Treat me like a flay judge, but I haven't done debate in 3 years. Be very patient with me, you will win if you extend your arguments ALL the way.

I have competed at Hebron High School for 3 years.

Please add me on the email chain: asnabudhwani@gmail.com

No spreading. Clearly speak out if you're putting a turn, link, impact.

I don't flow cross X. Keep it clean. Don't be too aggressive.

if you don't say it, it doesn't go on the flow. Go line by line on the flow.

I want clear signposting when you transition from Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, and Impact.

No theory. No K

PF/LD Paradigms

I’m first and foremost an interp coach. Treat me like a lay judge who happens to know the rules (and yes- I know the rules). No spreading, clash is fine. If you really want to pick up my ballot, be sure to focus on cross-examination. I find that a strong, quality CX can illustrate your ability to communicate, prove your points, illustrate your knowledge and understanding of the debate and show your best engaged debate skills. Anyone can read a prepared card. Show me you know what to do with it.

On an aside, I do like debaters to keep it professional. I like it when people stand for cross-examination and are polite and supportive to their opponents before and after the round. I like it when I feel the teams are focused and paying attention not only to their opponents' speeches but also to their team member's speeches.

Congress Paradigms

I look for competitors who are prepared to speak on any topic - especially if they have prepared to speak on both sides of the topic. I look for quality speeches that add value to the debate; if we're four cycles in and you aren't bringing new information, crystallizing information we've heard, or providing a new rebuttal then it's easy for your speech to get lost amongst the masses. Activity in the chamber is good - I'm looking for you to be engaged in listening to other speeches, asking valuable questions, and working together to run a fair and efficient chamber.

Interp Paradigms

I was a high school competitor all four years - competing in all Interp events (DI, HI, OO, prose, poetry, Duo, Duet) and Congressional Debate. I competed on the Texas and National Circuits. Here's the big thing to know - you should never change your style, material, or story to try to get my 1. I will always respect the stories you choose to tell, the performance you're developing, and your courage to be you and share messages important to you. Just be you. My ballots may sound tough, but it comes out of a desire to help you improve. I've provided insight into what I'm looking for but none of it should force you to change your content.

For Interp Events, I'm looking for honest storytelling (talk to me like a person) and tech that helps enhance your story and not detract from it. I'm looking for clear, well-developed characters. I'm looking for an excellent intro that provides meaning and importance for your piece. I'm looking for excellent execution of pacing and incorporation of levels. Draw me into your story and leave me with something to take away. In addition, for all binder events, I'm a stickler for binder etiquette.

For Public Speaking Events (OO and INFO), I'm looking for topics that you are personally invested in. I'm looking for an engaging AGD, a clear vehicle, and well-defined points supported by a balance of ethos, pathos, and logos. Share your heart story and be honest with it. Most importantly, these are two events where you can really be yourself. Be your best self, sure. But don't feel like you have to put on a whole song and dance to get my one. I'm looking for an inspirational, conversational tone. INFO - I'm looking for creative visuals that are well-executed and add value to your speech without being a distraction.

For Extemp, I'm looking for a clear understanding of the question and a definitive answer with supporting analysis (cite those sources guys). Two points or three points are fine, depending on the question and your approach to answering the question. I just want your speech to have a clear sense of structure and organization. I'm also looking for strong presentation skills. Have vocal variety, adopt a conversational tone, know how to present in a way that is approachable for all audience types and not just those well-versed in current events and extemp. Don't be afraid to crack a joke, but don't rely purely on humor. Fluency breaks, circular speech (rehashing points and repeating yourself), and poor time management could affect your rank in round.

General note for everyone - I have a really bad thinking face and I'm going to look confused and upset. I'm not - don't take it personally! It's just my face and I don't really have a whole lot of control over that. Plenty of times I've had my own students tell me they were sure I hated what they were doing and then I was very complimentary of their work. So I promise you my face has nothing against you! It's just a grumpy face.

Hi! I am a new parent judge!

New parent judge +1! Looking forward to the excitement of your speeches and performances. That doesn't mean to be loud and fast.

Background: I was a high school debater, extemper, and orator back in the 1990s. I became a debate coach in 2003; I coach all the events.

Everyone: Be as polite and professional as possible.

For debate events: No spreading; speak at a normal, conversational speed. I will deduct speaker points and you will likely lose the round because you've made it too difficult for me to understand what you're saying. I shouldn't have to read a copy of your case to figure out your arguments; I should be able to flow it based on what I hear in your performance. In rebuttals, I need you to signpost the part of the case before making your argument so I know where it goes on my flow; otherwise, your arguments don't count because I don't know what you're attacking or defending. Give me voters in your last speech. Do not waste time running disclosure theory; I will not vote based on it.

For congress: Be prepared before the tournament; I have no sympathy for students not having their speeches ready before the round begins. Don't take excessive breaks. We must meet the minimum time for the round while also keeping the tournament on schedule. If you think the Presiding Officer makes a mistake, deal with it immediately; otherwise, it's too late and we have to move on.

For IEs: ranking can come down to small details; bring your best! I like clever introductions that get my attention with personal stories, jokes, etc. In poetry, the cadence of the verse matters to me; if your poetry performance sounds like a prose performance, you may rank lower compared to others who perform poetry as spoken word. For extemp, the depth of your analysis will impact your ranking.

As a parent judge in speech and debate competitions, my primary objective is to ensure a fair and constructive evaluation of the arguments/speeches presented. I approach this task with an open mind, impartiality, and a commitment to upholding the standards of rigorous intellectual engagement.

I value clarity and organization in arguments. Present your ideas logically, making it easy for me to follow your line of reasoning. Quality evidence and effective use of rhetoric will undoubtedly strengthen your case. Remember, it's not just about the quantity of evidence but the relevance and persuasiveness of what you present.

In the realm of delivery, I appreciate speakers who demonstrate a mastery of language and effectively convey their points. Vary your tone, be aware of facial expressions/body language, and be mindful of your pace. A compelling delivery can significantly enhance the impact of your arguments/presentation.

Clarity/Reasoning>Speed/Quantity

Treat your opponents, as well as your fellow teammates, with courtesy. Adherence to time limits is crucial, and I expect all participants to be mindful of this. Respect for the rules ensures a level playing field for all involved.

I encourage creativity and critical thinking. Don't be afraid to bring innovative perspectives to the table, and be prepared to defend your ideas against rigorous scrutiny. Originality can set you apart, but ensure it doesn't compromise the integrity of your arguments.

Lastly, remember that I am here to learn from your insights, presentations, and analysis. Make your case compelling, and I will reward well-reasoned arguments and insightful analysis.

Best of luck to all participants.

For speaking events I appreciate well structured and supported arguments (cite your sources). A good persuasive speech or informative presentation should be well paced with a clear voice and some audience engagement, for example, through humor. Please avoid humor that may insult your audience.

For interpretation events I look for performances that provoke audience emotion and engagement. I don’t look for structure as heavily, but a clear through line with transitional elements (like using specific characterization through voice and/or gestures) is important.

Should Debaters use Rapid Delivery (spreading)?
No. I don’t like it. It isn’t good public speaking, and it certainly isn’t persuasive.

How Should Debaters Approach Constructive Speeches?
A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments.,
Arguments should each be addressed individually.

How Should Debaters Approach Rebuttal Speeches?
Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive
speeches., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in
constructive speeches.

How Should Debaters Approach Evidence?
Citations after article introduction are preferred.

How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a
value position?
Build the value that is not overly complicated and should be relatable, and criterion should not
be over technical.

What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do
you prefer to support a value position?
Empirical, but a highly persuasive philosophical approach can potentially work just as well.
Please explain your views on critic arguments.
Critical arguments should provide substantial evidence for their support: as in every criticism
needs at least one "For example" or at the very least a thorough clarification with a credible,
referenced source.

How should debaters run on case arguments?
Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples. Avoid paraphrasing.

How should debaters run off case arguments?
Make sure they have a purpose or illustration for the case at hand.

How should Debaters run theory arguments?
The focus should be winning the debate, not just attacking a person’s style or flaws of method.
Winning on technicalities isn't winning a debate.

What other preferences do you have, as a judge?
Remember that in order to win a round, respect towards your opponent is paramount. It is hard
to find in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent in or out of round. This is
especially important for Policy and World Schools: teams will lose points for whispering
audibly during their opponents' speeches; learn to communicate with your teammates by writing!
Graceful winners are as important as those with the maturity and fortitude needed to learn from
each loss.

I debated at Princeton, TX and I'm a CXer by trade, though I've been judging often for the last five years since I've graduated so I know my way around all the other formats. I am a "games" judge so I accept anything and everything so long as I've been given proper reasoning. If nothing fancy goes on I default to a policymaker position. "Conservative" and "Progressive" styles are equally valid in my book.

My three top level principles:

• Framework is King: I cannot evaluate something like American Hegemony vs Human Rights without being given a philosophical underpinning on what's a higher concern. Framework is not an end unto itself, but to be used as a tool for establishing priority of impacts. I highly recommend both sides run something on this.
• Competition over Truth: As a judge, I want to intervene with my own knowledge and logic as minimally as possible because that's your job as the debater. As long as you get the technical performance down 80% I can be flexible on the remaining part.
• Evidence Quality over Quantity: I'm less interested in the number of cards read and more in the reasoning of how they come up with the conclusion in the tagline. I'll only intervene here when there is disagreement on what's written. I understand there are cases when a good argument for the situation cannot be prepared in a card so I accept analytics within reasonability. On areas of significant clash I give it to the side that delves deeper into the warrants. When the competing claims slide over each other, I may end up evaluating it as a wash.

One more request: when you invoke innovation, please elaborate what you mean by that. It's the biggest, most annoying buzzword in all of speech and debate.

Also, I do not like disclosure theory. Study the meta or learn to improvise.

Onto the line by line:

Speed - I can accept it as long as it's intelligible. If you get to the point where you're wheezing substantially I'll tell you to clear up. Slow down on taglines and authors. If you spread on analysis and they aren't written down on the file, then I can't guarantee I'll have them down on the flow.

Topicality - I take a layman interpretation on what ought to be topical so my threshold is rather high. That said, the affirmative must still have a good technical performance in their answer.

Theory - It's okay with me, though I think it's of a lower priority than material issues and mostly evaluate it as a tiebreaker.

Turns - Link turns, impact turns, and case turns are all very powerful, but please substantiate what's going on materially. There's nothing more confusing than when both sides claim they subsume the other.

Counterplans - The viability of a CP lies in the net benefit that's established. Mutually exclusive plans are the clearest for clash and competition. I accept PICs but there better be a good reason that the aff can't perm. Unless otherwise specified or kicked, I view CPs as part of the negative's world advocacy that can be held against them. Running multiple CPs or CP and K may obfuscate the neg's advocacy, but it's up to the aff to point that out.

Case - If offense is lacking or well defended I often let the affirmative access the try or die argument. I'm not strict on case architecture on either side, but stock issues will always be fundamental and we can't forget that.

Disadvantages - On economic related impacts, the way to break beyond surface level claims is to actually tangle with competing economic theories. Is the Keynesian, Neoclassical, or the Marxist school most accurate on the scenario regarding recessions? I don't know, you tell me. On politics, I think you're obligated to read political capital theory or else it's easy to defuse with thumpers, but I don't accept that you can fiat out of it. Generally I value strong and specific links when it comes to the impact calc.

Kritiks - I can follow along with the theory, though if you start using buzzwords and jargon you'd better be able to elaborate on that. If you run a K you should understand it well on a conceptual level. Like disads, specific links and contextualization to the aff are very important. On the aff side, I'm willing to follow along with K's bad theory, counter-kritiks, and really all bets are off here.

Send the email chain to yashkhaleque2@gmail.com, I'm also available for questions and case advice.

I am a parent judge.

Please remember to be kind and understanding.

In Public Forum and Extemp: I value delivery & analysis supported by evidence from credible sources. I want to know the significance of your topic and what are the impacts of your arguments, tell me why it matters. I can't vote for points and impacts I can't hear or understand, so slow up for key points and explain them clearly. Understand that you are Debating not Arguing, this is an important distinction that must be known by each debater!

In Congressional Debate: I value the natural delivery of points and impacts and reasonable positions. I look for acknowledgment of prior speakers' points and clash leading to good argumentation and refutation, and for purposeful questioning leading to clarity, understanding, or insight. A lack of clash is frowned upon. Knowledge of and adherence to Parliamentary Procedure is expected in the chamber. Skillful Presiding Officers make sessions a positive experience for all and will be ranked accordingly.

In Oratory, Info, and Impromptu: I value your originality, creativity, and persuasive presentation of ideas of personal importance. Cite your sources, explain their importance, and tell me why it matters.

In DI, HI, DUO, Poetry, and Prose: It is crucial that you tell a story in a meaningful and impactful manner. Characterization, gestures and facial expressions, and, vocal variation will all add to the overall decision. Along, with the dramatic structure of the piece and mindful storytelling!

Overall speaking skills or/and argumentation are critical to winning! But remember the most important thing is that you learn!

Spoken Word: It is crucial that you tell a story in a meaningful and impactful manner. Characterization, gestures and facial expressions, and, vocal variation will all add to the overall decision. Along, with the dramatic structure, organization, clear theme, and mindful storytelling!

Experience: 3 years of judging IEs/Debate and 3 years coaching high school debate teams, with experience at local, state, and national tournaments.

Philosophy: As a tabula rasa judge, I remain neutral and judge based on the arguments presented. I value well-structured, logical arguments supported by credible evidence, with ethical and value-based arguments welcome if well-articulated. Evidence is crucial.

Preferences:

Argumentation: Appreciate direct refutation and clash; offensive arguments are more persuasive than purely defensive ones.
Speaking Style: Clarity and persuasion over speed; no spreading.
Framework: Establish a clear framework and weigh impacts accordingly.

Round Conduct:

Points of Contention: Summarize and crystallize key points in summary and final focus speeches.
Crossfire: Viewed as an opportunity to clarify and challenge arguments; not the primary basis of decision but can enhance presentation.
Other Considerations: Maintain respectful behavior; be clear, concise, and structured in speeches. Be open to different approaches if justified well within the round.

For TFA State:

Interp: I am a pretty open minded judge when it comes to judging interp overall but there are a few things I look for in performances. Creativity and honesty will always be the most rewarded in my book because it is why we do what we do at the end of the day. Showcasing your own interpretation, but staying true to the core of the story is important to me. Character development and emotional shifts are super important especially over a digital platform to keeping us engaged with the story and showing us the meaning behind the words. Have fun with the choices you make as long as they are PURPOSEFUL, doing something that distracts rather than enhances makes us lose connection between what is happening in the story.

Speaking/Extemp: Big thing is show your own unique style and approach to speaking because this is what separates you from other. I am a big fan of humor, but PLEASE, I BEG do not make it feel forced or this is just awkward for both of us. In terms of depth of the speech, I like more than just surface level arguments and I want to see you get to the higher end issues and core problems effectively. Structure is important obviously to make sure we can connect all of the ideas and know how you are getting to what you are wanting to. Finally, have variation in your delivery, it is important to showcase the different levels and power of your arguments and statements and so we should feel very engaged with how you are saying and what you are saying.

Worlds School Debate:

School affiliation/s : Northwest High School

Hired (yes/no) : Hired for WSD

High School Affiliation if graduated within last five years (required): Northwest High School

Currently enrolled in college? (required) If yes, affiliation? No

Years Judging/Coaching (required) I have been judging for 5- 6 years.

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event (required)

I pretty much started off my first year judging in interp and PF and then slowly incorporated all other forms of debate the following year.

Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year (required): Since August I have judged about 40 world school rounds around Texas.

Check all that apply

__x___I judge WS regularly on the local level

_____I judge WS at national level tournaments

_____I occasionally judge WS Debate

_____I have not judged WS Debate this year but have before

_____I have never judged WS Debate

Rounds judged in other events this year : 75 rounds including PF, LD, Interp, Speaking, and Congress.

Check all that apply

__x__ Congress

_x___ PF

__x__ LD

____ Policy

_x___ Extemp/OO/Info

__x__ DI/HI/Duo/POI

____ I have not judged this year

____ I have not judged before

Have you chaired a WS round before?

I have chaired multiple WS rounds before locally.

What does chairing a round involve?

Chairing a round basically is keeping the round in order and ensuring a productive and efficient debate. The chair is in charge of calling up the speakers, leading the RFD for the panel, making sure people do not ask questions during protected time (which I discuss students should keep their own timer at the beginning so we do not have this issue), and making sure a fair debate is occurring.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else?

I would describe WSD as a form of debate in which you are arguing ideas and issues to show which side of the motion is the most logical. This is way different than Americanized debate where theory and jargon is utilized more, so it is focusing on the core issues of the debate. Worlds is suppose to make sense to anyone who is listening to the debate and therefore the arguments should make rationale sense to anybody.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate?

I am fortunate enough to have a full setup for my computer. I have two monitors and on the main monitor I watch the debate, and the second monitor has my tabroom ballot where I am writing notes over each speech and speaker. I also in front of me use a notebook to flow the debate to make sure I keep up with what is being said in the round.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

This just simply depends on the topic itself. I am pretty open minded when it comes to arguments and do not have a personal preference as long as it is discussed why you chose what to advocate for. This clarity is needed to really emphasize why that approached is needed and it's on the debaters to tell me why it is preferable.

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy?

I think strategy usually is overlooked in terms of how you want structure arguments. A speaker's strategy is how do you connect the claims you present and how you word things in order to be effective in elaborating on arguments presented by the other side. Picking the right way to argue things and how you say it are definitely things to be aware of for your strategy.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast?

First, I am glad to have not judged a WSD where someone was spreading, so let's keep it that way hopefully. If someone is just not effective with their speed and tone I usually deduct points from their style.

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

As silly as it may sound, I usually vote on simply what makes sense. Since we do not have to have the 20 minutes of calling for cards (thankfully), I simply view whos reasoning and rationale makes the most sense towards the topic and arguments presented in the round. Show me your thought process through your speech and it usually comes down to who can prove their claims in a clear manner, rather than the throw everything at the wall and see what sticks strategy.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

I look at how effective and clear some model is to make sure it sets the foundation for your ideas. Make sure you think through your model to answer any potential questions individuals may have about it. I do not think all motions need a model or countermodel, so just make sure if you use one there is a purpose to it.

Simply put, speak so that I may understand you clearly.

I competed in Speech & Debate from 2010-2013. I was a DI State Champion in 2013. I was a NSDA Poetry Finalist in 2013. I was also a UIL State Poetry Finalist in 2012 and 2013. I am also a OO Semifinalist at the Harvard National Speech & Debate Tournament.

I'm a parent volunteer judge from Flower Mound High. This is my 2nd year judging speech and debate.

I've enjoyed it immensely and have been really impressed by the creativity and talent of all the participants.

Attributes I look for in a good speech are clear diction, flow of thought, originality in content and body language. Not a big fan of spreading but if you have to, please send case.

I tend to include performance, diction, voice, energy, etc. in my evaluation for events like oratory, info, and extemp, along with the obvious analysis of content, ideas, and supporting material.

I think creativity in blocking and staging should be rewarded in a digital atmosphere as much as they are in a live one.

I am pretty liberal on content - language, sexuality, etc. do not bother or offend me, as long as the performer has a real grasp on the subjects they are talking about and understands them fully. However, I view 'profanity' much differently than slurs, derogatory language, etc. In general I would prefer that they not be used. There are scripts that use them in order to bring home a point about the vileness of such ideas and beliefs, but in my opinion, that must be very earned, and in most cases, it is not.

I would consider myself a lay/flay judge, I will flow and vote look at who wins that.

Email:

Speed - Keep it slightly faster than conversational and clarity is key. Send the speech doc

Pref Sheet:

Case: 1

DA: 1

CP: 2

K: 5

Topicality: 4

Trix / Theory: 5

Overall:

I believe in fostering an environment of fairness, respect, and intellectual engagement. I value well-reasoned arguments, clear communication, and thoughtful organization in all forms of debate and speech events.

• Clarity & Engagement: Please signpost and clearly structure your arguments. I expect debaters to engage with each other's points directly. Clash is essential — it's not just about reading blocks or running generic arguments. If you're not engaging with the substance of your opponent’s case, it's harder for me to vote for you.
• Reasoning & Organization: Your arguments should be clearly structured. I care more about the logical flow of your arguments than any advanced tricks or unsubstantiated claims.
• Fairness & Respect: I value fairness. If one side is being disrespectful or not giving the other side a fair chance to speak, it will hurt your credibility.

I am a new parent judge.

No spreading.

I am a new parent judge