Advancement of debate

logical progression of ideas

supporting argument with sources

interaction with and connected to other chamber members

proper decorum

proper use of parliamentary procedure

knowledge of laws, and governmental procedures

I am a parent judge. I have been actively judging for 2 years (although I had judged an occasional round before that, once every few years). I have judged a variety of speech events as well as Public Forum. (I judged PF at the NCFL Grand National Tournament in 2024.) I prefer it when debaters speak at a conversational rate; a fast rate of delivery has made it more difficult for me to follow arguments in the past. I believe that I value argument and style equally. When assessing a debate, I pay attention not only to a debater's argument but also to whether they've directly addressed (refuted) their opponents' arguments.

Hello Speakers, Coaches, Tabbers, Parents, and everyone else in between! My name is Addison Crum and I am currently a Senior at Marshall University studying Communications and Psychology! I have been involved in the speech and debate off and on for a few years now and currently compete on the college level as well!

If you are reading this you are wondering about my paradigms and how I judge speech and debate rounds…

FOR DEBATE EVENTS:

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

Criteria:

· Value: The debater must clearly articulate a value (e.g., justice, freedom, equality) as the lens through which the resolution will be evaluated. The value should be compelling and relevant to the resolution. The value criterion should also logically tie to the value and resolution.

· Contentions: You must present clear contentions that support your value framework. Each contention should logically build toward affirming or negating the resolution at hand. A strong debater will directly engage with their opponent’s arguments, offering refutations and weighing comparisons between both cases (weighing the importance of different values and criteria). Lincoln-Douglas emphasizes philosophical argumentation, but empirical evidence (when used) should be credible and clearly integrated into the argument.

· Reasoning: Given the nature of LD debate, strong philosophical reasoning (e.g., references to moral philosophy, political theory, or ethical frameworks) is crucial to argumentation. Debaters should be able to demonstrate knowledge of relevant ethical theories or philosophies when appropriate to the topicality of the argument. The debater’s arguments should be grounded in moral or ethical reasoning that is consistent with their value framework.

· Delivery: You must present your arguments in a clear and articulate manner, especially given the philosophical nature of LD. Jargon or overly complex language that is not accessible may detract from the persuasiveness of the arguments and dissuade me to vote in your favor. Beyond logical argumentation, a strong emotional appeal that ties into the ethical implications of the resolution can be persuasive in LD. While some speed is acceptable, excessive “spreading” (speaking very fast to fit in more arguments) may make it difficult to follow and cause me not to be able to effectively evaluate your arguments. Clarity should not be sacrificed for the sake of volume or to say more.

· Weighing: You should explicitly weigh your argument against your opponents to demonstrate why your value framework or criterion is superior. Explain why your framework should be the deciding factor in the round and why the other weighing mechanism is ineffective. An effective debater will crystallize their main arguments toward the end of the debate, providing clear reasons for why they win the round.

FOR SPEECH EVENTS:

When judging speech events at competitions, I believe it is important to provide constructive and comprehensive feedback that supports the speaker in whatever endeavor they have embarked on while adhering to the rules and standards set forth by the tournament, circuit, and the NSDA. Below is a breakdown of my paradigms for each speech event so you can see what I judge primarily and what I look for when judging each event, some events may not be listed but my other paradigms should help fill in any blanks about my overall style of judging:

Prose Interpretation

Criteria:

• Structure: Your piece should have a clear beginning, middle, and end. The performer should present a cohesive narrative arc that includes a natural flow between these elements with proper transitions.
• Blocking: The physicality of the performance should enhance the narrative, not distract me from what’s occurring. Gestures and body movements must be purposeful and controlled, avoiding excessive movement that’s distracting. Why is this specific movement important to the narrative arc?
• Vocalization: Vocal variation, tone, and pace should match the emotion and content of the prose. Appropriate use of pauses and intonation will enhance dramatic moments or emotional weight.
• Additional Consideration:
• Characterization: If multiple characters are involved, distinct vocal and physical shifts should be clear and concise. Blocking should also clearly define each character.
• Emotional Connection: The speaker should connect with the emotions of the piece and effectively convey them to the audience. Show me you are feeling what the main character is feeling.

Poetry Interpretation

Criteria:

• Structure: The poem(s) should be presented in a thematic progression, even if there is a combination of multiple poems. The narrative or thematic link between sections should be evident, overall the piece should flow naturally and be cohesive.
• Blocking: Movement should be creative, purposeful, and used to emphasize key moments in the interpretation. Avoid overly dramatic gestures unless they are integral to the meaning of the poem. Think outside the box in this event!
• Vocalization: Emphasis on the rhythm, tone, and pacing of the interpretation is critical. The speaker should be able to demonstrate control over poetic devices such as alliteration, rhyme, and meter through vocal variation.
• Additional Consideration:
• Interpretation: The performance should reflect a deep understanding of the poem’s themes, imagery, and tone. The speaker should interpret the poet’s message in a meaningful and authentic way with their introduction and reflection of the poetry.
• Use of Language: The speaker must show respect for the language of the poem, pronouncing words clearly and using vocal techniques to bring out the richness of the text.

Informative Speaking

Criteria:

• Structure: The speech must have a clear and logical structure, including an introduction with a strong attention getter, central focus around the main idea, organized main points with supporting evidence, effective transitions between each element, and a conclusion that reinforces the message.
• Blocking: Movements and gestures should complement the overall speech but should not overshadow the content. Use of visual aids (if applicable) should be smooth and not disruptive. Why is this aid used and what does it do to advance the speakers’ point?
• Vocalization: The speaker should use a confident, authoritative and assertive voice. Effective use of volume, pace, and emphasis will keep the audience engaged. Your voice should reassure me that you are a credible speaker.
• Additional Consideration:
• Clarity and Simplicity: The speech should present complex information in a clear and digestible manner. The speaker must avoid over-complicating the content or overwhelming the audience.
• Credibility: The speaker should demonstrate extensive knowledge of the subject and maintain their credibility through the use of accurate data and sources.
• Use of Visual Aids: If used, visual aids should enhance the understanding of the information and be smoothly integrated into the performance.

Persuasive Speaking

Criteria:

• Structure: Your speech should have a well-developed argument with clear claims, reasons, and evidence. The introduction should grab my attention, the body should present logical arguments, and the conclusion should have a strong call to action (a strong emotional response is even better).
• Blocking: Gestures and movement should reflect the seriousness of the speech’s subject without being overly dramatic. Movement should help emphasize key arguments, but not be overdone.
• Vocalization: Vocal dynamics should support the argument's emotional appeal and intellectual rigor. Pacing, tone, and volume should align with the key points being made, especially when making emotional appeals.
• Additional Consideration:
• Argument Development: The speaker should present a balanced argument, acknowledging opposing viewpoints while systematically dismantling them.
• Emotional Appeal: The speaker should effectively combine the rhetorical elements of logos (logic), ethos (credibility), and pathos (emotional appeal). Emotional appeals must be persuasive, but not manipulative.
• Call to Action: The speech should conclude with a strong and clear call to action, encouraging the audience to engage with the speaker's perspective.

Extemporaneous Speaking

Criteria:

• Structure: The speech should follow a clear, logical outline with an introduction, body, and conclusion. The main points must be well-organized and the transitions between them should be smooth. Each main point in the body should have 2 supporting claims and connect back to the main argument.
• Blocking: Minimal movement is expected in this event. The speaker should focus on maintaining strong eye contact with the audience rather than relying on physical movement to engage listeners. Blocking to show transitions is fine.
• Vocalization: The speaker should project confidence and authority through a clear and controlled voice. Pacing and tone should match the complexity of the topic and remain conversational but polished.
• Additional Consideration:
• Analysis: The speaker must demonstrate strong critical thinking skills and a clear understanding of current events or political issues. The analysis should be insightful and backed by evidence.
• Topical Knowledge: The speaker must demonstrate comprehensive knowledge of the subject matter and integrate relevant data or examples in a seamless manner.
• Spontaneity: Despite being prepared in a short amount of time, the speech should feel natural and not overly rehearsed. Flexibility in the speaker’s delivery is key. The winning speaker will make me feel like they’ve had the topic for weeks.

Impromptu Speaking

Criteria:

• Structure: The speech should have a coherent structure with a clear introduction, body, and conclusion. Even with limited preparation, the argument or story should flow logically from one point to the next. The ideal structure is 2 minutes prep, and 4 minutes to speak however, minimal attention is given to this unless your structure is flipped and the majority of time is used in prep.
• Blocking: Movement should be minimal and natural. Gestures that emphasize key points are encouraged, but they should not distract from the speech’s content.
• Vocalization: The speaker should use vocal variety to engage the audience, with appropriate use of volume, tone, and pacing to reflect the content of the speech.
• Additional Consideration:
• Creativity: The speaker should exhibit creativity and originality in their approach to the prompt. The speech should stand out by providing an unexpected or unique perspective.
• Spontaneity and Adaptability: The speech should feel spontaneous and responsive to the prompt, showing that the speaker can think quickly and critically. Stumbling or filler words should be minimized.

PF/LD:

E-mail:Hrenj@trinityprep.org

If you are looking for my paradigm in a few words:

I will start by looking at theimpactsas articulated in your final speech.I will thencompare them the way I was told to in your final speech(ex. Prefer on Timeframe. Prioritize probability). If there are competing comparisons, I will choose the one that is best articulated. I will then checkthe link to the impact and see if, in the final speech and previous speech, the other team told me a reason not to give the you access to your impact.If they did, I will make sure that this reason was articulated, at least from the second speech of that team.

My flow can be best described as chaotic, so make sure that you have been really clear and not blippy- if you are blippy, I am liable to miss it.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I have experience judging LD at the College and High School level (but it has been a little bit since I have consistently judged LD) and Public Forum at the High School level (fairly consistently). I would by no means say I am an expert. These are some things to keep in mind with me.

Assume that I know nothing. This includes shorthand, theory, or K literature. Even if I do know something, I will pretend I don't to avoid intervening in the round.

Speed Kills (your ability to win the round).I want to be able to flow everything.To this end, I will say “clear” two times and then I am able to flow what I can flow: if I miss something because you’re speeding then it won’t be considered.I do not want to look at cards unless you or your opponent have a tiff about what they actually say.

Additionally, I think that spreading should be a tool to allow for deeper and more specific arguments as opposed to allowing for more short, blippy responses.If you're speeding through a response and that response was only a sentence or two to begin with, it probably doesn't register as that important to me.

Tech over truth except in extreme cases.Tell me what to vote on, tell me what to care about. Clearly weigh your impacts against your opponents do not assume I prefer one over the other without you giving me a reason to prefer.

I care about dropped arguments- you need to extend and that means more than just saying “extend.”Functionally reiterate your arguments or at least summaries of them.

CX- I often will flow this, but it will not factor into my decisions unless you bring it up in your speech. Don’t shoot yourself in the foot, DO use this time to clarify, NOT make new arguments.

I hate hate hate people being hyperbolic or lying about what their opponent said or did: Ex. “they dropped this point” when they clearly did not. Just know if you do it I will be inclined toward your opponent. If YOU misheard or misunderstood your opponent’s argument, I get that, but pretending they didn’t respond to something they did is as good as dropping the arg. Also- don't tell me what my paradigm said- I was there when it was written.

Congress:

-The most important things to me are delivery and content.

-If two people are very close on both these aspects content will be more important than delivery.

-I pay attention to questioning, but it is more of a tie breaker for me. If you ask a particularly good question I will note it and you will be ranked higher than someone with the same scores on speeches and no notes about questioning.

-Very important to my ranking of speeches is whether you are moving the round forward or introducing new ideas.

-I prefer evidence usage, though in some analytic cases it is not strictly needed.

-I very much like interaction with the other speeches that have gone (rebutting directly or adding more to a previous argument).

-Taking risks with content or delivery in ways which push the boundaries of the norms will certainly earn some bonus points in my head.

-I think that decorum is important- pay attention to what others are saying, don't engage in personal attacks or generally be rude.

Email: shirzadian@marshall.edu

I’m an assistant professor of English at Marshall University, where I also coach the MU debate team. My academic background is in rhetorical and critical theory--with a special emphasis on Disability Studies. I was an NPDA debater in college at Cedarville University (2006-2010). I've coached IPDA since beginning at MU in 2021. I have a good amount of NFA-LD experience.

I strive to be a tabula rasa absolutist. I’m a pretty meticulous flow judge. I like smart, meaningful policy debate (stock issue) clash. I also like kritics, pre- and post-fiat, so long as the links stand. I’m open to critical AFFs, though I feel like the bar is a bit higher than NEG K’s. I’m a politics nerd, and so love a smart, specific politics DA (get specific about the congresspeople and bills that will be put in play post-fiat). I wish more competitors would run politics DAs/args--in all debate formats, at all levels.

I’m okay with speed, though I’ll also expect you to moderate if I sense your speed has rendered the round inaccessible to your opponent. I'm not keen on supporting the gasping-for-air level of speed. I'd advise you avoid it in our round together.

Link turns are my favorite form of refutation, and most frequently win my ballot. Nothing wrong with impact turns (just don’t double turn!).

Love impact calc args. I'm finding I often weigh probability and timeframe more heavily that magnitude. The more specific / unique the impact, the better.

I love smart T debates--in pretty much every debate format. Standards and Violation debates determine my ballot. I expect NEG to point to concrete args that AFF's definitions link out of the round. That is, I don't generally vote on theoretical abuse; NEGs should instead run the shell of an arg and let AFF's "no link" prove the abuse).

I like CP debate and theory. I'll even permit it in IPDA [I'll also entertain trichotomy args in IPDA, especially when I feel that AFF's decision to withhold a policy strips NEG of meaningful ground]

27.5 (out of 30) feels like the middle for speaks. If you’re a jerk, I’ll weigh that pretty heavily against your speaks. Frankly, though, speaking performance plays an extremely small role in how I decide my ballot. My flow doesn't care about eloquence. For this reason, I give out a decent number of low-point wins.

Sourcing is just one way to warrant an argument. I think the average IPDA judge puts way too much stock in source debate. You are failing to speak my language if you tell me you feel you should win the round because you have more, or better, sources. Instead, do the logical warrant work (or better yet, combine logical and source warranting!).

In IPDA, please strike down to more academically/politically-minded resolutions. I don't extend my labor into the weekend to listen to college debaters squabble about whether a hotdog is a sandwich or whether Jersey Mike's is better than Jimmy John's. I love IPDA's commitment to accessibility, but I don't think accessibility demands that we debate about hotdogs or Jimmy John's. Please urge your coaches and tournament directors to write fewer hotdog/Jimmy John's resolutions.

I don't believe AFFs have a burden to disclose their framing/scoping/policies in IPDA/NPDA, though I'm willing to hear NEGs connect a failure to disclose to a broader abuse story.

Oh Hey! I didn't see you there. Your hair looks AMAZING!

My name is Ray smith and I'm an alumni of Knott County Central High School (Class of 2005) located in Hindman, KY. At the very bottom I've included categories I've competed in during my time at Knott Central. Since then, I've had the opportunity to help judge competitions (in the early 2000's with paper ballots ????) and assist as a freelance coach. Additional professional experience includes working as an actor and educator with The Kentucky Shakespeare Festival as well as acting with Savage Rose Classical Theatre and Louisville Repertory Company. I'm currently signed with Heyman Talent Agency located in Louisville, KY where I primarily focus on film, television, and commercial projects. One of my favorite gigs was a lead role on a Spotify shoot.

When it comes to judging, I keep my poker face strong. It's a preference to help ensure no favoritism is being shown so don't be discouraged. When it comes to interpretation events, I look for solid character development and how polish the piece is. For example, in Humorous Interpretation, I really look at how well you pop into characters, focal points, as well as looking to see if characters blend into one another.

One piece of advice I would give We all started somewhere so don't give up. My freshman year in high school, I wasn't following the scripts and I believe I broke into finals once at a local competition. By my senior year, I quadrupled in state finals and even won a category. And my direct experiences in speech and debate have led me to a successful career as an engineer and actor.

Here are categories I've competed in along with some of my titles:

After Dinner Speaking (Humorous Oratory at the Great Smoky Mountain National Invitational) | 2005 Semi-Finalist
Broadcasting
Dramatic Interpretation
Duo Interpretation | 2005 KHSSL State Finalist
Group Interpretation (Non-Sweepstakes points at KESDA State)
Humorous Interpretation | 2005 KHSSL State Champion
Impromptu Speaking
Improv Duo
Poetry
Storytelling | 2005 KHSSL State Finalist (Top 3)

I have been part of the speech and debate community for about 10 years, mostly involved in Speech events. However, I have experience in the Congressional Debate and some exposure to Lincoln-Douglas Debate.

I value clarity, logical reasoning, and strong argumentation over speed or excessive jargon. If I can't follow your delivery, I will say "SPEED" or "CLEAR" to signal adjustments. Debate is about communication—if I can't understand you, I can't evaluate your arguments.

I judge holistically, prioritizing clash, logical consistency, and well-supported claims. The debater who best upholds their burden through clear, compelling arguments will win my ballot. I appreciate real-world impacts over abstract theory.

I am open to various argument types, but clarity and relevance matter most. I expect respectful, professional conduct throughout the round. In final speeches, clearly explain why you won; synthesis matters more than a barrage of arguments.

At the end of the day, I am persuaded by confident delivery and well-structured arguments.