• 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. 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?

School affiliation: Dougherty Valley High School

Judging/Event types: Extemporaneous, Interpretation, Duo Interpretation, Congress, Informative Speaking, Original Oratory, Original Advocacy, Original Poetry/Prose

Years in judging: 6

As a judge, I’ve had the privilege of watching my two children participate in Speech and Debate since 8th grade, giving me about six years of experience in this role. Over the years, I’ve grown tremendously as a judge, and I now look for well-rounded performances that emphasize confidence, creativity, seamless transitions, strong eye contact, and clear voice projection.

I appreciate speakers who can break down complex ideas into simple, relatable terms, especially through the use of examples and analogies. Please keep your pacing measured—if I can’t fully hear or understand your argument, it’s difficult to fairly assess your content. I’m a very emotional person, so if you see me tearing up or laughing, it’s because I’ve been genuinely moved by your performance.

I approach every round with an open mind and take my responsibility as a judge seriously. I strive to take thorough notes so I can provide thoughtful and constructive feedback.

One area where I might need extra support is with political terminology. If you use any uncommon terms (for example, "quid pro quo"), please define them early on so I can follow your argument with ease.

I’m excited to witness your performances and feel truly grateful for the opportunity to watch each of you shine!

Competed/ Graduated in Oklahoma under the GOAT and now NSDA Hall of Fame coach THE Michael Patterson (Google him, he's FAMOUS)! #THUNDERUP

As far as policy and all debate goes I try to approach every round with tabula rasa so have fun and run whatever you normally run as long as it is not sexist, racist, homophobic, or anything hateful. Be respectful of each other (especially during CX).

"racism....its bad kids...don't do it"- Michael Patterson

Roadmap, please.

Please number and/or short-tag your arguments, don't just say "next" and expect me to follow. If I miss some of your arguments because you didn't clearly state that you moved on to the next argument, there's a good chance they're lost from my flow.

Try not to jump between different arguments on the flow. Tell me clearly which argument you're on or attacking.

I don't like new arguments in the rebuttals or finishing your Aff/Off-Case arguments in the second constructive -- debating backwards = no early clash. It's lame and it's a lazy strategy 95% of the time.

No spreading if possible your judges should still be able to understand almost every word and enunciate.

I don't think the debate should be a monologue of zombies. Crack the occasional joke—trust me, I'll laugh—while still keeping decorum.

Chain mail, yesenia.arias5524@gmail.com

Have fun! If you're not having fun debating, chances are I'm not either.

NBA (IYKYK)

Hello! I am the Pittsburgh Central Catholic Head Speech Coach with 6 years of experience judging all speech events. If you have any questions about your ballot, my email is pjb82@pitt.edu

If you want some feedback after round, just ask!

If you're an Extemper and you just so happen to have found my paradigm and I'm judging you, this is what you should do:

Make sure you include context in your introduction - don't waste our limited time by making irrelevant connections to pop culture. Explain the context of the question (why are we talking about it today?) and any definitions, technical terms, and historical information I may need to fully understand your answer to the question.

Diversify your sources. Use reputable sources only - if I don't know what it is I'll probably look it up after round. Avoid think tanks. Warrant your claims (remind me why your evidence matters in light of the question itself, not just that particular point).

Speech: I am a college professor have 3 year debate and speech judging experiences. All types of presentations are welcome. I make decision base on individual presentation confidence, stage body postures, eye contacts and logical thinking flows.

Dear participants,

My simple expectations:

• Please Speak Slowly
• Use simple words and make point to point communication
• Use generic, familiar and practical examples while comparing or quantifying your arguments
• Don’t be offensive or rude while you are making arguments
• Speak with clarity
• Last but not the least, enjoy your competition

Congress:

Have an engaging hook.

Clash!

Make sure for online you do not speak over each other during X

CX- I am a stock issues judge.

I was the Asst. Coach for Wm. S. Hart High School in Newhall, CA from 2015 to 2023, and still help online occasionally.

I have judged IEs for 27 years.

I have judged Congress for 24 years.

I have been judging LD, Parlie and PoFo for 21 years. I do NOT do Policy or Big Questions.

I ask that speakers avoid spreading and/or reading/speaking at an excessive rate of speed. Communication is paramount.

Respectfulness and courtesy are required at all times.

As a competitor, please do not tell me what decision I have to make. I'll decide that for myself.

I do not disclose. Nor do I give any oral critiques prior to the tournaments ending, although once it's all over, I'm happy to discuss. My comments will be on the individual ballots and RFD.

jeremy.hammond@pinecrest.edu, pinecrestdebatedocs@gmail.com (please put both).

I have experience judging most policy debates that would occur. I have found that there is really only one argument type that I currently won't evaluate which are wipeout based arguments which prioritize saving unknown life to that of saving known life (human/non-human life).

I haven't calculated the percentages but I below are some feelings of where I am in various types of debates.

Policy aff v Core DA - Even

Policy aff v Process CP - 60% for the neg (mostly due to poor affirmative debating rather than argument preference)

Policy aff v K - Probably have voted neg more mostly due to poor affirmative debating or dropped tricks. Side note i'm pretty against the you link you lose style of negative framework, but I have regretfully have voted for it.

Theory v Policy Neg - Probably voted more neg than aff when the aff has a non-sense counter-interpretation (i.e. CI - you get 2 condo). When the aff is just going for condo bad with a more strict counter-interpretation I have voted aff more.

K aff v FW - Probably even to voted aff more (like due to poor negative debating)

K aff v K Neg - Probably judged these the least honestly they don't stick out for me to remember how I voted. I have definitely voted for the Cap K against K affs but I don't know the percentages.

K aff v Policy Neg - (Think State good, Alt Bad, or CP) have judged but can't remember.

I have plenty of more specific thoughts about debate, but mostly those don't play into my decisions. I will add more as the year progresses if something bothers me in a round.

Hi!

I'm a first time debate judge looking forward to learning more about the process!

Just a few things:

1. Please speak at a reasonable pace. Please no spreading or extremely fast speaking, I won't understand.
2. I'm looking for clear and logically backed arguments. For the sake of organization and flowing, signposting would be greatly appreciated.
3. While delivery is important, I will ultimately be scoring based off of arguments and evidence. I'm mainly looking out for impact weighing!
4. Please be respectful to the other competitors, even during rebuttals and cross examinations!

Thanks and good luck!

Hello contestants,

I consider myself to be a novice judge for both debate and speech. Nevertheless, I’ve enjoyed observing lively speeches and vivid cross-examinations in past events.

I will be looking for clarity and concise speaking with a confident tone. I prefer structured speech over speed (understandable that you’d like to fit more content to the given time). My background is in STEM and management in career settings; therefore, I do value manner and courtesy to your opponents and audience.

Be strong with your information and bear with me as I try to figure out this judging format :)

I am new to judging. English isn’t my first language so I prefer if you guys would talk at a slower pace and use less debate jargon.

I am a parent judge. Do not spread, use jargon, or run progressive debate. Please be respectful in round, and good luck!

If you do not like my judging style, strike me.

Hello!

My name is Sai Nagarajan and I am an undergraduate student at the Georgia Institute of Technology. My connection to Speech: I had an awesome time competing in Oratory for 4 years from 2019-2023, ranking first for three years in the State of Washington and peaking at 19th rank nationally. On the side, I competed in Impromptu, Congress, and Humorous Interpretation but I've always had the most fun with Oratory! Speech is unfortunately a very subjective realm of events and know that ranking higher or lower does not ever dictate your capabilities and skill level. Take the feedback in stride and use it to strengthen and finetune your skills for the next opportunity! I will try to introduce as much objectivity as possible with the below criteria.

This is the criteria I will use to evaluate rankings:

Oratory/Informative/Impromptu/Extemp/Non-Interp (Extra Weightage to Mechanics and Language)

Organization (1-4 pts): Is there a clear and central idea supported well by the main points? Is there a clear structure utilizing smooth transitions? Are the introduction and conclusion effective?

Content + Topic (1-4pts): Is the motive clear, significant, sufficient and timely? Is the thesis original and presented effectively? Is the topic interesting?

Language /Communication (1-4 pts): Is the language accurate and clear? Is the language well-suited to the topic and speaker? Are you audible, articulate and direct with the audience? Do you seem interested and sincere? If used, are visual aids effective?

Mechanics (1-4): Did you employ use of hand gestures, eye contact and body movement to enhance the narrative of their speech? Were Visual aids (if used) helpful enlightening and adding depth to presentation?

Overall Effect (1-4): Did you effectively inform or persuade me about your topic? Did you adequately develop the speech to keep it interesting for the audience?

Interpretation Events

Introduction and Transition (1-4 pts): Is there are clear introduction that is separate from your actual performances and is it effective? Is it interesting and a good summary/teaser of what your piece is? Is it significant to the piece?

Characterization(1-4pts) : Do you effectively create distinct and well-developed characters? Do you create a lasting mood? Does the character have a clear emotional and plot arc?

Poise/ Physicalization (1-4 pts): Do you adopt a good stance and are you able to use your poise to characterize and differentiate? Are physical effects and movements beneficial to piece? (One shouldn’t be just standing around and delivering a monologue). Is there variety in movement that is clean and adds to the piece?

Voice Mechanics (1-4): Are you performing at a good rate? Is there good pacing? Do you use your voice to your advantage? Are you able to use voice to characterize and differentiate characters? Is there a large range in emotion?

Overall Effect (1-4): Did you truly capture the audience into your scenes and piece? Can I feel or relate with your piece? Is there a meaning or a message being sent?

Good Luck and Have Fun!

yes add me to the email chain -lucnguy@ucdavis.edu

former circuit policy debater qualed to the toc my senior year

tech>truth

I'm cool with speed! but be clear - that being said if I'm on a panel with other judges, please adjust your speaking speed to the level of comfort in the room

my paradigm will closely reflect my teammates --> mateo mijares + jack jacobs - you can check out their paradigms for a more comprehensive overview of my judging philosophy

don't be racist or homophobic! i hope this goes without saying

Ks are cool! Policy is cool! - just warrant out your arguments & have fun

Hi there! I've been performing since I was very young, and I am a 2007 graduate of the American Musical & Dramatic Academy in New York City. I direct both adult and youth productions at my local theatre and have been an active judge in both this year's, as well as last year's, tournament seasons.

I have completed the NFHS Cultural Competency course, and I identify as diversity enhancing!

POI/PR/PO: Show me a strong commitment to your material, with bold but organic choices. Use your binder --this is a reading event-- but don't hide behind it!

HI/DI: Make sure your piece tells a decisive story and that your character transitions are smooth enough that I know who's talking at at all times! Also important: sure, bold choices are good, but I still want to see the nuances behind your characters and what you're saying. Rather than just doing stock characters, approach them from a place of truth. That almost always yields funnier and/or more powerful results!

EXTEMP: Research, research, research! I'm looking for a well-organized speech that answers the question clearly and provides a lot of cited sources.

OO/INFO: I love how much I learn when judging both of these categories. Remember your top priority is to teach us something, and that good lessons are organized, compelling, and easy to understand.

CONGRESS: Ask great questions of your fellow debaters and be researched enough to be able to provide convincing answers to the questions that are asked of you! Looking for strong points and organization in your speeches!

Remember that no one can offer exactly what YOU offer, and embrace that! Most of all, have fun!

Hello debaters and debate enthusiasts,

In evaluating debaters, I prioritize three key factors:

1. Convincing Arguments: Debaters must present well-structured, evidence-backed arguments.

2. Conciseness: Clarity and brevity in argument presentation are important for effective communication.

3. Respectful Conduct and Effective Use of Humor: Debaters should maintain respect for opponents and the topic and using humor (when appropriate) is highly recommended :).

My votes will go to debaters who excel in these three areas. Let's have a lively and enlightening debate!

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

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

I am a newbie judge. If you have been doing this for a while I welcome suggestions & comments. I will be judging based on solid logic and reasoning, Clear communication & Utilization of evidence and arguments.

I am Parent Judge and I have experience in judging LD and PF for about 3 years. I like crisp and clear speaking during debate. Fast or slow does not matter as long as I can understand. I prefer to listen to actual facts rather than just theory. Please be respectful of your opponents. Off-time roadmaps helps me while judging and I believe will help the candidates also from speaker point of view.

Please introduce yourself and introduce topic in 1-2 sentence .

Arguments- Back them up with good evidence, data , analysis.

Cross fire- Be respectful and stick to the points

Speaker points - Clear concise with moderate pace speaking , good performance in crossfire will get highest speaker points.

Enjoy debate and have fun.

Please reach out to me if you have any questions.

Hi Everyone. I am an experienced parent judge, and know how to take general notes and as long as you send a doc, that is well formatted, you can probably get away with talking a little faster. As for my general preferences.

1. YOU ARE IN A LAY ROUND! Thus I expect you to utilize delivery and external persuasive techniques. The winner isn't who can win the most arguments, its the one who wins the most impactful argument and can present it in a way that shows its impact. Thus not only explaining what the voters are, but why those must be the voter is very important.

2. CX is very important. This is the only time in the debate round where you can directly engage with you opponent, so use it. This is the time you show me how your opponent doesn't know what they are talking about, by asking strategic questions and replying strategically. Considering all this, it is never okay to be rude to your opponent or to make your opponent feel uncomfortable.

3. Delivery. Like I said you can go slightly faster (not spreading), as long as you are clear. Clarity is key. This is reflected not only in whether you stutter or not, but also word choice and being able to explain a concept in a way that is easy to understand.

These are my general preference, and should give you an idea of how you want to structure your speeches. Note I am taking notes, not flowing, thus it would be great if you guys could adapt to these criterions, cause otherwise the lense at which you look the round from may be different than how I look at the round.

Lay judge. 5th year of judging. I have judged many, many tournaments. I keep myself informed on current events/news including complex issues. Please be very organized in your speeches and be polite during questioning. Time yourselves please. Debaters: DO NOT SPREAD.

Yuhadhi

Mini/Mega Marsh Wang/Violet Rose Wang, She/Her/Hers

Gabrielino High School Class of 2023

University of Southern California Class of 2027

Speech Experience: Duo, Humor, Expos/Info California State Champion 2023 and Nationals 2023 Info 17th Place
Debate Experience: California Policy State Qualifier

Speech

If your speech starts before your first word, as in there is a deliberate silence or movement or whatever, nod or give some otherwise indication to begin your time. Otherwise, it will be on your first word.

Debate

Speech times are set, one team wins.

Add me to email chains, my email is tigwig360@gmail.com.

Please signpost.

I am hot garbage at flowing, be clear and lead me in arguments.

DO IMPACT CALC.

I can't promise I'm tabula rasa but I'll try my best to be tabula rasa.

If you do a quick arg for like one second I can't promise I'll catch it.

Tag Team Cross is okay to do.

Tag Team Speeches are NOT okay to do.

I won't time speeches but I will time prep. Prep ends when the email is sent.

Theory

Just do it clearly and don't sputter through it all while spreading.

Kritik

Kritiks are good and fun, but things like the Nietzsche K make my brain explode and I do not understand them. If you don't know what you're saying, odds are I don't either. Make arguments coherent for your opponent or odds are it's not coherent for me, and I won't vote on it. Explain in great detail or else simple responses or confusion from the opponent might literally be enough for me.

Framing

I am bad at keeping framing in mind, remind me over and over and over throughout the debate, and definitely in Impact Calc.

Speaks:

30: Just hearing you talk makes me want to give you the W.

29: Dang your speaking and reasoning and everything is incredibly smooth and consistent and DANG you're great.

28: Good! Good. Good? Yeah, it's fine. Good.

27: Consistently odd grammar, odd enunciation, etc.

26: I'm hearing sounds but I don't understand them.

25: Your voice or manner of speaking is a memetic kill agent.

I am a former speech competitor, where I competed in Prose, Duo, OO, Info, DI, and ADS (a humorous OO) in high school and college. I am now a speech coach and occasionally judge debate.

I value well structured, well researched, clearly stated arguments. Because I am not a debater, and do not often judge debate, I do appreciate a slower delivery and limited jargon use. I expect respect during rounds between competitors. I am not able to follow spreading, so I will likely miss parts of your argument if you speak too quickly.

I have a zero tolerance policy for any racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, or any other -ism/-phobia.