LD paradigm

I am opposed to spreading.  I teach communication, and speaking at a rate that your opponent cannot follow is not communication.  If I set my pen down and stop trying to flow your argument, you should take that as a clue that you need to slow down or lose the round even if you have superior arguments or evidence.

Additionally, be nice.  You can be respectful of your opponent and still be competitive.

For LD, I will neutrally evaluate the round using the below three-prong method, with greater emphasis on elements A and B. I am open to classic and contemporary styles and thoughts, so long as they make sense and are fully supported in the case. Most importantly, have fun and enjoy the round.

A. Case and Analysis

1. Defining the Values: Did the arguments presented focus on the values implicit in the resolution? Is the case itself cohesive?

2. Establishing Criteria for Evaluating the Resolution: On what basis (universal, moral, social, political, historical, legal, etc.)does the debater prove one value to be more important than another?

3. Weighing Importance: Are the values advocated in support of the resolution more important than the values diminished by the resolution, or are alternative values supported by the negative enhanced by the resolution?

4. Application of Values and Criteria: Did the debaters apply their cases by filtering appropriate arguments through the value and criteria?

B. Argumentation

1. Proof: Did the evidence presented pragmatically justify the affirmative or negative stance? Did the reasoning presented philosophically justify the affirmative or negative stance?

2. Organization: Are the ideas presented clearly, in a logical sequence, and with appropriate emphasis?

3. Extension, Clash, and Rebuttal: Did the debaters fulfill their obligation to extend their own arguments? Did they appropriately refute the contentions of their opponents by exposing weaknesses or inconsistencies?

C. Presentation

1. Expression: Were language, tone, and emphasis appropriate to persuasive communication? Please be respectful at all times.

2. Delivery: Were gestures, movement, and eye contact audience-oriented and contained natural persuasive communication components?

3. Rate: Was the rate of delivery conducive to audience understanding? (Spreading may not be feasible under virtual conditions.)

Language borrowed from UIL, emphasis, and additions are my own.

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

For PF, the round will be evaluated as it is argued by the speakers. Focus on the advocacy of a position derived from the issues presented in the resolution, not a prescribed set of burdens.

Debaters should advocate or reject the resolution in a manner clear to the non-specialist citizen judge. Clashes of ideas are essential to debate.

Debaters should display solid logic and reasoning, advocate a position, utilize evidence, and communicate clear ideas using professional decorum.

As for plans and counterplans, please be aware of both NSDA and OSSAA guidance.

NSDA: In Public Forum Debate, the Association defines a plan or counterplan as a formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation. Neither the pro nor con side is permitted to offer a plan or counterplan; rather, they should provide reasoning to support a position of advocacy. Debaters may offer generalized, practical solutions.

OSSAA: Neither the pro nor con is permitted to offer a plan or counterplan, defined as a formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation. Rather, they should provide reasoning to support a position of advocacy. Debaters may offer generalized, practical solutions.

Crossfire time should be dedicated to questions and answers rather than reading evidence. Evidence may be referred to extemporaneously. It should also be professional and balanced by each side.

No new arguments may be introduced in the Final Focus; however, debaters may include new evidence to support prior arguments. I am always listening for evidence. Per the NSDA's Evidence Rules, "[i]n all debate events, contestants are expected to, at a minimum, orally deliver the following when introducing evidence in a debate round: primary author(s)’ name (last) and year of publication."

I will adopt the debaters' paradigms and hear just about any type of argument as long as analytics are given to explain. I won't intervene by providing my own links or analysis if debaters just read cards at me.

Likewise, give me a framework and tell me how to weigh the round. In LD, I want this to be explicitly stated, even if it is a progressive framework. I'm fine with a non-traditional framework. Just explain it to me. In PF, the framework may or may not be explicitly stated, but I should be able to easily extrapolate a standard.

I like an LD 1AR/1NR or PF Rebuttal to be line-by-line, but feel free to tell me what you think is more important/has more weight in the round. I like LD 2AR/2NR to crystallize and give voters-not more line-by-line. Same with PF Summary and Final Focus.

It is imperative that debaters give voting issues and impact calculus linked back to the framework. If you don't, I'm stuck comparing argument to argument.

I am fine with both progressive debate and traditional debate. A bit of speed is fine, but I would prefer that it not rise to the rates in CX. I can follow you, but I'd prefer to have time to digest your arguments. Also, keep in mind that more isn't necessarily better. Be strategic. Introduce what you think you can reasonably handle. I'm fine with debaters kicking out of arguments. Funnel arguments down to what is really important and viable in the round.

I hate spreading. I will never flow during cross examination, so if it's important, bring it back up. Please keep argumentation topical and respectful. The only thing you have to convince me of is that your framework is the strongest way to uphold the resolution.

I am a parent of a competitor. Both of my children have competed in public forum and I have previously judged speech before. That being said, I am still fairly inexperienced in judging.

Paradigm:

Please speak slowly and annunciate. I am not familiar with progressive debate so please refrain from relying on theory (ex. disclosure theory debate). K's are okay, but I recommend spelling out voter issues a little more than you're used to. Please avoid using any jargon. Emphasize impacts & voter issues and please quantify them if possible. If you are any type of ist or phobic, I will vote you down.

Be proud of yourselves and have fun with it!

My daughter may have helped write this so do not mistake it as an understanding of K's.

I have been judging regularly for about 15 years; and I am in my seventh year coaching Harding Charter Prep HS in Oklahoma City. I love every single event offered for competition. They are all valid. Memes hating on particular events are lame. Follow @hcpspeechdebate on Instagram and Twitter.

LD/PFD: I prefer quality of information and sources as well as clarity and presence of speakers over speed and quantity of information and sources. The more you can tell me about the qualifications of a source, the better I can weigh them. If you give a simple (Last Name/Year) tag, you can assume I know nothing about the author. I like to see your personality as a debater and jokes/lighthearted moments are welcome as long as they are within the scope of the topic. I dislike plans and policy-style approaches to Lincoln-Douglas debate; if you want to do Policy, there's a debate for that. I believe that the heart of Public Forum debate is that it should assume any judge is a lay judge and is more informal and free of debate jargon. Limit pre-case observations and don't place impossible burdens on your opponent. Be civil and professional during cross-examination or your speaker points are toast. Use cross-examination time to ask questions, not make another speech. Use your speech time and prep time! Your constructive speeches should be as close to memorized as possible. I want to see you speaking/debating, not just reading. Cases on paper vs on a laptop gain an automatic advantage. Have fun!

Big Questions: Please, please, please read the Format Manual. Then read it again. Use the Format Manual as evidence in round if you need to. Please let this thing have a chance to become its own thing before we drown it in the other debate sauces.

Policy: If I am judging round round, I apologize in advance. Something has gone awry at this tournament and I am a kind-hearted person with a semi-functioning brain that has been put in to prevent the round starting hours late. We'll make it through this together. I'm probably not gonna disclose unless tab forces me to.

Congress: Don't read word-for-word pre-written speeches. You should have an outline. Pay attention to the whole of the round, not just sitting there prepping for when you are going to talk. Keep questions concise.

World Schools: Requests for POIs should rise/raise as often as needed but don't be a pest about it. You are at the discretion of the speaker. Avoid debate jargon. Rely on reason and logic. Appeal persuasively. Prop arguments should do their best to prove the resolution beyond a shadow of a doubt. Opposition arguments should be about broad rejection of the resolution, not just finding an outlier to say that one example is representative of all.

Final Thoughts: This activity is for education. Winning and excellence should always be celebrated, but not the only goal. Remember that Words Matter and Words have Power. Respect the purpose of the Pronouns and name pronunciation options in Tabroom. The NSDA has worked hard to be inclusive. Don't abuse that. #NotGarbagePeople

Last Updated 12/5/2021

Ishmael Kissinger
Experience: 3.5 yrs for The University of Central Oklahoma 02-05 (Nov/JV & Open)
14 yrs as Coach @ Moore High School, OK
Policy Rounds Judged: Local ~10
Policy National/Toc - 2
LD Rounds Judged Local: 0
LD National/TOC - 0

PFD - Local = 0

PFD Nat Circuit - 0

Email Chain: PLEASE ASK IN ROUND - I cannot access my personal email at school.

*Note: I do not follow along with the word doc. I just want to be on the chain so that I can see the evidence at the end of the round if necessary. I will only flow what I hear.

LD -

Just because I am primarily a policy judge does not mean that I think LD should be like 1 person policy. Small rant: I am tired of us making new debate events and then having them turn into policy... If you are constructing your case to be "Life & Util" and then a bunch of Dis-Ads you probably don't want me as your judge. If you are going for an RVI on T in the 1AR you probably don't want me as a judge. I don't think that LD affs should have plan texts. If I were to put this in policy terms: "You need to be (T)-Whole Res."

Affirmatives should have: a specific tie for their value to the resolution. An explanation on how their Criterion(a) operates in context of the value and the ballot. Contentions that affirm the whole resolution.

Negatives should have: a specific tie for their value to the resolution. An explanation on how their criterion(a) operates in context of the value and the ballot. Contentions that negate the whole resolution.

CX

I tend to consider myself a flow oriented judge that tries to be as tab as any one person can be. Absent a framework argument made, I will default to a policy-maker/game-theorist judge. I view debate in an offense-defense paradigm, this means that even if you get a 100% risk of no solvency against the aff, but they are still able to win an advantage (or a turned DA) then you are probably going to lose. You MUST have offense to weight against case.

Generic Information:

Speed is not a problem *Edit for the digital age: Sometimes really fast debaters are harder for me to understand on these cheap computer speakers.

T & Theory need to be impacted with in round abuse. As the debate season goes on I tend to err more toward reasonability than I do at the beginning of the year. This is usually because as the debate year goes on I expect Negative teams to be more prepared for less topical arguments. This is generally how much judges operate, they just don't say it. I typically don't vote on potential abuse, you should couch your impacts on potential abuse in very real-world examples.

Please make impact calculus earlier in the debate rather than just making it in the 2nr/2ar

Kritiks are not a problem, but I am not really deep into any one literature base. This may put you at a disadvantage if you assume I know/understand the nuances between two similar (from my point of view) authors. **If you are going for a K or an Alt in the 2NR but are unsure if the aff is going to win the Perm debate and you want me to "kick the alt" and just have me vote on some epistemic turn you're only explaining in the overview of the 2NR you are not going to enjoy the RFD. If you think it's good enough to win the debate on with only a :30 explanation in the overview, you should probably just make the decision to go for it in the 2nr and kick the alt yourself.

When addressing a kritikal aff/neg I will hold you to a higher threshold than just Util & Cede the political, I'll expect you to have specific literature that engages the K. If this is your strategy to answering K teams I am probably not your "1."

I don't have a problem with multiple conditional arguments, although I am more sympathetic to condo bad in a really close theory debate.

CPs are legit. Just like judges prefer specific links on a Dis-Ads I also prefer specific Counter-Plans. But I will evaluate generic states/int'l actor CPs as well.

Dispo = Means you can kick out of it unless you straight turn it, defensive arguments include Perms and theory. (My interp, but if you define it differently in a speech and they don't argue it, then your interp stands)

DAs are cool - the more specific the link the better, but I will still evaluate generic links.

Case args are sweet, especially on this year's (2019) topic.



Personal Preferences:

Really I have only one personal pref. If you are in a debate round - never be a jerk to the opposing team &/or your partner. I believe that our community has suffered enough at the hands of debating for the "win," and although I don't mind that in context of the argumentation you make in the round, I do not believe that it is necessary to demean or belittle your opponent. If you are in the position to be facing someone drastically less experienced than yourself; keep in mind that it should be a learning process for them, even if it is not one for you. It will NOT earn you speaker points to crush them into little pieces and destroy their experience in this activity. If you want to demonstrate to me that you are the "better debater(s)," and receive that glorious 29 or maybe even 30 it will most likely necessitate you: slowing down (a little), thoroughly explaining your impact calc, clearly extending a position, then sitting down without repeating yourself in 5 different ways. If you opt to crush them you will prob. win the round, but not many speaker points (or pol cap) with me.

I have been teaching Speech & Debate for 18 years. I particularly enjoy speaking events and LD debate. I do not care for spreading. I don't mind if you speak fast as long as I can understand you. If I can't understand the argument then I can't vote for your position. I look at the structure of the case as well as the delivery. Your job is to convince me that your Value is the highest in the round. I look for you to uphold your value throughout your case. You need to make the links and impacts, I won't do it for you. Please use a 4-step refutation.

I am big on structure in case. You must be able to uphold your Value and Criterion throughout your case. Each contention should fully support and link to the V, Cr, and resolution. Each contention should have a claim, warrant, and impact. You DO need evidence to support your ideas. Evidence comes in the form of facts, statistics, studies, logical reasoning, and expert opinions. The evidence you use should directly support the claim. You also need to impact the argument. Just because you prove something doesn't tell me why it matters to uphold your side. "If you don't tell me why it matters, it doesn't matter."

During rebuttals start with a roadmap so I know what you are going to do and in what order. Go down the flow to prevent drops. Most importantly when you argue drops in the round please do not use the phrase "he/she/they dropped my contention so it flows to me". You must impact this for me. Why does it matter that he/she/they dropped that particular contention? How does it help you or hurt them?

Please do not plagiarize cases from briefs. Utilize them to facilitate your ideas but do the work yourself. I want your ideas, not someone else's.

All in all, I am looking for a good debate.

I did PF my junior year for a few months so feel free to use terminology/slang

I don't have a lot of experience on LD, so I'll vote based on your argumentation

I don't have an issue with keeping times, but I'd prefer you keep your own time (extemp is the only exception to this)

I won't tolerate impoliteness during rounds, especially crossfires. There's a difference between being assertive and being rude.

PF:

TELL ME WHY YOUR ARGUMENTS MATTER. I can't vote on an issue if you don't tell me its importance

I focus on framework but explain its correlation to the resolution and tell me why I have to prefer yours over your opponent's

I like to hear the author's credentials because it assures me your sources come from experts/people relevant to the resolution.

Tell me why I should prefer your impact over your opponents.

Remember to attack arguments in an organized matter (going down the flow), it helps a lot when reviewing the round

LD:

Again, you have to explain why the arguments and impacts matter in the round, otherwise, I can't vote on it.

I'm all for progressive arguments, but you have to explain them and their connection to the resolution

Extemp:

feel free to be funny, as long as it is appropriate

Explain your points fully

Be respectful to your opponents, and best of luck!

I have 4 years of PF experience, so with that being said, I usually go off impact calc judging rounds. To properly weigh evidence I need proper links. be clear and concise, and if you're unsure, make it painfully obvious. break it down as if I have no idea what's going on. Don't drop major points/ evidence, it could make or break the round.

I enjoy a team who clearly knows their material and knows their cases/blocks like the back of their hand.

I have zero tolerance for bullying in rounds. Be respectful to everyone in the room and have fun!

Hi! Here’s what you need to know about how I judge debates:

1. Clarity Matters More Than Speed – I don’t like spreading (talking super fast). I have a hard time following it, so if I can’t understand you, I won’t flow it. Speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Well-explained arguments are always better than a huge number of rushed ones.

2. Link & Impact Your Arguments – I weigh how well you connect your arguments to your case and why they matter. Don’t just throw out claims—explain them, support them with evidence, and link them to your value or criterion. If you don’t show me why your argument matters, I won’t vote on it.

3. Be Assertive, Not Aggressive – In cross-examination, I expect you to be confident but respectful. Don’t interrupt too much, and if your opponent says, "It’s my cross time," respect that. I appreciate strategic, well-thought-out questions over just trying to dominate the time.

4. Organization Helps You Win – Signposting and roadmaps help me follow your case. If I can easily track your arguments, it makes it easier for me to vote for you.

5. How I Decide – I vote based on who has stronger, well-supported arguments that link back to their case and impact the round. If both sides are close, I’ll look at how well you responded to your opponent and how effectively you defended your arguments.

Hi Welcome to my Ted Talk

Prologue: I’m just a chill guy. I did PFD, Extemp, and OO for four years in high school. I did a little bit of acting for the meme, but have an appreciation for it. I studied photography and film in college, so as an artist, I like the working parts of pieces and the purpose behind every choice. I assistant coach debate at Westmoore, so my forte is debate, but I have unlimited prep time so I am comfortable with all events. All judges should have clear paradigms for every type of event so students can adapt accordingly. TELL YOUR JUDGES FROM YOUR SCHOOL! SPREAD THE WORD!

Debate PF/LD/CX

In Round Conduct [I WILL DO THESE]:

1. Tech > Truth
I am a blank slate judge. I will pretend I have zero knowledge in the round and only learn things from the context you give me. Reasonability is non universal, so I should not apply my own logic of what is “true”. I do this to avoid my own research of topics and prevent ANY potential for bias. Pretty much any argument goes as long as I cannot deduce it is fake, like purple dinosaurs are taking over the world or something (If you are memeing please tell me so I can enjoy it and evaluate it in context of the round, it'll be harder to win against fairness and topicality, but I will still weigh it). EVIDENCE AND WARRENTING ARE KEY. HITTING AS MANY AREAS OF THE AS POSSIBLE ARE KEY.

2. Flow

I am a writing heavy judge so make sure to emphasize the important stuff and tell me what to weigh in the round. I use paper and pens, so I guess I’m a fossil in my twenties. I will not flow (but listen and enjoy) cross periods, bring the points into your speeches for concessions and speeding up fluff in points.

3. Frameworks/Value-Criterion/Framing/ROTB/etc.

If you tell me how to vote in the round, that becomes the ballot pathing. If your opponent does the same you must directly engage with each other. If there is no clash or engagement of framing I will default to Frankensteining the ballot directions together from both sides. Framing is not the sole reason, but a major reason to win. Regardless, I usually try to narrow down the debate to three different main arguments (most clash) or one linear path, if the debate is one sided. If the debate is confusing I’ll default to clash areas [most brought up arguments] as the path to the ballot. I don't want to do the debating for you and that would be a disservice if I just looked at the flowsheet and decided that way, VOTER ISSUES ARE IMPORTANT :)

4. Concede/Concessions/Drops/Extensions:

EXPLICITLY state and explain the merit of why this matters. If you try to game over an opponent I need to know why the drop is good. I will assume it doesn’t weigh unless you tell me. Arguments will have more weighing if extended in each speech. If you extend a dropped portion of the case, give me a quick impact statement or something of importance with it.

5. In-round context

I only evaluate what is read during speeches, sorry if you have 26 pages you didn’t read I won’t weigh it. Yelling your arguments during prep for me to hear won’t help you set up or swing my judging. Again, bring up attacks made from cross into speeches, I heard them so you can spend way less time setting those claims up.

6. Evidence sharing

Don’t hide evidence from opponents, be able to provide a copy if asked. If you can’t provide it I will default to it doesn’t exist. If it is not asked for it is fair game for plausibility.

7. Speaker Points

My philosophy is strategy first. Conciseness and effectiveness are keys to higher speaker points. Don’t spend 2:00 minutes explaining something you can say in one sentence, or don’t spend 15 seconds on a very key argument your opponent is clearly going for (slam them with lots of reasons). Speaking gooder or not, might affect my score by -1 or +1, but moves made in speeches and cross will determine my rankings. If you have a partner, give them some room in crossfire for PF. I like assertive cross, but do not obliterate your opponent or bully each other.

Specifics: (Ignore for traditional circuits, keep everything on case)

Kicks - STATE EXPLICITLY. If it is not kicked I’ll assume there is some merit to the argument. You cannot kick a turn. Kicking after turn concedes it and goes against you. If an argument is kicked that means it has been yeeted out of the round and I will no longer consider it under ANY circumstances. If there are excessive kicks it will lower speaker points. Make intentional strategic choices.

Theory - Must be brought into the debate the speech after the violation occurred, or the proposed violation sticks. Theory must be addressed first as usually it is a “think of the out of round implications” type of argument. I consider RVIs if they are strong enough, but to win off theory alone has to be blatantly clear.

Tricks - You can run them, but I’ll allow RVIs. The trick takes over the debate.

Ks - Keep them topical and lay out links to resolution. I weigh alts and roles of the ballot/judge very heavily.

CP - I rarely hear these but love a good counterplan or PIC, solve for the Aff if you are going for this. Word PICs can get messy and have theory run against real easily. Perms need to be properly explained. Let me know what the world looks like under the perm, and the one getting permed against should test the validity of the perm by explaining the implications of what it actually looks like.

DAs - Usually links are pretty clear so the best strategy is to aim for the impacts on both sides.

K Affs - Better have a topicality response ready, either say you meet or diss the notion of topicality. Pick one and stick with it. I’ll evaluate these types of arguments, but there has to be some justification of predictability.

Topicality - Needs to be brought up in 1NC. I am down for debates that say topicality is bad or good.

Personal Preferences in round [PREFER, but adaptable]:

Coin flips - If the round has a coin flip, I carry giant coins so I can flip. The first team to arrive gets to call it in the air.

Disclosure - Dependent on circuit norms. If a tournament calls for disclosing evidence do it with each other 30 minutes before the round or as soon as postings blast. I will use tabroom’s evidence drop system. Email chains have difficulty or people forget to hit reply all, so this simplifies it.

Spectators - I will always allow spectators as long as they are not actively competing on the same topic. Swiper no swiping prep, other than that debate is an educational activity so even watching can provide value.

Speed - I will adapt to the speed both debaters are comfortable with, if both debaters want spreading: let the games begin. Please slow down taglines and author citations [say AND, when you are moving on to the next card if spreading, say NEXT if I need to switch papers]. Respect your opponent’s decision, but I will expect that speed from both of you (or slower) or I’ll lower speaker points to reflect it. Don’t just use speed as a way to make the debate lack clash or outspread your opponent.

Standing or sitting - I understand there may be conditions or factors that permit needing to sit for speeches and cross periods. I am good for either, if the teams cannot agree I will default to standing.

Prep time/Timing - Keep your own, but I'll use mine to verify. Tell me when to start and stop the clock. Tell me how much you used so we can compare. If I am slightly off I will default to yours. Keep your own time, I’ll have a timer but keep your own as well so I don't chance mess up.

Signpost - Make clear references about where you are attacking your opponent, cite taglines/contentions to help me keep the flow organized.

Vibe Check

Don’t be a professional hater if you are racist, sexist, transphobic, or make any other personal attack you will speedrun yourself into a loss and lowest speaks. Debate should not have any hateful agendas.

Feel free to casually tie in pop culture references, brain rot terms, modern slang, or other quick quips during speeches. I like to see the personalities of speakers, just don’t let it distract from your case, arguments, and the round. I’ll reward .5 (if possible) extra points if you incorporate this well, at least once. I won’t evaluate the quality of the joke into the weighing my ballot, so have some fun.

I'll give feedback if asked after the round but both sides will hear it, I won't say who won unless it is tournament norms. I do not disclose speaker points as they can be viewed as “subjective”, and lead to arguments over who got what.

Have fun! Good luck! Don’t be nervous, have a good time. My secondary goal for judging the round is passing the vibe check. Debate is a game of strategy and moving pieces to set yourself up for success.
If you have any other questions please ask me before the round when all competitors are in the room.

Congress

Tech > Truth: I pretend I know absolutely nothing about the topic even if I have researched it. My out of round knowledge, or potentially lack thereof, should not get in the way of the results of the round. I look who best forwards the debate versus which side wins or loses a vote in Congress (parliamentarian role might change this a bit).

Weighing: Personality, Organization, and Strategic Argumentation, CX will affect this by -1 to +1, but in extreme cases could be swayed by 2 points either way. For PO, it is round contribution.

Wrong side: If you speak for the wrong side called for, per NSDA rules I have to dock you at least three points.

IF Parliamentarian: My job is to assess the entire debate, not individual speeches. Every person has to get a rank. I will not get the privilege of autofilling 9 after the top 8 have been decided. My number 1 consideration will be contribution to the debate. Basically, how pivotal were you to the progression of the debate. The more speeches the better, but they still have to have quality (Refer to below for how I judge speech quality). Another consideration is CX, do you give yourself any additional offense or defense or do you let people push you over? The more people that reference your arguments shows you are participating in more clashes (clash is the third main voter, engage with the most important arguments and prove why I should prefer your side: Other people could do this on behalf of you if you are pivotal enough to the debate).

IF Scorer, or any other judge: My job is to assess the quality of individual speeches over the quality of the debate. Getting a bill passed does not affect my score, but how strongly do you support/defend your position will. I will assign points to every speech and add them in the end to get my ranks. I’ll show the different scales in accordance with NSDA rulings (1-6 or 1-8), but they will have the same reasoning.

{Speakers}

1 / 1-7 / 60-69: [Bare minimum] You at least gave a speech. This tier either means you were very nervous and did what you could to get through it, or you did not add strategic contributions to the debate. Organization was probably all over the place. You might have stated what side you are arguing for, but not much substance to really convince me why I should buy your argument.

2 / 8-12 / 70-76: [Lacked Fundamentals] You put in more effort than the bare minimum for a speech, you just may not have all of the parts together. You might have been slightly nervous or monotone and it affected your delivery. You had an idea of structure but deviated from it, I probably got lost halfway through. There was either little substance to your arguments or the substance did not directly connect to the points you are wanting to make.

3 / 13-17 / 77-83: [Average] You gave a standard quality speech. You did not seem very nervous or had little slip ups, but your personality as a speaker did not do anything to enhance your speech. You had some semblance of structure, but it could have been more effective. You give me points and make efforts to persuade me why I would buy your side. The arguments you made could have had holes that were poked in CX or following speeches, or it did not have much sway offensively or defensively.

4 / 18-20 / 84-86: [Sound Fundamentals] This is a little better than standard, everything is at least decent quality in this tier. You have developed some kind of a personality, but there are ways to make it more intentional or effective. I can follow your structure clearly, but time management needs to be utilized more effectively. The arguments and substance you brought into your speech can at least make me consider your side. (If 6 point system combine 4-5 to be 4)

5 / 21-22 / 87-89: [On to Something] The intentionality of your speeches is starting to show. I can at least tell why you are making the personable move you are making. Your personality slightly enhances the speech, you are at least a somewhat likeable speaker. You start to use time management and your structure has a semblance of strategy, but it may not have been the most effective at the moment. Your arguments are sufficient enough where I could weigh them holistically in the debate. (If 6 point system combine 4-5 to be 4)

6 / 23-25 / 90-93: [Very Convincing] Your speech is intentional, each part has a purpose. Your personality enhances the speech and you are a generally likable speaker who can keep the audience engaged. Your time is managed well and you have a strategy in your structuring. Your arguments are effective enough where I have to weigh them in the entire debate. The factor that stops you from ranking higher is did you make the most effective moves or were there better options? (If 6 point system combine 6-7 to be 5)

7 / 26-27 / 94-96: [Almost Perfect] There are only a few things that would deter me from giving you the highest score possible. Your speaking personality has to be on point for the top tier, I can’t notice any real mess ups and the audience needs to be engaged the whole time. Your time management has to be stellar and your organization has to be effortless to follow, obviously you can’t hit all points, but the points you choose to go for need to be timed right and be necessary to shift the direction of the debate. This tier is reserved if I think your speech is great but there are enough things to critique where I can’t justify the top tier. (If 6 point system combine 6-7 to be 5)

8 / 28-30 / 97-100: [Game Changing] Everyone is on their toes because of you and your speech was super significant to the quality of the debate. Your speaking personality makes me want to root for you, I find no issues with your organization, and your argumentation is flawless in your speech and CX is used to enhance your arguments further. If I start having physical reactions to your speech you either hit this tier or are close. (If 6 point system, this is a 6).

{P.O.}

Don’t worry I didn’t forget about you. Without a P.O. The round literally cannot run, so your contribution matters to the debate. Since you do not get ranked for each speech you give, I will rank you based on, mainly, on how well you keep the round organized and give the right people their speeches and CX. Personality and memorization/quick referencing of motions are good bonuses but will not make or break my ranking, but not taking every chance you can use could prevent you from getting into the top 3. If the round is smooth and you have minimal help from the Parliamentarian (evidence disputes don’t count), you will at least 90% of the time make the top 8, the question becomes how high up will you get ranked?

I have to put the P.O. on a separate metric, then once the round ends I will compare the P.O. to the other speakers, based on round contribution and leadership. While speakers have to argue for specific positions, the P.O. has to “argue” for being the most neutral. Deciding who gets to speak can make or break the round for debaters, so the P.O. must prove to judges that they are giving everyone a fair chance to speak and following speaking order properly. The Parliamentarian should only have to step in when there are rule disputes and anything pertaining to round integrity. The P.O. must carry the boats of the round fluidity, the smoother the round the path to the ballot. Bonuses will be given to you if you can properly dispute challenges to parliamentary procedure and prove you are keeping the round as fair as possible.

What will get you into the top 3 is your control of the room; If someone needs clarification on motions, provide it. If someone challenges you, beat the challenge in a proper manner without being condescending. Provide energy to the room and make your role exciting. You are leading the room so show me you are necessary to lead to the room, don’t let the parliamentarian or other debaters do the lifting for you.

The point system is simpler than for speakers because it is less subjective if you are leading the room. 1 = Complete Dependance, 2 = Some Decision making, 3 = Average, 4 = Sound Fundamentals, 5 = Complete Independence, 6 = Dependant on you/No Major Failed Disputes

Worlds/West Ok Extemp Debate

West OK Qualifier Overview: Since the district has chosen this method of extemp debate to pick who is going to nationals I will follow the rubric from the NSDA on World Schools and use a point system to score the round. Because all speeches are two minutes they will all follow the same rubric of 1-8 for content, 1-8 for style, 1-4 for strategy (CX will have 1-2 point total score variations if used effectively or ineffectively). This means yes, YOU CAN WIN THE ARGUMENT, BUT LOSE THE ROUND, same as in worlds since all aspects of debate matter. Read below for world’s scoring specifics…

Worlds Overview: Tech > Truth, I know nothing outside of the round unless you tell me in the round. If there is a sound argument no matter how unorthodox the argument is I’ll evaluate it. I flow speeches. Don’t be a D1 hater, don't make personal attacks, keep the arguments on the topic at hand. With Worlds debate do not limit the actor of the resolution unless it specifies, if there is no spec, the actor is the “World Government” passing a motion that affects the entire world.

Note - I will refer to points on a scale of 1-8, for the West OK Qualifier this will be the correct conversion. For NSDA Worlds debate the conversion rate will be as follows for all speeches except the reply add 24 to the conversion rate. For the reply speech add 24, then divide by 2 (I don’t subscribe to PEMDAS).

Content (40%): This section is measured based on argument quality.

1 to 1.5; [Unsubstantiated] This is the purely yapping category. There is no consistency or attempt to develop the argument. Ethos is not properly established.

1.6-3; [Plausible] The analysis is very surface level and could have more substance behind it. I somewhat am inclined to believe it can happen, but you’ve got to explain more.

3.1-4.5 [Substantiated] Evidence backs up the logic you are making and the claims did not come from nowhere. There are some gaps in your arguments, but I can see where the logic comes from.

4.6-6 [Fully Developed] The arguments are well explained and the logic is consistent. The use of ethos is credible.

6.1-8: [Won the argument] The highest you can naturally get on my content side is two points below the maximum for main speeches and one point below maximum for the reply speech. Basically I believe there should be a factor that rewards the team I believe won the “debate”, but not disenfranchise the other scoring categories. Therefore, whichever side wins the “debate” in my eyes will get +5 added to the total score using the content category.

Style (40%): This section is measured based on presentation and speaking

1 to 1.5; [Showed up] There is a large degree of incoherency. Can barely understand the speaker or the speaker is getting too aggressive for no reason.

1.6-3; [Needs Improvement] There were too many distracting elements that took away from your speech, whether it be verbal crutches, choppy speaking pattern, projection, or speed. If your partners get on to you that is a large indicator to me.

3.1-4.5 [Average] Nothing too noteworthy either positively or negatively, I can understand the speech, but there may be breaks or pauses, or lack of enthusiasm

4.6-6 [Solid Fundamentals] The preciseness in speaking is starting to show, there were only a few nit picks with your speech. I see you are trying to be a personable speaker.

6.1-7.9 [Almost perfect] There is at least one factor holding me back from giving you a perfect score, either a mess up that was noticeable or it lacked the wow factor to make me view the speech as perfect.

8 [Flawless] I found no issues with your speech and most likely had a physical reaction to how engaged I was with the speech.

Strategy (20%): This section is measured based on intentionality of speeches.

“Remember to cue the one who knocks”

0 [No Organization] Either spoke less than half of the speech time or went 45+ seconds overtime. Arguments had zero links to the topic. Conceded a lot of vital ground.

1-2 [Little Organization] Missed core arguments to the round, didn’t use close to all of your speech time. Your points were easy to refute by opponents. I had to scramble to follow the flow of your speech.

3-4 [Average] You basically used your whole speech time. I can follow along with your speech. It may not be the most effective point, but I didn’t have to struggle to see where you were going.

5-6 [Sound Fundamentals] You put your time to all of the central issues in the round, you gave your opponent an avenue to go down and didn’t close all of the gaps.

7-7.9 [Almost Perfect] You put all of your time to all of the central issues and closed most of the gaps the opponents could make a potential escape with a convenient argument.

8 [Gave em’ nothing to work with] Wow, hit all issues and was very efficient on time.

Points of Information: Will sway the point totals by 2 points, positively or negatively, depending on how effective the points are and how strategic you are when taking them. Did you take too many? Did you take none? Did you make a point without strategy in mind?

Extemp

Overview: Extemp should be an event where you give a non-biased review of the current political state of the world, think of yourself as a political commentator. Opinions should be backed by evidence. I flow all speeches on tabroom so you can see what your speech looks like from an outsider's perspective.

Tech > Truth - Backup YOUR answer.

AGD: Do something please, I want to see personable speakers give me good arguments. It doesn’t have to be earth shatteringly funny, but hook me in and get me ready to listen.

Source count: I believe this matters for ethos and logos. I believe 7 (one in the intro and two in each body point) is the minimum you should hit. I need you to explicitly state your source so I can count it.

Structure: MOST IMPORTANT SECTION FOR EXTEMP. I want to see you have intentionality in each point. Time management is key. Everyone teaches a different structure so I won’t say what is the best version, but I want it to be clear you are organized.

Intro: Give me context about your topic. I will pretend I know nothing even if I do. My own knowledge should not stop your reasoning. Define the scope of the question, who or how many?

Points: Each point should answer the question, tie back to the question.

IE Speaking

Overview: Purpose is the biggest thing I look for. Speeches should have each part be intentional and add to the overall speech. I will not judge you based on the topic you choose, but how you deliver it [EVERY THESIS IS WORTH SHARING]. In speech IE events I am more tech over truth, but not entirely (I’ll get to that below). I use a point system to avoid personal preferences, based on a -1, 0, +1. I only write down what is noteworthy. -1 means it took away from your performance or took me out of the moment. 0 is where I get to add commentary, ideas, or suggestions. These do not affect your score. +1 means it enhances your performance or you should continue to do that thing in future performances. A NEGATIVE SCORE DOES NOT MEAN I THINK YOU ARE BAD AT THE EVENT. It could mean the opposite, but it means I think you have potential and adjusting will get you where you want to be. Here are factors to consider in what I score off of;

Time: Use at least 80% of the maximum time in your event. I knock points for being under time as you could give more context, pause for moments, etc.

Tech > Truth: I pretend I know nothing about the topic even if I do, my own research should not get in the way of your delivery. Your points should develop and answer your thesis. Your solution should be tangible. I want to leave the round feeling like a general person can apply your solution.

Structure: MOST IMPORTANT SECTION FOR OO/INFO. I want to see you have intentionality in each point. Time management is key. Everyone teaches a different structure so I won’t say what is the best version, but I want it to be clear you are organized.

AGD: Do something please, I want to see personable speakers give me good arguments. It doesn’t have to be earth shatteringly funny, but hook me in and get me ready to listen.

Physicality: Does your body language give you more ethos? Do they showcase the emotions you want the audience to feel?

Transitions: Were transitions clean or were they rough?

Memorization: Make it look natural if you forget, this is a quick way to lose points. I don’t know if you forgot if you don’t show me. I will add a point if there are no slip ups.

Specific points: Do certain points of logic add to your thesis or take away from it?

INFO ONLY Board tech/Propping: Do your boards look clean? Do your props add to the message? Do you switch between boards in a clean manner?

IE Acting

Overview: Purpose is the biggest thing I look for. Pieces should have each part be intentional and add to the overall performance. I will not judge you based on the topic you choose, but how you deliver it [EVERY STORY IS WORTH SHARING]. As someone who studies and creates various art, I do not always view acting from a technical lens but a big picture one. I use a point system to avoid personal preferences, based on a -1, 0, +1. I only write down what is noteworthy. -1 means it took away from your performance or took me out of the moment. 0 is where I get to add commentary, ideas, or suggestions. These do not affect your score. +1 means it enhances your performance or you should continue to do that thing in future performances. A NEGATIVE SCORE DOES NOT MEAN I THINK YOU ARE BAD AT THE EVENT. It could mean the opposite, but it means I think you have potential and adjusting will get you where you want to be. Here are questions to consider in what I score off of;

Time: Use at least 80% of the maximum time in your event. I knock points for being under time as you could give more context, pause for moments, etc.

Physicality: Does your body language make the character clear or will the audience be left confused?

Pantomiming: Do you draw imagery with the scene around you? Does your environment interaction make sense?

Transitions: Were transitions clean or were they rough?

Character Development: Was your character(s) fleshed out? Do you get their motivations across? Do I get attached to them?

Memorization: Make it look natural if you forget, this is a quick way to lose points. I don’t know if you forgot if you don’t show me. I will add a point if there are no slip ups.

Scenes: Does the cutting of a scene add to the story or take away from it?