Soumya Belagodu, Speech Judge.
School : Pennsbury
A mother of 2, one is active in debate and the other is showing interest in following her brother to the world of Speech & Debate. I was introduced to speech in 2020 and have judged few events since then. Every round of speech I have judged so far, I always come out amazed by the presentations and the way the kids carry themselves during the rounds.
General:
I enter the round with an open mind leaving behind what I believe in. I bring in my personal experiences only to write comments at the end of the round.
Speak loudly, clearly, and not to fast.
Please let me know ahead of time what kind of time signals would you prefer, if you need any. At the end of given time, I will not stop you as I strongly believe that one needs to finish their thoughts.
For some reason, you cannot complete the presentation- take couple of seconds, regroup and try your best to finish the presentation. You never know what might happen!
Appreciate if you can write down the topic as, I use it for my notes.
If multiple double entered participants are in a round, its a democratic selection.
You will have my whole attention, my gaze will be on you all the time ,I need to be able to see your expressions clearly. If that makes you uncomfortable , please let me know.
I look for how organized your thoughts are, your expressions, body language, voice modulation, the energy you bring in , the characterization, realistic approach where applicable, and the use of space.
Overall, Let's enjoy the ride!

UPDATED 2/21/20: I do not judge as often as I may once have. At most local events, I find myself on the operations side of a tournament.

That should not terrify you – I am a career public servant, who happens to coach debate because I appreciate everything that it taught me as a student. You should assume that I approach debate rounds this way: what is the best decision I can make given the information presented to me?

It may sound old-fashioned, but I do not wish to be on any email chains. I have sadly witnessed teams answering entire disadvantages not read by their opponents simply because they were included in said distribution. Not to be outdone, I have read ballots where judges voted on evidence that nobody read. I pledge to keep the best flow I can. If I need to see a piece of evidence, and the particular league or tournament's rules allow for that, I will call for it.

If you are short on time reading this, my paradigm can be expressed in six (6) words: do your thing and be nice. If you are really short on time, we can go with four (4): old guy, still flows.

Policy:

1. Speed is fine, but clarity is necessary. I cannot vote on what I do not have typed/written down. I try hard to listen to the text of the evidence presented;
2. Open cross-examination is acceptable, but if it is clear than one member of the team is not able to participate at the same level, speaker points will suffer;
3. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I look first to any potential violation(s) of stock issues and then default to a policymaking perspective.

Lincoln Douglas:

1. I do not mind an LD round that gets on down the flow;
2. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I will default to a whole resolution lens looking first to the value/value criterion debate.

Public Forum/Speech:

1. Nothing earth-shattering here. I am less speed tolerant in public forum and I will simply apply the ballot criteria to whatever speech event is at hand.

Regardless of event, we enter the debate knowing the resolution and some basic rules of the road (e.g., speech times, likely printed on the ballot). By tabula rasa I mean that the debaters establish the framework for evaluating debates. You should do what you do best and do it well. Arguments should have three parts – a claim, a warrant, and some sort of greater implication regardless of your style.

I still believe that good decisions should flow like water. Great rebuttals frame debates and clash wins rounds. My ballots will provide a succinct RFD, possibly pointing out either strengths or opportunities for improvement as we progress through the speeches. 3AR/3NR oral critiques nauseate me: what I say out loud (if disclosure is permitted) will almost certainly match what I am placing on your ballot. Your coach should see comments too. You did not go to the dentist; my RFD is never going to read “oral.”

Finally, be respectful of your partners, opponents, and judges. I have zero tolerance for poor behavior in debate rounds.

Certified PA Social Studies teacher for 8 years now. 4 of which I have taught Government and Economics. 2020 is my first year participating in Speech and Debate and I'm eager to continue to learn more. I do prefer a moderate pace when speaking rather than a speedy rate since I would rather hear your argument than judge based on how many words you can get in within the timeframe. Follow the three guides below for a sense of what I look for!

1. Engage arguments with discernment. Disagreement is always welcome, however, engage with the specific argument and not your prewritten counters.

2. Be consistent in your debate. Beginning, End, and throughout your counters/rebuttals. Build your story/argument and do not deviate, Instead, defend a cohesive worldview throughout the round – and pull that story through extending both warrants and impacts.

3. Be respectful: Exercise good judgment. If you do something that a majority of reasonable people would find unkind, offensive or rude I will stop to give a violation.

Hello—I will evaluate who best presents their argument and is able to clearly articulate their viewpoint and persuade me of the truth of their position. I am a parent judge, but I have experience in multiple forms of debate from high school.

LD/PF:
For LD and PF, I consider myself a traditional judge, so keep this in mind. I will vote for K’s in LD, but be cautious it's not policy. LD is not really meant to be spread like a policy debate. If you need to send a doc, you're going too fast. Cross ex is crucial so keep that in mind.

Be reasonable on your timings for evidence call. Otherwise I will start running prep.

CX- Ok with K debate but make your theory clear with evidence. No new arguments in rebuttal speeches please. I value impact calc.

Show sportsmanship and be professional.

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

Email: deborah.wus@gmail.com

Conflicts: Pennsbury High School

General:

Be clear, coherent and articulate. I encourage you to take your time both in your speaking and preparation. It is your responsibility that I can understand your words and arguments. One strong argument or rebuttal can be the most persuasive with the right impact. I believe in quality over quantity in all elements of debate (i.e. evidence, warrants, contentions, impacts).

Please introduce yourself by name to me and the other team. Professionalism and respect for one another is paramount. Standing while speaking and maintaining eye contact when appropriate is compelling. Delivery is key, so make sure you are audible with proper volume, pitch and pace.