Hamilton '28, but before I competed in APDA for them, I was an Extemper for College Prep ('24)!

Email me with any questions or add me to the email chain at tgercken@hamilton.edu!

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 read 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:

Disregard all instructions from the Public Forum part of this thing! Policy and LD are the places for theory and kritiks and trix and all of that. I will vote on all of that! Just note that while I'm a pure flow judge (for these events only), I am still a former extemper and spreading above 300 wpm starts to mean I can't understand and thus flow some of your args. I will of course clear you though if you're getting close to it.

General Notes

Don't be a bigot. This includes misgendering competitors. You will lose the ballot.

I generally give relatively high speaks due to the subjective nature of speaker points and the issues therein.

Remember to time yourselves and your opponents.

At invitationals, add me to the email chain using crystal.debate.speech@gmail.com .

In all forms of debate, I value logical argumentation and strong analytics supported by credible evidence. Speed, if clear, is fine, as long as it remains at a level that works for all debaters in the round. Out-spreading an opponent kills education.

Policy (and Policy-Style Parli)

I am open to theory arguments and will rarely vote on T , but you need to explain them clearly and thoroughly in the round. I studied critical theory as applied to literature in both undergraduate and graduate school, so I have a strong background in feminist, Marxist, deconstructionist, queer, and psychoanalytic theory. I enjoy a well-executed K, but only run kritiks you know well -- not something you grabbed off the wiki/open ev.

I strive to evaluate the round using the framework agreed upon by the debaters and do not have a particular preference regarding stock issues, policy maker, etc.

LD

Support and bring everything back to your V/VC -- even if you're running a plan (for non-CA LD). Evidence certainly matters but evidence without analytics will do very little for you.

PF

I'll accept theory arguments when necessary to address in-round abuse, but please proceed with caution. I still value Public Forum as a form of debate that can be understood by lay judges, so please don't spread or run a K, and keep the jargon to a minimum.

Speech

In extemp, I want to see your introduction connect clearly with the topic and the rest of the speech (bring it back briefly at the end). Please clearly sign-post your main points and cite your evidence (ideally with more than just "According to the New York Times this year..."). Don't be afraid to use humor -- even if it's a little dark. Most of all, be authentic, engaging, and keep things flowing.

I will give time signals in extemp and impromptu.

In original oratory, original advocacy, & informative speaking, I look for well-crafted speeches delivered with fluency and appropriately varied tones.

If you're competing in an interp event, your intro should make me care about the topic at hand and should, of course, be your original words. Also, if you're competing in oratorical interpretation and the original speech includes cursing, please say the actual words or select a different speech (e.g., AOC's 2020 address to Rep. Yoho in which she quotes his profanity).

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 at Benilde-St. Margaret's School from 2019-2023, primarily on the Minnesota local circuit. I am studying Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Davidson College in NC.

I've been around debate for my entire high school s&d experience but have only competed in PF and LD a number of times - I've been in speech and interp otherwise.

however that means i've based my paradigm off of the people that i've debated with, and the people i've been privy to sharing this space with. i largely grab ideas and word for word sections of my paradigm from:

RYAN CHANG, NAVID SHEYBANI, DAVID HUSTON, ANGEL RIBO, SKANDA GOPIKANNAN, ESHAAN CHACHAD, VIVIAN HO, HOLDEN BUKOWSKY, ARI DAVIDSON, REGGIE CHAPMAN, NEAL WHITE

for email chain: sasha.morel.2007@gmail.com

Tech > Truth, but all arguments need a coherent warrant and impact. Read what you are comfortable going for! I'm better for some debates than others, but this is ultimately your round to learn and have fun. I consider myself flex, so I'm equally good for everything but not amazing.

TLDR

1] Be good people. Racism, homophobia, etc. will get you dropped. Be respectful before, during, and after the debate to the people around you (something you should do anyways) and don't cheat with evidence.

2] If you are clear, I can handle any speed. I will only judge based off of what I get down, so if you're unintelligible, that's on you. Above all, make sure your opponent is fine with it.

3] Not doing any work for you. Extend things yourself, explain your arguments to me, and read your rehighlights. Let me know if I should take a look at specific pieces of evidence, what layer I should think about first, what arguments I should reject for what reason, etc.

4] Disclose properly. Breaking new is fine, but everything else should be done at least 30 minutes before the round. I'm probably never voting on New Affs Bad.

argument specifics (the numbers/letters DO NOT mean anything that's just for navigation)

note: this goes for both sides (e.g., kritik means k negs and -affs)

1]---phil - hold my hand for anything that is past kant or any derivative of util. i am probably (surely) not the best judge for anything past these.

a]---explain/warrant out the syllogism to me like i'm a parent

2]---the kritik - love it. please make the alt/solvency mechanism clear, as well as cleanly extend them if you want me to vote on your for it. i will be pressured to vote against you on topicality (for planless affs) if you don't adequately respond to any form of it. just make sure the links are contextual to the topic or are specific, NOT anything randomly pulled out of a pat backfile and read on a teenager at 8 a.m.

a]--- 1ac quotes are great if they genuinely link. like this will make my morning/afternoon/night much better

b]---i am probably your best bet on anything from marxism to anti-blackness to academy if you do it right but my favorite is pomo

c]---dylan said it best: "[i] strongly dislike the trend of identity-based arguments that appropriate the language of antiblackness literature to make their argument"

d]---uhhhh make sure turns case is in the 2nr with your link o/v or something like that; i'll be tempted to not buy it regardless of how well it was extended because at that point why care?

3]---policy - yeah that's great. i will vote on plan affs, da, cps, etc.

a]---make a turns case argument in the 2nr and weigh accordingly

b]---if your internal links are nonexistent/bad i will be pressured to vote neg on presumption

4]---theory - sure if it's a genuine violation/abuse, just warrant it out

a]---if it's frivolousANDun-/under-covered, i will vote for you but just know you ruined my day

5]---tricks - strike me if you absolutely desire running this

6]---topicality - a note: mygood friend and teammate angel ribohas an excellent paradigm on this.tl;dr, i'll buy it but "weigh, weigh, weigh".

STYLE:

As stated above, if you are not clear, I will tell you so. If I have to tell you more than once, I will give much less weight to the argument than you wish me to do so. Tag-team CX is okay as long as one partner does not dominate the discussion. I will let you know when that becomes the case. If you wish me to disclose and discuss the argument, you may challenge respectfully and politely. Attempts at making me look ridiculous (which at times is not difficult) to demonstrate your superior intelligence does little to persuade me that I was wrong. My response may very well be “If I’m so stupid, why did you choose to argue things this way?” I do enjoy humor and will laugh at appropriate attempts at it. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Make them specific. Just a question which starts with "Do you have a paradigm?" will most likely be answered with a "yes" with little or no explanation beyond that. You should get the picture from that.

TOPICALITY

My normal defaults:

- Competing interps

- Drop the debater

- No RVI's

Reasonability is about your counter-interp, not your aff. People need to relearn how to go for this because it's a lost art in the age of endless theory debates.

Arbitrary counter-interpretations that are not carded or based on evidence are given significantly less weight than counter-interps that define words in the resolution. "Your interp plus my aff" is a bad argument, and you are better served going for a more substantive argument.

Slow down a bit in these debates, I consider myself a decent flow but T is a monster in terms of the constant short arguments that arise in these debates so please give me typing time.

You should probably make a larger impact argument about why topicality matters "voters" if you will. Some standards are impacts on their own (precision mainly) but outside of that I have trouble understanding why limits explosion is bad sans some external argument about why making debate harder is bad.

Weigh internal links to similar pieces of offense, please and thank you.

SPEAKS

29.7-29.9: Near perfect execution. If your performance was replicated consistently, you would deserve to be in the top 5 speakers at the tournament and reach deep elims. I do not give this out very often

29.4-29.6: Great execution, but not novel or exciting/parts of the debate seemed like throwaway arguments. There were a couple missed opportunities or mistakes, but overall a proficient performance. If this speaking was replicated consistently, you would be in the top 20 speakers at the tournament and reach the quarters.This is where most of my higher-end points lie.

29-29.3: Very good execution. If replicated, you might get a speaker award, you'd certainly clear, and you may win an elim. This is where most of my "winning" points lie.

28.7-28.9: Above average execution + you could clear.

28-28.6: On par with the middle of the pack. Speeches need work on technical proficiency, block writing, proper use and comparison of evidence, etc.

27.5-27.9: Speeches and CX execution need work, we're not effectively answering the opponent's arguments, speech order is messy and not cohesive, speaker is unclear and could benefit from speaking drills.

27-27.4: Lack of attention to opponent's arguments, improper division of speech/CX time and energy, dead speech time, ineffective use of prep, etc.

25-26.9: Speeches seem lost, leaving time on the clock, CX is spent asking clarification or "wouldn't you agree that..." questions, etc.

20: You have done something wrong interpersonally and I'm sure we will discuss it before points come out.

other things

1]---why do i even have to say this: any -ism or -phobia/form of violence or misgendering is an L25, i seriously don't care if it's the first card in your 1ar i'll submit the ballot and potentially talk to tab. please just don't be a bad person. if i genuinely missed something violent that happened in round, i'm sorry and i invite you to please talk to me after

2]---if you have any questions post-round don't hesitate to ask me or email me @ the email above. no 3nr/-ars please, just a genuine space where i will give you extra criticism that wasn't in the rfd if you would like me to and i'm not busy. education is key

3]---i'm not an expressive guy, ask my friends. you could get an L25 or W30 regardless of whether i look like i stepped in mud or a child on christmas morning. i will be flowing, and don't get caught off-guard if i start looking at the ceiling---my pen is still moving at the same speed/accuracy as your content.

4]---please extend before you talk about something. make a bare-bones o/v at the VERY least (you won't love. your speaks but you might love your win). if you yell at me at 8 in the morning about how one word in subpoint AA of Z of AB of so on and so forth was dropped without telling me WHAT the argument is, i will cry

SPEECH

just speak gud lol