For extemp and public address, I prefer that students use a conversational style. I prefer that they use evidence as needed. I prefer they not try and name numerous sources, but be honest in what they are using. I like a roadmap they refer to for each point.

For interp, I like a meaningful teaser that sets the world they are creating and tries to introduce as many characters as possible. I think introductions should be short and sweet and be more personal. I think blocking and movement should be used to enhance the story, but is not necessary. I really look for fully developed characters that really listen and react to each other. For author's intent, I think it is okay to re-interpret a piece. I don't have a real issue with a curse word if it is used purposefully.

Hey! My name is Sneha Bhale (she/her) and I did 4 years of Speech and Debate at Westwood High School. I competed in extemp as my main event both locally and nationally and I did some congress. I currently attend UT Austin.

debate events- please add me to the email chain- snehabhale21@gmail.com

Extemp- I prioritize content over fluency. I give the 1 to whoever answers the question adequately and addresses every actor mentioned. The substructure needs to be easy to follow and your impacts need to be realistic and topical. For fluency, fluency errors should not impede my ability to understand you and humor can go a long way. As for sources, please do not make them up and try to diversify your sources (use think tanks and academic journals). As for time, I don't care a whole lot but make sure it's evenly spaced out for every point. Overall, your content should make sense and have sources, and having humor incorporated and a conversational tone will go a long way with ranks.

PF- Treat me as a flay (maybe a little more flow) judge. I will flow the round and have some exposure to PF. I'm not too fond of spreading but if you speak fast, I would like a speech doc. My flow shouldn't be all over the place and easy to follow. I think weighing and the continuation of arguments in the summary and final focus are extremely important. I also would prefer to be added to the email chain and will call for evidence so make sure there is no paraphrasing or twisting of information. During cross-ex, please be patient and polite. Speaks will be assigned based on clarity and overall demeanor within a round. I'm not too familiar with progressive arguments but I will evaluate them. Overall, I like a clean flow, slow speaking, weighing, roadmaps, warrants, and proper evidence protocols.

Cong- The PO should know proper procedures and keep track of precedence and recency well. The PO should also ensure voting happens fairly and keep track of everything efficiently. I will keep my precedence and recency sharts and will double-check. As for the competitors, congress is a matter of participation, so pay attention. Try to pay attention the whole round and ask questions. I'm not too fond of pre-prepared speeches. Speeches that follow the debate and clash go a long way. Rehash is also a no go and I will dock points for it- please bring in new evidence and new points. If you are speaking later in the round, please bring in new evidence and use Clash rather than rephrasing previous speeches. The questioning period should be respectful to all competitors. As a personal preference, I prefer precedence and recency to be tracked online. It gets very messy when it is on paper. Overall, I like clashes in speeches, effective questioning, proper use of sources, and clear speaking.

And most importantly, have fun with it! Please let me know if I can do anything to make the round a safe place or a better experience for you. Also, feel free to ask questions/clarify my paradigm or for feedback after the round.

What are your stylistic preferences for extemp? How much evidence do you prefer? Any preference for virtual delivery?

It's important that the extemp format is followed. I would prefer there be a min. of 2 sources per point. I prefer an AG that you can tie back to during each transition.

What are your stylistic preferences for Oratory/Info? How much evidence do you prefer?

Much like extemp at least 2-3 sources per point. I like the intro to be tied into the subject and your transitions link back to your AG.

Any unique thoughts on teasers/introductions for Interpretation events?

I love teasers! Make sure you intro truly introduce your piece and it isn't too long

Any preferences with respect to blocking, movement, etc.?

I prefer there to be lots of movement and blocking. Help me visualize where you are and who you are talking to.

How do you feel about author's intent and appropriateness of a piece? For example: an HI of Miracle Worker (author's intent) or a student performing mature material or using curse words (appropriateness)?

I'm not ok with vulgar pieces. I am ok with some profanity but not a lot.

WSD Judging

I'm looking for teams who can defend their case and attack their opponents. I expect you to use the proper terms (opp/prop/motions) You will lose points from me if you are rude in anyway. I'm looking for everyone to be good speakers and be able to explain their side in a way that makes sense and convinces me that you should win.

For performance based events, I tend to judge based on the believability of either the character the performer is portraying, or the connection to the message they are delivering. I enjoy more natural acting styles as I believe subtle emotion is much more powerful than over the top, unrealistic emotion. With humorous I am pretty simple; did I laugh? Was it clean? Was the script appropriately cut/ did the plot make sense? If every performer in a round hits all of these, it becomes all about which ones made me laugh the most.

When it comes to PA I find it necessary that the topic be something most people aren't familiar with OR a topic we frequently talk about with nuance brought to it. Additionally, the structure of the speech and conversational tone of the delivery is important to me. I also look for confidence, preparation, and accessibility of the information being presented, especially if it is a complex topic.

I am a relatively new parent judge. I enjoy listening to and judging debates.

I have interest in politics, investing, philosophy, psychology and sociology. I had my MBA education many years ago and worked in Banking for 20+ years.

For LD debates, I evaluate the combination of the following aspects -

1) Solid case build - proof, the value framework.

2) Clash and rebuttal - I value effective rebuttal and responses using logic and proofs. Please be respectful of your opponent.

3) Delivery - clear, audible and comprehensible, and to speak persuasively to the listeners. I am ok with spreading and will try to follow your flow.

SPEECH: I look for confident, clear speakers who know how to sound and appear like they belong in the room. I love to see competitors that remind me how much I miss doing speech! Wow me with your content and keep my attention with your presentation.

INTERP: In addition to the above, I prefer performances that actually feel like performances, not just speeches. All interp events should create a cohesive story that slowly builds up to a memorable climax. Preference will also be given to pieces that have an important message, but I really dislike trauma porn and will rank you lower if I think you're abusing someone else's trauma.

DEBATE: I'm largely a speech judge, but I did do debate and am familiar with PF and WS. Treat me as a lay (and traditional) judge but know that I'll know if you're being abusive. The best way to win my ballot is through a clear comparative and even clearer speaking.

Please give trigger warnings when necessary—it's better to be safe than sorry.

Good luck! :)

*email: aud.fife@gmail.com

I have over 20 years of experience. pronouns: she/her

Individual Events:

• I love well-rounded characterization. My biggest note is that if you are doing a popular piece I would love to see your version of this character, not an exact copy of the original character ( this is INTERPRETATION after all…). Be sure to have fun with your characterization, especially in HI. If you have multiple characters be sure there is distinction in vocal quality and physicality and that they're adding to the story, not distracting from it.

• When listening to the cutting of the piece I’d like it to flow well. I love a clear, catchy teaser, a brief intro that doesn’t give too much away, a well told and understandable story that leads the characters path, whatever that way be. .

• I am NIT PICKY when it comes to delivery (you’ve been warned). I love clean crisp diction, purposeful emphasis and pauses all while ensuring that they guide the emotions of your piece. When it comes to blocking, be sure you're not moving just to move. Every move you make needs to be justified and should add to the story. Remember, this is blocking not choreo.

• Authenticity is a big topic i look for. I know you've rehearsed your piece a bunch, but I don't want to see that, I want to see it with authenticity and as thought you're in the moment and reacting in real time. With all that being said, we perform because we want to elicit emotions out of our audience. We are looking to inspire, teach, interact and to let the audience get lost in our pieces. The only way to do that, is to be sure you’re having fun with it.

OO/INFO:

• I prefer when I can easily tell what the goal and persuasive points of your speech are.
• I love learning so for me, be sure the research lines up and gives me reason to really that your stance into consideration.

Extemp:

• Most importantly, be sure to state AND answer your question. It's one of the big things that I look for when judging.

• Your 3 points should support your decision and explain why you made that choice, 7-10 sources is a great spot to be for the whole performance and within those sources should be a solid foundation.

Sometimes tabroom doesn’t save ballots, Ialways leave ballots no matter what. if you are not seeing a ballot tell your coach to email me and I will forward it to them. I pre-write and save all of my ballots on google docs.

I am a father of a debate student and a film and video director.

I look for connection and confidence.

Don’t say anything racist/sexist/homophobic, etc.

Please be clear - especially in regards to online debating. Slow down if you need to.

I think that public forum is, at its core, the melding of sound argumentation and solid speaking. You should present not only well-structured, rational, strongly warranted arguments, but you should also do so in a way that can be relatable to whomever is in the back of the round.

That being said, I don't mind some speed - but be sure you are articulate and clear, especially with tags and authors. Sacrificing quality for quantity is a poor choice if you cannot handle (or your judge cannot handle) the speed. Make wise choices.

In terms of 'atypical' arguments. I think that it is very hard to run a K argument well in PF. I don't believe that it cannot be done, just that it is very rare. If you are running theory, then you better have extremely solid warrants and you should have it explained to the level of access of understanding fitting to this style of debate. DO NOT just read cards that you got from your Policy friends/teammates and call it a day. ALSO...YOUR ADVOCACY SHOULD MATCH YOUR ACTIONS. Do NOT use theory arguments as a cheap tool to surprise unwitting opponents and get the ballot when you have engaged in no actions that match the advocacy of your theory arguments. If you are running disclosure theory, there better be a history of you disclosing at EVERY round and you engaged in multiple forums, workshops, discussion boards where you are ACTIVELY engaged in increasing disclosure in a way that promotes education and fairness. If you get up and read disclosure in front of me and do not have this, it will be an automatic loss. I am not joking.

I think that framework is a solid strategy - if there is a purpose. Frequently teams have f/w just to have it and then don't touch it for the rest of the round. If it is there, then you should extend.

On the issue of extensions, be sure that your arguments are carried through the debate. Do not read at the beginning and then bring back up in the final focus and expect me to grant them to you.

Finally, there should be a clear advocacy in the round - and a clash between teams. I hate debates that are like ships passing in the night - no clash.

--Debate--

Did PF for 3 years in high school. Don't be rude, and make sure that your speech is clear and easy to understand.

Use of evidence/citations is important

Prioritize keeping the debate moving unless you have a killer point that needs to be made.

--Speech--

No preferences for extemp

Oratory needs to still feel somewhat formal though it is made up of original thought. Looking for a seamless delivery, and confident body language.

I tend to be more of a traditionalist with binder events, and so I believe that the only time your binder should close is during the intro, but I won't take points off for it.

Make sure that your movement doesn't prohibit you from being understood well.

Please keep your delivery nice and clear not too hard to follow. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals. Thanks!.

Speed

I don’t like spreading overall. I can flow speed, but proceed at your own risk.

I won't use speech docs to fill in things I could not catch/understand.

It’s your job to make sure you’re communicating effectively and persuasively – you can do this by making eye contact and keeping your head out of notes/computer/evidence. Although I understand that nerves often require reliance on comforts – like over-reliance on computers, etc., but your arguments will appear stronger without those nervous comforts. To that end - if you flow off your laptop I will use my best judgement to evaluate the extent to which you're delivering arguments in such a way that demonstrates you have flowed the debate.

Types of arguments

Use your time wisely and effectively. Your time should be used to persuade me with concise and articulate arguments relying on evidence.

It should go without saying - Use of rudeness and snarky comments/remarks will be reflected in your evaluation.

It’s your job to effectively communicate your claim, backup your warrants, and articulate impact.

Progressive arguments are important. I'll do my best to evaluate them fairly.

I’m of the opinion that using squirrelly arguments just to throw off your opponent generally demonstrates a weakness in your argument. Your points may suffer even if I ultimately vote for you and my threshold for responses will be lower.

Evidence

I prefer cards > paraphrasing, but it isn't a hard rule. Documentation aids in credibility. You will be punished for misrepresenting evidence or knowingly reading authors that are fraudulent or very clearly unreliable.

Know where your evidence is. If you can't find it, it's getting kicked.

Summary and Final Focus

Extend defense. Don't go for everything.

Your arguments need to be included in summary to be counted in FF.

Decorum

Be respectful and professional in your decorum and manner.

Reminder: keep in mind how hard you’ve worked – your competitors have worked just as hard. Everyone deserves mutual respect - before, during, and after the debate.

Being funny or witty is fine as long as it isn't mean, rude, or hostile. I am not afraid to tank you if are rude and/or disrespectful.

Miscellaneous– I (heart) signposts. I do NOT (heart) over use of the vocal filler “like.”

Since I am an English teacher, I care about the organization of your speeches. If I have a hard time figuring out your argument, I will be more likely to dock speech points. I absolutely do not tolerate any discrimination in my rounds. I prefer hard facts that are relevant and up to date, and if you lie or exaggerate/understate your evidence, I will vote that down.