Email chain/questions: tcrivella@me.com

Additionally, please add the following emails depending on your event:

PF: sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com

LD: sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com

CX: sevenlakescx@googlegroups.com

__________________________________________________

I'm Tyler Crivella, current freshman at UTD and former Seven Lakes High School ('24) competitor. I have competed in every event NSDA offers except POI and DUO. Currently coaching and judging mainly national circuit debate tournaments.

Loud sounds, eating, chewing gum, sniffling, gaveling, and other sounds will down you. I have hearing disabilities and your articulation and reasonable (but not overbearing) projection are crucial to my participation. If I put headphones on, do not adjust to speak louder, it means you are too loud and you should likely adjust.

__________________________________________________

Debate:

TLDR: You do you-- I'll vote for whatever you tell me. Be kind.

On logistics, you should do the following: respect tab pronouns, show up on time, don't paraphrase, and send speech docs quickly after prep time stopping. Email chain, please. Flip and send a test for the email chain to both emails by posted round time, with or without me in the room. I always prefer docx > paste in email > pdf > Google Doc. If you do Google Doc, you better pray I don't catch you live adding new cards.

On speed, I can handle speed in person, but I'm not flowing off the speech doc. Do articulation warm-ups before round because I need to actually hear letters—PFers can suck at enunciation sometimes.

On general thoughts,I will time speeches with an alarm and stop flowing the second it starts ringing. You don't have grace time in debate. Stop talking please. Stealing prep is bad. Knocking when speech time ends is bad. I will keep time and down speaks if your opponents are over/stealing so you don’t need to get mean in round if it’s happening. I evaluate the round based on only arguments in the round. Cards with one word are not cards. The warrant debate is something that I value more than most judges; still impact weigh but don't drop your delinks in the back half. I'm more than happy to vote for a K if the link is clear. You do you-- I'll vote for whatever you tell me. Warrant your extensions/turns/voters in back half because I will not vote just off a card saying it happens. Also, pet peeve: don't tell me you're "going to get to something" ever. That wastes time and ruins my flow; applies to CX or speeches.

On speaker points, I care about the technical moves in round rather than your "vibes" unless those vibes are trash. This looks like making the right collapse, answering all the offense, not reading red cards or needing to recut the constructive, not speaking over time, etc. About 10% of the rounds I judge end in me giving a sub-26.5 because of truly terrible aggression in CX. That's a bad trend and you should be conscious of that in your round.

PF: I am more than happy to vote off of theory arguments or Ks-- you obviously must win them but I can and have voted for them. I can handle speed but good lord do PF'ers absolutely suck at spreading, if you can even call it that. If you spread and your articulation is bad or you blippily read two words off a card, I probably won’t flow it and it’ll have been a loss of your time. Probably not flowing the doc so you should do some drills before round. I understand that you might be tired after all these rounds, but I am really a fan of dedication/enthusiasm. I know this is PF but you need to cite a warrant on your offense if you want it to be a voter in back half of the round. On this, extensions need to happen in the back half if you want to get my ballot. Obviously, please weigh. I will only use the metrics provided in the round and use as minimal judge intervention as possible. Tech over truth but the less truthful you are, the less the burden for responses.

CX: I try to be Tabula Rasa. Cool with Ks and T, but I don't have a very familiar understanding of a lot of the niche literature. If you cannot explain the K in plain English in cross, I'll likely drop that sheet of paper direct to the bin and bump your speaks down too. I think Ks are super fun but newer teams need to be given a chance at beating them—empathy and respect over aggression in CX goes a long way. Check hearing disabilities above if you’re thinking about a performance shell. I can handle speed but I'm not flowing off the speech doc. Tech over truth but the less truthful you are, the less the burden for responses.

For negative teams, I feel most comfortable voting in this order (DA, K, Case > CP > T), but believe that you should run the offs that work best for the round. Strategically, all are important. I feel that negative teams drop case too often and willingly.

LD:I honestly don't have a ton of LD experience. I did a few rounds as a novice, but the event is obviously deeper than that. I'll likely evaluate the round like a policy round but with a framing debate. Consider reading my above paradigms.

Congress:

Generally, I have very mixed opinions on this event. I did this event for about a year and a half and ended it by giving an equity speech complaining about accessibility at TFA Finals--Congress has not improved much since that speech. I generally care more about contributions to "the flow," structure of speeches, and procedure more than the average judge. If you are reading this, you're likely the type of debater that will do better in my rounds.

Also, evidence is not something that you simply can fabricate in my rounds. I might call for a card; I might down you if you make up a statistic; I might take an evidence concern to tabroom. At locals, I probably won't look favorably on a student-led evidence challenge, but at a national circuit or final at a regional tournament, I may feel inclined to hear an evidence protest. Here's the link to the rules on evidence and procedure from the Harvard tournament, which I see as a generally good Congress tournament. Follow the process present and share with my email at the top of paradigm. Again, though, this generally does not go well and should not be seen as a means to climb the ranks but rather a means to check unfair ethics.

Speaking: I prefer two point speeches but I can ride with one argument speeches too. Refutation is a must if you are not giving the first three speeches and even those one should have some. Questioning is not a screaming match. More speeches ≠ better speaker. The "PO" and "two speech" meta is bad. I would rather the round hit four bills with good, short, and dense debate than a prolonged, dead round after twelve speeches on each bill. AGDs, fluency, stance, and general speech skills do actually matter; it's not just the flow. Amendments are a dead medium that should make a resurgence. Bryce Piotrowski is a mentor that has a lot of ideas on this event that I agree with.

PO:If you PO, do not expect a free break. In a round of great speakers, you will be ranked under them even with perfect PO'ing. Do not gavel as PO or I will straight up kick you out of the room. Use the end of the stick, use hand signals, knock, get creative and be consistent. POs should run the room: asking for splits if needed, moving things along rather than a representative.

Worlds:

This event is a little goofy and we both know it. As a judge, I am presented a rubric that gives equal points style as content. This allows some teams to hypothetically win despite losing on the flow. Though I feel that this system is a bit weird, I recognize its usage and why it exists (stop spreading) and want to respect the event; thus, if presented a rubric on my ballot, I will be using it exclusively to evaluate the round. If not, look to my debate paradigm; otherwise, read on to see how that rubric will be graded. I usually evaluate style and content relative to their closest immediate counterpart from the other side (1st PROP Speaker against 1st OPP Speaker) with strategy being pretty solely based on POIs. Here's a more detailed breakdown of what I am looking for with each point:

Style:I handle this like a competitive one-on-one platform speech against each relative counterpart. I generally note things from this laundry list only when they are particularly well executed or harmful to the speech: projection/volume (see top of paradigm), structure, speed of delivery, respectful attitude, fluency, hand gestures, control of POI taking, eye contact. The order of that list reflects my order of importance.

Content:This usually simply equates to who best moves the round forward on the flow. 1st Speakers should introduce around two substantives that have distinct, non-repeating ideas and logical warrants for those points. This role often leads to a detatched late-round presence, which I will discourage with low strategy points. You are still in this round after your speech. 2nd Speakers should do a ton of new refutation with minimal reference to prior ideas and expand the round. This role requires a very clear structure while not directly becoming repetitive. 3rd Speakers should add a newlayer of refutation and start to collapse the round down. I feel particularly that 3rd Speakers tend to not contribute to the round as much as they should. In general, new ideas/warrants that shape the round (meaning that they make sense on a quality level) will be rewarded.

Strategy:Most tournaments let me give a 13, 14, or 15. You start at a 13. If you give a good POI and attempt about three times, you will move to a 14. If you give two excellent POIs or three good POIs and attempt about six times in the round, you will move to a 15. Excessive POIs (once every 30 seconds is the absolute limit--err on the side of caution if I start giving you looks), attempting during protected, and long-winded POIs (anything over 15 seconds will start to drag on) will result in a slide back down.

Extra:If you knock a lot and I give you glances, that's not a good sign...

Speech:

Don't adapt your speech for me unless it's a concern of volume/sounds, in which case that is existential to your placement. I will do time signals and if I mess them up, you will not receive any retribution or penalty. I suggest you ask me about how time signals will be given and about how the structure of the round will go if you aren't sure. Be a good spectator; no phones and no leaving during speeches.

Extemp:This event is my baby and I love it. Please don't break that opinion. I have a modern view on how extemp should be run but still a pretty basic rubric in most rounds. For 90% of all speeches, I don’t think the question gets answered enough. I care more for answering it than giving me a good, narrative impact or something. Focus on that and you will do good. For higher level extemp, I prefer speeches to be both comedic and dramatic: doing both in a speech is a lot more skillful than just one. No layered analysis unless you really, really think it'll work. Priorities are as follows:

1. Answering the Question
2. Quality of the Points
3. Quality of Analysis (Including background)
4. Stucture and Fluency
5. Presentation
6. Number and Quality of Sources

Hi! I am Ryan, a college student and coach of Archbishop Molloy HS. I did Speech in HS for 3 years and had success on the local level (qualled for States/NCFLS). I coach most events offered, but even if I don't, I have had relative experience judging and learning about it over the last few years.

I highly prefer email chains, please send to rcurran@molloyhs.org

TLDR; I can judge prog rounds, but don't be too messy (explanation below). I am fine with speed, but don't do so without checking w opponents. Tech over truth, but don't abuse that to the highest limits! Oh and also weigh, because idk why I hear very little nowadays. Keep ample timing for it plz

HAVE FUN IN UR ROUNDS! I love silly/fun rounds and I think its a way for everyone to relax and take a little breather from being in the S&D world.

DISCLAIMER- I am hard of hearing, so I will need you to speak loud and clear. This is just to let you know in advance if you wonder why I ask you to repeat something. I am fine with speed, just PLEASE send me your case in advance. Also, if I cannot hear/understand you, I will say a verbal/nonverbal clear (either comes down as to what you prefer). Because of this, I will flow with the 1AC/1NC docs open but that does not mean I'll be relying on solely those.

Stole from WK Kay's paradigm:

Read this article.After reading that article, you should feel compelled to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Though at this point it should go without saying, I will make myself clear:I have a zero-tolerance policy for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and all other forms of bigotry, prejudice, hatred, and intolerance. You are smart enough to find impacts for the most esoteric and outlandish of arguments, I am certain you are aware of the impact of your words and actions on other people. Simply put: respect each other. We are all here to learn and grow together.

PF and LD:

Pref List--

Trad- 1

Policy-1

Theory/T- 2 (I like it when explained clearly but I don't suck up for friv theory that easily)

K- 2/3 (ensure you provide links and alt)

Phil-3/4 (not as familiar with it other than Util, bit of Kant, etc)

Tricks- Strike

I did like one college policy comp but just for ref-- I read soft left affs and Cap/Academy K with some T sprinkled in on neg. If this is your thing, go for it.

Overall debate pref-- Consider me as a half prog half lay judge. I love hearing debates that are unique and stand out but note that I started coaching/learning debate less than 2 years ago. I still love traditional debate just as much, also because it's the most familiar I am with when I was on the team and now. However, I am fine with whatever you run (obviously not something that's just blatantly wrong or ignorant, as well as tricks).

I am a huge fan of clear impacting/weighing. I need you to sign my ballot for me and remind me the offense/defense laid in the round.

Speed/Spreading-- I am fine with speed (as mentioned before), but let your opponents know before round. It makes me frown like this :( when varsity debaters spread/run progressive args without checking in with those beforehand

Frameworks-- If you use a FW in a round, make sure to extend it the whole round. Even in LD, where I will then just default the round on global util

Rebuttals/Extensions-- I grouped these two together because I need these two to be properly balanced and clear. Even w speed in round, I need a flow that tells me there are arguments carried over. Don't just give a 1-2 sentence extension for your case, really explain the essence of your args and their uniqueness.

Miscellaneous stuff--

Tech > Truth, but please for the love of god, don't abuse that. There are limits I will look at where there's absurd arguments (similar to what I said before about tricks)

Weigh weigh weigh. It helps me to see your arguments and to know WHY I should be voting for you.

Let me know where you are at during the round via signposting!!! This way I know where you are, and I don't have to worry about that. I want to at least hear your tags so I'm not lost where I am at.

Same thing with off time roadmaps, that'll help me a lot, but don't go on and on, just be short and simple.

I do flow most of the debate, and will also try to flow CX. As said before, I like to think that cross can be binding at certain moments. I like flowing on paper but will flow on my laptop if needed.

Congress:

I have realized that my preference for Congressional Debate may be different than others, so I wanted to list down some stuff I like to see in a chamber/round:

• Be clear and precise in your speech. Quality will outweigh quantity in my eyes. Even if you have 1-2 points in your speech, you have enough time to state your data, analysis, and more within each of them.
• Parliamentary procedure is key! I want to know that your performance is on point not just through your speeches, but your delivery of motions before/during/after.
• I have seen more walking in speeches the last year or so. I like it, but don't be too excessive.
• Clash clash clash. I cannot explain how crazy I've turned when speeches after the 2nd half of the round are just the same exact points
• Don't rehash points made before unless you REALLY have to give a speech and don't have any other choice.

Presiding Officer- I commend students who have taken on this role. It is not an easy feat, and can be screwed over during rounds. I will always start my PO within the Top 3-5 of the chamber.

• However, you are going to have to be consistent with your recency/overall charts. Take control of the round and stand your ground if needed.
• If you are doing an online tournament, I would highly recommend using index cards when giving time signals. There are references you can find on YouTube where previous PO's at nat circuit tournaments have used them.

Speech:

There's really nothing I have specific in terms of preferences for Speech, since it is typically obvious with the rules under each event.

• But, I will say that I am not a huge fan of excessive walking (as said before with Congress). I did Oratory, so I have seen and judged numerous speeches where this happens.
• In interp events, I really like technical use of the room/binder/piece. It can be hard sometimes, but note that this is a strong factor I take into account when judging.

If there are any specific questions you have before or after a round, just lmk. Any form of discrimination during rounds will result in an automatic drop. Debate is supposed to be an enjoyable space where you are able to delve into the world of argumentation and research.

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 :)

Hey, I'm Aidan! I competed in Public Forum and Extemp on the Minnesota local circuit throughout high school. I'd call myself a flay and analysis-oriented judge, respectively. Below are some notes on my approach to Extemp.

[_] Structure is a prerequisite to analysis and delivery. Answering the question is, itself, a structural matter: the thesis must answer the question, taglines must support the thesis, and content must support the taglines.Clear, unified substructure is therefore non-essential but helpful. In my experience, good substructure can be surprisingly effective at compensating for an otherwise weak speech.

[_] Analysis ought to be simple and specific. It's your job to distill complex issues to an easily digestible package that provides convincing insight to a wide range of audiences.Highlighting interesting or under-appreciated elements of an issue, especially explaining how specific elements fuel a broader and generally understood point, is one way to do that.

[_] Delivery ought to blend education and advocacy; information and performance. I strongly dislike current norms which often amount to irresponsible reliance on pathos or canned, crass humor.Embrace your voice, but please prioritize responsible engagement over cheap laughs or insincere sob stories.

[_] Final note: nuanced, ethical engagement with the powerful platform Extemp provides brings me joy. I am a fan of high-quality sourcing and a stickler for evidence ethics. Nuance, precision, and accuracy, even if it appears to dilute your point, is never a bad thing.

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.