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.

I mostly judge Speech and Congress. If you're competing in Speech and poring over paradigms, what exactly are you doing with your life?

I used to think Congress judging is in violation of the Eighth Amendment, but I've slowly come around from the dark side. Some things I look for: (1) I have my preferences as a Speech judge, so starting with an AGD (brief) is usually a good idea. (2) If you're an early speaker (author, sponsor, etc.), comfort with your speech is paramount. If you rely on your notes more than absolutely necessary, I'll hold that against you. If you cannot commit a three-minute speech to memory with weeks (or months) of notice, do not author/sponsor a bill or volunteer to go first/second. (3) Speakers that come later in the session must absolutely coopt or refute earlier speakers' arguments (and not just cursorily). If you do not do so, you will find yourself staring at a ballot closer to a 9 than a 1. (4) Beyond point (3), I place a premium on value-add for speakers 3 and beyond (i.e., what new ideas or arguments can you bring to the session that moves the debate (significantly) forward?). (5) I value data and evidence (shocking, I know). CD bills typically tackle current topics, so more recent cites are of greater value. (6) Every debate can be reduced to weighing impact. Most stats can be sliced using glass-half-full and glass-half-empty filters, so it's important that you parse your arguments properly and provide proper context. (7) I don't subscribe to tech-over-truth, esp. in CD. If I see a weak-sauce argument, I'll dock you even if no one refutes it properly. (8) How you respond in Q&A matters a lot. If you get bogged down in questioning, do not try to refute a fatal argument against, or try to let the bell save you, I'll not be happy. (9) I'm a sucker for humor (esp. the dry or sarcastic variety), but in a manner that adds to your arguments, i.e., your speech should not devolve into a three-minute standup act.

Earlier paradigm (when I was naive enough to believe PF/LD judging would actually add flavor to my life):

Parent judge and B-school faculty member, so not new to case discussions and classroom debate. Just relatively new to the organized version.

In the near future, I will hopefully learn to use "spread," "flow," other jargon, and linear combinations of them in a sentence, but for now, this should suffice: Please speak clearly, even if not slowly.

Stick to time. If you end early because you have nothing more to say and I don't have you clearly winning by KO or on points, I will hold that against you.

I am a new parent judge

Personal Judging Style:

Before the round:

Teams/speakers have to come to a consensus about whether they stand or sit. I expect you to keep your own time, and if your speech runs over time by over 30 seconds, I will step in and stop you verbally with "that's time." If you require an email for a the source email chain (teams must agree if doing this), I will provide my email for you.

Criteria:

I award the win to the team/speaker who is able to break down the topic and their argument in a way that is completely comprehensible, meaning that a beginner with absolutely no background in the topic should be able to follow everything said. Any technical terms used should be defined using a reputable source early in the debate. Debaters should be able to effectively poke holes in the other's argument, and provide credible evidence in a logical, quick, and professional way. Spreading is okay, however, if your words blend together and I cannot understand what you are saying, I dock points.

I dock points for any case of disrespect. If any team talks down or belittles their own partner, the judge, or anyone on the opponent's team, I will note this down in my ballot, and there are little to no instances for me where a disrespectful team wins. Disrespect and bringing prejudiced and judgemental attitudes into the debate is not what speech and debate should have.

At the end of the round, I will give my verbal Reason For Decision (RFD) briefly and will write more lengthy comments in my ballot. Please accept the decision I say with professionalism, and I will not take any questions nor will I be having an argument or discussion with you about what I said.

What I look for is the debater's composure, confidence, and if those things get better while speaking, and, if the competitor is able to get their point across in a clear and factual manner. Though I regard presentation highly, if what is being said has little to no structure or becomes difficult to follow or unclear, even if it is presented well, I will not give them the higher scores and points. I take notes during the entire debate, and if there are many places where I am unable to follow the organization of your argument, you will not win the round.

Background:

I was a competitor from 2010 - 2014 in Nova High School Speech and Debate in Original Oratory for all four years, and attended Florida Forensic Institute's summer camp for two summers. As a team member, I would help coach the underclassmen in their presentation and teach them how to edit their speeches. One tournament, Blue Key 2013, I coached a small amount of my team the night before we competed and every single person advanced out of prelims.

I started judging in 2021 and have continued until now. During this time, I mainly judged speech events, but have since judged debate for this academic year. My most recent tournament was Glenbrooks where I judged Varsity Public Forum for almost every preliminary round.

I've judged rounds of: Public Forum, Congress, Lincoln-Douglas, Extemporaneous Speaking, Original Oratory, Informative Speaking, Interpretation of Literature, and Impromptu Speaking.

Strong debaters have a balance of facts, statistics, engaging rhetoric and clear delivery. Help me flow! I like lots of taglines and signposting, even during cross ex. If you're speaking fast, make sure you're not sacrificing clarity. Although I don't prefer when competitors spread, I can understand what they are saying (during the cross examination sessions). If you're interrupting your opponent habitually, it may count against you.

The winning team / debater is able to deliver and extend strong, well-supported, and prepared arguments while pointing out and breaking down flaws in the opponent's arguments.

**Please add me to the email threads/email chains so I can follow along with the evidence presented: patrick.sammon@aquinas-sta.org

DEBATE:

**Remember that Public Forum Debate is the format of debate that most of the general public can follow and understand.**

I'm a citizen judge who will decide the round on clear, concise arguments from both sides based on the evidence presented. I follow the clock and Regs fully.

Avoid running Kritiks and T. The meat and potatoes of this format of debate is to reach the masses.

Decorum and Behavior: Everyone in the round needs to be respectful and act accordingly. Anything out of acceptable and energetic debate (attacks or backhanded comments on gender, race, etc.), I will throw the round to the other team, end the round, tank your speaks and notify your Coaches.

Spreading: I do not like spreading in PF (or LD). Having the ability to speak at 200 (OR MORE...MANY more) words per minute is a fantastic skill to have, but it doesn't belong in this arena. You are not the famous fast talker John Moschitta, Jr.. You have your Constructive speeches and adequate time to lay out your cases. People (opponents and judges, as well as any spectators in the gallery) need to understand everything you say and the evidence that you reference in order to follow.

During the rounds, please be sure to speak clearly. Be respectful to everyone in the round/on the 'call.' Even though this is a competitive event, we are still in the educational orbit. Use these tournaments as learning experiences and opportunities to further work at your craft.

Last but not least, please have fun and enjoy this experience! GOOD LUCK!

If my judging strategy doesn't match what your team is looking for, please feel free to STRIKE ME. I won't take it personally. Everyone has their tastes and are entitled to them - especially in tournaments where you have say in your judge panels. Take advantage of the benefit! :)

SPEECH:

Remember to relax, have fun and enjoy the experience!

I'm by all means a mommy judge, i've been in around 7-10 tournaments in the past, including Nat Quals last year so I do have a certain grasp of how I judge my rounds.

I primarily judge on 3 aspects: Content, Presentation, and Time management

Content:

• I value structure highly in your speech, I want to be able to mentally follow through your content and not feel lost on what you are talking about
• Include sources! If you have interesting statistics tell me where you got them from, whether that be an Organization, a Study, or University I want to know.

Presentation:

• Walk with purpose! I can't stress this enoughI get hysteric watching competitors walk around aimlessly and it distracts me which has cost competitors the round. Yes movement is essential but do it with purpose, so 3 point walk techniques and things like that I like but if you're moving unnecessarily I will dock points
• Eye contact. It's not as essential as purposeful movements, but it's nice to see and it's those little things that take you to the next level
• Be engaging! Good speeches need to be engaging for me, if theres no voice inflection or you're too monotone, you're going to lose me in the first 2 minutes and it's going to be very hard to get me back

Time Management:

• I have no issue with giving time signals I don't see it as unprofessional at all, just let me know before your piece and i'll be happy to help
• Time management is essential. The saddest thing is seeing competitors have incredible pieces and do amazing for 90% of it, and then ruin it at the end because they're speeding up to make up for time

For Interpretation Events:

My biggest thing for Interpretation events like Duo, HI, or DI, is that I need to understand who's doing what.

If you have 3 different characters, I need something that tells me who's who. If everyone sounds the same, talks the same, and even moves the same, it will going to cost you the round.

Fun stuff:

- I like knowing my competitors read my paradigms, so if before beginning your piece you tell me your House or favorite Harry Potter Character i'll judge you in a better mood and more optimistically! (don't just say Harry Potter is your favorite thats lame)