***For all of the lifetime of this page, this page will be a work in progress (W.I.P)***

**Up to date for UT TFA/TOC (12/06-12/08/2024) still subject to change through the event**

Hiii Everyone!!!

--email: measama380@gmail.com--

Some background about me:

I am Hebron Alumni, currently 21 years old, and a Graduate at UNT, studying computer science. Some things I like are video games, watching k-dramas, listening to k-pop, and most of all spending time with friends. I have officially debated in NCX, NPF, and VPF. But I have learned and practiced all forms of speech and debate. I never got a chance to go to state or TOC, due to unfortunate circumstances. I have always enjoyed debating, because of the freedom it gave me, to talk about the real world, without any censorship from adults. With that being said, I appreciate those who truly give their best to their event.

If you can tell me who my bias is, then I will give you the win ;)*its a joke, but I will up ur speaks If u get it right

Context to Debate:

Debate is not mathematics. The round does not exist as a confined 3-dimensional space with certain laws of conservation. Debate is a form of conversation where members of the discussion are presenting their point of view and trying to persuade the listener to agree or join their side. With that being said, I expect that everyone in the round understands, that I am also a human being like everyone, and am prone to making a mistake. I will try my 110% to be objective in the round, so don't dismiss what I have said. You might not like it, and think I am wrong, but understand that all decisions made are still subjective to what made sense in my brain. I have been in your shoes, so please be patient and understanding with me, and we will have a great time.

*****Disregard of the rules of ethics and mannerism in a round is an immediate loss, I Do Not Care!*****

IE:

I base all my decisions on the criteria presented by NSDA, which differ between each event, if there is anything of concern that happens during the round please let me know immediately so we can fix it.

Congress:

I base all my decisions on the criteria presented by NSDA. I uphold congress to the same integrity as CX, LD, and PF. If there is anything of concern that happens during the round please let me know immediately so we can fix it.

CX, LD, PF:

(*For Online Tournaments*)

Pre-round expectations:

I expect everyone to have read the paradigm before entering the call. The only question that should be asked is those pertaining to statements that are not clear or have not been discussed on the page.

-->see the rest of the paradigms under the in-person section<--

(*For in-person tournaments*)

Pre-round expectations:

I expect everyone to have read the paradigm before entering the room. The only question that should be asked is those pertaining to statements that are not clear or have not been discussed on the page.

During the round:

All of Crossfire will not be noted down on the flow, I will probably listen to the crossfire to make sure that it is still civil, and noted down any points that might affect speaker points. A reminder: Crossfire is for you to ask questions and clarify anything in the round with opponents. Anything that is brought up and you want me to vote off it, you must bring it up in your following speech.

Progressive Arguments (aka disad, theory, k):

I am fine with any progressive argument except Disclosure Theory. PF is not CX, there is no reason to run such an argument. If you still feel like running it, I will not even consider it part of the round when voting, if I didn't buy the reasoning or analysis. Further, if you run a progressive argument without changing it to be at the VPF level, and I don't understand, I simply won't vote off of it

Overview and Under view:

I encourage having it, so I can have some parameters to vote off of, but I will not take it under consideration if it has not been carried throughout the entire round, in each speech (except rebuttal, ask before the round for more details).

Contention:

I expect that the contention is readable in 4 minutes without having to spread. So here is your fair warning, DO NOT SPREAD, if I can't follow you at your speed, I will either stop flowing or only write what I hear. This will probably hurt you. So be careful. IF you want to read really fast, send me the speech doc before the round, and make sure that it is the one you are reading. If you fail to do so, I cannot be held responsible for what I missed. I want clear signposting when you transition from Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, and Impact.

Rebuttal:

For the first speaking team, I expect to hear a full frontal attack on the opponent's case. You can preemptively defend your case, but I will On the other hand, I expect the second-speaking team to attack and defend their case in the 4 min. Be sure to warrant analysis. I love to hear about turns on links and impacts, which creates ground for the clash needed in a debate round.

Summary:

NO NEW EVIDENCE FROM THE SECOND-SPEAKING TEAM! I expect to hear a summary of the round, with collapsing. Be sure to have Impact calculus or weighing.

Final Focus:

Give me voters. Why should I vote for you? NO NEW EVIDENCE!

Speaker Points:

I am not progressive in speaking. Don't spread, speak with emphasis on tags, speak clearly and loudly, and if you can make me laugh, you get higher speaks.

After the Round:

I plan to disclose if I can come up with RFD within 5 minutes. If the round is muddled then, It will take more time, be patient.

The Use of Evidence:

I will ask you to show me evidence if I find it unclear, couldn't hear, or suspicious. I might ask you to pull up the original article, so be ready to find it; the only excuse I will take if the wifi is poor or lacking. I will try to search it up on my computer too, but if I can't find it either, we have problems.

I am a new parent judge, and I am really looking forward to the experience of hearing your speak!

In judging, I look for the following:

Confidence, poise, and personality

A strong, clear thesis

A clear structure to the speech or argument

Good, detailed supporting evidence

Credible citations

Adherence to time

Hi! I'm a lay parent judge with no debate experience. Please speak slowly and clearly! If you want something said in cross to matter, bring it up during your speech.Add me to the email chain, drritubansal@gmail.com

Hi! I'm Evelyn and my main events are Congress and Extemp although I did a variety of other events in middle school.

Congress:

I love listening to congress because of the unique style that every speaker brings. At a middle school level I think developing your fluency, rhetoric, and room presence is really important. But good content will immediately get my attention. Don't use faulty link chains lol and please use sources to backup all claims. Be unique. Also, please don't rehash! If someone has already brought up your argument, either clearly build on the impacts or use a new one entirely. Also it's really impressive to hear your speech reflect what time you give it in the round. Sponsors should clearly explain the legislation, middle-round speeches should have refutation, and late-round speeches should weigh.

Extemp

Extemp is my fav! <3 I want to learn something new. Good fluency is always impressive. Vocal projection, confidence, hand gestures, no swaying. Content-wise, make sure you answer to the question with three unique points and lots of supporting evidence. Use a substructure for your introduction or it's hard to follow. It's so important to contextualize in your Background. And please please use sources! Also I always appreciate good jokes and will probably laugh at them.

Thanks!

He/Him

I am a parent judge. I have never done debate and am new to judging. I judge LD and PF. I am completely new to both events. Please adapt to be more lay and extend everything. If an argument is too unclear, I default to voting off whoever makes the more clear response or extension. Please do not run any sort of progressive debate- K’s, Phil, Tricks, Theory, and any other form of prog debate will not be considered as I don’t understand it. Don’t spread either. If you are aggressive in round I will dock speaks. Abuse such as racism, hate speech, homophobia, and sexism will be an instant drop and 25 speaks. Have fun in round!

I've been around for some time now and have seen how many things have changed. If I were to sum up my overall philopshy, I'm very much a traditionalist but reward originality and creativity. I competed in policy debate in hight school and Individual Events/CEDA in college. I am also a rules generated judge. If I feel you are on the wire or have leaped over it, I make mention of it.

On the IE side:

Interp - I belive in maintaining the authors intent. Of all the events, interp has changed the most over the years and in my opion in a good way. Today's interpers are unique, creative, and original. I have one steadfast rule in interp; I want to be drawn into the world the interper is giving me. If they can grab me from the beginning and keep in in that world throughout ther performance then they have succeeded. Anything that distracts or pulls me out of their world minimizes thier overall performance (crying, etc.).

Limited Prep: I judge on a 50/50 ratio. The first 50 is organization, content, and delivery. Firm beliver in the "walk-n-talk" philopshy that you walk only on transitions. The other 50 is content. If you make a statement, be able to support it. Make sure the question / topic is answered correctly.

Prep: Much like the limited prep but I reward originality on topics and their develoment.

On the Debate side:

Again, very much a traditionalist and don't particualy care for some "anitics" I have seen over the years. The affirmative must maintain burden of proof, counterplans are non-topical. negative wins one stock, they win the round. Rapid fire is okay as long as I can flow. If I can't flow it, I can't judge it. Depending upon the type of debate is how I judge it. Polcy debate must be fully supported with evidence. Public Forum is more on the philosphical (What the student knows and how they are able to communicate it), with LD being a combination of both support and philospical. Additionally, over the years some new "terms" have been develped. Basically, I don't care what you call it, all I want you to do is support it. If called for, I will give orals at the end but will not disclose my decision. The reason, I am not opening the the opportunity for the loosing team to debate me, that has happened a couple of times, I don't like the atmosphere when that happens so I have made it a rule never to disclose. I am also a firm believer in speakers roles and duties (don't accept open cross-x, etc.) . Each speaker has been give a role with duties and they are accountable for them.

I have a more detailed paradigm and once I locate it, I will attach.

1. I am a Current DC speech teacher and coach. Background in communications, though I've been within the realm of speech and debate for close to 6 years.

Higher preference in traditional LD rounds, with min spreading. Need to be able to clearly understand and hear contentions and significant points, however won't completely judge against competitors.

2. a. With a preference in traditional LD cases, value and criterions are significant in the round.

b. If using K's, should be clear to follow and refute throughout round.

c. Voting issues should be given, throughout the flow or final rebuttal.

d. Winner decided by key arguments and sense of persuasion.

e. Notes/flow is taken based off off significant arguments throughout round. If I cannot follow, I cannot judge.

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.

I am a parent judge, and had a couple of years judging experience in various forms including IE, congress and PF. For PF, I appreciate evidence based arguments with supportive details.

please be respectful to each other and manage your time properly since PF is time sensitive.

Please feel free to add me to the email chain at ggan98@msn.com

Have fun and good luck!

I am a lay parent judge. Go slow and make your arguments clear, concise, and compelling.

I am a first time judge and would like to hear clear topics, clear basic issues and logical, persuasive arguments.

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.

For the Domestic/International Extemp, below are the things I looked for when I judge:

• Does the student answer the question?

• Does the student cite sources?

• Does the student have a clear speech structure​?

• Does the evidence and analysis convinced and support the answer?

• Does the student seem confident and speak clearly and fluently?

Match energy

I'm a parent judge:)

Please speak slowly./traditional debating preferred.

School Affiliation: Coach at Centner Academy (Miami)

Coaching & Judging Experience: I have been coaching teams and judging tournaments since 2006. This includes LD, PF, Congress, CX and IEs at different schools in Virginia, Texas and Florida. I have coached qualifiers for NCFL, NSDA and NIETOC.

Speed: Although I am personally not a fan of it, please make sure your spreading is clear and coherent. If I can't understand you, I probably will not flow it. If you see me stop flowing for an extended period of time then it would be in your best interest to slow down. I also heavily prefer if you go slow on your taglines, analytics and any theory arguments, especially during your rebuttals.

Types of Arguments: Although I prefer framework heavy debates, a lot of clash in the round, and good crystallization and overviews in your final rebuttal, I will still vote on topicality, counterplans, some theory arguments at times and kritiks if they are explained well by the debater. I am not a fan of non-topical Affs as I tend to favor whole resolution ACs. Make sure when you run T, that you are linking your violation to your standards/voting issues and that when you run a CP, you explain your net benefits and how it's competitive.

Theory Argument: If you run any disclosure theory or new affs bad arguments, make sure you thoroughly break down the reasons to prefer. Although I have never really been a fan of these types of arguments, I am willing to consider them if you can show the impacts of the abuse committed by your opponent and how this outweighs. Please make sure that whatever theory shells you plan on running are presented at a slower rate of speed.

Kritiks: Run at your own risk because I'm not really a fan of complicated philosophical arguments that have nothing to do with the actual resolution that should be debated upon. I'm not saying you can't win if you run them, but I might look at you funny and simply not flow the argument depending on the complexity of the K.

Speaks: Clarity over speed is prefered. If your spreading is incomprehensible, this will reflect on your speaker points. Any acts of rudeness or displays of an unprofessional demeanor towards your opponent will also be taken into account. If you go against an inexperienced debater or a traditional style opponent, it would be in your best interest to accommodate their format and invest some time clashing with or turning their value, criterion and contentions. Also, please do not ask me if I disclose speaker points. It's not going to happen. In addition, please do not use profanity at all during the round. It will impact your speaks and could also impact my decision so don't do it. Lastly, please refrain from attacking the character of any political figures or political parties as a whole. It's okay to discuss policies of the USFG but please avoid bashing politicians or parties that you may dislike as I consider that type of tactic in a debate to be very unprofessional and offensive. Debaters have lost my ballot over this in the past.

Tricks: Please don't.

Overview: Debate the resolution, clash with your opponent's arguments, provide framework, slow down during tags and analytics, throw in some voters at the end.

Email Chain: If and only if both debaters are sharing files, please include my email as well: todd@centneracademy.com

I am a parent judge. Content and clarity or logical flow in speech events is important to me - did you really address the topic you picked for the event. Next, I focus on delivery, tone which are critical, especially in interpretation events. Good luck!

I am a lay judge, but I’ve judged rounds in interp, PF, and world schools. I’ve also read the NSDA guides for every event, so despite not having experience in all events, I’m relatively familiar with how they operate.

WSD
I’ve judged a lot of practice rounds for worlds, so I know what the event is supposed to look like. Worlds is not PF or LD. I need you to legitimately persuade me of your arguments using a combination of stylistic techniques, consistent argumentation, and appropriate strategy. Again, a conversational pace and clearly walking me through arguments goes a long way with me.

Style can lose you a round if the disparity is significant to the point where it interrupts your content, but I care a lot more about the content of the round and what I buy than anything else.

POIs every 30 seconds is fine but don’t badger your competitors.

While I always appreciate a passionate debate, being rude to your competitors (laughing at them, making unnecessary facial expressions on the bench, etc) is a very easy way to lose my ballot.

Speech/ Interp
Not sure a paradigm does much here. I’m here to listen to your story, so have emotional variation and be convincing.

PF/LD
Again, I am a lay judge. Anything progressive (spreading, tricks, theory shells, etc) is not okay.

I know how to flow, but I also care about the authenticity of arguments (ie whether I believe them or not). This means that I am not consistently tech>truth, contrary to most judges in the event.

Please walk me through every link chain, because chances are that the side which best explains it to me will win the round.

Speak at a conversational pace or slower.

Hi my name is Nicole Lee! I've been competing in speech&debate since 7th grade, mainly with a focus on Interpretive events. I judge mainly based on characterization, story, connection, and overall speaking skills/delivery.

I'm so excited to watch you all! Remember to always perform with passion :)

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!

Be clear, compelling, and most important, concise.

Be courteous, and present yourself with maturity.

Be authentic.

Experience: 4 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.

Email: hmacias1931@gmail.com

Please make an email chain with your speeches and add me to it in case I am not able to catch something in your speech:

manzur.mahmud@gmail.com

If I am judging you in LD, additionally add jasperdebatesld@gmail.com to the chain.

I have some hearing difficulties, so please speak up loudly, clearly and at a moderate pace. I am a "lay" judge, so please do not use any debate jargon or other high-level arguments like "theory" or "kritiks." Please engage with your opponents' arguments and tell me what I should vote for and why. I do not like any disrespect in round, so please keep it professional. I have not judged many rounds in the past, so please forgive me and be patient with me if I am not up to speed on this topic.

Hello, my name is Mani Mainali, I work for the State of Texas in the Health Department.

I am a new parent judge, so my decision will be based upon my beliefs.

What I am looking for:

• Be clear and precise about why your evidence is better than your opponents.
• Don’t speak too fast to where your viewpoints are unclear and difficult to understand.
• Be respectful to your opponents viewpoints.
• Don’t be rude or mean.
• Don't rehash or reuse the same points over and over.

Overall, I think debate is a fun way to learn a lot from different viewpoints on a topic.

I look forward to hearing all of you!

Please speak slowly. Speed is okay but please slow down for important points.

Do not be unnecessarily aggressive, never be offensive, and avoid excessive gestures.

I cannot understand your speech without a clear structure. For me to comprehend your speech accurately, it is necessary to provide it with a clear and structured format.

Hello everyone! My name is KJ (he/him), I competed all 4 years of high school and now go to Texas State University.

I am primarily an IE person. I competed in every IE event including OO, Info, and Extemp. I as well competed in World Schools a bit too. I was a 4x state qualifier, state finalist, 5x state semi finalist, 2x NIETOC semifinalist, and a 3x NSDA qualifier. I was as well an All-State and All-American competitor with over 2200 NSDA points. What I am looking for is understanding of the piece. How well thought out it is and how much effort you have noticeably put into it goes a LONG way.

IE's

- Needs to be clean, concise, and have a deeper meaning as to why you're telling the story, interp is acting with a purpose

- Be proud of what you're performing! and have fun with it!

- Characterization is key, I want to see real peoples stories that I am actually able to connect to

- I want to know what's going on! Don't just throw us into the middle of everything, give us some exposition, who are you? Where are you? What is going on?

OO, Info, Extemp, WS

- Are you just telling me the facts? Or are you engaging with the information and the topic you've chosen and presenting it in an effective way?

- Charisma is KEY, you wrote this speech, be proud of it!

- How well thought out is your argument or topic?

- Are you speaking fluidly and confidently or are you using filler words and swaying nervously?

- Make sure that you're applying the facts that you give to the grand scheme of things, what are the implications?

Like I said earlier, I was always more of an interp person. However, I do know all of the rules and the ins and outs of debate! I may not be as adept as I am with speech but I know my way around. Essentially just treat me as a lay judge who knows a lot about the subject.

Debate

• Well thought out arguments will go a long way, the more you put into a speech the more you will get out of it, and trust me when I say that we as judges notice how much effort you put into it
• How well do you structure your speech? How well does it flow?
• How do you respond to questions and how do you interact in the round?
• Don't just tell me what you are going to do but also HOW you are going to accomplish it and WHY
• Add me to the email chain plz - kjamarino@gmail.com
• As far as flowing goes, I'm not a stickler for it during cross so don't worry about it
• I can follow spreading but if you'd like to have mercy on my soul and not that would be awesome
• I'm not a huge theory argument person, so if I feel you're twisting the resolution in a way that it most likely wasn't intended as may not work if its too far out there

All of these are just my personal opinions regarding judging, please do not change your speech or performance based on trying to get my 1. So long as you have fun, enjoy what you're doing, and you are proud of the work you've presented, that is all I ask.

Email: kjamarino@gmail.com

Parent judge.

Please speak clearly. Confidence matters, I will be judging on the overall presentation of the speech.

I am a parent judge. I value clarity in logic and structure, and confidence in your delivery.

I am a new parent judge and I would appreciate it if you would speak slowly.

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.

Treat me like a lay judge, so please don't spread-if I'm a bit slow, please bear with me

I'd prefer if you didn't run theory shells or Ks, but if you choose to do so, please explain in depth.

Racism, sexism, homophobia, or rudeness/bigotry of any kind will result in 0 speaks and an auto loss

Tech > truth, but keep your arguments sensible

I encourage you to share your case document (PDF format) with me at r_prasanna@yahoo.com

Speak Loud and clear.. Have fun debating!

Howdy y'all!

My name is Matthew and I'm a current sophomore at UT Austin (Hook 'em!). I primarily did Info and OO but I also have experience in Impromptu, Extemp, Congress, and Prose (don't ask...). Feel free to call me Matthew, Matt, judge, etc.

*Note for IEs in general: Don't feel the need to adapt your performance to me, I wrote out the below to more so help explain the reasoning behind some of my decisions/feedback

Public Address Events:

Extemp:

• The most important thing for me is to see you answer the question. You have a lot of liberty in how you do so, just make sure to stick to the original intent of what you were asked.
• Every part of your speech is important. In your intro, include some kind of hook that grabs/keeps my attention, have some context that lays the foundation for why the question is being asked, explain why it's important to ask the question, and outline your main points. Make sure each main point is distinct and contains roughly the same amount of evidence/analysis. In your conclusion, restate the question / your answer and wrap your speech up nicely, preferably with a tieback to your intro.
• You should have a good quantity and variety of credible sources. I also like when speakers qualify their sources; i.e. [person], a [occupation] at [organization], stated on [date] that...
• Assume I know nothing about your topic (because more often that not I don't). I really appreciate speakers who include specific examples and explain everything simply but thoroughly.
• Relax and have fun! Humor is a great way to maintain engagement and break up the seriousness of your speech!

OO:

• I really hope to see you have fun and be creative (in your approach to your topic, how your structure your speech, etc.)!
• Your problem should be universal (totally cool to use specific personal experiences or the exclusive experiences of a particular group of people, just make sure to address the generalizable, underlying roots of the issue).
• I really, really, really, really want to see a personal connection. By the end of your performance I should have a good idea of why you chose this topic to deliver a 10-minute speech on.
• I have no preference for how you structure your speech as long as you explain what the problem is and it's causes/effects/solutions
• The best solutions are those that are specific (break it down into steps), realistic (something I could actually implement into my day-to-day life), and direct (i.e. not write to your local gov rep about implementing X change or "education")

Info:

• I really hope to see you have fun and be creative (in your approach to your topic, how your structure your speech, etc.)!
• Truly structure your speech however you want, just make sure each main point is unique.
• This is not as significant as in OO but I'd still like to see why your topic interests / is important to you
• The first time I see your speech I would really like to learn something that I did not already now
• Visuals are absolutely not required but if you have them: quality/simplicity > quantity/complexity. I am more impressed by those that actually add value to your speech (i.e. help you explain/demonstrate a certain context, data visualization, etc.) than super techy/aesthetic ones that more often than that just serve as distractions.

Interp

• Be authentic; remember that these are real people's stories you are telling
• If you have multiple characters, each should have their own distinct personality, voice, facial expressions, gestures, etc.
• I really like to see you tell a full story (think Freytag's pyramid)
• In your intro I think it's generally good to have some kind of thesis regarding application or call to action

PF/LD

• All of my competitive experience comes from the Speech side of things but I have judged an increasing amount of PF/LD/WSD rounds recently
• I do my best to flow and make my decision solely based on arguments brought up in the round
• Feel free to go as fast as your opponent is ok with as long as you send a doc (preferably speech drop). Keep in mind I probably won't be able to parse any specific debate abbreviations or terminology
• I'm probably best able to evaluate rounds where you debate the topic but if you go for something else make sure to really explain it well and why it's a reason I should vote for you
• I won't look at arguments brought up too late into the debate
• Impact, warrant, weigh, and tell me why to vote for you!

CX

• I have never judged nor participated in nor seen a CX round

Congress

• Speaking = 70% | Content = 30%
• I think it's better to not give a speech than rehash a previous representative's speech
• I'd like to see every speech after the first cycle have clash
• Make sure to tie back to specific parts of the legislation
• Negation speakers should be proving net harms, not just saying passing won't do anything
• I look pretty favorably on POs as long as you keep the chamber running and make sure everyone has a fair/equal opportunity to speak. With that said once you start making a few mistakes, your rank may drop quickly

World Schools

• Style: Audience engagement, confidence, body language, personality, humor (when appropriate), conversational delivery speed
• Content: Logically sound arguments, examples if appropriate, using all the time allotted, outlining what you’re going to be doing at the start
• Strategy: Moving the round forward, engaging with your opponents arguments/responses, rebuilding your own case, telling me where/why you won, asking/answering POIs

email- hannahrodriguez2003@gmail.com

pronouns- she/her

Coaching & Competitor History

(2023-Present): Director of Debate & Speech, Prosper High School

(2018-2021): Policy Debate competitor, Princeton

Background:I approach debates with an emphasis on critical analysis, deconstruction of power structures, and engagement with alternative frameworks. My judging philosophy is centered around evaluating debates that delve into issues beyond the policy-oriented or traditional arguments. I appreciate debates that challenge mainstream ideologies, interrogate assumptions, and offer unique perspectives.

Deep Analysis: I value depth over breadth. I prefer in-depth analysis and thorough explanation of critical arguments rather than superficial coverage of multiple arguments.

Open-Mindedness: While I have a preference for critical arguments, I am open to all forms of debate and coach LD and Policy. If traditional or policy-focused arguments are presented effectively, I will evaluate them accordingly. Essentially I'll adapt to you.

Speed is fine just slow down a bit in the rebuttals. I say clear twice before I stop flowing. If you are SPREADING through tag lines I AM NOT LISTENING !

Topicality: Ah, I love a good topicality debate, but I do think it tends to get unnecessarily messy. Please extend your interps... I don’t have a preference for competing interps or reasonability though, that’s something that will depend on the debate. Yes, you need impacts but no, I don’t have a preference on whether education or fairness is better. DA’s and turns on the standards debate are particularly convincing but if you go for one of these I don’t want a blippy explanation.

Theory: I think the only convincing theory shell I’ve ever heard while competing was condo, so I hope that tells you that I’m not the judge where you should go all in on theory in the 2ar/2nr. Despite this, I will still listen to theory, but please note I have a very high threshold for abuse. Also, if there has been a serious technical concession, I do think that voting for a theory shell becomes more convincing, but I think this is the only time I’m persuaded.

Disads: I’m good w/ any DA you want to run (even politics), but I generally like the link to be more specific because it’s often more persuasive. Generic links are fine though as long as your doing the internal link devoplement. Also persuasive is DA turns/outweighs case.

Counterplans: I don’t judge kick unless you tell me to, but also make sure you have some explanation of why the squo is, at the very worst, still better than the aff. Any counter-plan is fine. You need a net benefit, but I don’t have a preference for whether it’s external or internal. Any CP or PIC you read is fine, see the theory section for more.

Congress

-If you call for splits during round I'm ranking you last you should be able to give a speech on either side that's the purpose of this activity

-Using ethos is only impactful if your incorporating evidence

-PO every time you mess up you drop in ranking

-Clash is great but no need to yell

LD

Read your trix in front of a different judge. Please and Thank you!

I am a parent judge. Lay arguments only. Do not spread.

WSD: I am a parent judge. Please make arguments understandable, and explain each principle and practical clear. I normally judge speeches, so that is where my viewpoint is at.

I am a parent judge. I have judged PF, LD, World Schools, and some IE events, as well.

If you speak too fast, and it gets to the point where I cannot understand, I will stop taking notes and anything you say fast will not be on the ballot.

I judge mainly based on the information in your case and the way it's presented. The format/structure of your case is not as important to me as long as it's easy to understand and flows well.

I am a diamond level coach, who has been judging over 25 years. My background has intersected with most events throughout my experiences. I started competing on the college circuit in policy debate in the 90's and from there moved into Lincoln Douglas. After a year and a half I made the switch to platform events and I am nationally recognized in Duo, Dramatic, Poetry, Prose, POI, and After Dinner Speaking. TIFA which is the college version of TFA, I have been two time back to back Duo State Champion, as well as state Champion in Poetry.

In Debate:

Good debate is just good debate, so make sure you are clear, give weighing mechanism, link into the resolution, K's are fine but make them clear and understandable if you are going to include them. Speed is ok, just know when you need to slow down at times to solidify your case and make sure you are clear. Be assertive, not aggressive there is a line and make sure you know the difference. I also like purpose behind arguments, so please do not waste time just to run something because you think it is cool, trendy, or funny, as some adult may not share your thoughts on the choice. Debate is a wonderful event, that we have some many amazing tools to use, so please be respectful of this from of discourse.

World Schools is a great crossover event and it is one that I have been supporting at the national level for sometime, and very excited to see the growth of this event. That being said, I am a purist and I want it to stay World School Debate. I am looking for strong substantives, clear burdens, and for the model to be used properly and effectively, if you choose to provide one. Further, make sure you protect and defend the model. Please use POI's likewise be sure to give POI's, at least one to two. Use the key areas strategy, delivery, and content to ensure that you have left no points behind in the debate. You are building a narrative that must compel me to prefer your world view and meet your burden. Clash is crucial, so good coverage is essential down the bench.

The impact calculus is important in any style make sure that you are framing how I will weigh the debate throughout the debate.

Policy-

It is important to understand that good debate has certain essential components no matter the format. Framework and how you ask us to view and weigh the debate is essential. Whatever you use Plan/Counterplan, Advantages/Disadvantages, Stock Issues, and turns. Run your strategy with fidelity and do not just read cards, understand the strategy and impacts of what you are running. Further, know how your case interacts with your opponents. On Aff you need to establish the inherency and actually articulate the plan at the top of the 1AC. Road maps are good but if you are going in order of case, off case then you don't really need them.

Clash is key, you need to have line by line refutation in Policy so that you can maintain, extend, and attack all points in the debate, for me you cannot win on offense alone, you must engage in refutation. To that end, try not to just tell me that it is wrong or problematic, do not just read cards, make arguments and engage in analysis that demonstrates your comprehension of how and why this is important to the debate.

Link story and connect those dots is imperative, you need to show how your link chain and prove why something is or is not a key voter. Cards alone are not enough you as the debater will use your skills, argumentation, cross application, and analysis to win the ballot.

Crystalize by the time we get to the final rebuttals, solidify where you are in the debate and what voters are key in the round, reinforce framework, and give clarity to the link story.

Overall, this is a wonderful format of debate, and it requires both offense and defense to be successful.

Congress: I like well constructed speeches that are not read to me, referring to speech is fine, leave room for clash as this is debate, so I want to see you engage with the chamber. Stay active, the round is long so keep pressure with good questioning to stay relevant in the debate. I also welcome humor, if tasteful and done well.

Platform Speaking: (Extemporaneous, OO, Info, Imp)

I expect to solid speech structure with full introduction, transitions in body, and conclusion. The analysis should have some depth and should make a strong connection to your topic. Fluency should be smooth and if you have the occasional break, just work to not make it a big deal. I know being online can be difficult and there may be things that distract you where you are performing remotely, so that is understandable. Engage with the audience, your speech is for them, whether OO or Extemporaneous, you created a speech to tell it to us, so don't forget that. I know in Extemporaneous it can be tempting to have your speech on your screen, just know when you read a speech it is different and that connection with your audience can be lost, so I would rather have you perform to me, than read. Also, in Extemporaneous you need sources to ground your analysis, I also like a variety of good and challenging sources as opposed to the easiest finds. Pacing yourself is important, so is time management as you move through your points and finally do not rush. Three key things for me:

*Solid and fluent Delivery

*Clear Structure that supports your topic and adherence to time management throughout that structure

*Variety of sources, preference at least 5 as it is important to document and ground your analysis

Interpretation:

Interpretation is a personal favorite. I am open to all innovation and ways to bring your story to life. I do want to see a strong cutting that allows for you to build and reach a climax that will change your character in some way. If you are weaving POI, poetry, or Prose, make sure you structure your weave to give your program a climax that is clear. I have been a theatre director for over 20 years, so I love blocking and characterization as they are a part of breathing life into your interpretation. I like specificity and nuance, the text gives us so much as performers to work with. I like to see your performances as a collection of choices that ultimately allow the audience to experience the authenticity of your piece. I like purposeful gestures and mime work, but not just because it looked cool. I love moments, so make sure to be thoughtful in creating them, but hold them so we do not miss them whether in recording or live performance. At the end of the day, I am one of your biggest fans, so perform for me...allow me to get to know your character, to laugh, to cry, and most of all to experience why you chose to tell this story.

Interp Specifics:

Author's Intent-I am a writer and I believe it is important that the intent of the author is considered and respected. I do not mind if it a piece is cut, just that it doesn't violate the overall message of the author.

Introductions-I like to see purpose driven intros, that have pertinent information I need to know. I do not like introductions to exceed 30-45 seconds, or to become a performance art piece themselves. If I should know about conditions, flashbacks, time elapse that would help better inform my experience, then it should be in the introductions. If you choose to do an intro for humor only, and do not give us any information then I hope it is really funny, because you sacrificed the time you could have educated your audience. I am ok with humor in HI.

Blocking-Yes! Dream big and block bigger....I am ready for whatever you have come up with please engage us, build environments, and use your space in ALL events.

Binder work-Yes! See above, I love it! I want you to explore, so nothing is too much as long as well executed.

Characterization-I believe the story is paramount in any event. Please be thoughtful and authentic, organic over technical any day of the week. I like to be in the moment with you, so challenge yourself and your audience through believable and honest performance.

INTERP EVENTS

- In speech/ acting events I focus on solid storytelling. The most important piece of the puzzle is the script, please don't forget to hold true the story as a whole even though we are only seeing ten minutes of it.

- Energy

- Characterization from beginning to end.

- Make big bold choices that you have perfected for this character, this story, this moment in time.

- Connecting to the audience, it's about telling the story to us, so a solid connection to the audience is important. We want to laugh and cry with you.

• Clean pantomime and connection with off stage characters
• - Take us on the journey with you.
• Take a deep breath and have fun!!! Leave it all out there and take your seat feeling like there was nothing else you could have done.
• Don't forget you are not speaking FOR them, you are speaking AS them. It is an ownership that you should take seriously. If you don't tell the story, how will they continue to live?
• Be honest. These are real people sharing real stories of their lives. Breath through their struggle and be honest.
  - Be you, you're enough.
• Believe in the story you are telling, be confident, be bold, own your time in front of us.
• Make sure everything you do has a purpose. If it doesn't have a reason, it begs the question of why do it?
• ENJOY! The more you forget about all of the static in your head the clearer the performance will be for us. 
• Finally, "Just be." You are enough.

SPEAKING EVENTS

• Be specific with the topic at hand

Make sure your speech flows and each point connects to the last and the next.

• - We may not know anything about the topic at hand, think of yourself as a professor sharing knowledge, teach us.
• If you stumble over your words, keep going forward, don't go back unless that information was so important you need to recover it.

- Strong supporting material is key, like any good research paper the more recent the source the better. And with that strong source material is also important to the strength and legitimacy of your speech.

- Solid confident delivery style

I am a new parent judge.

I am a parent judge. Please be clear and show passion/energy (as applicable) in your presentation. Good luck!

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.

Hi! My name is Komala Viswaprabakaran and I have been judging extemp and congressional debate for several years.

I will understand you better if, regardless of your event, you speak loudly, slowly, and clearly. Generally speaking, be respectful to your fellow competitors, and remember, this a professional round so treat it as such!

Extemp / Public Speaking:

For time signals, I will give a three/five down and a fist at grace unless told otherwise.

I enjoy a thorough analysis but the impacts are equally as important. In the end, I look forward to listening to speeches that are entertaining yet show your complete understanding of the topic. Your cadence and speaking style also heavily impact your rankings.

I also look out for substructure so make sure you signpost as well as use logical transitions to further your point.

Congressional Debate:

The goal of your speeches is to convince me that your standing on the bill is the most correct stance. Using humor and sob stories in the right moment can heavily change your ranking so make sure you use them appropriately.

While the speech is important, the validity of your responses to questioning, refutation in the speech, as well as the strength of your questions are also equally as important.

Acting Events:

I rank according to the competitor's ability to convey the emotions and characterize the individual characters in the story.

I am not a fan of spreading...if I can't understand you how can I make an informed decision on your position? If you are for or against the status quo then state that and be convincing and compelling. Don't forget the importance of definitions but just because the other side concedes to your definitions don't assume that is enough to win the round.

Arguments need to have a claim, warrant, and an impact.

Tell me what you want me to vote on...give me a road map and sign post along the way. I am a fan of impacts and if you see a turn...go for it with all you have.

PF- has the feel of a "town" meeting so your argument should be kept simple..not to the point of being insulting. In this case...be sure you are factual/truthful with "commonly" known information. I am an educated, tax paying, home owning person.

I dont need a trigger warning but I will warn you that any moral repugnance ie RACISM (which has been way too prevalent of late), SEXISM, HOMOPHOBIA (you get the gist) I have a zero tolerance policy for...let's not test me on this issue please...I'd like to keep my hopes that we will continue to evolve into a society that is tolerant of how everyone wants to live their lives.

Congress: I am looking for full participation in the round. I am watching to see how active you are in questioning. I want to hear you give your argument for or against that is compelling and not a rehash of what's already been said throughout the round. I do not like watching speaks being given for the sake of giving a speech when we've already heard the same point stated in 3 previous speeches. Be clever and when you give your speech...I am stoked when you point out something said by the opposing side previously stated.

I am primarily an LD, Congressional, and Individual Events judge (though I do have some experience in CX and PF, as well).

As a former competitor, I am pretty traditional in my approach to all forms of debate.

I view LD Debate as value/philosophy debate. Make sure that you address the value and criterion debate, as I will consider those central to the round and voting issues. If an opponent drops arguments, I will expect that you mention the drop and explain the relevance of the dropped argument to the round. It is necessary that you stay centered on the resolution and don't spend time getting bogged down in argument tangents (and, frankly, lengthy definition & author credibility debates).

I am more focused on the quality of argumentation and logic than on sheer quantity of evidence. Even though I can flow you when you spread in a debate round, in LD it will impact your speaking points for me. If you insist on spreading, you must make sure that you are very clear. I will also expect you to slow down on the taglines when spreading. I will vote based on what I flow in the round, not on what you email or flash to me. In fact, I will usually decline to be on the email chain and will prefer to flow the actual round (rather than just read your evidence and analytics emailed to me on a document).

Professionalism does matter to me. Of course, in cross examination you might wind up interrupting each other occasionally, that is to be expected. However, somebody who does not allow their opponent to speak or proceeds to be rude or lack professional demeanor in CX or during a speech may see a loss of speaker points. I also am not a fan of open CX and do not believe that opponents should be speaking to each other during prep time in an LD round. Also, even though I am certainly capable of timing you, I would prefer that you time yourselves (allowing me to focus on the flow and the ballot). It should go without saying, but please make sure that you are clearly signposting as you go down the flow.

I have many years of experience judging all categories of speeches and debates. As a community judge, I look for speaking styles which respects all audiences with a balanced, reasonable and thoughtful delivery.