I am a parent judge, and I have primarily judged the Lincoln Douglas Debate and a few Speech events- but my real expertise is in the Congressional Debate. Don't be fooled that I'm a parent- that doesn't mean I'm easily persuaded. I have experience working in public policy, government, and political fields, so I like hearing the community impacts of a specific piece of legislation.

This isn't required, but in Congressional Debate, if the P.O. can fully state the name of a bill in the legislation docket before we move on to debating legislation, I would greatly appreciate it :)

I appreciate being passionate in debate, but please don't be rude to your opponents and maintain a fair and equitable game in debate.

Make sure you have evenly paced speaking and can offer good warrants and impacts for your claims, otherwise, I will likely prefer you less. I also prefer consistency with your arguments, so keep up with that- additionally, please make sure you actually know the context of the data you bring up in the debate and that you can explain your evidence well to other Senators in the chamber. Not everything that happens in the world and is analyzed is simply a point to further your argument- these are real-life events and implications that actually affect people. Bigotry is a big turn-away for me- please don't base your arguments on racist or misogynistic ideas.

Good luck to all! I trust that you are all well-versed competitors acting in good faith, and I have enjoyed seeing various Speech & Debaters grow over the years :)

Hello! My name is Stuart Blessing, and I am the head coach for the Cary High Speech and Debate Program. Although this is my first year coaching and I am new to the NSDA circuit, I have been teaching speech and elements of debate for over a decade. My background in education, coupled with my fresh perspective on coaching, shapes my approach to judging.

Philosophy
My judging philosophy can best be described as "Pragmatic Evidentialism." At the heart of my evaluation is the effectiveness of argumentation. I prioritize debaters who can robustly defend their points. I try to employ a non-biased stance and assume the perspective of someone unfamiliar with the topic. Clarity, coherence, and the ability to argue convincingly are paramount.

Argumentation Style
I have a strong preference for evidence-based argumentation that weaves together into a compelling narrative. Arguments should not stand in isolation but should interlock to form a cohesive whole that supports or opposes the resolution convincingly.

Accessibility
Please note, I am partially deaf, which makes it challenging for me to follow rapid speech ("spreading"). I value clarity and the quality of arguments over sheer quantity. A clear, well-articulated argument will always stand out to me.

Decision Criteria
My ballot reflects who has constructed the most comprehensive and persuasive argument throughout the round. The rebuttal phase is crucial in my decision-making process. Effective rebuttals should not only counter opponents' arguments but also crystallize the debater's stance, demonstrating why their position is more valid.

Concessions and Attack Strategy
I respect debaters who can tactfully concede certain points to strengthen their overall position while adeptly highlighting the flaws in their opponent's arguments. Attacking the premise of the opponent's argument and justifying your victory is a skill I highly value.

Feedback
I believe in providing constructive oral feedback at the end of each round to explain my decision. Further detailed critiques will be available in Tabroom, focusing on observed weaknesses in argumentation rather than hypothetical alternatives.

Roadmapping
Given my hearing impairment, roadmapping your arguments is incredibly helpful for me to follow along. This practice not only aids in accessibility but also ensures that your arguments are received and understood as intended.

Conclusion
I am passionate about debates that are rooted in solid evidence and present a clear, complete picture of the issue at hand. Whether arguing in the affirmative or the negative, the key is to construct a narrative that compellingly justifies your stance.

I look forward to engaging rounds that challenge us to think critically and argue effectively. Let's make this a learning experience for us all!

As a parent judge with two years of experience evaluating Congress, I recommend that speakers avoid speaking too quickly and strive for clear and emotionally expressive communication.

During the presentation, make sure to incorporate effective hand gestures, maintain consistent eye contact, project your voice with a commanding presence, convey passion rather than aggression, vary your vocal tones, speeds, and volumes, ensure fluency in your speech, walk purposefully on key points, maintain a conversational pace, and most importantly, conclude on time, adhering to the schedule.

Being a PO carries significant responsibilities, and I usually provide good ratings. Minor errors are acceptable, but if repeated mistakes persist, there's a possibility that your rank might be affected.

I debated for a number of years during the late 1980s in policy and extemp. I currently am a college professor that coaches students on effective presentations and evidence based research.
I prefer clear arguments that are well supported by credible sources.
Delays due to unorganized cards are discouraged. Decorum and respect for others is important.

Congress: rehash is discouraged, respect for others is important, balanced debate is always possible, acknowledging other competitors by name when responding or extending arguments is a nice touch.

She/Her

Hello everyone! I am a parent judge for Congressional Debate, who has a master's degree in government. Below are a few of my preferences so you know what to expect.

PO-I highly value GOOD POs. Good POs will be ranked at least in the top three or even higher if you are exceptionally good. However, with that said as soon as a chamber starts being held up because you do not know parliamentary procedure, you will start moving down significantly in my rankings.

Clash- Pretty much all speeches after the author/sponsor should have some form of clash in them and by the third or fourth cycle you should move away from introducing new arguments and focus on weighing impacts and synthesizing the round.

Decorum- Please speak slowly (keep wpm on the lower side) and in a manner that is understandable to the common person by not using complicated terms (if you are, define the term). In the round you are roleplaying a member of congress, so please do not reference yourself in you speech as being in high school or a teen because that defeats the whole purpose of congress's roleplaying aspect. Please refrain from suspending the rules in abusive ways as that will immediately move you down in my rankings.

Intros- I value concise, clear, and funny intros that get me hooked at the beginning of your speech. Please do not use generic intros and instead use intros that are unique to the piece of legislation being debated. The more interesting your intro is, the more likely I will be able to remember you.

CrossX- Don't talk over each other. I know you only have thirty seconds to ask your questions, but please allow your opponent time to answer the question you have given them. Avoid screaming/yelling and calling people names during the round, but specifically in cross. If I catch you doing this, you will be significantly moved down in my rankings.

IMPORTANT NOTE: If you want to watch tiktok on your own time, that's fine with me, but please refrain from doing it in the middle of a round.

I look forward to hearing everyone's speeches. Good Luck!

Rachel Mauchline

Durham Academy, Assistant Director of Speech and Debate

Previously the Director of Forensics and Debate for Cabot

she/her pronouns

TL;DR

Put me on the email chain @ rachelmauchline@gmail.com

speed is fine (but online lag is a thing)

tech over truth

Policy

I typically get preferred for more policy-oriented debate. I gravitated to more plan focused affirmatives and t/cp/da debate. I would consider myself overall to be a more technically driven and line by line organized debater. My ideal round would be a policy affirmative with a plan text and three-seven off. Take that as you wish though.

Lincoln Douglas

I've judged a variety of traditional and progressive debates. I prefer more progressive debate. But you do you... I am happy to judge anything as long as you defend the position well. Refer to my specific preferences below about progressive arguments. In regards to traditional debates, it's important to clearly articulate framework.

Public Forum

weighing.... weighing.... weighing.

I like rebuttals to have clear line by line with numbered responses. 2nd rebuttal should frontline responses in rebuttal. Summary should extend terminal defense and offense OR really anything that you want in final focus. Final focus should have substantial weighing and a clear way for me to write my ballot. It's important to have legitimate evidence... don't completely skew the evidence.

Here are my specific preferences on specific arguments if you have more than 5 mins to read this paradigm...

Topicality

I enjoy a well-articulated t debate. In fact, a good t debate is my favorite type of debate to judge. Both sides need to have a clear interpretation. Make sure it’s clearly impacted out. Be clear to how you want me to evaluate and consider arguments like the tva, switch side debate, procedural fairness, limits, etc.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

This was my fav strat in high school. I’m a big fan of case-specific disadvantages but also absolutely love judging politics debates- be sure to have up to date uniqueness evidence in these debates though. It’s critical that the disad have some form of weighing by either the affirmative or negative in the context of the affirmative. Counterplans need to be functionally or textually competitive and also should have a net benefit. Slow down for CP texts and permutations- y’all be racing thru six technical perms in 10 seconds. Affirmative teams need to utilize the permutation more in order to test the competition of the counterplan. I don’t have any bias against any specific type of counterplans like consult or delay, but also I’m just waiting for that theory debate to happen.

Case

I believe that case debate is under-covered in many debates by both teams. I love watching a case debate with turns and defense instead of the aff being untouched for the entire debate until last ditch move by the 2AR. The affirmative needs to continue to weigh the aff against the negative strat. Don't assume the 1AC will be carried across for you throughout the round. You need to be doing that work on the o/v and the line by line. It confuses me when the negative strat is a CP and then there are no arguments on the case; that guarantees aff 100% chance of solvency which makes the negative take the path of most resistance to prove the CP solves best.

Kritiks

I’ll vote for the k. From my observations, I think teams end up just reading their prewritten blocks instead of directly engaging with the k specific to the affirmative. Be sure you understand what you are reading and not just read a backfile or an argument that you don’t understand. The negative needs to be sure to explain what the alt actually is and more importantly how the alt engages with the affirmative. I judge more K rounds than I expect to, but if you are reading a specific author that isn’t super well known in the community, but sure to do a little more work on the analysis

Theory

I’ll vote for whatever theory; I don’t usually intervene much in theory debates but I do think it’s important to flesh out clear impacts instead of reading short blips in order to get a ballot. Saying “pics bad” and then moving on without any articulation of in round/post fiat impacts isn’t going to give you much leverage on the impact level. You can c/a a lot of the analysis above on T to this section. It’s important that you have a clear interp/counter interp- that you meet- on a theory debate.

Keller Moore

I love to see a debate that clashes repeatedly over a few arguments. Quality of arguments over quantity is preferred. Do not attempt modern debate tactics; I want a clean, clear battle. Define the key terms you will use so you do not equivocate on them. Pick up every argument your opponent makes; I cede the victory to the debater with the fewest dropped arguments.

Do not run k. Do not run theory. I will call you out if you spread too fast.

Stick to the resolution. Arguments presented about different things are irrelevant.

Debate aesthetics matter to me. You should look like you care about your topic. Dress as if you care too; your outfit or ensemble's taste conveys how professional you are trying to be.

And please, speak well, not hurriedly. Fewer sentences spoken more eloquently are more convincing than more sentences spoken less so.

Hello :) I'm a parent judge, I've judged a few speech events and congressional debate.