I'm fairly familiar with all types of debate and the rules associated with them. I'm alright with speed, put a lot of weight on impacts and flow, and ask that the debate is professional (i.e. avoid ad hominem, attack arguments not opponents).

The purpose of debate and speech is to change minds, hopefully in the pursuit of making a better world for all of us.

Changing minds is an art and a science.

Is it possible to speak beautifully and convincingly, but the content of your of argument is utter nonsense? Yes, unfortunately.

Is it possible to speak with absolute truth on your side, to be verifiably right in every way, but to make those you would convince feel confused? Yes, unfortunately.

I think great speaking employs truth artfully to help us understand each other.

For PF I like to see good quality evidence first and foremost. The team that appears to use the best evidence in the most honest way will most likely receive a winning vote from me.

In LD, evidence is still good, but should not be the focus of the debate. Getting bogged down in a credibility debate with respect to evidence, to me, doesn't seem to be in the spirit of LD debate. My vote in LD rounds will go to the debater that has the better reasoning and better utilizes their value and criterion, with quality and quantity of evidence taking a back seat.

The Debate section:

I’m a fairly relaxed judge.

I prefer professional round etiquette because it shows that you don’t rely on cheap tactics to give you the win. I will judge the round on your main speeches so don’t solely rely on crossfire to make yourself seem cool. Organized argumentation and explanations for evidence are the most effective way to sway me to your side. I’m not a big fan of straight BS. I prefer you to tell me why your BS matters.

Tell me what I should judge the round on.

Don’t rely on me to time for you, give you time signals, or provide an accurate flow. I will try my best to give time signals if asked but I most likely will forget so please don't rely on me. I can provide better critiques overall if you let me just judge you.

SPEED! I am NOT a huge fan of speed talking, I will be ok if you do talk fast. just know that I am not here for it. I want to understand what your argument is.

Grace periods are fine as long as you don’t abuse them. Just finish your thought and stop.

I won’t mainly judge on crossfire, but I can’t stop my ears from hearing your BS (so, please don’t make them bleed).

The Speech section:

This is something I love. So I am very excited for your performance.

I love stories and acting. JUST HAVE FUN and share the message of your story. Act confident when you are on stage. It helps, trust me. I just want to know what I should take away from your speech. please blow me out of the water with your acting and topic.

I believe that having a memorized script is more important than any other aspect. After that, I value characterization and then the cream on top is choreography.

I will let you know if you are almost out of time so you can have your grace period.

About me:

I was a captain of my high school debate team for 3 years ;)

I competed primarily in speech my first year and took home lots of super shiny HI, POI, and DI trophies. I’ve heard and said a lot of BS in my years so if you’re going to rely on it at least make it worth hearing.

In my second year, I ventured into the realm of debate. I could’ve done better. But in the end, Congress stole my heart...and my patience. I also tried LD.

In my third year...everything changed! I leveled up in Congress. Awful —> Mediocre. I dropped LD in the trash and never looked back but BS will always be my closest frenemy.

The part that is of the utmost IMPORTANCE.

Be nice. It’s ok to destroy your opponent but please do it nicely. Also, have fun. Debate isn't the most important thing in the world, so just enjoy it.

If you have any questions about the round or want to tell me I’m an awful/hilarious judge, go ahead.

p.s. If you read the whole thing before round come tell me what you think I could change about my paradigm to make it better.

DEBATE EVENTS:

I am a practicing attorney who occasionally moonlights as a debate judge. In real life, in a real courtroom, I will only win a trial if I win the hearts and minds of the jury---presenting artfully crafted arguments that accentuate my personal ethos, while balancing appropriate appeals to logic and passion. If I tried to "spew" or "spread" my arguments to a jury, I would lose the case. If I tried it in front of a judge, I would get kicked out of the courtroom! I would lose all my cases and my clients with them.

The same goes for nearly every other professional communicator. No teacher would teach that way. No news broadcaster would report that way. As far as I can tell, the only job opportunity available to a "progressively" trained debater is to deliver the annoying legal disclaimers at the end of tv & radio commercials.

That said, here is how to get my vote:

(1) Speak at a normal, conversational rate;

(2) Look me in the eye;

(3) Begin with a clear, real-life illustration of how the Affirmative or Negative case effects real people;

(4) Make me laugh;

(5) Make me cry;

(6) Make me care;

(7) Help me understand what the resolution means;

(8) Help me understand why your ideas are right;

(9) Help me understand why your opponent is wrong; and,

(10) Organize your ideas in a way that makes sense.

I realize that this rhetorical model is profoundly outdated (it is in fact about 2,500 years old). Nevertheless, in the spirit of learning something useful (rather than simply winning another piece of shiny plastic today for speed-reading), please give these ideas a try!

SPEECH EVENTS:

Many Debaters [and coaches] consider speech events to be "throw-away" events---something to do when debaters are not in a "real" debate round. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Speech events teach students about the power of pathos---of making human connections. They provide a wonderful balance to the logos-heavy debate events. To capture my vote [or the vote of most ordinary human beings], a student must be prepared to do the following:

(1) Begin with a clear, real-life illustration of how your topic effects real people;

(2) Make me laugh;

(3) Make me cry;

(4) Make me care;

(5) Help me understand what you mean;

(6) Help me understand why your ideas are right;

(7) Help me understand why any competing viewpoint is wrong [or "misinformed"]; and,

(8) Organize your ideas in a way that makes sense.

Don't be intimidated by all of this this [if you happen to be a hard-core, card-flipping, evidence-stacking debater]. Instead, embrace the opportunity to learn a new [and equally real] way of communicating in a way that focuses on building human connections [rather than squabbling over obscure, marginally-relevant minutia].

I am parent judge, volunteering my time. I have lower to medium experience with judging debate and moderate experience with speech. I like to take copious notes while judging. I find that arguments, speeches, and points are more persuasive/effective when delivered clearly. I will commit to a consistent judging manner with all rounds.

I am a lay parent judge, but have been invoIved with Congressional Debate for the past several years with our High School. I value lively debating/clash that keeps its momentem moving forward. Avoid rehashing an issue, as this trends towards stalling, and for a judge, is rather boring!

I look for speeches that are given with confidence, solid evidence, clear diction, lively emotion, and occocaional humor is appreciated. I also look for debators that can research and construct evidence "on the fly" as the debate flows. In addidion, the impact factor needs to be clear.

Finally, it is of utmost importance to me as a parent (and as a judge) that there is mutual respect in the language and actions of the debators. This experience should spark thought and genuine goodness in everyone who attends. Thank you!

I want a clear, concise, well supported argument that clearly responds to an opponent in later arguments. Spewing or talking too fast usually is not clear and does not present a compelling argument.

I participated in debate all through high school and placed at State three years in a row. I am now the parent of a congressional debater.

When I judge, I look for strong organization, confident delivery, and logical arguments backed by research.

I am not impressed by anyone who tries to make other people look stupid. The way you treat your competitors contributes to the overall atmosphere and should allow everyone to do their best. I have no tolerance for arrogance or snarkiness, especially if someone acts that way in an attempt to look clever.  

I appreciate creativity, enthusiasm, and professionalism.

You guys have worked so hard to get here! Enjoy the experience. Have multiple goals for yourself! Don't define success at this tournament too narrowly by only setting one goal, such as to break into semi finals.

Instead, identify at least FIVE goals that you hope to accomplish this week. :) That way, you will most likely achieve three or four of them! For example, your goals could be:

• to place
• to break into the final round (or semi or quarter)
• to give the best speech you have given this season
• to meet someone new at this tournament with whom you want to stay in touch
• to smile at or provide a pep talk to someone who seems nervous or stressed
• to make your judge laugh/cry/nod appreciatively/raise their eyebrows/respond in some way
• to support your teammates when they succeed
• to incorporate a story, personal example, or piece of research that you especially like 
• to not pass out or throw up
• to go out of your comfort zone in some way
• to have fun

This approach makes a big difference, whether you are competing in a tournament, training for a marathon, going on a trip, or executing a large-scale event. Multiple goals help you focus on the varied and valuable aspects of the experience, not just the outcome!

Namaste.

 

No spewing please! Just looking to make sure you are respectfully addressing every point and have strong evidence to back up. And have fun :)

What's up I'm Mac, I did Debate senior year, I competed in DUO, HI, Impromptu, and Congress.

General things I like to see:

Weighing/clash (depends on if the event could benefit from it)

Don't use a lot of jargon without explaining (pretend like I know nothing about the topic)

Be confident (your argument is a lot stronger when your confident in your speech. Confidence Is Key!)

Good flow (It's a lot easier to score you when I can keep track of the debate)

Being respectful (be nice to each other, and be respectful to them when they are competing, who knows they might be a new friend?)

Have fun and be funny (I know tournaments are stressful, but a good joke goes a long way lol)

Everyone can be statistical, not everyone can be funny

Other stuff:

If you're looking for specifics based on event, feel free to ask me what my paradigm is.

all in all, be nice to everyone, make some friends, try your best, and enjoy the moment.

Salutations, I am Zeque (pronounced: Zeek) Murillo. I am so stoked for the exposure to the topics you are all bringing to the table and using this platform to bring attention to the passion of the future.

-----------------

BACKGROUND:

Competitive Experience: I competed on the high school level from 2010-2014. My main events of the competition level were Duo Interpretation, Dramatic Interpretation, Humorous Interpretation, Original Oration, Impromptu Speaking. I definitely understand what it's like to Double/Triple/Quadruple/Penta/Hexa - Enter, so I'm always understanding of individuals who do multiple events.

Judging/Coaching: I've been part of the judging circuit from local, state, and national level since the fall of 2014 season - Current. I've judged all speech categories and even up to a few quarter final rounds at varying national years. I was an Alumni volunteer assisting with the NSDA program for 2-3 years. I then started Assistant coaching specifically for speech from 2017- Current. My main expertise is in the Interpretation events, but I am also well versed in assisting with the Public Address Events.

JUDGING:

Interpretation:

Content: An introduction in the piece that states the title and author is weighed heavily into account. I also really enjoy the details in the piece and if it's from a play/book/media content that is typically longer than 10 minutes, how is it cut? I enjoy material that has a nice flow and reflects the message that you are trying to get across whether that is humorous or serious in nature. Your piece should still make sense and leave an impact.

Blocking: I do love seeing the choices that students make to elevate the piece and create an environment. I notice the details in pantomime and the consistency of items that you have created out of thin air. For example, if you are holding a cup and then all of a sudden it disappears because you never put it down, I'ma notice :) Blocking is such a beautiful technique to help transport me to the environment of the scene. I think it's super cool when you can play with the dimensions of your speech.

Characterization: I take into account the emotion that you flesh out in your characters and utilizing voice, attitude, posture, and mannerisms to create an easily recognizable character. If you have multiple characters in a piece, I also will evaluate the technique in how you are transitioning from character to character. Lastly, I also consider facial expression and emotional invocation that allows us to better understand the character.

Public Address Events:

Content: Originality of the topic or stance on topic is an item I will take into consideration pretty heavily. I also am dissecting how you structure your speech and how the information is flowing into each other to develop one systematic idea. If you are providing sources, are you citing the original source, & dates.

Delivery: How are you using your movement, tonality, & gestures to engage with the audience? I look for effective speaking tools through using your natural instruments as a speaking tool to elevate the information and bring us in. I also listen to the words you are emphasizing to show how you are highlighting the information and playing with pace.

Impact: I need to know your take/stance on the presentation. Why do you feel passionate about this topic or how do you truly believe this will be resolved. Why should we be listening to this speech and what will be the major take aways?

Lincoln Douglas:

As I flow your round, I’ll be looking to see how your value and criterion work in tandem to prove the moral rationale that LD rests; furthermore, I don’t like when crossfires engage in obnoxious back-and-forths with questions that don’t add any substantive value to the round. Lastly, it's imperative that you underscore the credibility of your cards, especially when making claims including stats, data, points, and political and historical claims that attack your opponent’s arguments.

Public Forum:

I enjoy PF and like to flow the rounds I judge to provide you with the best feedback I can. I love to see link chains and impacts that are substantial to the case; rather than just reading the cards, I’d appreciate you explaining and further reinforcing your points, data, and stats, to let me know that you know your case all around. If you speak too fast, I’ll try to keep up as I flow but once you’ve lost me, I’ll stop flowing. I am not a fan of voters that are reliant on ethos; I prefer you use logic in voters that explain to me what you’ve argued in round. Don’t forget that I’m also flowing the round so if your claim is that they’ve dropped certain points, I’ll refer to my flow to assess that claim.

I will take into consideration the following.

Sharing references to your points,

A good use of time,

Strong openings and closings.

I am a lay judge but I have experience judging LD and PF. I became involved with debate because I wanted to support my daughter and my teaching colleagues. I appreciate slow, logical debating with good warrant comparison. Explain your arguments clearly in your summary and final focus and signpost clearly. Please be polite to each other and have fun!

Brand new judge, I was a successful debater back in High School where I took my team to state twice. I will be looking at clarity and overall, who can persuade me the best whilst staying on topic.

I am relatively new to speech and debate but I judged at last years Nationals in Phoenix/Mesa and at a tournament in Utah. I listen very closely to what both sides say and take lots of notes. I don't know a lot about flow and other buzz words but I am college educated and have worked in management positions for many years. I take my role very seriously and try to act as professionally as possible. I have a great deal of respect and admiration for every competitor and do my very best to pick the most deserving. You should be very proud to have made it this far and hopefully this will be a great experience that you will cherish (as I do) for the rest of your lives.

I have no history with debate, but I do have a history with law and business.

I also invite you to write the ballot for me (tell me what arguments you won and why, what arguments they dropped, etc). Structure your rebuttal speeches that way. Showing respect and professionalism is very important. Creating a strong case is just as important as breaking down the other team's case.

I'm looking for a strong speaker who shows confidence and sincerity I like the speakers triangle and please make sure you have clear points.

I prefer that you time yourself. Be civil and collegial. I will not tolerate disrespectful language or behavior in a round.

Please do not spread.

Competitors should hold themselves to a high standard of etiquette.

Reasonable arguments are the best kind of arguments.

Social justice is favored.

Your judge does not shake hands.

I have judged Policy yearly for the past 15 years. I prefer LD and PF, but I am familiar with the ins and outs, but I don't know them intuitively as I have never competed in Policy. I am willing to try and follow whatever you present. However, I expect you to communicate with me. I am the judge, not your opponent. What that means is this, you need to tell me what you are doing and why. Slow down and communicate with me. When I say slow down, what I mean is this:

1. I don't follow speed. I try, but I won't get most of what you say if you are going a million miles an hour. However, I understand the strategy and need. If you spread, you need to slow down and tell why I should care about what you just said. Give me a quick, slowed down summary of what you said, and why I should care.

2. Make taglines very clear! Don't assume I heard your 'next DA' when you're going a million miles an hour. If you want it on my flow, make it clear what it is and where to put it. Spread the rest, but slow down for taglines and summarize what you just said! This is especially important for the 1AC and 1NC.

3. Email chains are helpful, but not. It is nice to have an email chain, but if I have to read the email to understand what you are saying, why give speeches? Also, trying to follow evidence because I can't understand you makes it difficult for me as a judge. I will refer to reference, but will not pour over it after a round to determine a winner. Doing that means I don't need to hear from you. I could sit at home and read your evidence to determine a winner. Don't rely on chains.

Lincoln Douglas

I prefer traditional LD Debate with a Value/Criterion. I have voted for flex-negs, and other more progressive type arguments, but I prefer debates that use Value/Criterion. Don't spread! If you spread in LD, I won't flow. You can go at a crisp pace. In fact, I prefer a crisp paces, but...spread and you will most likely lose.

I have participated in speech and debate for 5+ years, in high school and college. I participated in interp and memorized IE events (high school and college) and British Parlimentary, IPDA, and NPDA debate (college).

First, and most important, please show your opponent(s) the respect they deserve as fellow humans. I will not tolerate any hateful or discriminatory arguments, or any discriminatory behavior. If it happens, I will automatically give you the loss.

Second, be clear why you have won! They don't necessarily have to be labeled as 'voters' or anything, but you have to do the impact calculus to explain why those things are better/worse than the arguments from your opposition. Yes, I can probably do the work to understand the argument in my own head, but I'm not supposed to be doing that. Walk me through the steps that get you the win.

Third, stay organized. Don't jump all over the flow without telling me where you are going, otherwise I won't know where to write it down and I'll end up missing it. I want to be able to give you the best chance of winning, but if I miss any information, especially important information, I won't be able to use it to make my decision.

On some more specifics of debate:

- Spread at your own risk. I will do my best to keep up with you, but I cannot vote on arguments that I do not hear, cannot understand, or don't get written down. Also, please slow if I or your opponent ask you to, it is not a good look to deliberately speed others out of participating in a round. I will vote on speed bad arguments if they are made correctly.

- I think critical debate can be super interesting, but do not run it if you do not fully understand it. Additionally, if you are running a K aff please give me clear reasons why.

- If you are going to stick with a theory argument, please collapse to it. You should only be reading your disad/counter plan/etc in later speeches to give evidence why the round is unfair. Also please make sure to demonstrate proven abuse. I will vote on potential abuse if necessary, but I'd rather vote on proven abuse.

If there are any other questions you have that are not answered here, please ask!