Hello PF Competitors,

My name is Janene Adu. Here is everything you need to know about how to get high speaks and the ballot if I am your judge.

First and foremost I expect a respectful and accepting debate environment. If you are disrespectful or hurtful to your opponent’s inround especially if it is on the grounds of their identity, do not expect to win the round. This also applies to cases if you run a case that is predicated on racist, sexist, ect notions, you can also expect to lose the round.

My primary voter in any round is going to be evidence. What this means is that I prefer cases with only one or two contentions with strong link chains. I prefer these arguments over cases with many contentions with weaker link chains or extremely niche arguments with overly complex link chains (that’s not to say I don’t like unique contentions, just have the evidence to back it up). One way you can help yourself satisfy this preference is by running a strong narrative case and doing a lot of link weighing in summary and final focus.

One of my secondary voters is the flow. While I am a parent judge, I will be keeping a flow of the round and it can be a deciding factor should I favor neither team on the basis of evidence. The best way to have a favorable flow is to speak clearly and to signpost your arguments.

Another one of my secondary voters is standard weighing (IE scope, magnitude, timeframe, ect). As long as you explain both why you win each weighing framework and why I should value each weighing framework you should be fine with this voter.

Thank you and I look forward to being your judge. :)

Hello! I am the Pittsburgh Central Catholic Head Speech Coach with 5 years of experience judging all speech events. If you have any questions about your ballot, my email is pjb82@pitt.edu

If you want some feedback after round, just ask!

If you're an Extemper and you just so happen to have found my paradigm and I'm judging you, this is what you should do:

Make sure you include context in your introduction - don't waste our limited time by making irrelevant connections to pop culture. Explain the context of the question (why are we talking about it today?) and any definitions, technical terms, and historical information I may need to fully understand your answer to the question.

Diversify your sources. Use reputable sources only - if I don't know what it is I'll probably look it up after round. Avoid think tanks. Warrant your claims (remind me why your evidence matters in light of the question itself, not just that particular point).

Speak loudly, speak clearly, speak honorably.

I am "old school" communication and debate.

I can only judge what I am able to understand.

Communication, clash, and analysis with respect

are a joy to judge.

Hi! Thank you for taking the time to read my paradigm before the round. I am a relatively new judge, so please keep your delivery slow and clear. I appreciate a clear analysis of why you should win in the final focus, and please do the weighing for me! It exudes confidence when you clearly lay out why your stance has a greater impact.

If you see my pronoun listed as "judge," please note that it started as a joke at my expense. In the end, I've left it as a reminder to judge every competitor as an individual with dignity and without bias.

-----------------Speech-----------------

Do your best and be respectful of others in the room. Tell me if you want time signals. I will try and ask every competitor what they want, but it is the affirmative responsibility of each competitor to communicate what they want. I expect that you will know the rules and requirements of whichever league you are competing. Unless you are double-entered, you are expected to stay the whole time. If you are double-entered, please tell me before we begin, and do not interrupt a fellow presenter while leaving or entering. I will go in the order of the ballot. Give a warning if the piece you are presenting might cause anyone discomfort. If you need to leave for a necessary reason, please do so quietly. (You don't need to tell me why, but I may check to see if you're ok after. I worry a lot, sorry!).

Silence your personal technology devices. I would suggest using airplane mode to limit any visual notifications. Honor your fellow competitors and yourself with being mindful of your surroundings.

-----------------Debate-----------------

For LD, if you are not talking, you're prepping.

There is one official time-keeper, the judge(s). You are welcome to time yourself using your phone or another device as a timer. Your timer should be silenced and not interrupting you or your opponent's speaking time. Please ask if you want notifications whether on prep or debating and I'll be happy to let you know. When your time is up, I will inform you quietly so you can finish your sentence.

From the 2022 NCFL Bylaws "The resolution is a proposition of value, not policy. Debaters are to develop argumentation on the resolution in its entirety, based on conflicting underlying principles and values to support their positions. To that end, they are not responsible for practical applications. No plan or counterplan shall be offered by either debater."

Be polite. Argue your case effectively and clearly. As the debater, you (or your team) will decide that method. Speaking more quickly will not help you case if you are not clear. As a judge, I will attempt to read up on your topic of debate ahead of time, but it is best to assume that I know nothing and provide definitions accordingly. Be sure to ask both myself and your opponent if we are ready.

Silence your personal technology devices. I would suggest using airplane mode to limit any visual notifications. Anything that interrupts your speaking time will count against you. Doubly so if you interrupt your opponent. I'd appreciate it, as a courtesy, if you are using a phone for notes, etc (if allowed for your style of debate) to warn me ahead of time.

Internet access is being allowed in some tournaments. The rules governing access can generally be found on the tabroom page for the tournament. I have every expectation that you will use network access honorably and ethically.

I have been asked many times if I have a preference for types of arguments or styles of debate and the answer is that it doesn't matter. You are are the speaker, not I. Progressive, traditional, plans, counterplans, theories, or kritiks, your job is to convince me that your side's position is the strongest.

Extemp Debate:

Be prepared to move quickly through the round. Reminder: The use of evidence is permitted, but not a focal point due to the limited time available to prepare a case for the round. We will NOT be sending cases back and forth (unless you truly want to use your limited prep and speaking time to do so. I will be judging you exclusively on what you say out loud, so I don't recommend it!) I would recommend that you not spread. If you choose to, you'd best be on the top of your articulation game. Again, I will be judging you exclusively on what you say out loud, so I don't recommend it!

Policy Debate (CX): (Feel free to do the 1950s version of a policy round. You know, before they developed spreading. Since this is unlikely....) If you are passing cards back and forth, give me no reason to wonder if you are appropriating prep time. If you are passing cards, do so expeditiously. (Why yes, I'd like to be on the email chain! My email is tim@squirrelnest.net) Be prepared with USB drives or another medium for sharing documents. Please note, this isn't supposed to be war of the USB drives. Taking more than a minute to transfer a file will add up. Out of respect for your fellow competitors and the tabroom, I will be urging you in-round to move forward expeditiously. Especially at the varsity level.

----World Schools & Parliamentary Debate ----

I'm not going to treat this as LD/CX Jr, honest. This is NOT an event that should be featuring spreading, and the speed should max out at the upper end of a standard conversation.

NO OFFTIME ROADMAPS!!!

Argument execution is important. Each speaker should communicate using an effective combination of public speaking norms. Namely conversational speech rate, appropriate pitch and tone, and confident body language. Eye contact is key, so limit what you're reading verbatim from paper. If you read from a paper in a monotone voice for 8 long minutes, you will put me to sleep as well as your opponents. Please don't do this!

Case construction should flow seamlessly and I recommend it be logically laid out. Evidence calls are not allowed generally. Check the tournament's rules. If you think something is wrong, well, that's what POIs are for.

Do NOT abuse POIs. I will heavily dock speaker points in the event of any abuse.

NSDA nationals note: No electronic devices!!! Everything is on paper! (Other tournaments: internet use will be allowed on a per tournament basis). Any timers should be silenced!

Use of knocking and tapping in the appropriate manner is encouraged. My timer will ding for protected time. Humor will never be amiss in any round I judge.

Ask me questions before the round begins.

cards, so if there is a technology problem, we will be moving forward. Be prepared!!!

-----------------Big Questions-----------------

This is NOT an event that should be featuring spreading. Your need to appeal to the philosophy of your position in a orderly efficient manner in important. Collegial discussion needs to be your manner to approach this and be successful. Please note, this is one of the few events where a judge can declare a forfeit without consulting tabroom. You MUST remain topical. This is NOT an event to play games with kritiks and counterplans, etc. I have every expectation that you will take this event seriously. In doing so, you show respect for your team, your opponents, your judge, and yourself.

-----Legacy Pandemic Rules-----

Pandemic edition: Tell me if you can't stand or if there is another environmental concern in your presentation area. I know a lot of you are in bedrooms and otherwise at home. Do the best you can. I will NOT being taking in to account your environment with respect to your rankings.

Upon entering the room, put the title of your piece in the chat window and list whether you are double entered. Time signals can be in the form of an on-screen timepiece or traditional time signals.

I am a volunteer with past experience competing in Speech in the early 90's -- my areas of focus back then were Poetry Performance and Impromptu speaking. Present-day, I am committed to lifelong learning and interconnection.

Hello

I’m a parent judge. Please run traditional rounds only and speak slowly so that I can understand.

Good luck!

My email is emilyxdan@gmail.com

~Absolutely no spreading (abusing all our ears with speaking so quickly no one can possibly understand everything you say).

~No progressive cases (based solely upon one thing leading to another leading to the end of the world, they don't work)

~Finally, just be polite and do your best; I'm here to judge your performance in a given instance, not judge your worth as a human being.

Hello! I am Geetha Dwarakapuram. I am a senior technology manager at Bank of America. As for public speaking and giving speeches, I speak on a daily basis in front of large groups of people as part of my job. I am also a volunteer at a local youth Toastmasters club. I have been a parent judge for the last four years both online and in-person. My daughter was a National Circuit competitor in Congressional Debate for five years and my son is an active competitor in Congressional Debate.

Congress: I like to look for concise speeches that support the argument with evidence contradicting the opposing side. I also look for senators and representatives that mention others to enhance their ideas. I highly frown upon rehash but enjoy listening to speakers who engage the audience with their take on the bills. While your speaking style and delivery are, of course, an important part of the overall package, it is congressional debate after all, so I'll always rank a less polished speaker with better arguments higher than somebody who's a great orator but isn't providing something new or doesn't have the same quality of evidence. For presiding officers, I mainly judge if they do not stick out to me during the session and run a smooth and steady round.

Speech: I look for eye contact and a powerful voice when talking. I should be able to understand what you are talking about and like to be engaged throughout the whole speech. I enjoy speeches that have a memorable ending, or " end with a bang" as I like to call it. For dramatic speech events, I should be able to feel the emotion that you are trying to show with your voice. Time limits are something I look at when deciding scores.

I like to see content backed by sources, as well as clean debate. Do not personally attack your opponent, and I do not like spreading - nor will I vote for your side if I can't understand a word you're saying. Vocal intonation, vocal modulation, dynamic voice, appropriate pacing and pausing, clear enunciation, eye contact, facial expressions, and gestures are all tools that can support your presentation. Spreading and gish galloping in my opinion are NOT tools. Be honest and respectful in your presentation. Focus on framework and the value. Not one to disclose.

Pronouns: He/Him

If I've been subjected to debate please send me your case: CameronHardy123@gmail.com

Willing to judge all speech/interp, congress, and PF. LD is also fine if we're in a pinch. Congress is my preferred event and I am a qualified and experienced parliamentarian.

I am a political science major currently in my fourth year at Penn State. During my time in forensics I mainly competed in Congress and Extemp. That being said I'm passably knowledgeable about most events. I'm a pretty chill judge so as long as your respectful and you communicate your arguments in a clear and effective manner, we'll get along great and we'll have a good round.

GENERAL NOTES:

SPREADING- Generally I won't tell you that youcan'tdo something. But if you want me to understand your argument (which should be your goal) then don't spread. I'll be too busy trying to decipher whatever it is you just said to consider the argument that you presumably laid out.

THINGS YOU CAN'T DO- Look, I said generally above so this isn't contradictory. I will not tolerate racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, ableism, or hate of any kind. Period. These things are antithetical to the spirit of forensics and I will not allow a competitor to make another feel unsafe or uncomfortable.

DISCLOSURE- I do no disclose or provide verbal feedback.

CONGRESS SPECIFIC:

Do not attempt to coerce or strong arm your fellow competitors. Regardless of how badly you want to PO or speak first, if I hear coercion I will rank you towards the bottom of the chamber. Maintain decorum as well as basic respect for others. If you got bad recency or don't have the votes to be PO, make the best of it.

In general I will prefer to hear a rushed speech on an under-debated side over a perfect prepared speech that rehashes the last several speeches we just listened to. 4 people in a row all supporting the same thing for the same reasons isn't a debate, its an echo chamber. Throwing together a decent impromptu speech during a one sided debate is one of the fastest ways to the top of the rankings.

I do not require or expect a PO to keep a digital recency chart. That wasn't even a thing when I competed. But if you do, first of all that's very cool and it makes me feel old, and second I ask that you make it available to myself and everyone else in the chamber for accountability purposes.

I admire respectful communication; I appreciate style of delivery just as much as content; I don't prefer rapid fire facts prioritized over evidence of listening skills and active listening.

Speed is an issue for me. If your constructive is read so fast that I can't understand, flow or follow your points, then I can't make any good decisions about clash. I would so much rather hear fewer arguments made articulately and with deeper understanding. Spreading just sounds like word salad to me and I will vote accordingly

Email chain, please! jkk34@pitt.edu

he/him

Pittsburgh Central Catholic '21 (currently coaching)

If I am judging you in debate, please keep in mind that I am not trained in any style of debate. Please go slow, please warrant your arguments, and please refrain from using jargon.

I coach SPEECH! Do not spread. If I cannot follow the speech you are giving because you’re speaking too fast, you will not win my vote. I must be able to follow the argument; if you speak in a way that prevents me from hearing your argument, how could I possibly vote for you? Moreover, evidence should relate clearly to your argument and resolution. Most importantly, HAVE FUN!

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Clash is LIFE: Don't avoid clashing. Get in there and don't be afraid of responding to your opponent's argument. It is what makes this DEBATE, otherwise, it's dueling Oratories.

2. What is a good piece of evidence? Your evidence should connect your arguments to a clear purpose in the round. "Why are you telling me this info" should never be a thought I have. Just saying there is a link does not mean there is one. Prove it with your evidence! Connect all the dots, don’t leave me guessing or trying to piece your argument together for you.

3. Speed: I NEED TO HEAR THE WORDS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF YOUR MOUTH! Speed for speed's sake is as if the UPS guy drives by my house at 90 mph and throws the package at my head. I'm mad, the package is broken, and UPS just lost a fan. So, if you have a lot to say, I recommend slowing down to make the tags and analysis of your arguments clear so I can write them down. I would hate to see a good argument die on the lips of a speed demon.

4. Reminder: Speak loudly and in a conversational manner. So, make sure to emphasize your points clearly and effectively.

5. Confidence is key! Exemplifying a confident attitude not only makes you a stronger debater, but an overall stronger competitor.

6. Finally, be kind. The worst thing in a round is when a bully decides their opponent is inferior. I am immediately turned off.

LD: I am a traditional judge. I do NOT believe is SPREADING. Do NOT speak fast! This technique of speaking does not show your ability to be clear in stating your contentions and using concise arguments. If you spread, I will miss your points and then most likely, you will not get the win. Definitions should be clear and concise. Competitors should have clash in the debate round. Since this is a philosophical debate, I would expect to hear which philosopher reflects your value/criterion and explain the connection. Stating voting issues at the end of the round is very important. Also, competitors must support their V and VC in their speeches. Stay away from WOKE responses...they are distracting and tell me that you can't defend this resolution. Careful that your sources are not from partisan sources.

Parliamentary debate: define the government and any pertinent definitions; stay away from LD jargon; convincing arguments are important; since this is less source-based, I want to hear the general reasons that support your argument; NO new contentions in the final speeches; each speaker should take at least one questions during their unprotected time; each competitor should pose at least one question during the entire round...this indicates understanding of your opponent's position and your engagement in the issue being debated; choice of strange or a very narrow definition of the "government" does not help a debate and wastes the round. Woke arguments or arguments that have nothing to do with the topic do not help your team. These arguments only distract and say to me that you can't address the issue at hand.

Congress: If you are the first speaker/author of the Bill/Resolution, your speech should explain the Bill and its importance. First negative, you need to explain why this Bill should not be passed. While sources are sometimes important in supporting your stance, use sources that are non-partisan. (ex. MSNBC leans to the left). Also, if you use a source such as Breitbart which I've heard often, cite the specific researcher or pollster who authors the supporting evidence. If you are 3rd or 4th on Pro or Con, you must have new information as to why you support this side of the Bill. Stay away from Woke arguments.

PF: remember this type of debate says that a person off the street should be able to come into the room and judge a round. Stay away from LD language. Fighting over sources is a waste of time in my opinion during the debate. If you have researched the topic, you have the sources that support your side of the resolution. Be specific in the source and use non-partisan sources. Sources that are stronger include governmental departments and possible university research. If you are using a source such as a magazine such as The Atlantic, mention the author and his/her qualifications in presenting the information that you use. No Woke arguments.

I am a traditional judge who values clear communication and quality of delivery and content over speed and quantity of information.

“Live an active life among people who are doing worthwhile things, keep eyes and ears and mind and heart open to absorb truth, and then tell of the things you know, as if you know them. The world will listen, for the world loves nothing so much as real life.”
―Dale Carnegie,The Art of Public Speaking

I am originally from Utah and have been living in the Bloomsburg area for the past three years. I am currently a graduate student at Bloomsburg University in Geisinger's Nurse Anesthesia Program. I have always been passionate about communication, debate, and the exchange of ideas and information in a safe setting. I value diversity, equity, and inclusion and believe that everyone has something valuable to share as an integral member of our society. We all come from different backgrounds, belief systems, cultures, educational systems, families structures, and experiences and can learn a great deal from one another so long as we approach our relationships with each other in a spirit of humility and mutual understanding.

Please speak clearly. If you speak too quickly and I cannot understand, I cannot render the best judgment.

My strength is in speech and I have years of both coaching and judging students in every speech event. I also have several years coaching and judging debate as well. When presenting (regardless of what event you are in) you have multiple tools available to use to enhance, PERSUADE and connect with your audience. Vocal intonation, vocal modulation, dynamic voice, appropriate pacing and pausing, CLEAR ENUNCIATION, eye contact, facial expressions, and gestures are all tools that can support your presentation. Whether you're presenting an interpretation, an oratory, or a position in a debate use those tools. While debating, present your argument, your facts, your position and connect it all to persuade me you're correct. Spreading and gish galloping in my opinion are NOT tools and if you choose those tactics I will not be happy and your rank will reflect that mis-step. Also DO NOT waste your time telling me why I should be voting for you when you should be persuading me. In Congressional Debate be strategic in asking questions to better position your argument. Additionally, always move the debate forward. Be HONEST and RESPECTFUL in your presentation.

I have several preferences regarding speaks:

• Speak at a measured pace - Clarity over speed. It is not the amount of content covered but the idea is to convince the judge of your arguments - Ensure that your debate is comprehensible - Speak with volume to modulate your tone in conveying your arguments effectively - Appropriate eye contact with your opponents or judges as required
• My preferences for argument - I favor strong and logical arguments supported by facts and warranting - Extend your warranting - I judge the rationality of an argument based on your impact, but the entire case must be cohesive - I will vote for the larger impact only if the point is warranted properly and well articulated - Strong impactful arguments made by opponents left unresponded to will go in your opponents' favor - As a judge, I won’t contribute my knowledge to this debate and will solely judge on information presented to me. Make sure to address your opponents' arguments appropriately. - Speaker points do not affect my judging decision, but I prefer a well-articulated argument conveyed effectively.
• What not to do - Do not source battle unnecessarily, argue, and extend with your warrants. Rather convey your arguments with a force of rationality. - Do not belittle opponents' sources - Evidence should support your arguments, not arguments supporting evidence. The point is not to sprinkle pieces of evidence but to weave those into your story with consistency. Best of luck and most of all enjoy the debate!!

tl;dr: I coach speech primarily and when needed, I judge debate; I don't mind speed and tech, but I should be able to follow the argument without reading along. Evidence should relate clearly to your argument and resolution. Most importantly, HAVE FUN!

You can share cases with me, please go ahead. I may not read the case along with you as you present it, but will use it as a reference.

I am also inviting you and your coach (please, obtain their permission first) to email me for anything you need. I would be happy to clarify my RFD, to answer any questions about my paradigm, or even if you feel unsafe in a round, I will do everything in my power to help you.

On to the good stuff:

________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Clash is LIFE: Don't avoid clashing. Get in there and don't be afraid of responding to your opponent's argument. It is what makes this DEBATE, otherwise, it's dueling Oratories.

2. What is a good piece of evidence? One that is clear. "I have a card" is not clear, nor is it persuasive. Your evidence should connect your arguments to a clear purpose in the round. "Why are you telling me this info" should never be a thought I have. Just saying there is a link does not mean there is one. Prove it with your evidence!

3. Speed: I NEED TO HEAR THE WORDS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF YOUR MOUTH! I am not anti-speed, but speed for speed's sake is as if the UPS guy drives by my house at 90 mph and throws the package at my head. I'm mad, the package is broken, and UPS just lost a fan. Speed for argument depth is great, but I recommend signaling or slowing down to make the tags and theories clear so I can write them down. I am not a silent judge. I will say something in between speeches if I cannot understand you, but if I cannot write down your argument in the flow, then guess what? The other person wins because I could hear them. I would hate to see a good argument die on the lips of a speed demon.

4. Traditional or Progressive? I'll be honest, I have leaned towards more traditional when it comes to LD in the past, but the past few years I have become more inclined to some fun progressive debates. I do believe that LD at its core is a value debate. If you are going to run a progressive case, be sure it still fits the idea of a value debate on THIS resolution, not the one you wish NSDA voted for, but THIS resolution.

5. To K or Not to K? Why not? Challenge the system, make the debate interesting and captivating, BUT also remember what I said in number 4. This is a value debate and should ultimately be about the resolution at hand. If you want to run a K about how your opponent's shoes are unlaced; therefore, they are unprofessional, I really think you could do better.

6. Finally, be kind. The worse thing in a round is when a bully decides their opponent is inferior. I am immediately turned off and while it will not affect what I vote on, it will affect how much attention I can give you.

This is my first year judging Extemp Debate; I have more experience judging within Speech events. Just a few things to keep in mind:

Communicate your arguments clearly and avoid spreading. I value the quality and strength of the argument more than the quantity of facts you can state. I value clear communication and argumentation techniques.

Do not be rude, petty, or disrespectful. There is a difference between being assertive and being aggressive, keep your composure geared towards the former.

My strength is as a speech judge, so I prefer debate rounds where strong communication is utilized. I typically go into my first round not knowing background on the topic so I can be prepared to be convinced. All other things being equal, I am likely to vote on impacts. Don't expect to win me over by niggling about definitions. I value: roadmaps, clarity, evidence, and respectful argumentation. Dislikes: spreading, gish galloping (I admit I had to look that one up, I just knew I wasn't going to like it. Yup. Don't do that).

I am a traditional judge. Speak loudly, clearly, and please do not spread unless you are experienced enough that you can do it successfully.

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.

As a competitor in Lincoln Douglas Debate and Congress in the late 1990s, I have returned recently as a coach/judge. Some things have changed; some things are the same. I remain most interested in adjudicating rounds where clash between AFF and NEG is clearly articulated and engaged. I favor debaters who take a tabula rasa approach and do not assume that the judge is comfortable with voting on a particular theory, but rather effectively use evidence, signpost contentions, and conclude with voting issues that expose the debates' clash. I am comfortable with speed, as long the speaker does not sacrifice clarity or a compelling tone. I can be convinced by counter-plans, disadvantages, and kritiks as long as they stay close to the resolution, affirm a value, and speak (once again) to clash. I like the debaters to keep a formality/professionalism about debate, and treat each other and the judge respectfully. This includes attention to presentation (standing over sitting), eye contact with the judge, and good beginnings and endings to all speeches and CX.

Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, and Extemporaneous Debate are persuasive speaking events. Your speech must be geared toward the average, non-technical college-graduate-level audience. You do not need to 'dumb it down' for a Reality-TV audience, but if you are talking too fast, or using undefined jargon - even common LD terms like Utilitarianism or Categorical Imperative - you are hurting your chances. And refer to arguments by their substance, not name dropping - not 'My Plato Card' but 'the philosopher-king argument.' And you must be polite to your opponent, no matter how obnoxious they are.

In LD, your value and criterion count - this is how all of your arguments will be judged, as well as any impacts. If you prove horrible war crimes will be committed under your opponent's case, but have conceded the value of real politick and your opponent effectively argues those war crimes will improve the political standing of the perpetrator, then no matter how morally reprehensible the crimes committed, there is no impact under that value. Conceding the value is fine, if you think you can win under theirs, but understand the full ramifications of doing so are not merely saving time for your clever sub-points, but conceding how they will be judged.

A final note on LD - Lincoln Douglas is styled on an election debate - you are trying to get elected, persuade the judge to vote for you - you are not trying to cram in as many words as you can in hopes that one of them might give you the win, if only you speak so fast your opponent can't physically flow your speech.

In Extempt Debate, you only have at most two minutes - keep your evidence to statistics and use your own arguments - you really don't have enough time for anything else - which is the point. And avoid the temptation to try to fit 5 minutes of speech into a two-minute speech - if you are speaking too fast to take notes, you are by definition saying nothing noteworthy.

For speech events - clarity is the most important part of any speech - not just clarity of speech, but clarity of meaning and clarity of purpose. If you move, move for a purpose. If you speak oddly or with a heavy accent that is barely comprehensible, it still needs to clearly communicate something; the emotions of the phrase we can't understand, at the very least.

Finally, never tell the judge she MUST vote for you - the judge must vote for whom they think won - declaring yourself the winner is generally bad form, no matter how badly you have trounced your opponent. Forcefully argue in your voters or final speech why you think you won, but no mic drop.

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!