I am a new parent judge. I prefer good speaking style, clear, concise, and easy to understand arguments.

I have been coaching speech and debate since 1999, first in south Florida and now in central Florida.

LD: I am not a fan of Kritiks. In most respected academic realms, students are not rewarded for giving an off-topic response to a prompt. I have found that most Kritiks fall under the "off-topic response" descriptor, thus I do not take them seriously as a response to the resolution (or, as I see it, the prompt). Further, I find these types of arguments counter to the essence of the debate activity, excluding new and small programs and creating an exclusive sub-group (clique, if you will) within the debate community.

So in that respect, I consider myself more of a traditional LD judge than a progressive one. I want to hear a clear debate about the values that are in conflict in the resolution. Your cases should be comprised of arguments that are based in credible, academic sources; they should be built on clear logic, creative and innovative ideas; and they should actively and directly clash with your opponent's arguments. Debaters who can present a strong case with great logic and evidence, effective refutation of their opponent's case, and ultimately prove their Value/Value Criterion will win. If both debaters are equal on contentions and rebuttals, I will decide the round on which value holds up. So, make sure everything you argue ties back to your V and VC.

Special Note about progressive LD: While I do not like this style, I will (of course) judge you on your performance in the round, whatever shape each particular round takes. I will not judge anyone solely based on style/type of case. But let me elaborate a bit on why I find progressive style LD so problematic.

First, the speed is antithetical to real communication. Ideas, especially complex, nuanced, layered ideas (the likes of which one would hope to encounter in LD) require momentary breaths, pauses to let them settle. While sharing cases can help, it does not solve the issue fully. Also, the prevalence of JARGON in progressive debate is a distraction from the arguments in the round. Do your best to limit the use of jargon.

My next concern is the facile, reductive treatment given to the philosophical and academic theories often used by students. While I applaud your efforts to engage with these complex, rich, important ideas and texts, debaters are too often punching above their weight. That is understandable. Scholars spend their entire careers unpacking these theories. It is the very rare teenager who can engage with them without reducing them to tag lines and washed-out, oversimplified shadows of the textured ideas they actually are. IF you truly understand the ideas you are using (and you’re not just parroting something written by your team/coaches/camps), then go for it.

Finally, as the coach of a burgeoning team at a Title 1 school, I am very concerned about the fairness of this type of debate for programs like mine. Much has been written about this issue, so I will not belabor the point.

PF: The team that is able to support their contentions with strong logic and good evidence while effectively refuting their opponents' case will win the round. I am okay with some speed. You will see me flowing during most of the round, but I am still looking for all of the hallmarks of good communication: eye contact/hand gestures/facial expressions/voice modulation. Although I won't decide a round based on a single dropped argument, I will consider that as part of my decision. The best rebuttals are those who can systematically go down the flow and address most arguments. Strong contentions will include important impacts. Strong cases will provide some sort of framework. A good final focus will include impact weighing and voters.

Again, I am not a fan of the changes occurring in PF. Jargon (lots and lots of it) has crept in, and we have left the “public” in Public Forum far behind. (Sigh).

Final note: I value clarity over speed, and I consider civility to be of paramount importance in all rounds. Assertiveness does not require aggression. Assertiveness is applauded; aggression will be penalized.

I am currently competing in Extemp and Congress on the Varsity level, so if you're reading this, most likely you're doing some sort of speech event (although I also judge debate). I know it is unusual for speech judges to have a paradigm, but I think it's always helpful to know what's on the judges' minds. If you ever have any questions about my ballots please email me at tgercken@college-prep.org!

Extemp:

I am sure you all are smart cookies, so I am not going to do the usual speech paradigm of telling you that good evidence, confidence, and delivery are critical; obviously if those are lacking you will be marked down. However, I think it is a far better use of your time to tell you that I will judge the round very technically.

This means that I am using a stopwatch in round to make sure you start and end points on time. I am very attached to the 1:30 - 1:30 (x3) - 1:00 structure of Extemp. If your points are ~15 seconds off in either direction, expect a comment. Hitting the times almost precisely is an excellent way to signal to me that you are a high-level competitor, and I should not stand in the way of you breaking.

In addition, there is a tendency in high-level Extemp to talk faster and use your hands every few seconds. If you are talking more than a bit faster than conversation speed, expect a comment. If your hands are not mostly by your side, expect a comment. Also, staying still is impressive to me. Swaying back and forth undermines presentation.

I will be noting substructure and similar substructure for all three points is a great way to get good ranks with me. If all three points work differently, it feels un-unified, and you should expect a comment. The substructure for the intro, points, and conclusion should be fairly traditional. It would take a lot to convince me that your way is better than the regular way. That means your intro should have an AGD and background and impact, and your conclusion should contain more than just your question and answer. If I cannot instinctively feel the flow from my competition in Extemp because it is so predictable, expect a comment.

I think having to memorize the question word for word is kind of weird, given that in college, you can just read it off the slip. I will flat out let you read it off the slip or keep the chat up in zoom. Note that it may impact your presentation but there's a way to do it cleanly. Also, if you state the question and it's basically the same with a little bit of different wording, I do not care and honestly will not notice 99% of the time. So if you spend a minute or two in prep memorizing the question, do not, practice the intro again or something.

In cross-examination, you should be having a conversation, trying to discover more about their argument. I do not view cross-examination as a way to poke holes in each other's arguments; I view it as a furthering of the fundamental goal of Extemp, which is education. If you come off as aggressive, argumentative, or as trying to undermine your fellow competitor (not opponent), expect a comment. Cross-x has never made me more likely to rank you highly, only less.

This may give you the impression that I am expecting a complicated speech full of theory. That could not be further from the truth. I appreciate speakers who take it slow, make simple arguments, and have great signposting. The Extemp community is terrific, we love to talk about issues on a really detailed level, but ultimately we will be presenting to non Extempers. Just because I can understand a fast and complicated argument does not mean I will appreciate it. If it is not simple enough for even the parent judge that provokes the most complaining on the bus ride home, expect a comment.

For online competition, please position your camera so you face it head on, stay reasonably close to the camera, move around, and above all else, please time yourself. It helps you (having more exact time), and it helps me (concentrating more on the speech and giving better ranks/comments).

Congress:

Congress is such an interesting event because it is structured so differently than the speech and debate categories. But critically, while it is different, I consider it a debate event and expect it to not feel like a many person version of lay PF. For a more extensive judging philosophy, you should read the Public Forum section of this document.

Engagement is amazing; ask questions, give rebuttals. If you are clearly just reading speeches that you wrote at home before the round, you will not get a super high score, and you should expect a comment. Congress is the one speech event with lots of involvement between participants, and it should be a significant part of the round.

Impromptu:

Impromptu is a very limited prep event, but it still should feel like any other speech. Well thought out, with clearly delineated points, just in a shorter time frame. First, you need to have an introduction. Just saying the topic and jumping into arguments are not enough (also never start with the topic, and AGD needs to be somewhere). However, depending on the topic, you can cut some things. Obviously, background will not be needed if the prompt is "a day at the pool." Use your best judgment but make sure it is robust. Clearly signposting what your points are and then making sure they have a followable substructure is critical and is the number one thing I will mark you down for. If you just have a train of consciousness, it will not be very convincing or informative. However, it is a shorter time period so try to keep your points simple. A reasonably common criticism I have is that things are assumed that the judge gets but not described. Try not to do that. Finally, your conclusion should have a tie-up and a return to your AGD. Just ending your speech after your second point or after a brief tie-up is not going to work. The third paragraph of the Extemp section has some notes on the presentation you may want to look at.

Oratory/Advocacy:

I have never done Oratory or Advocacy, so you should consider me a lay judge. I want you to connect with me and convince me, I want a nice and clear structure with lots of signposting, and I want in-depth analysis that makes sense to me. I don't know how technical anyone really gets in Oratory/Advocacy but regardless I won't be considering that. Some of my notes in the Extemp section are likely to apply as well, so I would recommend you reference it.

Interp:

Make me laugh, make me cry, make me believe whatever it is you are trying to be. I will be the first to admit; I know 0 about the Interp events, so please treat me precisely as you would a lay judge. I'm sorry if this disappoints you, but I just can't have a judging philosophy on events I don't do. That being said, I am always really excited to see interps, so I will be happy to watch and listen.

Public Forum:

Public Forum debate is not Policy, and in judging, I am looking for a very different experience. I want to see a friendly well-reasoned debate between four smart high schoolers/middle schoolers about the actual topic. Clearly delineated arguments, links, and impacts, in a thoughtful and convincing manner is critical. Do not spread. I will not read a speech doc (except to look for cards) and even if I can understand it, if you are speaking faster than a lay person could understand and flow, I will disregard everything you say. Please, no weird arguments that don't seem to pertain to the resolution, and, while significant impacts are necessary, if arguments start to be linked to stuff like extinction or nuclear war with a tenuous connection, I'm not going to vote on it (the impacts should be big but they have to be real). Truth > tech not because I don't understand but because that shouldn't be encouraged and if that's what you're looking for go to Policy. If you use a theory that does not quote the rulebook, or spread or run a k, I will sign the ballot immediately and give both competitors 26 speaker points max (if another team does any of these, please do not respond. They have already lost the round, but I would like discussion to continue for the educational value). Explain to me why you are right but if you attempt some sort of theoretical explanation of the event it will not land well with me. I will nod along with you, understand, and vote you down. One part of the case that I am especially interested in is the framework. I view framing the debate at the top as critical to accessing impacts and if I don't have framework I will default to a very restrictive view of what is topical which will likely hurt your case. If only one team gives me framework (and it is somewhat reasonable), I will default to theirs. If both teams give framework to me, winning (or at least tieing) that clash is essential to me letting you access your impacts.

Policy/LD:

I have never done Policy/LD, and I am not used to spreading. Please make sure I can understand, obviously if I can't, there is no way I can base my vote on whatever you are saying. I know that Policy/LD has a tendency to focus some arguments on things that don't relate to the resolution, and that is fine; I'm judging a Policy/LD round, and I will try my best to abide by the events conventions. But, please make sure it's clear why I should vote on something not pertaining to the resolution. In cases where other judges might just get it, make sure it's clear to me.

Politics:

I hate the trend in speech and debate where competitors look up their judges to find out what their politics are. However, it is sadly necessary for a variety of reasons. I have had my fair share of judges that voted me up or down based on opinion. So, I'll tell you upfront that I'm a libertarian. You can find my twitter here if you really want to check it out. But I promise that I will try not to judge you based on my political opinion.

Hey all,

My name is Max Goldberg and I have been an extemper for 4 years at Park City High School. I have broken at tournaments such as Harvard, Longhorn and Blue Key and attended the Tournament of Champions. I have also dabbled in Congress a bit in which I finaled Utah State. My email is maxextemp@gmail.com

EXTEMPERS:

SUBSTRUCTURE>>>>>>>. I will value Substructure the most out of all factors. Then comes Content and finally delivery. I would much rather a bad speech without notes than a good speech with notes. Don't lie, I can tell when you lie. If you forget a source its understandable, forgetting all of them and then lying is ehhh. I prefer narrative AGDs and emotions than bad canned jokes. Just try to have fun with the event. ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION. 2 sources min per point. For IX questions I want a heavy background if needed (I wont dock you for not saying that Russia Invaded Ukraine) For stuff like that, give me info on why the question is relevant. MAKE SURE UR THESIS ANSWERES THE QUESTION AS WELL. No overlap between points; that will make me mad. I don't flow ur conclusion, don't worry too much about it. Second sig, repeat question and answer, tie back to AGD. Don't say something outrageous and I won't care.

Congress:

If we are in like our 4th cycle and Im hearing the same arguments I will tune out and refuse to flow. Bring up new arguments or evidence. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PLEASE REBUTE. Dont be a dick in questioning. Even if there is a key flaw in their argument, don't bring it up in questioning, ask about it but don't argue during questioning. Bring it up in your next speech. I will make note of who stands up when asked to give a speech, priority can be a pain so I will note if yall have a speech but cant give it. In speeches, try not to read word for word from your flow. It becomes much more passionate when its not read word for word. Idc for roleplaying so don't worry about it. FOR MY PO's: keep a strict priority, don't play favorites, make sure you understand the event.

Have fun with it, US Congress is hilarious so idk make this one funny as well.

Literally all other events:

Policy: I don't know crap about policy, treat me as lay judge except that I know basic content. No spreading please. K's can work if you make them very clear. Funny K's are the best AS LONG AS U MAKE THEM VERY CLEAR. This crpa is 2 hours long, make it interesting.

LD:
Uphold ur value and criterion. This is prob lay debate for me.

PF:

Refer to other events. I flow. PLS FOR THE LOVE OF GOD IMPACT WEIGH. Like I will flow but I might miss and if I miss or you do not weight clearly, it wont matter on my flow. Weigh

ALL: I DONT FLOW CROSS. BRING IT UP IN ACTUAL REBUTTALS IF U WANT ME TO FLOW.

Hey y'all! I'm Valor (they/them), a varsity extemper who's participated in DI, Commentary, and Impromptu (though I've coached Oratory and Informative)! I know speech paradigms are rare, but here's my words of wisdom:

-PLEASE SPECIFY YOUR TIME SIGNALS! Even if you don't, I will most likely ask anyway.

-I'm more well versed in limited prep events, so I am biased towards natural speakers that don't sound rehearsed :) even if it's a memorized speech, make it your own!

-If you're in a limited prep event, make sure to utilize the space both with your movement and eye contact- we should be graduating past the 'stare at a spot in the back of the room'

-I care less about you messing up than how you choose to recover, don't let one little slip-up throw off your message. Trust me, it's not as noticeable as you think it is :)

-Delivery > content > organization, though all are important

-Short speeches will be ranked low (I don't enforce grace period super strictly unless it's like way over), though if you have a well-timed organization that doesn't feel rushed, I'll understand

-If you're in an interp event, take big risks! If I see you're playing it safe, I'll rank you lower than someone who's not afraid to throw themselves into the character (yes, yes, I'm a theatre kid)

-Don't feel like you have to appeal to me by picking a specific point of view; judges are meant to be subjective and I want to hear your genuine take on the issue.

-Be confident and own the stage!! You've got this :)

Hi! My name is Ece and I used compete in Extemp at LHP

I've judged every speech event, but here is mainly what I look for.

For Extemp:

Structure Structure Structure. You should lay out a clear roadmap of your speech and I want to see warrants for every claim. Having a solid understanding of substructure is going to be ranked higher than snake charming. I like seeing credible sources, but adding in think tanks and varied authors will definitely strengthen your argument. Please do not use canned AGDs or On Tops.

Structure > Content > Delivery

I'd much rather see a well thought out nuanced speech that I can follow over a used car salesman.

For Prepared Events:

Strong organization and few memory slips are definitely critical. I always love seeing interesting takes, but a well road mapped speech is going to automatically stand out for me. Hand gestures and well utilized expressions are also really important to me in these events.

Overall, I don't mind a couple flubs in delivery if the passion, thought, and content of the speech was there. Be confident! You guys are all going to achieve great things.