Sarah Botsch-McGuinn

email: sbotschmcguinn@gmail.com

Director of Speech & Debate-Cypress Bay HS (2022-present)

Director of Speech and Debate-Cooper City HS (2018-2022)

Director of Speech and Debate-American Heritage Palm Beach (2017-2018)

Director of Forensics-Notre Dame San Jose (2009-2017)
Head Debate Coach-Notre Dame San Jose (2008-2009)



General:
I’ve been a debate coach for the past 16 years, and Director of Forensics for 9 at NDSJ, one year as Director at American Heritage, 4 years at Cooper City HS and now at Cypress Bay High School. I primarily coached Parliamentary Debate from 2008-2017, including circuit Parli debate. I've been involved in National Circuit LD pretty extensively over the last 8 years, but have judged all forms of debate at all levels from local south Florida and northern CA to national circuit.

First and foremost, I only ever judge what is presented to me in rounds. I do not extend arguments for you and I do not bring in my own bias. I am a flow judge, and I will flow the entire debate, no matter the speed, though I do appreciate being able to clearly understand all your points. I consider myself to be a gamemaker in my general philosophy, so I see debate as game. That doesn't mean that there aren't real world impacts off debate (and I tend to be convinced by 'this will impact outside the round' type of arguments). **I don't vote on defense. It's important but you won't win on a defensive answer.**

While I do appreciate fresh approaches to resolution analysis, I’m not an “anything goes” judge. I believe there should be an element of fair ground in debate-debates without clash, debates with extra topicality, etc will almost certainly see me voting against whoever tries to do so if the other side even makes an attempt at arguing it (that said, if you can’t adequately defend your right to a fair debate, I’m not going to do it for you. Don’t let a team walk all over you!). Basically, I love theoretical arguments, and feel free to run them, just make sure they have a proper shell+. *Note: when I see clear abuse in round I have a very low threshold for voting on theory. Keep that in mind-if you try to skew your opponent out of the round, I WILL vote you down if they bring it up.*

I also want to emphasize that I'm an educator first and foremost. I believe in the educational value of debate and it's ability to create critical thinkers.

+Theory shell should at minimum have: Interpretation, Violation, Standards and Voters.

Speaks:
Since quality of argument wins for me 100% of the time, I’m not afraid of the low point win. I don’t expect this to enter into the rounds much at an elite tournament where everyone is at the highest level of speaking style, but just as an emphasis that I will absolutely not vote for a team just because they SOUND better. I tend to stick to 26-29+ point range on a 30 scale, with average/low speakers getting 26s, decent speakers getting 27s, good 28s, excellent 29s, and 30 being reserved for best I’ve seen all day. I will punish rudeness/lying in speaks though, so if you’re rude or lie a lot, expect to see a 25 or less. Additionally, shouting louder doesn’t make your point any better, I can usually hear just fine.

If I gave you less than 25, you probably really made me angry. If you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, ableist etc I will punish you in speaks. You have been warned. I will kill your speaks if you deliberately misgender or are otherwise harmful in round. I am not going to perpetuate hate culture in debate spaces.

Speed:
I have no problem with speed, but please email me your case if you are spreading. I will call 'clear' once if you are going too fast, and put down my pen/stop typing if I can't follow. It's only happened a couple times, so you must be REALLY fast for me to give up.

PLEASE SIGN POST AND TAG, ESPECIALLY IF I'M FLOWING ON MY LAPTOP. IF I MISS WHERE AN ARGUMENT GOES BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T TAG IT, THAT'S YOUR FAULT NOT MINE.

A prioris:
Please explain why your argument is a-priori before I will consent to consider it as such. Generally I am only willing to entertain framework arguments as a-priori, but who knows, I've been surprised before.


Theory:
Theory is great, as I mentioned above, run theory all day long with me, though I am going to need to see rule violations and make sure you have a well structured shell. I should not see theory arguments after the 1AR in LD or after the MG speech in Parli. I also don't want to see theory arguments given a ten second speed/cursory explanation, when it's clear you're just trying to suck up time. My threshold is high for RVIs, but if you can show how your opponent is just sucking time, I'm open to this. Also open to condo-bad arguments on CPs/Ks, though that doesn't mean you'll automatically win on this.

Disclosure theory: I'm unlikely to vote on this if your opponent isn't reading something very strange. I think education and disclosure is good but that doesn't mean I think someone should automatically lose for not. Keep this in mind. PLEASE I DONT WANT TO HEAR DISCLOSURE LITERALLY READ ANYTHING ELSE IM BEGGING YOU.

Most other theory I evaluate in round. I don't tend to go for blippy theory arguments though!

Critical arguments:
I love the K, give me the K, again, just be structured. I don't need the whole history of the philosopher, but I haven't read everything ever, so please be very clear and give me a decent background to the argument before you start throwing impacts off it. Also, here's where I mention that impacts are VITAL to me, and I want to see terminal impacts.

I prefer to see clash of ROB/ROJ/Frameworks in K rounds. If you are going to run a K aff either make it topical or disclose so we can have a productive round. Please.

Presumption:
In general I default to competing interp. If for some reason we have gotten to the point of terribad debate, I presume Neg (Aff has burden to prove the resolution/affirm. Failure to do so is Neg win. God please don't make me do this :( )

Weighing:
I like very clear weighing in rebuttals. Give me voting issues and compare worlds, tell me why I should prefer or how you outweigh, etc. Please. I go into how I evaluate particular impacts below.


I like clear voting issues! Just because I’m flowing doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate you crystallizing and honing in on your main points of offense.

I prefer voter speeches follow a: Main points of offense-->impact calc--->world comp model. If you just do impact calc I'll be happy with it, but I like looking on my voter sheet for what you feel you're winning on. It helps me more quickly organize my ideas.

Impacts:
I put a lot of emphasis on impacts in my decisions. The team with bigger/more terminal, etc impacts generally walks away with my vote, so go to town. This goes doubly true for framework or critical arguments. Why is this destroying debate as we know it? Why is this ___ and that's horrible? Translation: I tend to weigh magnitude heaviest in round, but if you can prove pretty big probable impacts over very low probability extinction impacts I'll likely go that direction.

You should be able to articulate how your contentions support your position/value/whatever. That should go without saying, but you would be very surprised. I don't vote on blips, even if we all know what you're saying is true. So please warrant your claims and have a clear link story. This goes doubly true for critical positions or theory.

Preferences for arguments:

If you want to know what I like to see in round, here are my preferences in order:

K debate

LARP

Theory

Phil

Traditional

Tricks

This doesn't mean I won't vote for a tricks case but I will be much sadder doing it.

As a judge, I value thorough research, well-structured arguments, and the ability to adapt to the flow of the debate. I appreciate debaters who demonstrate critical thinking, effective rebuttals, and a respectful demeanor. Creativity in framing arguments is welcomed, and I prioritize substance over style while encouraging a dynamic and engaging discourse.

Hello;

I am Refat Chowdhury, a biomedical engineer from FIU and Cornell University. Currently I work for a medical device company as a Regulatory Affairs Specialist.
I am a parent judge, and don’t run critical arguments.

I expect a respectful and cordial debate from all of the sides and look forward to hearing your presentation. My preferred debate rate of delivery is lower than eight.

I am first year LD debate coach with a history of policy debate in high school. I have a degree in chemistry and teach science at our school as well as coach debate. Please make sure you are clear and well cited. I prefer a clear voter/impact analysis at the end of the final speeches to help explain to me why I should vote aff or neg. Good luck and looking forward to hearing your debate!

LD/PF:

I am a lay judge, I do not want any Theory Shells, K's, or Trix arguments.

I will usually choose truth over tech, but it depends on the topic and case specifically.

No Spreading! I will take away points if I cannot understand what you are saying. LD/PF were created to combat the issues in Policy, I would like it to stay that way. I do not care if students stand, sit, use a computer stand, or do not, as long as their voices and arguments are clear.

I would like clear evidence, if an opponent asks for your card, show them to prove your point. If there is confusion on whether or not a card is valid, ask me and I will decide on the ballot, or in person, if needed.

I will do my best to flow the argument, but I am not the best at it, so be patient with me. Do Not Send Me Your Case,I do not want to read a case, I would like to be able to hear and flow it. The only exception is if there is confusion on a student's card, contention, or observation, then you can send your case so I can decide.

Obviously, no bullying, no Ad Hominem attacks, and no discrimination on religion, race, etc. There should also be no unfounded accusations of discrimination, as this is just as bad as discrimination.

Welcome debaters:) As a new lay/parent judge for LD, I appreciate a clear and deliberate speaking style. Please do not spread, as I will not understand your arguments if you do.

This is my first time judging this topic, so please share your cards with me, so I can follow along. You can email: lahudson1977@gmail.com

Please explain your points with clear communication and back it up with credible research.

I will be more likely to vote for you and will give you more speaker points if you're more theatrical.

Good luck, and let's have a great debate!

CCHS'23

Cornell'27

Use alanmunschy@gmail.com for email chains.

Background: Did LD debate for 4 years

LD: I prefer trad debate.

Theory should be reserved for particularly egregious violations (e.g. condo, topicality; I don't think disclosure is egregious).

Speed is ok if your opponent is okay with it. Don't spread.

PF: I'm not too familiar with PF, I'll probably focus on the flow when evaluating rounds.

Anything else: don't go crazy. Clarity is important.

Ask me if you have questions.

About Me

I used to be a high school English teacher and helped with congress debate, but I have since changed to the healthcare field. I still judge for events because I love speech and debate.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

When it comes to LD, I prefer trad debates. Imagine that you are trying to convince an educated public, not another LD debater. I don’t flow completely, but I keep track of arguments/counters and evidence as best as I can. I give my vote to whoever persuades me best with their overall case and I only judge based on what is presented to me. For example, if your opponent has a really strong counterargument with clear evidence and real-world impact that you don't address whatsoever, then that will lower your standing in the debate.

You can add me to the email chain: Colin.Nohr@gmail.com

Some things to incorporate in LD for me :

✅ Strong evidence/arguments that are relevant, clear, and show real-world impact

✅ CLASH whenever possible. Collegially, of course.

✅ Voting issues down the flow and during final speech

✅ Strong value criterion framework that connects well to your points is a bonus (especially if there is a clash)

Some things that do not convince me in LD:

⏺ Unrelated extinction or highly improbable impacts (e.g., how student debt will/won’t lead to nuclear winter)

⏺ Theory shells that put unreasonable strain on the competitor and the spirit of debate (e.g., we should only consider a priori arguments in round)

⏺ Kritiks (In spirit, I appreciate them, but in practice it does not really influence my final decision much at all)

Congress:

I care a lot about proper decorum, especially with respect to interaction among members in the chamber. For example, if you're asking questions to the congressperson with the floor, please do not preface your question for an inordinate amount of the questioning block. Use questions to get your prefacing in. Prefacing is fine, but excessive or unnecessary prefacing is not.

Question and rebuttals are the heart of what makes this event something more than just people going up to the front of the room to read a static speech then sit down 15-20 times in a row.

For speeches, make your arguments and supporting evidence clear with sign posts. Don't read so heavily from your speech that you rarely (if ever) look up.

If there is a one-sided debate going on (two or three affs/negs in a row) please know that I will be expecting a better than normal speech with arguments that have not already been made along with clear rebuttals OR strong crystallizing.

I love congress and I'm excited to hear your speeches and give you feedback in comments.

Speech (interp, info, oratory, extemp, impromptu, etc.):

Pacing, passion, novelty, and and complexity score highly with me.

Hello! I'm a parent judge who has only judged lay rounds before, so please speak relatively slowly and clearly, and don't use technical debate jargon (or at least if you do, clearly explain what it means in your speech). Also, because of my judging experience, you should read lay/traditional arguments instead of tech/progressive arguments like kritiks, theory, etc. in front of me. PLEASE DO NOT SPREAD. I'll be judging off of how you well you support and defend your contentions/value/value criterion, and how well you prove your impacts matter more than your opponent's impacts. Other than that, just be respectful to your opponent during the round, learn from the experience, and have fun!

Please contact me if you have questions about my paradigm: mot7689@gmail.com

My name is Jada Scott and I am a recent grad from Florida State University where I majored in political science with a minor in philosophy of law. I competed in Lincoln Douglass, Big Questions, and World School’s debate throughout highschool.

LD prefs:

I prefer traditional lay-style debates by far. Although I can handle some theory/tech arguments, I’ve been off of the debate scene for about 2-3 years now. Clarifying arguments and explaining them will help a great deal. Frameworks are important for me, as tying back your overall case and rebuttals back into the impact of the FW you chose and why your FW is superior helps in outlining the debate. Summaries as to why you have won the ballot at the end round are helpful. I enjoy philosophical arguments the most but am still flexible. I enjoy a well-articulated and creative CP. I don’t care for tricks, Ks, or theory very much. I enjoy well organized arguments where they are crystallized and extended properly.

I did congress and a little other debate in high school.

I am a parent judge.

I am open to any and all arguments. Though if reading more complicated things like ks or theory like Kant please try to explain more thoroughly. If explained correctly I will vote on tricks, but you have to make it obvious that you just did one. Theory is fine and counterplans are also good. Most arguments (if good and have substance) will be able to win. Please don't do any performative arguments as I am unlikely to vote on it if I feel it sacrifices education. Altogether I think most arguments can win if explained and done correctly.

Dont's:

° Any kind of discriminatory arguments (I will vote against you and immediately go to Tab)

° Un educational, underbaked, or generally bad arguments (if I don't agree with it I will vote against them)

° Unclear spreading (spreading is fine but when its incoherent it doesn't let me evaluate correctly)

Though I haven't debated super recently, I am still open to newer arguments and will keep an open mind.

I hope to judge you soon!