Hello,

I have over 7 years of debate experience as a competitor and private tutor. My experience includes DX, Oratory, Policy, PF, Congress, and LD. I have multiple state and national qualifications, and competed in the competitive Houston circuit. In addition, I am an award-winning speaker.

Debate is cool, but to me public speaking is king. Therefore, I care about your speaking. Good fluency will give you good speaker points. In terms of winning the actual debate, I want your arguments to be easy to understand. I can understand complex debate as a hired judge, but you will not always be able to have former debaters hear you argue. You will win by proving to me that your case has a bigger impact than your opponents. Show me the numbers and show me the facts. Prove to me that your side of the case is better. Also, solvency is a big factor in my decisions.

This all holds true whether I am judging you in congress, LD, PF, or policy. In addition, I am a pretty friendly guy and hate to see debates get heated. I need both sides to remain cordial with each other, I will dock speaker points if you are being rude to your opponents. Debate is won on arguments, not intimidation.

Good luck and feel free to ask me any questions!

I will judge you how I want to, you will play by my rules buster. Period. If you are in Congress, when passing a bill you need to say the line “Pass this legislation for two reasons” if you’re neg, say “Fail this bill, for 2 reasons”, if you say anything else I WILL DOWN YOU. Speak clearly and confidently, if you’re quiet and timid and submissive that does not bode well in my rounds. If you’re in OO you should be funny, if you have a bad joke I WILL down you. However, you need to also be able to convey how your topic is an issue

Email:bakerzachary0@gmail.com

Truth over tech: I don't think abusing link chains makes you a good debater. I'm willing to buy more abstract arguments to an extent I have solid general knowledge of most things political. The more complicated your argument the more clear your link chain should be. That being said as long as your argument isn't based around a lie or fatal mistake on your part I still require the other team to do the work and refute it.

Congress: I love clash, funny AGD's, and good analysis. Please refute the other competitors asap ,and directly reference who you are refuting. Everyone has a piece of paper with their name on it, it shouldn't be difficult to remember the representative your refuting's name. Please be cordial with your fellow competitors, sportsmanship is big virtue in my opinion. I expect you to be active in the chamber and ask good questions. 3 minute speeches are short make good use of your time. A good sponsorship should really contextualize what the legislation does.

If your going to PO I expect you to be efficient, and quick. But if you are inexperienced in a prelims round and still doing a good enough job that its not an issue I will not rank you down.

Debate: I am a traditional judge. In every Debate event I like a more lay round. Feel free to run theory if something is actually super abusive, but I've yet to vote on a theory argument. I do not like fast speed, it's one of the things I write most on speech round ballots. However if I can understand you and a doc isn't needed you can still get 30 speaks. However if you spread you can expect at most a low-point win.I consider myself to mostly be a policy-maker style judge.

Also finally I will not intervene and down you if you go against my preferences. But please take it as a guideline for what I understand, and feel comfortable voting for. No hard feelings if your style is better suited to the 2 other judges in the room :)

In LD: Value criterion is extremely important to me. I need to understand how different contentions/cards tie into your value criterion and why your VC outweighs.

In PF: I value more of a big picture voters speech than a line by line, the speech is 2 minutes so if you drop unimportant parts of the debate here you can win. With that said in PF I really prefer slower speaking even more than LD

Extemp: Have strong analysis and strong speaking skills, your time should be around 6:30. I like a good AGD, trust me I want to laugh out loud sometimes but I can't.

Platform/Interp: Delivery is critical especially for jokes, practice practice practice. If your unsure of how you are saying a joke ask someone before giving it to me as a judge.Moreover in Interp please don't scream/yell super loud especially if you are standing right next to me.

I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed;slow down on tag lines/author names.I'll put my pen down if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. Based on current speed on the circuit, you can consider me a 6 out of 10 on the speed scale.

I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed;slow down on tag lines/author names.I'll put my pen down if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. Based on current speed on the circuit, you can consider me a 6 out of 10 on the speed scale.

Interp Events:

My rankings are usually based on who is able to create the most believable characters and moments. There should be multiple levels within your piece and in the portrayal of your characters ~ not everything should be intense, or fast/slow, or super loud or quiet.

Everything you do in your performance should have a purpose. If you give a character an accent, be consistent with that accent. Make sure that each movement, mannerism, or gesture makes sense within the scope of the story you are telling. Additionally, I should be able to easily differentiate between multiple characters. Facial expressions, moments, and character development are very important for the overall performance.

Speaking Events

A clear structure is important: your delivery should be cohesive, and flow logically from point to point. A natural delivery style that allows for your personality to shine is preferable to the “Platform Speaker”. Put simply: avoid speech patterns.

Extemp: The most important thing is that you answer the question! A polished speaking style is important, but I will often default to a speaker that has stronger analysis and evidence over a pretty speech with fluffy content. Do not rely on canned introductions - creativity is important when trying to engage me.

Oratory/Informative: Your attention getter, vehicle, and conclusion should be creative, but they also need to fit well with the topic. Again, I will default to stronger analysis/evidence over fluffy content.

Background: Coach/Sponsor of Cinco Ranch HS (Katy ISD in Texas). 2nd year as Coach/Sponsor, 9th year as an educator. Did not participate in Speech & Debate in school. Honors/AP level English teacher, so assume that I know how to structure an argument and can follow your rationales.

IE Paradigm

Your event should dictate how you're approaching it: be funny for Humorous, weepy for Dramatic, emotive for Poetry/Prose, factual for Extemp, informative for... Informative. Just make sure you stay within the rules of your event (eye/physical contact, movement, etc.).

PF/LD Paradigm

- My students say that I am more of a Trad judge than Prog. Take that for what you will.

- Please keep the spread to a minimum. Even though I'm a coach, please treat me like I am a lay judge when it comes to speed. Don't spread like peanut butter and jelly.

- I do not know about theories/kritiks nor do I wish to. Personally I find that their usage takes away from the actual debating itself. Please save these tactics for a Tech judge that understands them. They will go totally over my head.

- Impacts matter more than just stating facts. Link the effect of your information instead of giving me a bunch of data and statistics without context.

- Don't get lost in arguing over the definition of a specific word vs debating over the topic as a whole. Remember that you should have prepped cases on a topic, not on the wording of it.

- I do not need to be included on any email chain. That's for you and your teams to set up before we start the round. Please don't take up time in the round to set it up. Rounds are long enough as it is.

- Keep discussions focused on the topic. Deviation from the stated resolution will hurt your side, as will irrelevant arguments and thoughts. I will be flowing your case as you talk.

- Be civil and respectful of each other. Articulate thoughts and counterpoints without making it personal. Don't just browbeat each other for the sake of your argument. Let opponents actually finish a point or thought before responding.

- Bullying your opponents will not yield positive results on the ballot. I will not hesitate to stop you mid-round to address any potential instances of disrespect or negativity, dock your speaker points, and address egregious incidents with your coaches later. Your coaches would do the same for you (I hope).

- While not necessary, do your best to reiterate your team's position at the end of your time (aff/neg, pro/con). Nothing more embarrassing than laying out a brilliant argument for your own side... and then telling me to vote for your opponent.

- Novices, feel free to ask me what you can do to improve as a competitor after the round is over. I'll do my best to teach you something.

Main Points/Voters:

- My background is primarily in extemperaneous speaking, so presentation and analysis are extremely important to me. While I value strong statistics and logos in all events, they're worthless if not properly contextualized and argued, especially in WSD.

- I'm not super strict with the flow; Just because someone doesn't directly address a specific point in a speech doesn't mean they entirely concede it in my mind, especially if the primary purpose of the speech is to construct. Of course this has limits within reason, but I think it's a waste of time for a debate to become each side trying to persuade me that their opponent 'dropped this and that' rather than just continuing the argumentation. If you think this is important, say it and move on to arguments of substance to the debate, rather than the meta of it.

- Similar to the last point, I prefer a contention-based debate to a definitional and value-based debate. If each side has basically the same definition/value, we don't need to waste time on it. But, if it's considered important to contrast with your opponent, it can of course be of value.

Minor Points/Semantics:

- I don't need reminders every speech saying, 'This is why you have no choice but to vote for the affirmation, judge.' I'll vote for you if I want to, and constant reminders how I will absolutely obviously vote for you just make me roll my eyes.

I am a former coach (2 years) for JHS and current English teacher on campus. I have spent more time judging speech, but much more time coaching in Congress and WSD. For Congress, I am looking for:

-Civil treatment of peers, stay engaged in round--I shouldn't see you on your phones! Respond with rhetoric and emotional inflection of course, but take care not to come across as combative. I am interested in the clash of ideas, not personalities. Substance over style.

-I know good sources and unique points of view when I see them and will credit your time well spent in preparation. Show me that work in your speech with clear, solid warrants and evidence to back them up.

-I comment actively as I listen and revise my order frequently throughout the round. Do not feel that you have wasted a round because of a single mistake. Every speech is a new speech, but you are expected to work to stand out above your peers for higher ranking.

-Clarity is key but the best argument carries the cycle: every round has a lot of speeches, how can you make your speech distinctive by differentiating your perspective from others in speeches and questioning rounds? Can you defend yourself against expected points of contention? Did you save any evidence for questioning or did you just memorize your cards? Good arguments should contain both evidence from qualified sources AND analysis. Solvency/Concluding remarks should be brief but impactful for success.

-(rare) Trigger warnings for speeches containing graphic descriptions of violence or sexual assault; this is rarely relevant to policy but a general rule of thumb

Speech - Organized arguments, credible sources, practical solutions, relatability is probably the biggest thing for me. I love speeches where personalities show through and I can see how you are as a person.

Interp - Relatable pieces with big, distinguishable characters.

WSD - I want a conversational round with a crystallization of points at the end. Clear voters are always the way to go. POIs should be addressed consistently however not everyone needs to be taken.

Email: salikfaisal10@gmail.com

Experience/Background:

I primarily competed in Extemporaneous Speaking and Congressional Debate in High School. I've made it to TFA State twice and was an alternate to NSDA Nationals once in Domestic/US Extemporaneous Speaking from the Houston area.

Extemp/Speech:

I value analysis more heavily than the presentation, although there is a place for both. Don't try to force in a point or try to draw a connection that doesn't make sense just for the sake of adding another source or sounding more credible; I will notice this. Please don't fabricate sources; if I find out, this is a sure way to get you downed. I won't micro analyze every source you have, but I will look into it if I feel the need to do so. Quality of analysis always wins out in the end. Don't sound robotic in your speech and try to maintain a natural conversational style of speaking. It's fine if you're not the prettiest and most polished speaker, but make sure to communicate your analysis coherently and I can always appreciate a nice joke.

Congress:

Clever intros and pretty speaking are great, but your goal is to explain why to pass/fail legislation. I'm big on studies/analytics on the impact of legislation. I like clash and love great questioning; just make sure to be civil. POs should make the round flow smoothly and orderly, understand the process well, and show fairness and integrity in selecting speakers.

Debate:

I have some experience competing in Public Forum and have judged it plenty of times, so I know the event fairly well. I'm a fan of clash and questioning; just make sure to be civil. Good evidence and warrants are the gold standard for me. I like real-world examples and love statistics. In order to access your impacts, you must have a very good link. Wasting time and energy on hyperbolic impacts like extinction without solid links won't help you. In your final focus/ final speech, be very clear with your voters and weigh. If I have access to your case, I'm fine with spreading during constructive speeches. Slow down your pace in later speeches. If I can't understand what you're saying, I can't make a fair decision. I'm not a fan of K's, picks, theories, and other progressive techniques. If you're doing PF or WSD, stay as far as you can from this. If you decide to use these in LD or CX, you must be very good in your communication and position.

I am a lay judge, I will take notes on the round but I will only flow what I can hear and understand so please slow down. I encourage clear articulation and arguments.

I am a lay judge, I will take notes on the round but I will only flow what I can hear and understand so please slow down. I encourage clear articulation and arguments.

I am a parent volunteer. I have judged a few times, all in Speech rounds/events. Please treat me like a lay judge. I have watched videos and read training material, but due to the time lapses between tournaments, I find it difficult to remember all the rules and time frames for each event, so I won't be offended if a reminder is offered at the start of the round.

When judging speech events, I consider volume, rate, and clarity of the performance. I like adjustments in volume when appropriate, but be sure I can hear the quieter portions of the piece. If you have to talk too fast, your piece is too long. Be sure to enunciate your words when speaking. Your piece will lose its meaning/effectiveness if I can't hear or understand it.

If your piece has multiple characters, I should be able to clearly identify which character is speaking, vocally and/or physically.

Your introduction should be well thought out and grab my interest.

Pieces should be well memorized and presented smoothly. If you make a mistake, don't make it obvious...I won't know if you don't make it a bigger deal than it is.

While I have personal opinions on some topics, I will not allow these opinions to interfere with my ability to judge your piece on your ability to perform and deliver it effectively.

I'm a parent judge with 3 years of experience

Please be clear and go slow, please explain exactly WHY I should vote for you and clearly explain your impacts.

I will vote for whoever's arguments I can best understand and are clearly explained.

I prefer people with confidence in their answers

Good Luck

I have a very long history in speech and debate activities as both a coach and competitor. I have coached all formats of debate along with public speaking and interp events over the last 35 years. I attended high school in a small town Texas school back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, where I competed in policy debate, extemp, oratory, dramatic, prose and poetry. I also competed in college at Southwest Texas State University (which is now Texas State University) in NDT and CEDA along with individual events.

I have been the coach at James E. Taylor High School (Katy Taylor) in Katy, Texas for the last 23 years, where I have coached all events.

In public speaking events, I generally weigh 3 things: analysis, organization, and delivery (in that order). In any public speaking event, I expect to hear citations of credible sources. In extemp I normally expect a minimum of 2-3 source per area of analysis (more is fine). In oratory or info, I expect the student to explain a source's qualifications. A clear organizational structure is required. In terms of delivery, there should be an appropriate level of gesture and movement. But all movement should serve to reinforce the content of the speech. Clear diction and intonation are also important.

Extempers--The analysis in the speech should stem directly from the topic question. If the speech doesn't directly respond to the question asked, you will end up with a low rank from me, no matter the quality of the speech itself. My number 1 rule in extemp--answer the question.

When evaluating interpretation events, I tend to look first to characterization. Blocking and use of space are also an important considerations, but I expect all movement to be motivated. Random movement, or movement just for movement's sake, is distracting and confusing. I have no particular preference on the use of a teaser, but I do want to hear YOU in the intro (as a contrast to the character(s) you are creating). In prose/poetry, the rules of the event require the use of a binder, so I expect you to at least pretend to occasionally look at the pages.

I am not offended by the use of profanity as long as it is integral to the selection performed. I am not a fan of using it just for shock value. Along the same lines, I am not easily offended, and willing to give some latitude on content of the performance. However, I am uncomfortable with selections that are extremely graphic and/or vulgar, or bordering on, or completely pornographic. I realize that it is difficult to explain where that line falls, and I do take that into account. Shocking just to be shocking doesn't score lots of points with me. Basically, if the piece would get an X-rating in a movie theater, I don't want to watch it in an interp round.

Online competitors: I will always take into account limited space, technical issues, etc., when evaluating competitors online. I understand that some things are just out of the student's control when competing online and I do not count that against the student.

I'm a parent judge. I was an active member of my university debate team. I prefer clear sound arguments based on facts/data and constructive rebuttal.

Individual Events:

Judging will be based on the overall performance of your piece, not the topic of your piece. Concerning performance, a clear speaking voice and distinct characterizations through body language and/or voice changes are essential. Concerning original works, a well-written piece is essential in addition to performance techniques. At a minimum I look for an introduction with a good, relevant hook, a clearly formed body with distinct points of discussion that uniquely support your introduction, and a conclusion that loops back to your introduction. I also llok for limited repetition and audience engagement.

I do WSD but have a lot of experience in all the other debate events.

Not a huge fan of spreading but if you are going to AT LEAST make your key arguments clear to me.

I prefer when people can keep their own time but if I need to do time signals my go-to is 3 down fist at grace for speech events and then for debate events, I give 15 seconds before I ask you to wrap it up.

I do not tolerate people giggling at their opponents while spectating however if you make banter in the round that's fine just be respectful.

Please do not scream at me!! I promise my ears work fine. And no excessive knocking on tables and clapping during a speech, it's unnecessary.

Make the round easy for me, tell me why to vote for you instead of letting me decide between you and your opp.

I'll give critiques after the round if you ask but that does not mean I'll disclose the round.

Hey, my name is Emma Maughan and my first goal for you as a judge is for you to provide your best effort and have fun while you’re doing it. Something is wrong if you’re not having fun.recall, to communicate effectively, and with respect towards your peers,

In speech and interpretation:

1. In general, I search for appropriate gestures, deliberate movement, eye contact, tone, diction, and effective use of voice.

2.I love when you are able to capture the personalities and make them believable.

3.I enjoy attention-grabbing or compelling teasers that get me to sit up and take notice!

4.You should speak clearly and concisely.

While I am new to judging, my background in the visual and performing arts, as well as my undergraduate and graduate expertise in public speaking and presentation, brings a unique blend of experiences to the world of speech and debate. My journey has equipped me with a diverse set of skills and insights that are transferrable across environments and contribute to fair and constructive evaluation.

1. • Storytelling and Engagement:

     • As a performer, I understand the power of storytelling and the importance of captivating an audience. I will look for speeches and arguments that not only convey compelling narratives but also engage the audience effectively.

   • Delivery and Performance:

     • Having practiced public speaking at the undergraduate level, I appreciate the nuances of effective delivery. I will pay attention to vocal variety, body language, and stage presence, recognizing that these elements greatly enhance a speech or debate performance.

   • Content and Argumentation:

     • My graduate experience in presentation has honed my ability to assess the quality of content and argumentation. I will evaluate the strength of arguments, the coherence of ideas, and the use of evidence to support claims.

   • Adaptability and Creativity:

     • Theater often demands quick thinking and adaptability. I value creativity in adapting to unexpected situations and will acknowledge those who can think on their feet and respond to challenging questions or situations.

   • Respect for Rules and Etiquette:

     • While I may be new to speech and debate judging, I understand the importance of adhering to the established rules and etiquette of the events. Fairness and respect for all participants are paramount.

   • Constructive Feedback:

     • Drawing from my experiences as a performer, speaker, and presenter, I will provide constructive feedback that encourages growth and development. I believe that feedback should be both supportive and actionable.

Assistant Coach at Spring Woods High School Speech & Debate for Victoria Beard.

Interp: Source of the majority of my experience in Speech & Debate. I look for multiple levels to a performance; character portrayals by students with an understanding of the emotions and stakes of their piece; a concise plot to the cut, coherent from beginning to end; the greater the attention to minor details (mannerisms, gestures, inflection, etc.), the better.

Public Speaking: I enjoy interp-flair, but it cannot supersede the content, argument, or sources of your speaking. I will call you out on inaccuracies.

Debate: Rank your Spread from 1 (slowest) to 10 (fastest), then keep at 5 maximum -- quantity will never match quality. I appreciate excellent enunciation and clarity, and support debaters providing roadmaps for judges. Dropped contentions are watched for. No disclosures after round end.

Hi, I'm Vikram!

Speech: I did DX and OO all 4 years of high school. I appreciate good humor in speeches but it should be adequately connected and linked to the topic. Presentation is very important, so few fluency breaks - if any, and effective use of pauses are well appreciated.

For extemp specifically, I value YOUR analysis highly, so try not to build a whole argument off of a source. Also remember to weigh the impact of your point and connect it to the topic at hand; I should not have to wonder "why is this important" - it should be concisely explained. Answer the question asked; you will likely end up with a poor rank if your speech (no matter how good and polished it may be) does not pertain directly to the question of the topic slip. When giving analysis, try going deep into the issue and expanding upon the multiple layers; in outrounds and finals, the pertinent details in analysis makes all the difference in rankings.

For OO and INFO, I value the relatability and originality of a topic, and I enjoy listening to how the topic has impacted you personally. Good presentation (lack of fluency breaks, good intonation, etc.) here is a must and humor is appreciated. I also enjoy seeing and listening to your creativity, so anything out of the ordinary (but still within the rules) is highly valued.

Interp: I never competed in interp in high school, though I have since judged several rounds in a variety of events. I follow the NSDA guide in judging, and I greatly value topic originality, and creativity in your presentation.

Debate: I did PF and LD on and off all through high school, so I would classify myself as a flow-ish judge. I enjoy listening to rhetoric in speeches, but make sure that's not the only thing in your speech. On the topic, treat me as if I do not know anything about it since I don't read about the topic in advance.

Note: Most tournaments run on a tight schedule, so in the interest of keeping good time, please be ready to start at the stated time on the schedule. If you are flight 2, have EVERYTHING ready before you walk in the room. If you come in saying you need to take a bathroom break, pre-flow, share cases, etc., I will dock your speaks.

You are responsible for keeping time for both speeches and prep, and in the interest of honesty, you are responsible for validating your opponent's prep and speech time too. I will not be keeping track of anyone's prep used nor remaining.

Please have the full version of ALL your cards ready to go, when someone asks for cards, please be quick in giving them the appropriate pieces, otherwise I will instruct your opponents to run prep. I may ask for cards at the end of the round, so have the full version of the card with the appropriate sections highlighted, and the version you cut open side-by-side so I can compare them and make my judgement. If you take a while (>5 mins) to pull up these cards when I ask for them, I will treat those pieces of evidence as if they don't exist, and strike them from my flow.

I value a traditional debate. If you run theories, shells, or K's, you will likely be downed. I absolutely HATE spreading (moderate speed is alright though); so if I can't keep up or understand you, I can't flow what you say. I flow every speech INCLUDING all cross examinations. Rebuttals can be line by line or grouped by argument - remember to sign-post effectively otherwise I won't be able to follow what you say.

PF: Both summary and final focus must extend cards used in rebuttal, if the card was not mentioned in rebuttal, it will not be flowed. When extending cards, it is highly appreciated that you give me the name and the year of the card just so that I know for sure exactly what card you want me to extend.

LD:I enjoy framework debates especially as it relates to topicality, but try not to turn the round into a definition debate as it just keeps the round in a boring cycle and involves no clash whatsoever.

TL;DR: keep the debate traditional. You have freedom in speech structure, just let me know what you're doing and where you are at important points.

Please make sure your voters are clear. Show me how you outweigh your opponent's impacts and why they are more important; I tend to value magnitude the most, and numerical (quantifiable) impacts are easiest for me to buy, so as long as they are not over-reliant on probability.

For all events: Please be respectful and courteous to your opponents. If you are mean, condescending, excessively dismissive, or rude, YOU WILL BE DOWNED. With that said, good luck and have fun!!

I am a lay parent judge so I value speaking over anything else. For debate (LD/PF) I don't like spreading.

Info (any speech event really): I judge MAINLY off delivery and style. I rank the top 2 participants based on who was the most articulate, engaging, and smooth with their delivery at both a vocal and physical level. The point of the event is for me to be educated and informed!!

Extemp: I want an entertaining and powerful AGD with a strong power line that ties well to the topic. Your body points should have a good analysis and touches beyond just surface level. I differentiate speakers on their connection with me as the judge, how does XYZ impact me on a human level?

LD/PF: I dont mind talking fast but please dont spread. Anyone can make a speech with simple framework/contentions but I want it spelled out for why I should favor your side. Your rebuttal and questioning block truly give a solid ground on where your knowledge is at so I keep a big eye out for those as well.

Congress:
Speaking: Be confident and expressive! Have funny agds! I wanna laugh, especially if I'm in a room listening to highschoolers roleplay as the US congress for 3 hours. Include pathos! Just like every debate event, spell out WHY your side is right. Don't scream during questioning and be active in the chamber.
PO: Please have a spreadsheet for the speakers. Typically, if you run the chamber "fast, fair and efficiently," then you won't be downed. As long as you can keep track of preset precedence and recency then you should be good.

As a IE judge I look for a clean and polished performance. Good Analysis and Interpretation of characters and a powerful performance.

For Speaking events - Structure and Sources are important as well as a polished performance.

For Debate - LD I prefer a traditional format and value debate. PF I want to see clash, evidence and a clear job going down the flow to show rebuttals of arguments.

I am conflicted with Cypress Park High School

Parent judge -- go slow and do what you do best!

I’m a junior from Jordan High School and have been in Speech and Debate for 2 years now. I mainly do Congress, but also do Extempt on the side. I am an East Texas District Finalist.

I highly value good speaking and presentation skills. Have good volume, tone variation, and cadence to get a good rank from me. If you are too quiet and lack much passion don’t expect me to listen too attentively. Having a lasting and impactful “personality” throughout the round is something I really value. Be present, engaging, and vocal. I also want to be constantly engaged. If you can be entertaining and genuinely keep me engaged then you’ll get far. I am especially a sucker for humor and a fun AGD might all be what it takes for me to pay attention. Structure must be easy to understand. Signpost Signpost Signpost! If your speech is all over the place and inconsistent don’t expect me to try to understand.

A good way to get upped is to bring a new or unique argument. Repeating other speakers or refusing to do refutations will hurt you. Be an essential contribution to the round that no other speaker can. You won’t get points if you cannot add anything to the overall debate.

What I look for in the sponsor/author: You must completely cover the bill and explain the important sections that I need to understand the debate that comes. If I still don’t understand the bill after your speech consider your sponsorship/authorship a failure. In the end, it doesn’t matter how good your impacts are, if I don’t know what the bill means then every impact falls flat. Talk to us like we’ve never heard the bill and make sure you know the bill! If you get questioned on the bill and can’t answer it correctly then you’ll suffer.

What I look for in late-rounders: You’ll get my point if you can successfully turn main arguments to your side or if you can clarify a confusing debate (I love when you can do the latter). Also, remember to ref continuously. If you cannot do both of these then you won’t look well.

All in all, I cannot remember every single speaker and their speech. Make a good and significant speech to make me remember you’re presence and importance to the round and it will get you a good rank.

If you have any questions or remarks please email me at justinshin06@gmail.com

I. General Philosophy:

• I value clear, concise, and respectful communication.
• I judge based on the quality of arguments, not the quantity.
• I am open to various styles and approaches, but I expect strong evidence and logical reasoning.

II. Debate Specific:

• Burdens of proof: I expect the affirmative to establish their case and the negative to challenge it.
• Theory: I am open to traditional theory arguments, but I will not vote on frivolous or abusive ones.
• Weighing: I appreciate clear explanations of why your arguments are more important than your opponent's.
• Evidence: I value credible and well-sourced evidence, such as academic journals, expert opinions, and reliable statistics.
• Impact: Explain how your arguments make a real-world difference and why they should matter to the audience.

III. Speech Specific:

• Delivery: I evaluate vocal variety, clarity, eye contact, and overall stage presence.
• Content: I assess the depth of research, clarity of organization, and effectiveness of argumentation.
• Originality: I appreciate unique perspectives and engaging approaches to the topic.
• Engagement: I value the speaker's ability to connect with the audience and evoke emotional response (if applicable to the speech type).

IV. Additional Notes:

• Feel free to ask me questions during the round to clarify any expectations.
• I will maintain professionalism and impartiality throughout the round.

V. Preferences (Optional):

• Speed: I prefer a clear and understandable speaking pace, but I am flexible within limits.
• Visual aids: Feel free to use visual aids, but ensure they are clear, relevant, and not distracting.

Hi! I'm Abhinav Tiruveedhula, CS + Polymath Honors @ UT. I competed primarily in Congress at Tompkins High School where I qualified for TFA State twice and NSDA nats once. This paradigm isn't all-inclusive; feel free to ask about any specifics before round starts.

email - ranjaniabhinav@gmail.com

General Stuff - Scroll for event-specific preferences.

• Speak at a speed where the other competitors and I can hear you. I will try my best to keep flowing but I may miss stuff if you go too fast.
• Fake/misappropriated evidence will result in an immediate L/6/last if it's caught and proven. I know from my time that this is sometimes a big issue and don't want it in the round.
• This should go without saying but please be good people. Rudeness, ignorance, homophobia, sexism, racism, etc. will negatively affect your ballot.

Congress Paradigm (Updated through TFA State '24)

• Author/sponsor should explain the bill and set a good foundation for the rest of the round.
• CLASH. Anyone other than the 1st aff should be spending significant time refuting the other side's specific arguments.
• Speeches towards the end of the bill's debate should crystal and weigh the various arguments made during round instead of bringing up new arguments.
• I highly dislike a one-sided debate if no new information is being brought up. If you have a speech thats the 2nd or 3rd in a row on the same side, consider making it a crystal, flipping to the other side, or just speaking on the next item.
• On a similar note, don't rehash the same arguments over and over. If the same arguments are being brought up over and over, move to previous question and go on to another item.
• Don't just read off your pad. Speak somewhat extemporaneously. Looking at the chamber, hand motions, vocal inflection, etc are all expected in every speech.
• Questions: Ask good questions; don't ask just for the sake of getting questions in. In addition, ask concise questions; aka, not spending half the questioning block phrasing the question in a certain way. While asking questions to a speaker on the same side isn't necessarily bad, avoid it unless it is extremely critical or brings something very important up.
• Be an active member of the chamber, whether with motions or just taking a leadership role in the chamber. At the same time, don't overdo it with excessive motions just to show off your knowledge.
• If time prevents you from giving as many speeches as others, I'll take that into account when doing ranks. Not having both sides prepped isn't a valid excuse for not speaking on an item ESPECIALLY with a preset docket.
• POing: I used to PO all the time when I competed, so I'm pretty familiar with it. I appreciate a PO who is willing to do it when no one else wants to and will take that into account when ranking. The thing I value most for POs is getting through as many speeches as possible with no big mistakes. Small mistakes may not harm you much but big ones (i.e. multiple precedence mistakes, round being run very slow, etc.) will push you down on the ballot. A good PO is one who can get through 11+ speeches an hour with little-to-no mistakes.

IE Paradigm (Updated through TFA State '24)

• All events - I'm fine if you want to time yourself. Otherwise, I'll give you 3 down, fist at grace unless otherwise asked. Style is also important to me. Fluency, hand signals, eye contact, etc should all be present throughout the speech.
• Extemp - I like extemps that are structured well, clear intro, 3 points, and conclusion. An AGD isn't completely necessary to me; I would rather you get right into your speech than use a canned AGD. The 3 points should be relatively unique and contain a roughly similar amount of sources and content. Make sure that your analysis ties into the answer to your question. Sources should have publication/author along with the date (month and year at the minimum). The conclusion should effectively wrap up the speech by summarizing your key points and the answer to your question.
• OO/INFO - Since this is one of the only events where your whole performance is memorized, fluency should be great. Original topics are appreciated and may make you stand out in a room of great speakers. The speech should persuade/inform me throughly, using evidence/anecdotes sprinkled throughout. I will rank based on a mix of originality, content, and presentation/style.
• Interp - I never competed in interp, but have judged a bit of it this year. I like pieces that have clear characters and good acting. If I'm your judge for an interp event, I'll rank mostly based on overall enjoyment and originality.

Debate Paradigm (Updated through Mayde Creek '24)

• Try to go at a speed where everyone can understand. I can only flow what I hear. If you insist on spreading, send the speech doc.
• If you decide to run any kind of theory, make sure to explain it very very well. In addition, links should be very strong if the end argument is extinction.
• I never did LD/PF/CX at a high level, so don't expect me to understand every trick, K, specific jargon.
• Keep track of your own time.
• Tech > Truth most of the time.
• Don't cut cards in a way where the author's words are being misrepresented. If this comes to light, you are very likely to get an automatic L.
• Treat me like I know the basics of the topic but don't assume I know everything about it.

I care most about the round being safe, so let me know if you need any accommodations beforehand (FB message me or email me at keyu.vijapure@gmail.com).

Debate how you're comfortable. I’m tab, so feel free to read anything non-exclusionary, including progressive arguments (but make sure you explain them and don’t spread cuz I can’t keep up with that).

Dropped defense will stick, even if unextended (as long as it hasn’t been frontlined by your opponents).

I like clean, clear, concise, warranted arguments and responses. Speed is not an issue as long as you are organized and coherent.Slow down if speed interferes with the flow of ideas.I think conditional arguments are abusive and cause me to intervene. Theory can be a voter if arguments are developed and applied. Generic theory arguments are a waste of time. I appreciate debaters making logical arguments that are specific to the round instead of reading prepared responses. A sense of humor is appreciated. Crystallize issues in rebuttals. Tell me how you want me to weigh arguments in the round and which arguments are voters. Use CX time to clarify issues and to establish your strategy.

Performance events should be polished. Characters should be engaging and have definite vocal and physical characteristics. The piece should have different emotional levels. Movement should make sense.

I believe that speech & debate offers an invaluable experience for students in that it provides a platform and an audience. Your voice matters, and I am honored to be but a small part in the process where you speak your truth.

I competed in LD, Extemp, Poetry & Impromptu throughout most of high school. I had a very brief relationship with Policy that left a bad taste in my mouth, and I think I tried every speech/interp event that existed at the time. I judged debate tournaments in college, began coaching a debate club about 9 years ago, and started teaching a speech & debate class two years ago. I truly believe it is THE class that most prepared me for my career in business because it improved my analysis, helped me create ideas, and gave me confidence in communication - both written and verbal.

Now for the paradigms you seek...

DEBATERS: debate is first and foremost a speaking event. I expect you to stand when you speak, make eye contact with your judge and not speak so quickly that you spit on your laptop. I also expect for you to provide evidence AND analysis for your arguments. Please do not expect me to provide the link in your justification. I am a relatively traditional flow judge- if it's not on my flow at the end of the round, then you didn't carry it over, and I don't intend to vote for dropped arguments. I also do not flow CX- if you bring up a really great question during that time, I expect that you will then mention it in your next rebuttal speech.

Specifically, I'm comfortable with LD, PF, WSD and slower/well-posted Policy rounds. If you're reading this paradigm right before you walk into a Congress round with me, let's hope I'm on a panel. :) I don't mind Kritiks or theories, but I do not like abusive arguments. If there is really NO WAY for your opponent to outsmart that idea, then it is abusive and has no place in a high school debate round. I don't have to believe your argument to buy it in the round, but you do have to sell it. If you want to put me in a box, I'm probably a Stock Issues judge with a dash of Policymaker and on some topics a bit of Tabula Rasa thrown in. But feel free to not put me in a box.

I really appreciate signposting so I know where you are in rebuttals, but I absolutely DO NOT need an off-the-clock roadmap where you just say aff/neg or neg/aff/voters. There are no times during a debate round where I am listening to you when your time is not running. Oh, and to be clear, your time starts when I press the button, which is likely to be on your first word. I do not need for you to tell me when your time starts. If you trust me to judge the outcome of the round, please trust me to press the button on my phone clock appropriately.

SPEAKERS: in speech events, I expect you to come across as the expert on the topic at hand, whether it's an Info or OO you've researched for 6 months or an Extemp topic you drew 30 minutes ago. I expect all of these to have strong research, well cited sources and solid analysis on your topics. Remember that you are conveying a message to the audience that you care about and we want to listen to. Enjoy your time in the speech!

INTERPERS: I know how difficult it is to continue performing the exact same piece over and over again for months- it's hard to keep it fresh. Think of it as a juicy piece of gossip (the good kind- don't spread bad vibes!) that you just can't wait to share. Then it stays fresher each time you say it because now you're excited to share it with THIS audience.

Who knew I had so much to say about judging in the speech and debate world? If you're still reading my paradigm, my sincere prayer is that you are enjoying this journey and wherever you are in it right now. Oh, and hurry up and get to your round! :)

I debated (mainly policy, after a very brief foray into LD) throughout high school, back in the debate dark ages. After a decades-long time away from the activity, I have more recently begun attending tournaments again, assisting my wife with coaching responsibilities and judging for her Houston-area school team. I've had many years to appreciate the skills that speech and debate helped me begin developing in high school, and the importance of seeing those skills develop drives my judging paradigm more than anything.

In short, I'm a traditional judge that considers debate to be a communication event above all else, with logical argumentation and researched evidence being a close second and third. I value clash, and I will always go back to my flow of the round to determine a winner in a close round. I don't mind hearing obscure contentions if they are well prepared and presented, but I don't appreciate outright tricks, excessive speed, or anything else that comes across as abusive or generic.

In LD debate, I expect a value debate and not a discussion of plans and counterplans or other concepts borrowed from other formats. In PF, I want to see that you've done the research and that you understand the tradeoffs between pro and con, so weighing is important to me. I grew up with stock issues as voters in policy, so those arguments are most comfortable to me. In any of these formats, if you’re taking a different approach than what I’m describing, know that you’re taking a risk, and be sure to take me with you.

Speaker points are based on professionalism, persuasion, and polish. Rudeness and disrespect don't belong here or anywhere. If you came to my paradigm primarily to see if I can handle spreading, I suggest you don't test that in round. Even if I can keep up with you, I don't want to, and it's tough to persuade me to vote for you if I can't follow your logic or if I'm annoyed that you've ignored my paradigm. I appreciate the need to hurry things along, particularly in the compressed rebuttal time, but quality of argumentation will beat out quantity every single time.

Congress:

Don't speed through your speeches, speed matters to me. Style matters to me as well, I am looking for structured arguments with clean rhetoric that comes in a polished package. Introduce new arguments. In questioning, I look for fully answering questions while also furthering your argument. I notice posture and gestures -- and they do matter to me. Evidence should be relevant and (for the most part) recent. Evidence is pretty important to me, and outweighs clean delivery if used properly. A clean analysis will rank you up on my ballot as well. Don't yell at each other. Overall, be respectful of one another. If I don't see respect for your fellow competitors, it can be reflected on my ballot. Don't rehash arguments. An extra speech with something I have already heard that round is likely to bump you down when I go to rank. As far as PO's go, I typically start them at 4 or 5, and they will go up or down depending on how clean the round runs. A clean PO in a room full of really good speakers will likely be ranked lower on my ballot. As far as delivery goes...as it says above, I am a speech coach. Your volume, rate, diction, etc are important. Make sure you are staying engaged and talking to the chamber, not at the chamber -- I want to be able to tell that you care about what you are speaking on.

Speech:

EVERY performance must tell a story.

Extemp: Someone with zero knowledge of your topic prior to the round should be able to walk away from your speech with a basic understanding of your topic and your stance on the issue. You should include a variety of sources, and they should be as current and relevant as possible. I look for organization and structure, but I also like to see some evidence of your personality to keep me engaged. Knowledge of your topic is important, as is rhetoric and logic throughout the speech.

Info: These speeches should be clear and entertaining, and should include concise and organized ideas, thought-provoking takeaways, and interesting, engaging visuals. I will be looking for how well you inform your audience about your topic.

Oratory: Original oratories are a place to share personal experiences, either lived or researched, and should showcase your passion for an idea that matters to you.

HI, DI, Duo, POI: Tell a compelling and meaningful story that can be clearly followed. Acting and blocking should ADD to the performance, not detract from it – remember that drama is not always about crying, shrieking, and falling on the ground. Oftentimes, the best performances utilize pauses and soft spoken words more often than noise to convey emotion.

Prose and Poetry: I was an English teacher before coming to coach Speech and Debate, so I absolutely love listening to prose and poetry. I will evaluate characterization, insight and understanding as far as the mood and meaning of the piece, how clearly themes and ideas are expressed, and overall delivery (aim for distinct enunciation without sounding pedantic).

Final Interp ranks are based on the story, acting, blocking, message, and overall effect of each performance.

I'm a lay judge.

Extemporaneous speaking

• Have good fluency, good fluency is key - if you have good fluency you display a level of knowledge and coherence of thought
• although I am a lay judge I have a decent understanding of world events and can reasonably deduct if your content is reasonable (eg. don't lie, I usually can tell)
• I believe an extemp speech must have personality. Funny or serious is okay, but I value a consistent and singular style that makes sense for the topic presented.

Original oratory/Informative speaking

• Yes, I am lay. No that does not mean that flowery rhetoric or cute platitudes of society are going to get you the 1.
• I value the depth of a topic and a meaningful understanding and interpretation of a topic with a convincing argument over a flashy, rhetorical speech
• Fluency isn't going to give you the one but it certainly wouldn't hurt

-

Hi, I am parent judge and I've judged IEs and debate during the 22-23 debate season for TFA and NSDA District.

IEs:

For speech delivery, I appreciate that you speak clearly without excessive word crutches. Use time wisely to fully develop the speech. Fluid speech and professional mannerisms will be noted.

On EXTEMPT/INF/OO, make sure your points discussed clearly address the question that you’ve chosen. Following the standard speech outline and including clear impact analysis would help. Cite your sources. I read broadly about economics, geopolitics and technologies on a regularly basis. Logical analysis of event and impact will be noted.

On INTERP, it is a performance and characterization is important. All movements (gestures, head, and other body movements) are done with purpose.

Debate:

- I do not mind speed as long as words can be understood. I also evaluate on speaking ability.

- I will evaluate how each side address other’s arguments with good logic and evidence.

- Off-clock road map is much appreciated.

- Please add me to the email chain: joyzhang08@gmail.com