, or is everything changing and something is happening?

Extemp: When it comes to Extemp, I look for a lot of things. First thing's first: can the problem actually be solved? Don't waste time trying to sell me on something that doesn't work. Just tell me "No, this cannot be fixed." I'm also one of those judges who enjoys hearing a connection you make between an event and something personal to you. That said, if you tell me one week: "In my favorite episode of..." and then the next week you say the same thing, but they're different episodes, it will take something away from your argument. It also gets a little tiring of hearing about SpongeBob episodes, so also make sure to shake things up too. Another thing I look at are sources. Who did you use as a source? I'm a big believer in using neutral sources, and while I get it that sources such as FoxNews, CNN, The Wall Street Journal, and The New York Times are convenient and established, I will factor that into my judging. I also REALLY enjoy hearing the opposing point of view to your argument, so if you have time to put one in there, I advise you to go for it!

HI: In HI, there's only one thing you need to do: Make me laugh! I understand that humor is subjective, so make sure to also develop the scene, your characters, voices, and pops as well if you're afraid a joke may go over my head. Writing a bit of your own material for your intro also never hurts either.

Informative: The whole purpose of Informative is to inform me of the issue or view you want to discuss with me. Don't go in thinking you have to sell me on what it is you're presenting on. If I can walk away from the round and say "You know, I may not have agreed with that point, but it was still a good point to be discussed" then you have done a very good job.

Impromptu: In Impromptu, there's a lot of different ways you could take your give, so do it in the way that you like it best. Whether that be a serious or humorous approach, I'll be impressed at what you deliver and how you deliver it. That said, I get even more impressed with competitors who spend less time prepping and more time speaking. This works two ways: one being that you get more time to say what it is you want to say, and the second being that it's Impromptu! I want to see what you can come up with on the spot.

OO: Original Oratory is whatever you want to make it. I've heard all different kinds of pieces and always look forward to what's next. The main things I look out for are pronunciation and connection, but I do keep an eye out for emotion and a story. The big thing is to make sure you do have a connection to what you've written and not just "Oh, well, this is something I thought might be fun to talk about." The deeper your connection with your piece, the clearer it shows and the better it becomes.

Poetry: It can be a little tricky sometimes to judge Poetry, but the main thing I try to look out for is how the pieces flow together. I have recently been informed that Poetry does not need a distinction among poems, therefore, I will not penalize if there are no distinctions between poems. I highly advise you to not use the same voice/tone for every piece, or it will get confusing as to which poem is which.

Prose: Something that can be tricky about judging Prose is that you never know what to expect. I've heard Prose pieces that remind me of other categories like DI, HI, Poetry, Storytelling, etc. Just remember that a Prose reading should have some kind of a power behind it. Whether that's multiple characters or a certain tone is entirely up to you.

Also, some general housekeeping rules:

If I catch you on your phone during the round, I will penalize you and write it down in your feedback form. It should go without saying, but I've sadly seen it too many times that it needs to be said. Extend the same courtesy to your fellow competitors that they give to you. Obviously if it's medical or something with home, that's completely different. Reminder: SnapChat is not medical!

This is also similar to the phone policy, it drives me crazy when I see competitors take a nap in the middle of other people performing. It's very rude and very unprofessional.

Double entries get priority. Also, I salute you for double entering.

If you are late to the round, don't panic! I won't hold it against you, I swear. Just wait outside the door until you hear the applause at the end of the piece to come in. I know some rooms make it so that sound doesn't get through them easily, so just try your best.

If your piece gets interrupted, I also won't hold that against you. I also encourage you to start over (or resume if you've made it through most of the piece) so you won't have to start in an awkward place.

FOR VIRTUAL TOURNAMENTS ONLY:

Virtual tournaments can be a fun way to compete against other competitors from across the country (and everyone is always on their home turf), but they can pose challenges different than in-person. Some things I consider for virtual tournaments:

Frames: If you can't fit in the whole frame of the camera, that's perfectly all right. You can move back (be reasonable, don't move near the back of the room or to the point where I can't make out most of your facial expressions) or stay where you are. I won't penalize if your shins and lower aren't in frame. That said, if you're moving around a lot and most of your body is out of frame, I will have to factor that into my judging.

Lighting: Ideally, try to find a good light source in your house. Good light would be shining directly into you, but if all you have for your performance space is where the lighting is either against you or extreme on either end, then that's what you have to work with. I try super hard to make sure lighting is NOT a factor in my judging, even in close situations I try to make sure it's not a factor. I don't want to punish you for factors you may not have control over.

Background noises: Try your best. Obviously, we can't always get peace and quiet even at an in-person tournament, but if there are some things you can control, make sure that those won't affect you. Also something I try not to factor into judging, especially for live virtual tournaments. ASYNC tournaments you should have taken these precautions already. If you're sending me a submission with numerous background noises occurring, then I have no choice but to factor that into my decision. PLEASE DO NOT MAKE ME HAVE TO DO THIS!

I have judged Parliamentary debate in the past and extemporaneous speaking. I am excited to try new forms of debate.

Please be mindful that I am new to judging this event, but I am familiar with PF and understand how it works. Thank you for your patience!

I am particularly drawn to policy arguments that also draw upon historical precedent. I appreciate an argument that can provide succinct synopses when drawing upon historical/societal evidence that would not be known to the general public. Anything that is brought in to support your argument should not take focus away from the main topic.

Please be respectful and empathetic in your discussion of cultural and societal norms that are different from those you are familiar with. Any clear indication of hateful bias will not be tolerated.

I am a Traditional/Parent Judge

Please speak CLEARLYand LOUDLY so I can understand your argument well and hear you

DI/HI/DUO: The material is key--I love seeing unique themes and performers choosing material that they personally identify with. The introduction is incredibly important--here you have the opportunity to take any topic and make it your own. Take risks. Have fun. Speak your truth.

The emotional range of topics vary greatly. Emotions are valid and should be part of an interp piece. However, too much emotion where it isn't warranted during the performance shows me you may be trying to cover up for not having enough substantial material.

My preferences for LD:

1. I don't mind a fast speaker but do not spread. Please respect your time limits. While I will officially monitor time, I'd rather be focusing on what you're saying than watching the clock.

2. It is always good to have stats and examples for your contentions. Repeating the same points during different arguments (unless relevant in a new way) will not make them more effective.

3. If you do not clearly refute one of your opponent's contentions, I will usually give them the win regardless of how good your contentions were.

4. Speak confidently and respectfully, and in an orderly manner. Maintaining a coherent flow is always very helpful for me.

After wide experience as a speaker and debater during my elementary and secondary education, I have subsequently served as a volunteer coach and judge both during my university career and beyond. After completing my graduate degree, I embarked on an international career spanning several decades and five continents, during which I not only drafted and composed speeches for senior UN officials, but also represented the United Nations myself as a speaker in a variety of fora and media.

Although debating formats have changed dramatically since I participated in the event decades ago, I have attempted through both observation and coaching to keep abreast of developments in the newer forms that have emerged more recently. Obviously, I still tend to prefer the more traditional style of debate with which I am most comfortable, but I have been developing my appreciation for its newer incarnations.

As someone who has broad experience in both speech and debate, I tend to value argument and style equally. While the strength of an argument can be paramount, its eloquent delivery can ensure that it is communicated effectively. In addition, even though the vigorous presentation of an argument can be more convincing, civility in the adversarial process remains something to be cultivated and cherished.

TJRectenwald@aol.com

My name is Joe Rogers and was an Extemporaneous speaker at Pittsburgh Central Catholic. I have judged PF and LD for 10 years. As a judge, I am looking for consistent arguments that carry throughout the debate, a central theme, appropriate clash, and civil discourse.

Your arguments should be clear and concise, and you should address your opponent's points as well.

Interp/Speech Events:

Interpretation and Speech events are judged on the criteria of engagement, character development, and fluency. An excellent performance engages the audience and brings them into the world that the speaker is creating; the speaker maintains the audience's attention through clear diction, eye contact, and gesticulations (etc.) when appropriate. The speaker's development of their characters should be distinct and crisp; it should not be difficult to identify when another character is speaking based on their voice and body language. The fluency with which a speaker performs is aided by great engagement and character development; a fluent performance helps the audience suspend their disbelief that the performance is not real and helps to immerse them into the world of the piece.

Original Oratory/Extemp:

Original Oratory and Extemporaneous events are judged on the criteria of organization, credibility, engagement, and fluency. Good organization in a speaker's performance includes a clear outline of the speaker's topic, position on the topic, and main speaking points. A speaker also uses their physical space effectively to further punctuate their point changes and transitions. A credible performance is constituted by the identification of at least one source per main speaking point. An engaging performance involves the speaker's use of diction, eye contact, gesticulations, and intonation to appropriately stress and emphasize different important aspects of their performance. A fluent performance is free from filler words and unintended pauses.

In all events:

Regardless of the event, the manner in which the speaker conveys their speech is the most important element. As long as the information and subjects of the speech are not overtly offensive or derogatory, they do not influence rankings.