What I look for while judging, in a nutshell:

Be respectful to your opponents or fellow participants, speak clearly and not too fast, cite your sources and give evidence to back your statements.

I am so impressed that you are here, participating in this. Have fun!

You spew, you lose!

Also, be civil to your opponents and stuff.

Ex-Captain, have done Policy and BQ. Familiar with all debates. Weber State Student.

Don't use slurs. Using them as an example is fine but do not use them offensively. Also don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or discriminatory in any way. I will give you the lowest speaker possible if I deem it to be offensive to your opponent. Cussing is allowed.

T's K's and spreading are alright with me. Don't do 14 off or anything wacky like that.

If your partner roasts your opponents or says something cool in cross, you will get 1 extra speaker point for yelling "WORLDSTAR" out loud.

I am a traditional judge. I value topicality, and I like signposting by both sides so that I can flow the round. I do not flow cross ex, so if you have points to make based on cross-ex, you will need to include them in your rebuttal. I will not read a case that is submitted to me, as I believe that you should do the work of debating your case vocally. If your spreading prohibits my ability to flow your case, you are not likely to win your round. I am seldom swayed by complaints of "unfair"--it just sounds whiney.

My name is Gideon Martin, and I'm a Speech and Debate Judge with extensive experience on both sides.

Speech: I'm looking for great presentation, excellent vocabulary, and a clear understanding of your topic. Having a speech that is well structured and easy to follow is a huge plus. (If your competing in an event that requires sourcing, make sure that you properly source your speech. I can't believe any sort of statistics or information you give me if you don't have a source to back it up.)

Debate: Clear, logical, and well sourced arguments are what I'm looking for. Make sure your arguments/evidence are quantifiable. Prove to me that I should prefer your sources and evidence to your opponents, or that they outweigh your opponents arguments. Make sure that there is clash between your case and your opponent. I also want to be given clear voters. You need to tell me exactly why I should vote for your side. (Especially in Final Focus for all you pfers)

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.

Hey! I'm Patrick Neal, and I'm very excited for this round! I had a lot of experience in a variety of events in my 3 years of High School Debate at Viewmont High, and I'm excited to give you guys some great feedback!

Experience:

Like I said, I did 3 years of Speech and Debate experience. I mainly did LD, but I have debated Big Questions as well as Congress, as well as World Schools Debate at the National Tournament. As for Speech, I have done National Extemp, Pro-Con, Humorous Interpretation, Impromptu, and Informative. I like to think I'm well rounded, but I have much more experience in Debate. I'll divide up the Paradigm to debate and speech events.

GENERAL:

EVIDENCE. Please. Back up your claims with warrant. If your giving a speech, I would love to have the source in your speech.

TIMING: If you absolutely need me to give you time signals, I can. I would love it if you don't and time yourself, just so I can focus on notes and feedback. It helps both of us out.

CLARITY: A little more background, I'm also a theater kid, so I stress diction to my team. Be clear. Speed isn't everything, being articulate and able to be understood is king.

DEBATE:

CROSS EXAMINATION: I don't flow cross. If there's a good point you bring up, reiterate it in your case. Be civil and polite, but also answer the question fully. Don't dodge it.

Rebuttals: This is the key to me voting for you, proving how your case is better. During rebuttals, please respect the other person, but also...Pronouns. They can be tricky and confusing. If you really want to use them, ask the opponent before the round. Or just avoid it by saying, "They said, My Opponent said, the Affirmative (AFF) or the Negation (Neg) said, etc."

TELL ME WHY YOU ARE WINNING. Please. I will be flowing the round, but I am human and often miss things. In your last speech, save a little time for some voters! Tell the judge why you are winning.

As for me, I vote on a few things. Number one is Framework. I'll judge framework by a few things. Number one is how your Value fits the round. If you can prove to me that your Value, or Criterion fit your opponents case better, I'm likely to vote for you. If you can't do that, simply prove to me why your Value is inherently better. Either Morally or otherwise.
If you are in the round, y'all should know how to flow, so when you are giving a rebuttal speech, make sure to hit everything! Don't drop anything, especially the framework! Even a sentence, or simply saying that you'll respond to it on the other side of the flow, that works, but make sure you do it. I will vote against you if you drop a speech. And remember that as the AFF you can't wait to respond to your opponents case till your final speeches. That goes for NEG too but in a different way....If you need more info ask in round. I will vote against you on the grounds of abuse if you do this. It's something I hate about debate, so just FYI. I trust y'all and know you can stay away from this.

SPEECH EVENTS:
Extemp: Please please please ANSWER THE QUESTION. Most topics ask a question, and I would love for you to answer it.

SPAR/Impromptu: Make your speech more than the prompt. Make a story out of it, and have a good hook. For SPAR, be clear and again make sure that I know your winning.

Interps: I don't think I need to say it, but just in case, your telling me some kind of story. Make sure it's clear, and make sure that I know the difference between Characters and things like that.

Oratory & Informative: Honestly I group these together, and will judge them pretty similarly. Make sure that you have a good structure to your speech, Make sure it's easy to follow.

SPEECH GENERAL STUFF: I *Might* tell you a few things that I would change in your speech in the ballot. Take all that with a grain of salt, since you and I likely think very different.

Again, very excited to listen to this round, and Good Luck!

All forms of debate in my view should be founded primarily on the participants personal thoughts, logic, arguments and persuasion or team as it applies to the event being judged.

Participants original thought and presentation reasoning/arguments receive highest point values in my judging, while reading quotations, assertions, statements (though cited) via electronic devices verbatim do not. This is not to suggest that citations, quotations and so forth should not be used rather that how they are used, and when in the event they are used does matter.

All quotations, assertions, or statements of "others" without proper citation of source are questionable in my view.

I do not judge based on the volume of words given. Elocution matters! I do judge on the quantity of the words presented and do not see debate as a reading contest.

Eye contact matters - look at the judge(s) and other participants.

Speak clearly and loud enough to be heard by all. Move closer to me (the judge) if needed.

The speed of the response to debate points does not matter as much as the appropriate response with clarity (citations are okay).

Personal Perspective - All who participate are Winners, and I encourage all to persistent in debate as the skills will serve you in your future life. Competitions by there nature are binary with specific winner/loser, but your involvement and personal success in competing is not. You win by competing and doing your best.

Time violations are considered and monitored by opponent or chairman as applicable.

Lincoln Douglas:

I look for debates that produce a philosophical argument. While statistics can be an important part of this form of debate, it should not be the main source for the arguments. Quotes from philosophers (I define this as any public figure with an opinion) should be the main source of evidence in debates.

Correctly pointing out valid logical fallacies in your opponent's argument will help to greatly weaken it.

I also need to be able to understand you and comprehend what you are saying, so make sure you speak at a normal pace.

I competed in high school in speech and debate, but I primarily debated in policy. I appreciate clear and fleshed out links, as well as an easily followable flow. Please be kind to one another, and do not talk over each other in cross examination. Do not just read off information to me, I appreciate clear voters and reasons on why your argument matters. I will flow the round, so keep that in mind as well.

I appreciate and understand all the hard work that goes into all this, so have fun!

My name is Katie Summers, and I used to compete in Public Forum for two years and Poetry for one when I was in high school. This is my first year judging.

I don't care how fast or slow you speak. I don't mind if jargon or technical language is used in debates. The only time that I could see this being a problem is if there are words or acronyms specific to a topic that I don't understand like acronyms for specific federal agencies (ex: always saying NSA instead of saying National Security Agency at least once).

With note-taking, I will look at you and mostly only write down what I feel is most important to remember when making my decision, but I usually think a lot of things are important.

I love argument, and tend to rank it over style. I like to see clear preparation and work over charisma. I also like to see logic and interest in the topic. I prefer a logical train of thought over emotional intensity, because I feel like everyone has their own opinion and bias needs to be eliminated for me to be able to rank you/give you a win in speech and debate.

Some things that I like to see in a debate are clear, well-developed arguments that use numbers and evidence. I do not like to see logical fallacies in debates and generally do not give high scores or a win when I see them (unless both teams are using them, in which case I will often side with the team that uses the least).

ALSO, please be respectful and don't talk over other people or laugh during other people's speeches. We all deserve to be here and speak our piece.

Tabula Rasa, for the most part. I will reject on my own truly absurd arguments, and I highly value analysis over just card-spewing.

Spread is fine; I did policy in high school and parliamentary debate in college. BUT if your tags are unclear and I don’t get them on the flow, they essentially don’t matter. I don’t share in the email chain of cards. It only matters what is delivered in the speech; I should not have to rely on an email chain to get some clarity about what you are talking about.

If you can’t spread clearly, don’t do it at all.

If you have any questions or want further explanation of my paradigm please ask before the round!

My Background:

I tried most events while I was in high school. My main events were PF (First Speaker) and NX

Speech:

For all speech events, the most important thing to me is an easy-to-follow structure and a professional and confident demeanor. For specifics about certain events please ask me before the round.

Debate:

I do flow and will vote on the flow. I do not flow cross, if something is said in cross that you would like to count for the round say it in a speech. It's ok to cut your opponent off in cross IF they're just trying to kill time with their answer. I don't like aggressive debate, there is a difference between aggressive and passionate. I'm only sort of familiar with debate lingo (I was mostly a speech kid) so don't go too crazy. I like framework and definition debates as long as they're not the main focus of the round.

LD:

I don't like progressive LD so don't try and bring in Policy-esque arguments. While evidence is good to have, I'm going to prioritize moral and logical arguments. If you have to make the round about evidence then you're not doing LD right.

PF:

I'll probably vote on weighed impacts. While this is an evidence-based debate, I still think logical arguments are important and just as valid as evidence. However, if there is evidence that contradicts a logical argument then the evidence will trump it. Please cite your cards in your speech and organize your speech in contentions, it makes the round so much easier to follow. And don't just spout cards off at me, explain your evidence. If you're going to disagree on definitions or framework try and address it as early as possible. TAKE TURNS IN CROSS! I don't mind moral arguments, but connect it to logic/evidence.

Policy:

I know the general idea of policy but not that much about it. So keep things as simple as you can. Don't just spout off a bunch of evidence and expect me to understand.

Congress:

Quality>Quantity. One really good speech is going to beat 3 meh speeches. Don't just repeat arguments said in previous speeches. Also include rebuttals in speeches. Ask applicable and argumentative questions. Be more civil than a typical debate round, but I don't mind a little bit of argumentativeness.

World Schools:

I have experience competing in world schools (3rd speaker) so I understand a lot of the unique parts of this event. I will be flowing, but I might not vote on it. I want to see points of agreement and the round should be treated as a discussion rather than a debate. Each speaker should stick to what their role entails.