LC Anderson 22

UT Austin 26 - Westlake debate consultant

email for email chains:

eliza.avramova@gmail.com

ld: Tech > Truth

Policy---Best for this. cp debates are fine to an extent, but best to evaluate substance.

Theory---Would prefer if the brightline for abuse was in–round. Out of round violations are generally unverifiable, putting me as a judge in an awkward position trying to evaluate a squabble between two debaters, but otherwise good.

Tricks---probs don't read that in front of me.

K’s---minimal knowledge. there's a chance i won’t know the literature base you are reading, but I can flow plus comprehend pretty well. Make sure that the 2NR/2AR slows down, does impact calculus and weighs between their offense and your offense. I will try my best to adjudicate and have no predisposed biases’ towards any critical argumentation, but can't guarantee a perfect eval.

phil - have read some bc of college but that being said you need to fill in the blanks for me big time

Other things:

Presumption is negative unless the 1NC introduces a counter advocacy to the 1AC, then it flips affirmative.

Competing Interps----X---------------------------Reasonability

Judgekick----------------X----Debaters Kicking

Infinite Condo----------X-----------No Condo

if you have a question about any of these ask me before round!

pf: speed is fine, cards should be well cut, bring up everything you want me to know in your speech, framing should happen in constructive or top of the rebuttal, disclosure also needs to happen in constructive, no new offensive arguments past rebuttal - offense needs to be extended in summary, your links should be coherent, if something important happens in cross, make sure to also mention it in subsequent speeches, summary and final focus should mirror each other, tech > truth but remember that one to an extent determines the other, love a line by line, defense is not sticky, extend it in every speech if you want it evaluated; for progressive arguments i will try my best to evaluate them but probs not to the extent of a cx judge so keep that in mind when running them; postround me till you understand my decision

congress: clash! warrant your arguments and weigh your impacts - comparative framework works best since there are so many arguments made in the round / internal links need to be coherent / i am open to diff types of arguments and structures / too much rehash = lower rank, but a good constructive with clash will be ranked high. make sure to be engaging (don't rely too much on reading off the pad), but remember that this is a debate event in the first place - no canned agds pls - try to find a uniqueness that works for you; sources (reputable and academic in nature) need to be cited and used always, with that being said your research is just one part, but your analysis is what matters most / good crystals will be ranked high - but it needs to go above weighing in the comparative framework --> in addition to that extend your side with new impact or evidence, win the side and debate overall. pls don't use a questioning block just to agree with a speaker, this time should be used for rebuttal. be convincing, but respectful; be active - congress is all about strategy / win the game; being aggressive (yelling and getting mean) doesn’t make you win the round - for po's: i will rank you, but you need to know rules/structure of debate and be able to move the debate along smoothly, i shouldn't need to interfere, but i will always keep a chart to keep track - if there are consistent errors i will rank you lower

feel free to ask me questions before the round starts!

have fun!!

Hi! My name is Shannon Babu, and I'm a parent judge from Concord, MA. This school year (2024-25), I am primarily judging speech events, but I also judge public forum. I am a high school biology teacher, so I love to see your clear thesis, your logical process, and a nice tight summary in your speech. My primary concerns in public forum are your logical process: linkages, evidence, weighing, etc.

For speech:

Extemp
Here's some ways to get a high ranking from me:
-Answer the question
-Content > delivery, but doing both is always better. Maintain a slower pace so I can actually flow
-Clever/unique substructure and diversified arguments.
-Answering NO (or whatever is not the obvious answer)
-I’ll generally reward creativity.

In general for public forum:

I expect you to keep your own time, but I'm happy to keep time for you - just ask.

It's ok to be nervous, and it's ok if your voice shakes - that means you care about what you're doing! We're all here to learn and help each other, even through a competitive environment.

You may sit or stand, whatever makes you the most comfortable.

You may speak relatively quickly with me, but please don't spread. My ears are only human.

I will allow a few extra seconds for a debater to finish a sentence, finish a question, or finish an answer.

If you have any questions for me during the debate, please ask! It's ok to ask questions between process steps, and asking is ALWAYS better than not asking.

I have the following non-negotiable expectation:

*treat your teammate and opponents with respect and dignity (polite body language, mindful utterances/whispering, professional language, etc).

I'm excited to hear your arguments - I know how much work goes into your preparation, and I'm here to support your process!

Hello! I am a parent judge supporting my oldest son's speech aspirations. Now in my 7th year as a speech parent, judge, and sorta coach I have judged 100+ rounds and hundreds of presentations across middle school and high school competitions - primarily in OO, HI, DI, Duo and more. I judged the NSDA nationals DI finals in 2022 which was an incredible round and experience. I also judged the middle school NSDA final round for storytelling in 2019 along with plenty of state and nat quals through the years. Across various events, here are my thoughts as applicable for your event...

I hope to be persuaded by your thesis or argument

I want to be engaged and moved by your presentation

Your characters should be fully developed and come through clearly and distinctly

Use sources responsibly to complement your work without overwhelming with stats and figures

Show creativity and something novel relative to other competitors

Most of all, own your work, have fun, and know that you are a winner just by competing. Thank you!

About me: I'm Mr. Bravim (pronounced brah-veem). 27 yrs. in speech & debate. Competed, judged, and coached all over.

Email: bravim@cghsfl.org

• LD Prefs

• In order of preference:

  1.) Trad 2.) Plan/CPs 3.) Ks 4.) Theory

I will consider any warranted argument presented in round. Please weigh clearly and effectively and lay out the big issues in the round/voters. Tell me the clearest path to the ballot! I do not want to intervene. I find a quality framework debate/clash VERY interesting. If the fw clash is circular and/or the differentiation is minimal, go for something else or find a new angle on fw. I'm comfortable voting on framework if you tell me why I should and win the argument.

Slow down a bit on card tags, warrants, weighing , and voters. If the framework clash is a wash, I'll default to evaluating contention-level offense via the weighing analysis given to me at the end of the round. If I don't understand what you're talking about (speed, lack of clarity, lack of explanation, or warrants), there is NO CHANCE I'll vote off it. Thus, explain the argument/warrants not only in case, but throughout the round if you want me to vote off of it.

Spend time contextualizing your card/s if you're relying on it to win the round. Even if it was already done in your constructive, it's a good habit to cover it thoroughly a 2nd time in case I missed something.

Do not drop warrants in your extensions. I may not have gotten it in case and even if I did, I like to be reminded. Will not evaluate any argument in which the warrant is missing or unclear.

SIGNPOSTING is very important in the 1AR + all rebuttal speeches!

--<< Logos / Ethos / Pathos >>-- (please don't forget that all three are part of good debate)

Above all else, I favor clash and the resolution of clash by debaters with good overviews, weighing, and depth of topic knowledge.

I find most theory debates dull, but will listen to them, if that's what you want to do. I've voted off theory maybe 5 times and judged a lot of LD rounds. I prefer you try to win anywhere else unless there is a flagrant, obvious, and clear violation of tournament rules, NSDA rules, or debate norms that are universally accepted in the community and important in the round. Above all, the quality of argument matters more to me than the style of debate. I don't mind a bit of speed used strategically, but please don't spread throughout the round. I'd much rather you win one good argument on the flow and weigh than 10 smaller ones that I struggle to follow because of speed/clarity issues which often go hand-in-hand. My preferred speed is under 200 wpm.

PLEASE WEIGH (Framework, Probability, Magnitude, Scope, Strength of link, Reversibility, Timeframe, SV, etc.) Make your weighing analysis as objective and clear as possible. In a close round, this usually makes a difference on my ballot.

* PF Prefs

Overview: I remember the reasons PF was introduced as an event in 2002. The spirit of PF necessitates a somewhat less technical, but ultimately more persuasive debate activity than either policy or circuit LD. The idea that hyper-technical arguments would be advanced knowing the opponents will have problems even understanding what the argument is about is abhorrent to me. This lacks in educational value and fairness. That said, I understand any event will evolve over 23+ years and there are going to be different ways to gain in-round advantage. I think running Ks, theory, and spreading should not be the norm in Public Forum. I think topical arguments with really good warrants and evidence are the best path for PF debaters. I think the round should be educational and accessible for teams, judges, and any observer who wishes to spectate the round. The notion that the only "good" debate is nat circuit-oriented is arrogant and wrong. I've witnessed well over 1,000 rounds and have witnessed poor argumentation all over the place.

I favor a lot of clash, well-developed links analysis, and an aggressive style of debate. Indicting evidence with quality arguments on why it matters in the context of the round impresses me. I enjoy pointed crossfire and will flow concessions and hold teams to them. Warrant everything. DO NOT DROP WARRANTS in your extensions. In PF, remind me of the big picture from summary onward. I like weighing and meta-weighing.

Keep a consistent link story on your offense. If you have a particular lens (framework, observation, etc.) in which I should view the resolution, make sure it is well-warranted and extend throughout the round. I like clear framing mechanisms. I prefer a smaller # of voters (1 - 3) to many poorly-explained voters in FF. Weigh or risk judge intervention (I don't want to do it). You can't win on the flow if you don't tell me why the arguments matter by the end of the round.

On speed: Moderate, occasional, and strategic use of speed in PF is OK if the other team + all the judges can follow you. Never sacrifice clarity for speed. My preferred speed is around 170-180 wpm in case and 180-190 wpm in rebuttal. Don't bully your opponent with speed. That is not why PF was created. The vast majority of your speech should be understood by an ordinary person with no background in debate if you're doing it right. I much rather teams win 1 significant argument over a bunch of smaller, less-developed arguments on the flow. I dislike spreading in any debate event, but most especially in PF.

Evidence comparison is critical and a good way to impress. Please make warranted arguments why I should prefer your card over your opponent's card. There are many ways to accomplish this, I'll consider any of them so long as they make sense. FYI: One relevant, high-quality card is often better than 2 - 3 generic cards that are not contextualized. Extend card tags on every speech. Knowing your evidence really well and explaining it really well in round all but guarantees high speaks.

On theory: I find the majority of theory rounds dull and the arguments thin. I much rather you win on something else, but will listen if this is your thing. I have a high bar voting on disclosure theory in PF, so if you do it--make sure to do it very, very well and show me a specific tournament or league rule violation. If no disclosure rule violation exists, your personal/team preference on disclosure better be compelling.

You can go line-by-line or be more analytical. Anything that is unclear will not get extended or weighed on the flow. Never forget that debate is foremost a PERSUASIVE activity. If you cannot persuade the average person with your case, you aren’t debating effectively. Ways to impress me as a judge: 1. Depth of Analysis, 2. Topic Knowledge, 3. Effective Advocacy, and 4. Clear Narrative. I value meaningful cross much more than most judges.

A pet peeve of mine in PF is summary treated as a 2nd rebuttal speech. That is not the point of summary! Show me the most important issues and why they favor your side, we already had 2 rebuttal speeches and summary is more than a shortened rebuttal.

On Politics: I enjoy politics-based arguments. I'm well-read and read the news daily from a variety of sources, both US-based and international. If you advance an argument that is definitely wrong, or very probably wrong in terms of truth, I will have a higher bar on your winning the argument on the flow, but it is still possible depending on what your opponent does in response.

I enjoy arguments with international impacts and links more than most judges. I've lived in China and South Korea, so I have above-average knowledge on Asia-Pacific rim security issues from reading up on them for the last 15 yrs. and living there. That said, I also enjoy learning new things that are outside my areas of expertise, so feel free to educate me on regional or international issues from anywhere, especially concerning the Septober resolution.

--<< Logos / Ethos / Pathos >>-- all 3 are part of effective argumentation

PLEASE WEIGH (Probability, Magnitude, Scope, Strength of link, Reversibility, Timeframe, SV, FW, etc.)

If there's a clash of weighing, I like meta-weighing.

* Congress Prefs

I tend to rank P.O.s higher than many other judges. It's an important role. If you're an experienced congressional debater, you won't be hurt in ranking or points running for P.O. in a session I'm judging.

I despise 1-sided debate. If there's no one left on the other side, call the previous question, table the bill, or deliver an impromptu/extemp speech on the other side. If I hear the same exact points made without specific references to the arguments presented by the other side, points will be low.

I love clash in congress. I like pointed, direct questioning. I'm impressed by tactical use of parliamentary procedure. I value the role of the P.O. more than most. Don't be shy about running for P.O. If you're good at it, do it and I'll rank you fairly!

Critical evidence comparison & strong topic knowledge impress me a lot. Creative and/or funny intros make me happy.

• Big Questions

I view judging BQ very similarly to judging traditional LD (my LD prefs are right below).

* No preference between real-world and philosophical evidence, but a combination is powerful! I like framing. I like big picture analysis. I like extended warrants. Pointed questioning and strong topic knowledge impress me a lot and should help you win a ballot in a close round.

* Most of my experience judging BQ was in 2020 when Nationals was online. I approach BQ like a slightly less flow-centric traditional LD round and the person who most clearly frames and resolves the "big question" will win the round, regardless of the flow. Each debater should aim to do that. I like this event and the current topic. I wish BQ Debate were more mainstream outside of NSDA Districts/Nationals.

PET PEEVES

1. Taking too long to set up for debate. (Be prepared, be punctual, be professional)

2. Taking too long to pull a called card from case (after 1 min. if the card doesn’t exist, drop the arg.)

3. Doc bots. It is painfully obvious when debaters have never read their case out loud before, did not write their case, or do not understand the arguments or words they're making in case or rebuttal. It's not my first rodeo.

4. Boring me. Some have forgotten that there is a performance aspect to ALL debate events and that if you seem apathetic, I will care less about your argument if you yourself don't appear to care about it. If you want me to vote for your argument, make the attempt to seem like you care about whatever you're running. You chose to run that. It's your baby.

Note: I do not disclose speaker points. Don't ask. I will disclose my decision if the tournament is single-flighted and running on time. If rounds are double-flighted, I will not disclose for the sake of time, but will publish my ballot.

FOR FUN

I <3 multivolume narrative nonfiction, dystopian & post-apocalyptic fiction, retro video games (mostly fighters from the 90s or early 2000s), boxing, soccer, and cats. If you're bored at a tournament and have an interest in any of that stuff, come say hi! : )

Academic Interests:

I teach AP World History, AP European History & AP Economics on the high school level. I teach various business courses at the university level.

Topics in which I have some specialized knowledge include: world religion, modern history, organizational culture, business management, video games (esp. 90s & early 2000s era fighting games) and current events.

Good luck to all!

Public Forum

Emphasize logic and flow, facts & evidences; value respect and professionalism. Manner, behavior and sincerity matters.

Judged in SCU & North Bay.

Background: Coach of Cinco Ranch HS (Katy ISD in Texas). 3rd year as Coach, 10th year as an educator. Did not participate in Speech & Debate in school. Honors/AP level English teacher, so assume that I know how to structure an argument and can follow your rationales.

IE Paradigm

Your event should dictate how you're approaching it: be funny for Humorous, weepy for Dramatic, emotive for Poetry/Prose, factual for Extemp, informative for... Informative. Just make sure you stay within the rules of your event (eye/physical contact, movement, boards, interactables, etc.).

PF/LD Paradigm

- My students would say that I am more of a Trad judge than Prog. Take that for what you will.

- Please keep the spread to a minimum. Even though I'm a coach, please treat me like I am a lay judge when it comes to speed. Don't spread like peanut butter and jelly.

- I do not know or particularly care about theories/kritiks, nor do I wish to. Personally I find that their usage takes away from the actual debating itself. Please save these tactics for a Tech judge that understands them. They will go totally over my head. If you want to ask beforehand if you can read this theory or that, assume that I will say no and just leave it at that.

- I do not need to be included on any email chain. That's for you and your teams to set up before we start the round. Please don't take up time in the round to set it up. Rounds are long enough as it is.

- Impacts matter more than just stating facts. Link the effect of your information instead of giving me a bunch of data and statistics without context.

- Don't get too lost in arguing over the definition of a specific word vs debating over the topic as a whole. Remember that you should have prepped cases on a topic, not on the wording of it.

- Keep discussions focused on the topic. Deviation from the stated resolution will hurt your side, as will irrelevant arguments and thoughts. I will be flowing your case as you talk.

- Be civil and respectful of each other. Articulate thoughts and counterpoints without making it personal. Don't just browbeat each other for the sake of your argument. Let opponents actually finish a point or thought before responding.

- Bullying your opponents will not yield positive results on the ballot. I will not hesitate to stop you mid-round to address any potential instances of disrespect or negativity, dock your speaker points, and address egregious incidents with your coaches later. Your coaches would do the same for you (I hope).

- While not necessary, do your best to reiterate your team's position at the end of your time (aff/neg, pro/con). Nothing more embarrassing than laying out a brilliant argument for your own side... and then telling me to vote for your opponent.

- Novices, feel free to ask me what you can do to improve as a competitor after the round is over. I'll do my best to teach you something.

In Public Address: 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 Interp: 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.

In Debate, DO NOT SPREAD. I'm not a fan and would like to flow your case. Speeding through your case with me will not help you. I won't evaluate K, T, or Theory positions. Make the debate simple for me to evaluate and you will be rewarded for that!

Overall speaking skills or/and argumentation are critical to winning! But remember the most important thing is that you learn!

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.

I have coached Lincoln Douglass debate for 5 years. For me, excellent debaters are reasonable, efficient, articulate, logical, clear, audience focussed, fair, and adept at both offense and defense. Effective debaters provide a clear and direct weighing mechanism for why they are winning or have won the round, and they link back to the value criterion clearly and directly. I don't like fast debate. Debate in the real world for me as a human. I don't like tricks and manipulations. Debate your opponents' best arguments, represent them fairly, and use logic, analytics, and critical thinking to clash convincingly. Do the fundamentals well: good speaking skills, look to the audience, good sportspersonship, good clarity of enunciation, energy, posture, concrete framing, big picture framing, signposting, clash, clash, clash etc.

Yes I want to be on the email chain mattconraddebate@gmail.com. Pronouns are he/him.

My judging philosophy should ultimately be considered a statement of biases, any of which can be overcome by good debating. The round is yours.

I’m a USC debate alum and have had kids in Policy finals of the TOC, a number of nationally ranked LDers, and state champions in LD, Original Oratory, and Original Prose & Poetry while judging about a dozen California state championship final rounds across a variety of events and NSDA, TOC, and NIETOC national finals in Policy, Extemp, and Informative respectively. Outside of speech and debate, I write in Hollywood and have worked on the business side of show business, which is a nice way of saying that I care more about concrete impacts than I do about esoteric notions of “reframing our discourse.” No matter what you’re arguing, tell me what it is and why it matters in terms of dollars and lives.

Politically, I’m a moderate Clinton Democrat and try to be tabula rasa but I don’t really believe that such a thing is possible.

*CURRENTLY NURSING A HUGE HEADACHE. PLEASE DO NOT YELL AT ME.*

Currently a coach and assistant director at Delbarton, I coach everything forensics: speech, congress, and debate as needed. I previously coached and competed in policy debate. I follow PF closely and track developments on the circuit by regularly spectating varsity rounds when not judging.

Offense vs. Defense: Offense is prioritized over defense, requiring thorough extensions, frontlining, and weighing. Winning with purely defensive arguments will be challenging. In other words, if I am voting on a turn, it needs to follow the same structure as a contention—claim, warrant, impact. It should not be a blip.

Speed and Clarity: I’ll do my best to keep up with your pace, but please remain clear; if clarity is lacking, flowing your arguments becomes difficult.

Speech Guidelines:
- The second rebuttal should respond to the first rebuttal’s points.
- Arguments in Final Focus should generally also appear in Summary, with proper extensions and frontlining. New weighing in Final Focus is allowed but should be relevant and responsive; avoid loading it all in the final speech.

Comparative Weighing: Please use comparative weighing for links and impacts, focusing on elements like timeframe, magnitude, or probability. Note that link clarity and impact strength are critical.

Argument Scope: I’ll consider any argument and come prepared with background knowledge on the topic, so tech > truth. However, I’ll vote down arguments that include blatant racism, sexism, homophobia, or fabricated evidence. I generally value topicality. Largely, I don't take friv theory seriously.

Accommodations and Crossfire: I am open to making accommodations for debaters—just ask beforehand. And remember, crossfire exchanges should be civil; there’s no need for excessive intensity. Keep your crossfire balanced. If it feels like you're hogging the crossfire, you probably are.

N.B. While I recognize that PF is as much a studied game of strategy as anything else, running a K or theory that your opposing team is ill-qualified to handle is not a winning strategy—it’s the enemy of genuine clash and, therefore, the enemy of quality debate. I will vote you down every time.

Email: jcorcoran@delbarton.org / greenwavedebate@delbarton.org

Hello, I’m the Director of an S&D program but I focus mainly on coaching speech, as I did Duo, OO, and DI in high school. I’d prefer no spreading, please help me understand why I should vote for you. Have a fun round, thank you for sharing!

Hello Contestants! Your hard work and preparation will be appreciated by me as your Judge.

Claims w/o evidence carries little to no weight. Presenting your evidence in a clear way with a reasonable pace will assure a strong argument.

Watch your time and enjoy the journey!

Debate:

I do not mind spreading. If you are an inarticulate spreader, then you will send me your case as well as your opponent:isabella.droginske@k12.wv.us

I strongly oppose paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches.

I greatly appreciate framework debates and debates that really investigate philosophical ideas. I have a fair knowledge base of Rawls, Kant, Locke, Rousseau, Bentham, Mills, and general schools of thought.

I do not mind Ks but excessive T is something I feel very strongly against.

I believe that debate should have the highest form of decorum throughout. I do dock speaker point for lack of decorum and respect to your opponent, judge(s), and the art of debate.

I make final decisions based on my flow---Tabula Rasa.

—LD: I appreciate robust value debates. Don’t collapse. Flow value to your side.

--PF: I dislike excessive time spent on card checking. I will not read cards after the round.

--Congress: I'm looking for analysis that engages the legislation, not just the general concepts. I believe that presentation is very important in how persuasive you are. I will note fluency breaks and distracting gestures. However, I am primarily a flow judge, so I might not be looking at you during your speeches. Being able to clearly articulate and weigh impacts (clash) is paramount. I dislike too much rehash, but I want to see a clear narrative. What is the story of your argument.

Speech: Do not be on your phone while a performer is performing in a round. Decorum counts.

Prepared events should know their times and be, well, prepared from the start.

—Extemp: Citations and organization are really important to me, but so is the entertainment part. Be compelling. Have an interesting AGD. Connect it at the end of your speech.

Hello all!

I was a middle school speech competitor, a TFA competitor all 4 years of high school, a NIETOC Champion and Top Speaker, as well as a member of the University of Texas at Austin Individual Events team. I did speech for 11 years of my life, so it is fair to say, I have seen my fair share of performances. I am now the coach of a program in San Antonio, Texas and I coach my students in the same way that I want to see other students perform their events: high quality content, thought-provoking ideas, and, most importantly, trauma-informed or better yet, trauma-free storytelling. My question to you: whatever happened to performing pieces about joy? Where are those pieces?

Things I like: new material, weird or interesting conceptual styles of performance, literature I have not seen 1000 times, clever arguments, care for the time given to you (only 10 minutes), attention to detail, new sources, unique literature, pieces about trauma that don’t actually depict graphic elements of that trauma, clear Oratory structure (whatever it is, make sure I can follow along), clean visual aid boards that make sense and are not just for the sake of the event, humorous pieces that are actually funny and can make me laugh (try your hardest).

Things I do not like: lack of trigger warnings for graphic content, violence for violence sake, homophobic violence enacted in pieces ie gaybashing, showing or portraying violence without any reasoning as to why that violence is being shown to an entire audience, pieces about school shootings that offer no solution or aid to end the crisis our country is facing, POI’s that I cannot follow along with that have zero clear characterization, speeches about speech, pieces about speech, and did I mention that I really don’t like to watch violence enacted in performance?

Thank you to all who are reading this. I appreciate the value that each of you brings to this activity. It is easy to think that speech is solely for the self, but since we are putting on performances for audiences and people, we must MUST think about the messages and impact that your audience is seeing and taking with them as soon as they leave the room. What do you want them to remember when your time is up? That you were violent for no reason, or that you stood up for something that was bigger than yourself and changed their mind?

Now that I've had the opportunity to judge different categories and venues a couple of things stand out.

Right after a breath and composure check some debaters start practically yelling and being too loud. That doesn't help. Furthermore when debating don't get to emotional and put down other points. Listen to other side.

I remember judging at Nationals last year and I loved it when research was presented that I would not have ever thought of. I want to see you-the presenter-as an expert but assume your audience is not. Fill in the blanks and paint a very clear and specific picture. Simple visuals work best.

On resource and references don't give acronyms. I or other judges or participants may not have awareness of sites given.

I want evidence of your reading and researching from many genres.

Pauses work for me especially if something pertinent is said prior to.

If you are going to walk from side to side in a room exhibit a flow. Make eye contact and use emphasis.

Careful with personal examples. Humor actually works sometimes. I want to see how your argument can be scaled on a larger level.

Summarize your main point and leave me with a rhetorical question or thought. Always thank the listener.

I believe in being confident. This past year some have been too confident. Appear as if you are learning something from opponent. Most debaters this past year speak too fast. It should be a given but always thank your judges. You have worked hard!

Bentonville West High School English Teacher

I have been an English teacher for eight years- specializing in writing studies. I want to see your speaking & delivery skills as much as I want to see your arguments developed. Make clear arguments and focus on line-by-line analysis. When it comes to splitting hairs for a win, I will go with the team with line-by-line argumentation.

Adapt your case structure/speaking style, to adhere to this request. I'm a speaker and writer. I expect solid speaking skills. I can deal with fast speaking as long as you are clear. If you do speak quickly, make sure you're clear. If I miss your argument because you're not clear, it could cost you the round.

Be sure to read arguments that have a clear link to the resolution and framework. If I don't understand the argument itself or don't understand how it links, there is no way I can evaluate it.

You're not going to win rounds with me in cross. Just because you bring a point up in cross does not mean I will flow it. If you want it considered, bring it up in your rebuttal. Keep it professional. A true debater can give their points without sounding demeaning or disrespectful. It will cost you the round with me. Learn to disagree respectfully. On that note, while not a debate or forensics coach, I am not novice at understanding the intricacies of argumentation. Don't use debate jargon in these rounds. Speak to me as if I had never heard the word debate before. That's the design of these styles. Your judge could be anybody- respect them but also understand that if they're not persuaded, you didn't do your task.

If you have any questions, please ask me before the round.

Avoid arguments that are homophobic, sexist, racist, or offensive in any way. Be respectful to your opponent and judge. Use professional language at all times.

This is your debate so have fun with it! Best of luck to you!!

I am an experienced judge in both speech and debate, having coached for 30+ years in all categories offered within the spectrum of S&D. I began coaching Lincoln Douglas and Congressional Debate in the 1990’s, have coached PF since its inception, having coached the first PF team that represented NJ at Nationals in Atlanta, GA. I currently coach the NJ World Teams.

I am a flow judge who looks for logical arguments, a valid framework, and substantiation of claims made within your case. As a teacher of rhetoric, I appreciate word economy and precise language. Do not default to speed and redundancy to overwhelm. Persuade concisely; synthesize your thoughts efficiently. Be articulate. Keep your delivery at a conversational rate.

A good debate requires clash. I want to see you find and attack the flaws in your opponents’ arguments, and respond accordingly in rebuttal. Cross examination should not be a waste of time; it is a time to clarify. It is also not a time for claws; be civil, particularly in grand crossfire.

Disclosure is not a discussion or a renewed debate. Personally, I am not a fan, in large part, because of a few unwarranted challenges to my decision. You are here to convince me; if you have not, that will drive my RFD.

I am old. I have been coaching and judging for over 35 years. This means that much/most of my experience predates the existence of Public Forum. I competed primarily in Policy, Lincoln Douglas (in its first year of existence), and Extemp. I have coached Policy (in the Dark Ages), Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Congress, and assorted speech events.

Speed does not offend me. That said, I am OLD and have carpal tunnel syndrome, so my flow is sloooooow. I will not punish you with points if you are fast and clear, but there is a risk I may not get everything you want on my flow.

I do not like surprises, not even good surprises. I always peeked at my presents as a child. Arguments should be extended in the summary speech if you want to win on them in the final focus. I favor line by line until the final focus, which should crystalize the debate and provide clear impact calc.

I think topic wording is important and that it determines burdens. I like it when teams are explicit about what the topic wording demands. A kritik is just an argument. If you can explain how it affirms or negates the res, it's all good.

Plans and counterplans are not allowed. Don't blame me. I didn't make the rules. You chose this event, despite the rules. That said, I think it is fair (and even a good idea) to talk about how the resolution would be implemented (assuming it calls for action and is not simply a question of fact/value). One can do this by looking at real world, typical proposals for resolutional action. I also don't think that the affirmative should be stuck advocating the worst possible way to implement the resolutional policy.

Evidence is important. Cheating is bad. Read author and date cites. I will grudgingly allow paraphrased evidence, but the full text must be available and easily evaluable. By this I mean that it is not okay to paraphrase evidence and then, when asked to provide it, hand over a ten page document with no highlighting/underlining of the bits that you claim to be paraphrasing. If you cannot say, "this paraphrases these three lines of text in the original document," or something like that, I'm going to disregard this "evidence." Neither I nor your opponents should have to read through the entire document to assess whether your paraphrasing is accurate.

I hate crossfire, especially the Grand Cluster F*!k. Please don't yell or speak over each other. I recognize that this aspect of PF is conducive to chaos, and that you are not responsible for this design flaw. That said, I will punish you with speaker points if you make the crossfire worse than it has to be.

Argument > Style. This is debate. Style is reflected in speaker points.

1. Be Professional ALWAYS
2. NO SPREADING UNLESS YOU SHARE YOUR CASE WITH ME. If I can't understand you, I will stop flowing the debate. This means if I can't understand you, there will be points automatically flowing to the other side. Unless you share your case with me, you should be speaking at a conversational or slightly quicker rate.
3. I do not flow in the speech doc.
4. Clash is key!!! Go line-by-line and pick apart every bit of your opponents case while you build your own case back up.
5. Good debaters are good communicators and good speakers. Make sure you look up at me. You shouldn't have to read your case word for word the entire time.

PF- The word PUBLIC is in the title of this event for a reason. If you are trying to run prog PF, I will stop flowing your speech.

Congress- Do not rehash ideas other representatives have already brought up. Unique points are key here.

I am a speech and debate coach and I have been coaching for the past 12 years. My teams compete in PF, BQ, IPDA, Congressional and Mock Trial. We also compete in all speech/IE events. We compete on the state (Arkansas), regional (MS, LA, TX), and national (NSDA, UKTOC, NHSMTC, EMPIRE) circuits in debate and speech events.

_______ ____________________________________________________________________________

DEBATE:

Decorum is of utmost importance - both verbal and nonverbal.

This should be a civil discourse between competitors.

Do NOT attack your opponent personally - attack the resolution and the claims.

Debate is a speaking activity, so, no, I do not want you to share/email/drop, etc. your case to me. I will judge what you say, not what's written in your case.

Speaking style is also critical. Do not spread or even talk fast - if I can't understand or if I struggle to keep up with what you're saying two things happen: (1) I will miss key information and (2) I will get frustrated and not be able to judge you. If I miss an argument because you are speaking too fast and are not clear, then you didn't make it.

Do not be monotone in your delivery and look up during speeches. KNOW YOUR CASE!!!

You should not have so much information that it requires you to speak faster than normal conversation pace/speed.

Be efficient with your words.

I want to know how to judge the round, so supply and use your MW or V/VC or Framework!

I want to see clear links between your claims and your WM, V/VC, Framework.

I want clear CWI's.

I want to hear logical application of research in your case - don't just recite sources, actually apply it!

You need to clearly and effectively refute all of your opponent's claims. Debate requires CLASH - if there is no clash, then you have not debated. It is the responsibility of each debater to add to and create clash throughout the round.

I flow the round, so I am well aware of what has/has not been dropped or deconstructed - don't claim your opponent has dropped points when they haven't!!! This can cost you the ballot!

Debate the resolution you have been given and nothing else! (HINT: K's)

Do not have a side debate about who has the best evidence - present the evidence and I'll decide as the judge, I don't need you to try and persuade me - or any other issues not related to the given resolution.

I don't need a road map - you should be clear enough in your round that I can clearly follow you. ______________________________________________________________________________

Congressional Debate - This is a role play debate ( you are not a high schooler, you are an elected representative with constituents).

You still MUST HAVE CLASH!! Without clash, it's just dueling oratories! Listen to the other representatives and address their arguments.

Don't bring electronics up and read your speech off of your computer/iPad/phone. Look up and address your fellow representatives.

Ask good questions - don't preface questions and don't ask/lob "softball" questions.

Don't debate during questions - ask your question ONLY!!!

If you did not offer to PO the round, then don't attack the PO if they make mistakes. If you want it done better, then you need to run/volunteer to PO.

If you do run for/volunteer to PO, please make sure you know parliamentary procedure and how a congressional round works.

When using parli pro, make sure it is for the benefit of the round/chamber. It should be used move the round forward - not just to receive parli pro points and never to insult, embarrass, or belittle another competitor. Do not weaponize parliamentary procedure.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Speech/Forensics Events

Know your performance space and adjust your volume - I need to be able to hear you, but I also don't want my ears to hurt because you are too loud.

Yelling isn't acting!

Cussing & vulgar language is not necessary. Content should be appropriate - shock value is a no-go for me. If you're a talented performer, then you don't need a piece that is cringy.

Become that character from the very first words out of your mouth - I want to see that character in your eyes!

Every piece of blocking and movement should have a purpose and it should enhance your performance. Don't move just to move. Don't over block - allow the character to tell the story through their dialogue.

Know your piece! Your eyes should not be in your BB too much.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Have fun!!! The world will not come to an end if you do not win this round!

Always be looking for what you can learn from each round you debate.

Win. Lose. Learn!

#lovenadrespect

#goodluckdontsuck

________________________________________________________________________

On a lighter note, my favorite K-pop bands are The Rose, EXO, BTS, Seventeen, NCT 127 & NCT Dream -- if you work K-pop lyrics into your case/refutation, you won't receive any extra points, but it'll make me smile!!!!!!

Public Forum:

I flow the rounds and judge based on your speeches not cross fire. I review notes, contentions that flow from beginning to end. Please make sure to have definitions and framework. Framework is very important to your case. Make sure you are clear in your contentions and arguments. If I cannot understand you or you are talking too fast, I miss things and it can be a problem. You are there to convince me why your team wins-explain the impacts and weighing, FRAMEWORK and explain the reason for decision. Pretend I do not know anything about the topic. Be respectful of your opponents and let them talk during cross fire. You should be able to provide your cards, evidence quickly. You should be organized and have them quickly to provide competitor if asked. I will reject any extinction impacts. I will look at climate change and increasing threat of war, but the huge numbers used will not be counted. I do like when teams collapse to one or two best contentions and not the laundry list. Give me the impacts, weighing and why you win.

LD

LD is a speech form of debate and I need to understand your case and reasoning. Spreading is very common today, but it does not mean you are an excellent debater, logical or can convince someone to your side of the argument. You need to convince me, your contentions, framework and the reasons why you won the round. I will flow the rounds and judge based on your speeches not cross fire. I review notes, contentions that flow from beginning to end. Please make sure to have definitions, values and criterion. Make sure you are clear in your contentions, definitions and arguments. If I cannot understand you or you are talking too fast, I miss things and it can be a problem for you. You are there to convince me why you win-explain the impacts, logic, reasoning explain the reason for decision. Pretend I do not know anything about the topic. Debate the resolution and topic. Some LD topics are more like PF but keep to the resolution. Plans and counterplans need to fit the resolution and debaters need to keep to the resolution.

Congress:

Make sure to advance the debate and there are differences betwen first, middle and ending speeches. Do not use debate lingo as please affirm is not done in Congressional debate. Do not use computers and read your notes. Make sure you have credible sources and know your topic. Be able to debate both sides of the topic. Two good/great speeches are better than 3 average/poor speeches so in other words, less can be more. I want you to particpate but quality is very important. You are there to persuade the members.

IE:

Impromptu: Biggest ranking is did you answer the question or prompt. Do you understand what is being asked. Make sure you are organized, confident and always each reason/point relates to the prompt.

Extemporaneous. Use good sources of material. Economic would be The Economist, Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times. New York Times is better than Arizona Republic but make sure you have good credible research. The topics are very advanced and in many cases specific so answer the question. You are to use persuation and logic, with your sources to convince me the answer-keep to the question.

Hello! I am a high school English teacher in Illinois and have coached speech & debate since 2015.

PF & LD:

I love good organization - feel free to give an off-time roadmap and please signpost your speeches and arguments clearly. Card names & dates (evidence) are important - if you want me to flow it through, I need to hear & understand what it is.

Arguments should be concise but clear - lay out the warrants and the impacts for me and weigh impacts as the debate continues. I am not someone who judges every weekend, so sometimes I'll have trouble following if you speak too quickly. I try, though!

In Congress specifically:

If we're more than a couple of speeches into the debate, you should be providing clash, not standing up to rehash arguments we've already heard. In that same vein, do not keep debate going on a bill when it's clearly dead. You should be prepared to speak on every. single. bill. and shouldn't have to rely on having the opportunity to speak early or often on a certain topic.

Make sure you provide impacts. Make it crystal clear what the benefits or harms of passing/not passing said bill/resolution will be on people.

Make the real arguments. I will absolutely listen to you explain to me why a bill or resolution is not the appropriate or most effective way to solve a problem, but only to a point.

Again, structure and organization are important. Be sure to signpost!

Keep questions and responses concise. Be respectful of the judges' time and the time of your competitors.

If you have a question for the PO on their procedure, precedence, or recency, just politely ask it. There's no need to be a jerk about it, or about anything, for that matter. Extend kindness to the person who has volunteered to run the chamber.

I love this activity and believe it should be fun, inclusive, and useful to everyone who chooses to participate. Rather than taking advantage of or judging someone who might be debating for the first time, let's show them what a great community this is to be a part of by answering questions, providing guidance, and setting good examples! Leave the judging to the judges. Instead, be a coach. You'll have more fun. :)

Evidence Ethics:

I am adding this to the top because it has had an effect on some of my students recently. I generally follow along on speech docs when they are sent to me. If I notice during the round that you are reading a card that is egregiously misrepresenting what the evidence actually says, I will stop the round and give you an automatic loss and the lowest speaks I am allowed to give. This doesn't apply to things that are simply "power-tagged." I am talking about evidence that has like 10 words highlighted to make a claim or argument not intended by the author. I don't judge PF that much, so this probably won't be an issue in whatever round I am judging you in, but be forewarned.

Harvard update (2/12/2024):

Not great for the K, except for maybe K's of language/rhetoric. In Policy v K rounds, I vote aff for the perm quite a bit. Not sure I have ever evaluated a K v K debate. In K aff v T-framework debates, I usually vote neg. Fairness and clash are pretty persuasive to me. I have voted for a non-topical aff a few times, but it's probably an uphill battle.

You should probably go slower than you would like in front of me, but I can usually keep up. If you really want me to keep up, I'd recommend leaving analytics in the doc.

I expect everyone to be nice and respectful to each other. Please be mindful of pronouns. Ask your opponents if you don't know.

I err neg on most counterplan theory questions, but I can definitely be persuaded that conditionality is a reason to reject a team, especially if there are more than 2 conditional worlds. Process CPs are kind of a gray area for me. I like them, but I could be convinced that they are bad.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain (impactturn@gmail.com).

Some info about me:

Policy Debater from 1996-1998 for Gregory-Portland HS (Texas)

Assistant Policy Debate Coach from 1998-2002 for Gregory-Portland HS (Texas)

Debate Coach/Teacher at Sinton HS (Texas) from 2002-2003

Debate Coach/Teacher at Hebron HS (Texas) from 2003-2007

Debate Coach/Teacher at San Marcos HS (Texas) from 2014-2017

Debate Coach/Teacher at Dripping Springs HS (Texas) from 2017-present

Observations for all debate events:

-Slowing down and explaining things clearly is usually a good idea, especially in rebuttals.

-Perms that aren't explained aren't arguments.

-If a timer isn't running you shouldn't be prepping.

-I can't vote for something that I didn't flow or understand. I won't feel bad or embarrassed about saying I just didn't understand your argument.

Policy: My favorite event, but I am getting old. I am okay with speed, but clarity is important. I'm definitely more comfortable with plan-focused debate. If I was still a debater, I would probably be reading a small, soft-left aff, and my preferred 2NR would include a counterplan and the politics DA. For the most part, I think debate is a game. The negative should have access to predictable, topic-based ground. While fairness is likely an internal link to other impacts, it is also an impact in and of itself. Affirmatives that don't defend topical, hypothetical action by the resolutional actor will have a tough time getting me to vote for them. Neg kritiks require a lot of explanation and contextualization. I do not just assume that every K links. I have found that I am much more persuaded by links to a team's rhetoric or representations than other types of links. "They use the state and the state has always been bad in the past" won't usually beat a permutation. I am pretty bad for alts rooted in pessimism or alts that seemingly require an infinite amount of fiat. More than 2 conditional cps and/or alts dramatically increases the persuasiveness of condo theory.

Worlds: I tend to judge Worlds more than other debate events these days. I try to judge rounds holistically. My decision on who won the debate will be made before assigning points on my ballot. Line-by-line refutation is not an expectation. Debaters should focus on core topic arguments and major areas of clash. When appropriate, I enjoy detailed explanations and comparisons of models. Speakers 1-3 should take at least 1 POI.

LD: Even though I dislike this term as applied to debate, I am probably best for LARP and/or util frameworks. Not great for the K. Probably terrible for tricks or phil. Even though I think disclosure is good, there is less than a 1% chance that I'll vote on disclosure theory.

PF: I don't think PF judges should have paradigms. Unless your opponents are ignoring the resolution, I will not vote on theory in PF. #makepublicforumpublicagain

Congress: I pretty much never judge Congress. Students who expect to rank highly should make good arguments, clash with other representatives as much as possible, and participate fully throughout the session.

Speech: I have judged a lot more speech over the past couple years. I like students to demonstrate a personal connection to their topic or material.

I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly, clearly, avoid any debate jargon, and be organized in your speeches. Give me a clear RFD in your last speeches. 

Experienced Parent judge

The following will be the rules/key principles I will use to judge. Please read them all, but for online tournaments be sure to read number 4.

If the speech calls for it then the following rules may be adjusted if required by the speech. For example, if your speech requires a few moments of yelling or mumbling, I will know that it is to add effect to speech. Do not talk too fast, or too slow. I will recognize it if you are stalling for time.

1. Modulation. If you speak quietly or without confidence do not expect to get a good rank. At the same time, if you yell or talk too loud it is equally unacceptable. Do not talk too fast, or too slow. I will recognize it if you are stalling for time.

2. Enunciation. Make sure to enunciate all of your words. If I do not understand what you say it is likely you will be given a lower rank and speaker points will be deducted.

3. Emphasis. The right amount of emphasis in the right places can make your speech stand out. This goes hand in hand with modulation and good emphasis will always increase your speaker points. Do not overdo the emphasis. Stressing every word will only serve to make me annoyed rather than convincing me to give you a better rank. Just like all the other rules - moderation.

4. Online Tournament Specifics. I understand if you have tech issues. Being late because of tech will not affect your rank or speaker points in any way. Try your best to get a space to present with a good amount of room and good lighting, but if you are unable to I will understand, and will only take off points in the most extreme circumstances. For example, if you have very little room but still make an effort with hand gestures and doing what space allows, then do not worry about it. But if you stand perfectly still without any motion and it is clear that there is little effort being put, then I will still mark you down. Make sure your camera works before coming to the tournament. I can't judge you if your video is off. If your video/audio lags or freezes for a couple of moments then don't worry about it. Don't worry if there is unavoidable background noise. Only if it becomes extremely hard to judge will I take points off. All in all, just try your best to get optimal presenting conditions, and if you can't, then don't sweat it and try your best anyway.

5. Please no excessive gratitude or the like. If you keep saying thank you or things like that it will serve no purpose except getting me annoyed and wasting time. That being said, please be polite, just make sure not to overdo it.

6. I will not take off too many points for time. NSDA rules say that if you miss the time limit by more than 30 seconds you cannot get first. That being said, if you hit all the other points missing the grace period will not hurt your speaker points that much. Please try to adhere to the time limit because if there are others who spoke just as well as you, they will be ranked above you, whereas if you had stuck to the time limit it would have been much closer and may have gone in other ways. Also, note that other judges may not appreciate shorter/longer speeches and they may rank you below anyone else who had a speech of the correct time.

7. Be confident and have fun with it!

My email is johnson@muhs.edu

LD

I am a debate coach who was a competitor at Nationals in World Schools and Congressional Debate, and was mainly a PF debater when competing. That being said, I have coached and judged LD extensively in the past year.

Please ensure that we are debating the LD format, not Policy-lite. That means a few things.

1. Values and Value Criterions are extremely important and are central to who will win this round. If you do not keep these well-connected to your arguments, it will be difficult for me to weigh your arguments as strongly if they do not connect back into your VC.

2. All-out spreading is not necessary or appreciated. If you are speaking so fast that it is impossible to flow your arguments, then I cannot weigh them in good faith. Win on the strength of your arguments and analysis, not by trying to overwhelm the opponent. Quality over quantity.

3. If you choose to use them, run K’s well. If they are not run in well, it ends up muddying the waters of the debate and taking time away from other approaches you could probably use more effectively. K’s are complex strategies- explain your points clearly and tie them into the larger debate.

4. LD debates involve morals, values, philosophy. Please use these things that make this format distinct.

As for more general points, here are some preferences I have as a judge.

Signposting and roadmaps, both in the introduction and throughout the speeches, are greatly appreciated. Keep your points clear and well-organized. Just because something is clear in your head does not automatically mean you are communicating it effectively.

I am not a fan of T-Shells in general. I would prefer to see a debate about the topic at hand, not a debate about the format in a general sense. This does not mean it is impossible to win with one, but please engage with the topic and with your opponent.

Ask good questions, and build off of them in your speeches. In the same sense, try not to waste time on rambling, disorganized answers. Keep CX dynamic and fast, and make it valuable. If something is conceded in CX, don’t just ignore that it happened. I certainly won’t.

Be ethical. No racism, homophobia, ad hominem attacks, or anything of that sort will be tolerated. You are all capable of good decorum, so show it! Approach the round with good faith, and debate as such.

Please use weighing and voters in your later speeches. Analyze the round and show me why you win.

I have judged speech events for many years and debate for two or three. I am definitely a trad judge in terms of advanced debate techniques/jargon. Please no spreading.

Much like an English paper, I expect a thesis bolstered by strong, relevant evidence/data. Delivery is secondarily important.

I strongly dislike “judge instruction"; it's not an auto-loss, obviously, but it really leaves a sour taste in my mouth. You're here to debate each other; I'd rather you see you win on your own merit than because you tried to convince me to vote for you.

Off-time roadmaps are fine but I find them largely unnecessary.

I probably won't disclose by default but you’re welcome to ask.

Please be respectful to one another!

For World Schools: I take sportsmanship into account in the “strategy” category. If you’re spectating, even as an additional teammate that isn’t participating, please do not interact with the debate whatsoever (e.g., no knocking on desk, making eye contact with debaters, etc.).

tl;dr - tech and speed good, but I'm not doing work for you. The resolution must be in the debate. Though I think like a debater, I do an "educator check" before I vote - if you advocate for something like death good, or read purely frivolous theory because you know your opponent cannot answer it and hope for an easy win, you are taking a hard L. I tab more than I judge, but I'm involved in research. Last substance update: 2/22/25

Email chain: havenforensics (at) gmail - but I'm not reading along.

Experience:

Head Coach of Strath Haven HS since 2012. We do all events.
Previously coach at Park View HS 2009-11, assistant coach at Pennsbury HS 2002-06 (and beyond)
Competitor at Pennsbury HS 1998-2002, primarily Policy

Public Forum

1st Rebuttal should be line-by-line on their case; 2nd Rebuttal should frontline at least major offense, you get some leeway in extensions in Summary, but not to dump a bunch of new stuff in 2nd Summary.

Summary should probably be line-by-line and thus I recommend ditching some issues so you can add depth, not just tag lines. If it isn't at least on the flow in Summary, it probably isn't getting flowed in Final Focus.

Final Focus should continue to narrow down the debate to tell me a story about why you win. Refer to specific spots on the flow, though LBL isn't strictly necessary (you just don't have time). I'll weigh what you say makes you win vs what they say makes them win - I like defense.

I have a Policy background but believe that is a different event - if you want to have a Policy round, please do Policy, the speeches are longer for a reason. I am planning to flow this PF round on two sheets of paper. I do not believe counterplans or kritiks have a place in PF. I also have no problem intervening and rejecting arguments that are designed to exclude your opponents from the debate.

You win a lot of points with me calling out shady evidence, and conversely by using good evidence. You lose a lot of points by being unable to produce the evidence you read quickly.

I don't care which side you sit on or when you stand, and I find the post-round judge handshake to be silly and unnecessary.

LD

My LD experience is mostly local or regional, though I coach circuit debaters. I'm comfortable with traditional, value-centered LD and util/policy/solvency LD.I probably prefer policy debates, but not if you are trying to fit an entire college policy round into LD times. As in Policy, I like Ks that have real links, but aff must defend the resolution.

If somehow you are a deep phil debater and I end up as the judge, you probably did prefs wrong, but I'll do my best to understand. If you are a tricks debater, um, don't. Arguments have warrants and a genuine basis in the resolution or choices made by your opponent.

Policy

I almost never judge circuit Policy rounds at this point. I am a little old school in that I still think you should go slower on tags than on card text and would like you to explain your arguments in your overviews (but after the 1AC/1NC) - I'm not going to backflow from your speech doc, and I'm flowing on paper, so you probably don't want to go your top speed.

1. The role of the ballot must be stable and predictable and lead to research-based clash. The aff must endorse a topical action by the government. You cannot create a role of the ballot based on the thing you want to talk about if that thing is not part of the topic; you cannot create a role of the ballot where your opponent is forced to defend that racism is good or that racism does not exist; you cannot create a role of the ballot where the winner is determined by performance, not argumentation. And, to be fair to the aff, the neg cannot create a role of the ballot where aff loses because they talked about the topic and not about something else.

2. I am a policymaker at heart. I want to evaluate the cost/benefit of plan passage vs. status quo/CP/alt. Discourse certainly matters, but a) I'm biased on a framework question to using fiat or at least weighing the 1AC as an advocacy of a policy, and b) a discursive link had better be a real significant choice of the affirmative with real implications if that's all you are going for. "Using the word exploration is imperialist" isn't going to get very far with me. Links of omission are not links.

I understand how critical arguments work and enjoy them when grounded in the topic/aff, and when the alternative would do something. Just as the plan must defend a change in the status quo, so must the alt.

3. Fairness matters. I believe that the policymaking paradigm only makes sense in a world where each side has a fair chance at winning the debate, so I will happily look to procedural/T/theory arguments before resolving the substantive debate. I will not evaluate an RVI or that some moral/kritikal impact "outweighs" the T debate. I will listen to any other aff reason not to vote on T.

I like T and theory debates. The team that muddles those flows will incur my wrath in speaker points. Don't just read a block in response to a block, do some actual debating, OK? I definitely have a lower-than-average threshold to voting on a well-explained T argument since no one seems to like it anymore.

Notes for any event

1. Clash, then resolve it. The last rebuttals should provide all interpretation for me and write my ballot, with me left simply to choose which side is more persuasive or carries the key point. I want to make fair, predictable, and non-interventionist decisions, which requires you to do all my thinking for me. I don't want to read your evidence (unless you ask me to), I don't want to think about how to apply it, I don't want to interpret your warrants - I want you to do all of those things! The debate should be over when the debate ends.

2. Warrants are good. "I have a card" is not a persuasive argument; nor is a tag-line extension. The more warrants you provide, the fewer guesses I have to make, and the fewer arguments I have to connect for you, the more predictable my decision will be. I want to know what your evidence says and why it matters in the round. You do not get a risk of a link simply by saying it is a link. Defensive arguments are good, especially when connected to impact calculus.

3. Speed. Speed for argument depth is good, speed for speed's sake is bad. My threshold is that you should slow down on tags and theory so I can write it down, and so long as I can hear English words in the body of the card, you should be fine. I will yell if I can't understand you. If you don't get clearer, the arguments I can't hear will get less weight at the end of the round, if they make it on the flow at all. I'm not reading the speech doc, I'm just flowing on paper.

4. Finally, I think debate is supposed to be both fun and educational. I am an educator and a coach; I'm happy to be at the tournament. But I also value sleep and my family, so make sure what you do in round is worth all the time we are putting into being there. Imagine that I brought some new novice debaters and my superintendent to watch the round with me. If you are bashing debate or advocating for suicide or other things I wouldn't want 9th graders new to my program to hear, you aren't going to have a happy judge.

I am more than happy to elaborate on this paradigm or answer any questions in round.

My name is WK (they/she).

I have coached pretty much all events since graduating HS in 2016, and have been teaching full time since finishing undergrad in 2020. Currently, I teach debate to grades 5-12. I am also pursuing an MA in political science.

I mostly judge PF and Congress (though I tab locally more than I judge these days), so extensive paradigms follow for those two events, respectively. A brief LD note follows if I ever get pulled into that. If anything below, for any event, doesn't make sense, ask me before the round! We are all here to learn and grow together.

1. PUBLIC FORUM

Read this article. After reading that article, you should feel compelled to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Though at this point it should go without saying, I will make myself clear: I have a zero-tolerance policy for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and all other forms of bigotry, prejudice, hatred, and intolerance. You are smart enough to find impacts for the most esoteric and outlandish of arguments, I am certain you are aware of the impact of your words and actions on other people. Simply put: respect each other. We are all here to learn and grow together.

Yes, please put me on the email chain ( wkay@berkeleycarroll.org )

Speed: speed is mostly fine (I'm pretty comfy up to ~300 wpm) but if I signal to slow down (either a hand wave or a verbal “clear”) then slow down (usually your enunciation is the problem and not the speed). 2 signals and then I stop flowing. Share speech docs if you’re worried about how speedy you are (again, wkay@berkeleycarroll.org).

Evidence: I know what cards are really garbage and/or dishonest, since I am coaching every topic I'm judging. That said, it's your job to indict ev if it's bad or else I'm not gonna count it against the person who reads it (though I'll probably note it in RFD/comments and reflect it in speaker points). Author or Publication and Date is sufficient in speeches (and is the bare minimum by NSDA rules), then just author and/or publication after the first mention (and year if the author/publication is a repeat). I expect honesty and integrity in rounds. Obviously, if you think evidence is clipped or totally bogus, that's a different story by the rules. Evidence ethics in PF is really really messy right now, so I'll appreciate well-cited cases (but cards are not the same as warrants. You should know that, but still).

Framework debate: Framework first, it's gonna decide how I evaluate the flow. If both teams present framework, you have to tell me why I should prefer yours; if you do and they don't extend it, that can help me clarify voters later. If both sides read FW but then no one extends/interacts, I'm just not gonna consider it in my RFD and will just off of whatever weighing mechanisms are given in-round. Or worse, I'll just intervene if there are no clear weighing mechs. If you read framework, I better hear how your impacts specifically link to it; that should happen in case, but if you need to clean up your mess later that's possible. If you can win your case and link into your opponent's FW and then weigh, you've got a pretty good shot of picking up my ballot. If nobody reads framework, give me clear weighing mechanisms in rebuttal and summary, don't make me intervene.

Rebuttals: Frontlining needs to happen in second rebuttal. IMO Second Rebuttal is the hardest speech in a PF round, and so I need you to leave yourself time to frontline or else they're gonna kill you in Summary (or at least they should, and I probably won't look favorably upon lots of unresponded-to ink on the flow coming out of Rebuttals). Any defense read in rebuttal isn't sticky. I'm also a fan of concessions/self-kick-outs when done well, but use the extra time to start weighing early on top of dumping responses/frontlines on whatever you are covering. That said, you'll probably get higher speaks if you do all the things on all the points effectively.

Summary: 1st Summary needs to frontline just like second rebuttal. Any defense in rebuttal isn't sticky, extend it if you want me to adjudicate based on it. I like it when summaries give me a good notion of the voting issues in the round, ideally with a clear collapse on one or two key points. If you can sufficiently tell me what the voting issues are and how you won them, you have a strong chance of winning the round. In so doing, you should be weighing against your opponent’s voting issues/best case (see above) and extending frontlining if you can (hence why it has to happen). Suppose I have to figure out what the voting issues are and, in cases where teams present different voting issues, weigh each side's against the other's: in that case, I may have to intervene more in interpreting what the round was about rather than you defining what the round was about, which I don't want to do. Weigh for me, my intervening is bad. Comparative weighing, please. In both backhalf speeches, I want really good and clear analytics on top of techy structure and cards.

Final Focus: a reminder that defense isn't sticky so extend as much as you can where you need to. The Final Focus should then respond to anything new in summary (hopefully not too much) and then write my ballot for me based on the voters/collapses in Summary. I am going to ignore any new arguments in your Final Focus. You know what you should be doing in that speech: a solid crystallization of the round with deference to clearing up my ballot. Final Focuses have won rounds before, don't look at it like a throwaway.

Signposting/Flow: I can flow 300 WPM if you want me to, but for the love of all things holy, sign post, like slow down for the tag even. I write as much as I can hear and am adept at flowing, and I'll even look at the speech doc if you send it (and you probably should as a principle if you're speaking this quickly), but you should make my life as easy as possible so I can spend more time thinking about your arguments. Always make your judges' lives as easy as you can.

Speaker points: unless tab gives me a specific set of criteria to follow, I generally go by this: “30 means I think you’re the platonic ideal of the debater, 29 means you are one of the best debaters I have seen, etc…” In novice/JV rounds, this is a bit less true: I generally give speaks based on the round’s quality in the context of the level at which you’re competing. If you are an insolent jerk, I will drop your speaks no matter how good you are. Insolence runs the gamut from personal put-downs of your opponent(s) to outright bigotry. If I am ever allowed to do so again, I have no issue with low point wins. Sus-sounding evidence will also drop your speaks.

T/Theory/K/Prog: I’m super open to it (BESIDES TRICKS)! I have way more experience with this than your average PF judge, but way less than your average LD/CX judge; that said, I feel very confident evaluating it. Topical link would be sick on the K but if not, make sure your link/violation is suuuuuper clear or else you’re in hot water. Make sure you’re extending ROB and the alt(s) in every speech after you read the K, or else it’s a non-starter for my ballot. I’m most excited about (and most confident evaluating) identity-based Ks and those that critique debate as an institution (e.g. as an extension/branch of the colonial project). On theory, I think paraphrasing is bad for debate and almost certainly breaking rules tbh, and so am very open to paraphrasing theory, but be specific when reading the violation: if you don't prove there was a violation (or worse, there isn't really one at all and the other side gets up and tells me that, as happened in a disclosure round I judged in a TOC '23 out round), then I can't vote for you on theory no matter how good your theory is. I don’t love disclosure theory only because I’ve gotten real bored of it and don’t think it makes for good rounds. That said, if you’re all about disclo and that’s your best stuff, I’ll evaluate it. On a different but related note, if you read any theory that has anything to do with discourse, my threshold for voting against you drops a lot at the point at which your opponent says anything close to "running theory isn't good for discourse." Finally: I don't need theory to be in shell format, but it does make flowing easier. If you're not sure about what I might think about the Prog you wanna run, feel free to ask me before the round. In short, as long as it is executed well, meaning you actually link in and your violations are real and/or impacts are very very well warranted, you should be fine. Prog is not an excuse to be blippy. And, to be clear, DON’T READ TRICKS IN FRONT OF ME.

If you have any questions that haven't been answered here, feel free to ask them before the start of the round.

Have fun, learn something, and respect one another. Good luck, and I look forward to your round!

2. CONGRESS

Read this article. After reading that article, you should feel compelled to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Though at this point it should go without saying, I will make myself clear: I have a zero-tolerance policy for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and all other forms of bigotry, prejudice, hatred, and intolerance. You are smart enough to find impacts for the most esoteric and outlandish of arguments, I am certain you are aware of the impact of your words and actions on other people. Simply put: respect each other. We are all here to learn and grow together.

A PRIORI: I WILL BUMP YOU UP AT LEAST ONE FULL RANK IF YOU DO NOT READ OFF OF A FULLY PRE-WRITTEN SPEECH WHERE OTHERS WHO ARE OTHERWISE AT YOUR SAME PERFORMANCE LEVEL DO.

I am a bit old school when judging this event insofar as I believe Congress is very much a hybrid between speech and debate events: of course, I want good arguments, but you should sound and act like a member of Congress. The performative element of the event matters very much to me. Be respectful of everyone in the room and be sure that your arguments are not predicated on the derogation or belittlement of others (see the last paragraph of this paradigm for more on respect and its impact on my judging).

Your speeches are obviously most important, assuming you're not POing. I'm looking for solid and logical warranting (cards are important but not a replacement for warranting, especially in a more rhetorically oriented event like Congress), unique impacts (especially to specific constituencies), and strong rhetoric. Your argumentation should leave no big gaps in the link chain, and should follow a clear structure. Arguments that are interdependent obviously need that linkage to be strong. Obviously, avoid rehash. Good extensions, meaning those that introduce meaningfully new evidence/context or novel impacts, are some of my favorite speeches to hear. I also value a really strong crystal more than a lot of judges, so if you're good at it, do it.

I also give great weight to your legislative engagement. Ask questions, make motions, and call points of order when appropriate. If you're good at this, I will remember it in your ranking. The same goes if you're not good at it. I have no bright line for the right/wrong amount of this: engage appropriately and correctly and it will serve you well. Sitting there with your hands folded the entire session when you're not giving a speech will hurt you.

I highly value the role of the PO, which is to say that a great PO can and will get my 1. A great PO makes no procedural errors, provides coherent and correct explanations when wrongly challenged, runs a quick-moving and efficient chamber, and displays a command of decorum and proper etiquette. Short of greatness, any PO who falls anywhere on the spectrum of good to adequate will get a rank from me, commensurate with the quality of their performance. Like any other Congressperson, you will receive a detailed explanation for why you were ranked where you were based on your performance. While you may not get the 1 if you are perfect but also frequently turn to the Parli to confirm your decisions, I would rather you check in than get it wrong and be corrected; you'll still get ranked, but perhaps not as highly. The only way I do not rank a PO is if they make repeated, frequent mistakes in procedure: calling on the wrong speaker when recency is established, demonstrating a lack of procedural knowledge and/or lack of decorum, et cetera.

My standards are the same when I Parli as when I judge, the only difference being I will be comparing POs and speakers across the day, so POing one session does not guarantee a high rank on my Parli sheet, since it is an evaluation of your performance across all sessions of the tournament. When I am Parli, I keep the tournament guidelines on me at all times, in case there are any regional/league-based disparities in our expectations of procedure/rules.

Above all else, everyone should respect one another. If you are an insolent jerk, I will not rank you no matter how good you are. Insolence runs the gamut from personal put-downs of your fellow Congressmembers to outright bigotry. See the Equity statement at the top.

Have fun, learn something, and respect one another. Good luck, and I look forward to your round!

LD NOTE:Read this article. After reading that article, you should feel compelled to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Though at this point it should go without saying, I will make myself clear: I have a zero-tolerance policy for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and all other forms of bigotry, prejudice, hatred, and intolerance. You are smart enough to find impacts for the most esoteric and outlandish of arguments, I am certain you are aware of the impact of your words and actions on other people. Simply put: respect each other. We are all here to learn and grow together.

I am not a regular LD judge: I debated in the Northeast ten years ago, and LD was still slow and trad. That said, I have recently begun coaching more progressive/speedy LD. So while I am hypothetically good for the K and really dense phil and I can handle up to 300 wpm, I am simply not as adept as some other judges might be in terms of flowing the fastest LD rounds. So, bear that in mind when reviewing these basic preferences:

1. LARP/Policy (simply where I have the most experience)
2. K(inc. POMO, ID, and K affs) (def Kvk>>KvPolicy>>>>>KvT, but do you)
3. Trad, Phil (fine)
4. Theory and T (I would really rather not have to evaluate this)
5. 5/S. Tricks (probably a hard drop if you go for the trick even if you win it, ngl)

I am a Cancer with a Gemini moon and a Leo rising :)

I am currently a speech coach at the Potomac School with 10+ years of experience in the activity. Pronouns: He/Him

If you would like to send me docs my email isjacobkemp23@gmail.com

Debate - PF/Policy

I AM LAY! A SIMPLE SPEECH COACH!! PLEASE BE NICE TO ME, I WILL CRY.

With that being said, passion and clarity in speaking is very important to me (speech coach, OBVIOUSLY). If you don't SAY it, in terms of evidence/cards, I'm not likely to pay attention to it.

I WILL FLOW THOUGH!! I PROMISE!! AS LONG AS YOU DON'T GO TOO FAST.

I am interested in hearing Kritikal arguments and Theory debate, so do not stray away from that just because you see I'm a lay judge (I'm not the lay-est tbh).

Please make sure you are being as specific as possible in your description of arguments.

Logic and realism is important to me. Make me logically believe your argument and impacts. If its TOOO much of a stretch it may affect my decision. But I'll probably buy more than you think.

I have coached several styles of Debate for two years now (mostly Congressional, LD, and PF). During a debate round, I will favor a debater(s) who is courteous/respectful, who presents organized and easy-to-follow arguments, and who gives clear/reliable/robust evidence to support those arguments. I don't mind spreading, but I prefer when debater(s) speak at a speed in which you can still fully understand every word they are saying. To win my ballot, please bring fully prepared arguments to the table and treat your opponents as you would like to be treated.

I mostly judge Speech and Congress. If you're competing in Speech and poring over paradigms, what exactly are you doing with your life?

I used to think Congress judging is in violation of the Eighth Amendment, but I've slowly come around from the dark side. Some things I look for: (1) I have my preferences as a Speech judge, so starting with an AGD (brief) is usually a good idea. (2) If you're an early speaker (author, sponsor, etc.), comfort with your speech is paramount. If you rely on your notes more than absolutely necessary, I'll hold that against you. If you cannot commit a three-minute speech to memory with weeks (or months) of notice, do not author/sponsor a bill or volunteer to go first/second. (3) Speakers that come later in the session must absolutely coopt or refute earlier speakers' arguments (and not just cursorily). If you do not do so, you will find yourself staring at a ballot closer to a 9 than a 1. (4) Beyond point (3), I place a premium on value-add for speakers 3 and beyond (i.e., what new ideas or arguments can you bring to the session that moves the debate (significantly) forward?). (5) I value data and evidence (shocking, I know). CD bills typically tackle current topics, so more recent cites are of greater value. (6) Every debate can be reduced to weighing impact. Most stats can be sliced using glass-half-full and glass-half-empty filters, so it's important that you parse your arguments properly and provide proper context. (7) I don't subscribe to tech-over-truth, esp. in CD. If I see a weak-sauce argument, I'll dock you even if no one refutes it properly. (8) How you respond in Q&A matters a lot. If you get bogged down in questioning, do not try to refute a fatal argument against, or try to let the bell save you, I'll not be happy. (9) I'm a sucker for humor (esp. the dry or sarcastic variety), but in a manner that adds to your arguments, i.e., your speech should not devolve into a three-minute standup act.

Earlier paradigm (when I was naive enough to believe PF/LD judging would actually add flavor to my life):

Parent judge and B-school faculty member, so not new to case discussions and classroom debate. Just relatively new to the organized version.

In the near future, I will hopefully learn to use "spread," "flow," other jargon, and linear combinations of them in a sentence, but for now, this should suffice: Please speak clearly, even if not slowly.

Stick to time. If you end early because you have nothing more to say and I don't have you clearly winning by KO or on points, I will hold that against you.

I'm the Director of Bellarmine's Speech and Debate program. I've been out the circuit game for years now. If you think the 2024 NSDA National final round of Bell vs. Bell was an atrocity, then we see debate very differently. These days, I coach lay/slow debate and adaptation for NSDA Nationals. I coach speech events like Original Oratory, Informative Speaking, and Impromptu. I love the art of getting to the core of complex ideas and phrasing them in a compelling way that anyone could understand and thinking through how to make the rhetoric of a speech stick. Obviously that's not the game of circuit debate - and while I did circuit debate in high school and went to Michigan 7-week - please don't treat me as a fully fast judge, especially for CHSSA State or NSDA Nationals.

I believe that those tournaments are excellent forums for a type of debate that prioritizes judge adaptation and a slower, more lay style of debate. So, do not feel you have to go fast to try to cater to me. At these tournaments, I'll hold you to much higher standards in terms of the evidence quality, the specificity of the link, and the logical coherence of your positions. I will love you if you successfully criticize contrived internal link scenarios, the squirelly/shady arguments, and blippy line-by-line analysis in your CXs and speeches.

How to get high speaker points and win my ballot:

My greatest frustrations with the vast majority of debate rounds are two-fold:1) a lack of comparative engagement with the other team's arguments and 2) a lack of well-impacted analysis of why your arguments are reasons I should vote for you. Speech docs have exacerbated both of these problems, as teams rely on reading pre-written blocks. More and more, I feel a sense of impending existential dread as I realize that nothing meaningful in the debate round is going to happen until the final three speeches of the debate and that everything else is a game of seeing which issues get undercovered. Let me break down my two biggest frustrations:

1) comparative analysis - I understand that you have beautifully constructed blocks to certain arguments but often times, those blocks are not directly responsive to the other team's argument, and so I'm left with huge blocks of text with no comparative analysis that engages with your opponent's warrants. The quickest way to get good speaker points with me is to listen critically to the warrants of the other team's arguments and give comparative analysis that explains why your warrants are superior.

2) impacting important arguments - Meaningful impact calc isn't exclusively about magnitude, timeframe, and probability. That's rarely how rounds are resolved. That type of impact calc presupposes that you're ahead on the core line-by-line args of the flow. The best impact calc explains why the arguments that you're ahead on in the round are reasons to vote for you and why those arguments are more important than the other teams arguments. It shows an understanding of what has happened within the round -- what issues you're ahead on, what issues your opponent is ahead on. So, to put it simply, explain why your arguments matter.

Also, please go much slower on theory or framework than you would with other judges.

Policy args

At this point, I've been out the game about how speech docs have killed clash in debate

The more case-specific you are, the better. Far too many teams do not engage with case in a substantive way. Also, don't be afraid to make analytics – smart, true analytics hold a lot of sway with me, and it’s very strategic to have them in the 1NC and 2AC. If I see that you’re actually engaging the debate and critically thinking instead of just reading blocks and ignoring what the other team said I will be much more willing to give you higher speaks. That said:

Topicality – you must do a good job of explaining your interpretation and why it’s good for debate (or why allowing the aff to be included in the topic is bad for the topic), as well as the terminal impacts to your claims about predictability and fairness and education, etc. I generally err towards interpretations that are the best for the literature base of a topic -- for substantive, deep debates at the core of the resolution -- rather than arbitrary lines which found their entire argument on generic disad link distinctions. Good topicality debates should be grounded in excellent evidence (T- subs. w/o material qualifications is a good example of a violation that does not fulfill this criteria).

DA – I love strategies that are either CP/DA or even DA/case. Generic DAs are okay, but I’m going to like you a lot more if you’re reading a tight case-specific DA that has good, specific links and internal links.

CP – don't be abusive or shady, otherwise I'll have sympathy for the aff on theory args.

Case – I love case and I will absolutely reward a great specific case-DA strat. Don’t let the 2A get away with the entirety of case and you have to defend on a CP to win. Make them defend the plan. I am down to vote on presumption.

K debates
I'm open to any argument that is well explained so I'm not ideologically opposed to Ks but I often hate the way they are read in policy rounds where the core concepts are rarely explained and left to be convoluted jargon. So take the time to explain the core thesis of the K in the neg block (or 2ac) and especially the link story. Contrived and jargon-filled tags that lack substance but just try to sound smart / catch the other team off guard is a huge pet peeve of mine. For the aff, definitely poke fun of the link, as well as the alt - if the K cannot explain an articulate non-generic formulation of these parts of the debate, it'll be hard for me to vote for the kritik. I'm fairly knowledgeable with regards to the K literature base, particularly Foucault, Nietzsche, Bataille, Marx, critical IR, but that means I hold kritiks to a high standard of explanation. If you are reading some variation on Lacan, for instance, you'd better understand exactly what kind of argument you're making. There are many moments in fast rounds when I feel an impending sense of existential dread but one of the more egregious examples of such moments occurs when teams completely and utterly bastardize a brilliant philosopher and have no idea what that author's argument actually is.

Also, please do not read framework at the same pace that you would read a card. Especially when you are talking about the role of the ballot, slow down.

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

The round is ever evolving, so my paradigm does the same.

I have judged several years for speech events and believe speech and debate is a great platform for students of all level to participate and benefit from it. Since our competitors have worked hard to share their performance with us, I try to also share something useful for them to takeaway with them when I write my ballot.

James Lewis
Affiliation: University School

About Me: I did four years of Lincoln-Douglas debate way back when. (I'm old) Never accomplished anything of note. Competed in parli in college (accomplished very little of note), did grad work in American history. Now I teach history and I'm the head coach at University School (OH). Helped start Classic Debate Camp a traditional camp where I was the head LD instructor for a bit, left to get a life away from debate, then came back to teach top lab in 2020 and online in 2021. Stayed homeand played with my cats in 2022 instead of teaching at CDC in person.

WSD (Written for Delores Taylor 2024):

I've coached for our district's World Schools team for five of the last seven years. (We won and made finals the two years I stepped away, so make of that what you will. :) I love WSD, it's my favorite event! Even though I spend most of the year coaching LD, I work hard to approach WSD as an event sui generis and don't apply norms of LD to the activity. What does that mean?

1. I prioritize looking at the round in a holistic fashion thinking about how successful both teams are at advancing and supporting a narrative throughout a round. I'm not focused on "drops" and the "flow" as much as I am on who is doing the better overall job of debating. Don't try to go for every argument in a round if it's not strategically important.
2. One of the beauties of WSD (especially impromptu rounds) is that students are not expected to "card" every argument. While evidence is useful, especially in terms of examples and historical precedent, it is just as important for students to provide logical support for their arguments. Responding to logical arguments with "you don't have a card!" won't fly in a WSD round.
3. Presentation/Style is supposed to be a part of the WSD experience. I look for students to utilize persuasion, rhetoric and speaking ability to help advance their arguments. I coach my students to minimize jargon and look for ways to craft eloquent statements that will convince judges of their position. In my mind, WSD should be a much-needed oasis in the desert of spreading. (See, rhetoric! Try it!!)

LD Judging Philosophy (Edited for Durham 2023):

Edit for Durham 2024: I thought this was explicit in my paradigm, but it was not. DO NOT SPREAD. IF YOU PLAN TO SPREAD, STRIKE ME. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING WHEN YOU SPREAD, I DO NOT INTEND TO FOLLOW YOU ON THE CASE DOC TO TRY TO DECIPHER WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. FOR EVERYONE'S SAKE, IF YOU PLAN TO SPREAD, STRIKE ME!!!!!!

Edit #2- While I'm giving the oral critique/RFD please do me the courtesy of giving me your full attention. Specifically, do not spend the critique furiously typing while I talking to you. Signal to me that you are engaged. If you're not particularly interested in my input, that's cool, just say so and I'll save my breath. (Seriously I won't be offended. It keeps things moving along quickly)

I think it's really important that you actually research, write cases about and debate the actual resolution. Please leave your tricks at home. I have no interest in hearing arguments about debate theory. I guess I'll flow them, but have a very low threshold for dropping the arguments. I'm not the judge to run a kritik on. I don't coach them, hardly understand them and have a very low threshold for being convinced to drop them. (Hint: Just say, "Judge, that is all well and good but can we please debate the resolution at hand?")

The one way I have changed is that I have become more favorable to LARPing in the debate. I used to be one of those "The rules of LD doesn't allow plans and counterplans!" But given that the resolutions given to us by the NSDA are so often rooted in concrete policy questions, it doesn't seem fair to ask debaters to resist the urge to craft plans or to preclude the NEG from the strategic advantages of a counterplan.

My threshold for buying extinction impacts is VERY VERY high. For me to believe that extinction is going to happen or is probable, you have to have a very strong link chain. Like very strong. Otherwise, I'm just going to drop that impact.

I like not having to make a decision on my own about who won the round. Both debaters should prioritize a) giving me a standard (call it a criterion/standard/argument meter, I don't care) which I can use to decide who won the round and b) applying that standard to the arguments they have made in the round.

I believe that ultimately the purpose of competitive debate is to communicate and persuade. I tend to favor debaters who more effectively communicate their ideas and do a better job of presenting a coherent rationale as to why I should uphold their positions. In the end, my vision of a good debater is one who can take their opponents’ strongest arguments, treat them fairly and still show why their position is the more valid position. I tell my debaters to strive for "clarity" and "synthesis"

Obviously the use of evidence is important in that it substantiates analysis, arguments and conclusions. But I place a very high premium on analysis and argumentation. I don’t consider whether your opponent attacks every single “card” (Honestly, I don't flow every card you mention in your case.) Use evidence as a tool AND don’t let it obscure your reasoning.

PF Notes- My background is largely in LD but I've judged enough PF to know what I'm doing.

Edit for NSDA Opener: My threshold for buying extinction impacts is VERY VERY high. For me to believe that extinction is going to happen or is probable, you have to have a very strong link chain. Like very strong. Otherwise, I'm just going to drop that impact.

Edit for TOC 2023: Look, the calling for cards is getting excessive. At the point where you ask your opponent for "all the evidence that you read on X argument" I suspect that you're fishing for cards/not listening/now flowing your opponents arguments because you plan to just call for all the evidence later. Don't give me that impression.

I'll evaluate everything I hear in the round.

Emphasis on "hear" I HATE spreading. I HATE that debaters think that quantity is a substitute for quality and that a lot of "high level" rounds mostly consist of debaters spewing unwarranted statements + card taglines (and the cards in PF are usually miscut/misrepresented) + jargon. I don't even know what half the jargon y'all are throwing out there means. So if that's your game plan, please strike me for everyone's good.

I'll also try to intervene as little as possible in the round. I've been on way too many panels where oral RFDs consist of judges citing flaws with in round arguments that WEREN'T ACTUALLY BROUGHT UP IN THE ROUND. I despise this. My debate days are over. (And as mentioned above, I wasn't that good at it) I'll leave it up to y'all to do the debating. I'll probably express my displeasure with bad or messy argumentation in a round, but I won't factor it into my decision.

While I try not to intervene and to evaluate everything on the flow, I should note that there are certain kinds of arguments that I just don't find too convincing. So the threshold for responses to those arguments are going to be REALLY REALLY low. I think debaters should actually debate about the resolution. I don't have much patience for theory debate. If you want to debate about debate, go write an article in the ROSTRUM or get a PhD in rhetoric. So I'll flow your kritiks and your theory, but if you opponent gets up and says "Judge, this is kind of silly, can we please talk about the resolution at hand?" then I'll probably drop that argument. I have little patience for the idea that debate rounds are a mechanism for social change. I have even less patience for debaters who are trying to commodify social issues and the suffering of others for a win in a debate round when it is not particularly relevant to the round itself.

And for the love of all that is good and decent, would someone please take 30 seconds to establish a framework for the round? And actually warrant it? Even better than weighing is weighing that a debater can do in the context of their framework.

I am super lay.

Speak slowly.

Break everything down for me.

The most understandable person wins.

No theory or spreading.

Be polite.

I am good with off time roadmap as long as you don’t make any arguments and keep it short.

Keep jargon to a minimum or explain your terms.

If there are any disagreements, then I will take note of it and consult with the rule book.

15 second grace period for speech and debate.

SPEECH Paradigms:

Main Interp Events (HI, DI, Duo):

I value a good, clear story arc (Set the scene, introduce the conflict, rising conflict, climax, resolution). Blocking is important (help me "see" the setting), as well as facial expressions to convey emotions and reactions to other characters. If the story confuses me, you will probably be ranked lower.

Dec/OI:

I like a meaningful speech. You can't control the content, but you choose it! Since this is Interp, I look for other interp skills (facial expressions, emotions, "blocking" (here, gestures) )

POI:

A consistent & clear theme, with all other interp skills (see above)

Original Events

(OO, OA): These speeches should have a very clear THESIS statement and roadmap. Your organization is important to me. Each point should support your thesis. And transition statements are important, too. (between your points). I like to see a "speaker's triangle", so I know when you are moving from one point to another. I also value vocal clarity, vocal variety, and good (natural) gestures. Conversational tone wins the day for me!

(Info): Same as above, but in addition, I like very creative boards/props.

(OPP): I've never seen this event, but will do my best.

Limited Prep Events

Extemp: I think Extemp speeches should have a thesis statement so I know right up front what your position on the topic is. I consider this a mini-platform speech, so like to have a roadmap and 2-3 points to support your thesis. I really look for an answer to the prompt; I very much dislike it when you skirt the topic question and start creating an answer that doesn't really address the question.

Impromptu: For me, these speeches need to be organized, and not just random talking. Having a thesis statement will really help you with that. Ideally, I like a mini-platform speech: thesis, roadmap, 3 points, conclusion. In this event, I really value creativity, too!

This is my third year of judging. I prefer to keep rounds traditional. I am looking for clear and concise arguments for debate. I appreciate when you keep your arguments logical and well-framed. Aim for clarity, not speed.

As for speech, I am looking for an engaging delivery and an organized, compelling selection of piece and topic.

I am both a speech and debate coach, who primarily works with speech events and IPDA style debate.

Speech Events:

In interp, I focus on technical ability but also your understanding of the emotions in the piece. I want to see sincere displays of emotional depth that appropriately connect with the overall theme.

In public address and platform speaking events, I value organization and clarity in your speech. I am a fan of visual paragraphing provided it is done well--your movement should look natural and enhance the presentation not distract. INFO should be well rehearsed with their visual integration, but I understand that accidents may happen due to travel/stands.

ALL Debate Events:

Above all, I value good sportspersonship! I will not tolerate rude behavior towards opponents because we are here to clash ideas, not clash each other. I am opposed to the practice of spreading, as it does not give judges enough time to process information and flow. I typically evaluate rounds based on the following criteria (in order): validity and logic of argument, organization of points, round decorum, and speaking presence.

LD and PF: Although I list myself as "Traditional," I am open to different arguments as long as they are explained well and related to the resolution. I believe that we are debating the resolution, not fixing society's ills. Yes debate will enable us to fix society's ills but a competition round is not where that will occur. Debate theory can be interesting to judge, but again, needs to still be connected to the resolution. Also, be sure that the theory you're arguing is correct and logical. In terms of speed, to me it's not speed it's clarity. If you are going 97 miles per hour and have to constantly repeat yourself because you trip over words, maybe going 60 is better.

Congress: As a scorer or Parli, I look for good speeches with good evidence and analysis, but also continuous participation. I believe Congress is an overall package, including activity with questioning, motions and amendments. PO's should be able to move the chamber along smoothly, and fairly. However, they must also recognize that sometimes this may be a new experience for someone in the chamber, and be sure that everyone understands how the PO is maneuvering the chambers, not just assume that it's just standard operating procedure for everyone. Be good to each other and you will often stand out from the competition.

Debated LD - 1997 - 2001

Coached High School LD / Policy / PF / World Schools - 2001 - 2010, 2015 - present

Assistant Policy & British Parliamentary debate coach at the University of Miami - 2010 - 2017

I am open to all debating styles and can handle about 8 out of 10 speed. I appreciate all the skills that go into being competitive in the debate space; updated research, comparative analysis in rebuttals, making strategic decisions with time allocation, and creativity in argumentation to name a few. Tailor-made kritiks are probably my favorite type of argument, but conversely, generic link of omission K's are on the opposite side of my preference spectrum. Love the politics DA if it's timely & makes sense. Make sure your cards are updated! Will vote on theory if we all wasted our time via tricks and education was completely lost in the round. If you're having a non-traditional debate, a discussion of the role of the ballot is vital. Save your breath on RVI's and put your tricks away for me, debate the issues presented in the round.

Debatemartinez@gmail.com - For the email chain.

Any specific questions, feel free to ask before the round. Thank you for all the work you put in to making this activity transformational!

Background: I primarily did PF, interp, and Congress in high school. Currently I'm a speech + debate coach. 3x National qualifier.

In all forms of debate, I prioritize clash and impact weighing. Tell me where to vote on the flow. Tell me how you've won your debate. Please also use strong warranting; reading card after card, or centering the debate on which evidence to prefer, rarely wins my vote over higher quality argumentation.

Parli: I love a good k. I dislike friv theory as it wastes time and contradicts the purpose of debate (education). Your job is to argue with your opponents, not use jargon or speed to exclude them.

PF: As a former PFer, I appreciate a traditional approach. This is not circuit policy. Clash! Weigh your evidence against your opponents' evidence! Tell me why I should pref yours! Cards without valid reasoning to demonstrate how they support your argument do not prove your point. Establish tangible impacts! Make sure your links are strong so you can access your impacts! Consider impacts beyond nuclear war (and if you're going to impact out to nukes, make sure your links are solid). Please signpost, warrant, and weigh.

LD: I prefer a traditional approach to LD. Set up a framework that explains how your value weighs more or solves for your opponent's case. Use the framework as you weigh voters. Prioritize quality over quantity when it comes to words/speed. LD shouldn't be treated like circuit policy.

Policy: I do my best to keep up with speed, although I'm less familiar flowing policy than other debate formats. I'll consider kritiks, counterplans, and disadvantages.

Speech: I vote based on emotional authenticity, delivery, content (topic, speech cutting), organization, and blocking. I value unique topics in platform events and believable acting + compelling character arcs in interp. Include a content warning before presenting about topics that may trigger or upset your competitors or judge(s). Not including content warnings for sensitive content will impact your ranking.

Decorum: To me, debate should be inclusive and welcoming to students of all identities and experience levels. If you make this experience hostile for someone, I cannot ethically vote for you, no matter the flow. Laughing at your opponents; excessively talking during others' speeches; or making implicitly sexist, racist, or ableist arguments will affect your speaks and my ability to buy your argument. I will deduct speaker points if I encounter students from the same program running the same arguments word-for-word. Share ideas in prepared debate events, but write your own cases.

Avoid spreading, because if I miss something for the flow, that's on the competitor.

My flow is the final flow - please don't tell me how to flow.

Congress Paradigm - I have been judging congress on a national level for over 30 years and look to the following criteria when judging competitors.

I appreciate the debate element of congress but there is a difference between congress and debate. I look for focus on the key issuesrather than speed and coverage of all issues raised. Empirical evidence is crucial when it comes to persuading on policy issues that have the potential to impact millions of lives. I appreciate good rhetoric but it is no substitution for real analysis and evidence. If you are speaking later in the round, I will look for crystallization and the bringing to light and analysis of the key issues in the round.

Never forget you are a legislator and this should be evident in your arguments, language and decorum.

I have spent 8 years as a speech & debate coach, and I would say that if you needed to classify me I would likely be considered a "classical style" judge. That being said, this is how I would describe my beliefs for debate...

- Please make certain to link your arguments as I cannot assume your reasoning is valid.

- I will not say no to theory or kritik but will say that I've rarely seen it used well enough to convince me, so I would be careful in using these arguments.

- I am STRONGLY opposed to spreading. I flow fairly well, but I would say QUALITY over QUANTITY, and that if I did not hear you say it, then you didn't say it. As this is a "public speaking event" and as both opponents are supposed to receive equal time and consideration from the judge, I see very little value in flashing/sharing cases. Make your arguments during the round please, as I can only judge you on the arguments you make.

- At the end of the day I will be looking at your entire debate and want to feel that you are more "right" in the round. Please make certain to weigh your impacts and provide me with solid voters as to why you have won the debate. I will care much more about your arguments being presented and linked believably, authentically, and logically than being 'ahead" on the offensive flow.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/McCormick%2C+Amy

Extemp: I'm a big believer in the AGD - make me want to hear more. Be as creative as you'd like in coming up with an AGD or "hook" - but you definitely need something to make me sit up and pay attention. Answer the question. The more sources, and the more variety in the sources, the better. Be engaging and conversational - I want to see your personality shine through your speech. Don't forget to answer the question. Analyze your points thoroughly. Tie your conclusion back to your AGD or intro. Make sure you answer the question.

OO/Informative: Defend your thesis throughout your performance. Be engaging and conversational - I want to see your personality shine through your speech.

POI: Don't forget to refer to your manuscript throughout your performance - this event is not memorized. The best pieces are the ones that transition between genres seamlessly - unless the sharp contrast between prose, poetry, and/or drama is intentional. Characterization is huge - let me see the personality of your characters.

HI/DI/DUO/DUET: Please don't confuse me with too much blocking, or blocking that is overly specific and detailed. I want to see YOU - not some tiny imaginary thing you're holding. Be animated and as engaging as possible.

Congressional Debate Paradigm:

While congressional debate is most certainly an argument, this debate event takes the form of one long and continuous coversation that is more akin to a socratic seminar than to a structured debate. Entering the conversation where it is is the most important skill for any congressional debater. It is from that point that I expect each speaker to begin and then to advance the argument. Referencing the speakers who came before and their contributions to the conversation is integral to fully placing new points or extensions of points already made. While summary and crystalization has its place later in the debate, rehash has no place in a well presented congressional speech. I also look for gracious behavior at all times focusing on the strengthes and weaknesses of other arguments but no the speakers themselves. I have no patience for speakers who try to elevate themselves by putting down others.

Individual Events Paradigm:

I have coached speech and debate since 2010, but in recent years my coaching is focused on speech. I see every speech event as an argument, so I am in search of an important message, explicit or implicit, in every performance or speech I judge. Beyond message, I look for a coherent argument whether you have crafted this with your own words with original oratory, responding to a question in extemporaneous speaking, or making your argument in a program or performance in interpretation. In Informational speaking, I am looking to be exposed to relevant informaition around a topic of importance in society but without a position, an advocacy, or solutions. In all of these forms, I expect to be engaged and compelled to listen to what you are saying. This is speech where how you say it matters just as much as what you say. And, while I love creative and edgy pieces that take me from my comfort zone, every single word should work to convey and elevate your message and do so at no one's expense. I will not reward hurtful, harmful or thoughtless words or actions.

Email chains are good. Include me ericmelin76@gmail.com & coppelldebatedocs@gmail.com

Debate Coach @ Coppell (9th Grade Center and Coppell High School)

Greenhill 2022

Top Level

I will work hard to be the best judge possible for your debate. I will flow your speeches and cross-ex and base my decisions as much as possible on your words. I love debate and know how much work you put into it and the least I can do is be the best judge I can be for you. Tech over truth. I’m doubling down here this year because so few judges do this in practice. I would rather vote for high quality execution of untruthful argument that is won than interject myself into the debate.

Some thoughts you may care about when doing your pref sheet in no particular order:

1. I don't have any massive preferences in terms of argument content. Please forward a well-developed ballot story. Compare methods and offense. I don't care what you do as long as you do what you do best. Tell me what you want me to vote on. Judge instructions are good. I prefer lbl to long overviews.

2. Evidence quality matters a great deal to me. I enjoy debates where cross-ex is spent digging in on your opponents claims and referencing their ev. Re-highlighted evidence should be read.

3. T - I rarely see 2nr’s that go for T unless a massive mistake has been made by the aff.

4. KAff/TFW - Appeals to Fairness and clash are both persuasive. I find it extremely difficult to overcome the notion that an unlimited prep burden for the neg is undesirable. To me that means the aff should probably be related to the topic in some way. That said, I often vote aff in these debates. The neg either isn't prepared to deal with case cross-applications and impact analysis of the team they are debating, don't do sufficient work establishing the impact to limits , and sufficiently leverage TVA's and Switch Side arguments to mitigate aff offense. Aff teams often lose when they are too defensive, insufficiently develop their counter model of debate, or make mistakes on the technical portions of this debate.

5. K - Like most judges, case-specific links pulled from ev, tags/rhetoric, established in cx, etc. are what I'm looking for. I find that too much of the debate often devolves into reading framing blocks which means argunents aren't ansered in a satisfactory way by both teams. This means that framing is rarely decisive. Moreover, I am not usually persuaded by arguments that say that aff offense just poof goes away unless the neg is substantially ahead on framing. The sooner you realize that framework may not be decisive, begin to engage what often become comparisons of apples and oranges (in round scholarship vs the results of hypothetical policy scenarios), and give me a way to wade through that muck, the better. Please do us a favor and stay organized - clearly label different portions of the debate on the k. Signpost! Please stick to the line-by-line. Short overviews are ok but long are not.

6. CP - Case-specific is best here again. There's almost nothing better than specific cp with high quality evidence. 2ac permutation explanations are your friend. Later in the debate, I tend to think your explanations are just flat out new and not spin. Just invest a bit more time to unpack your initial permutations and I will hold them to answering the nuance.

7. DA - Not a lot to say here. Good evidence matters. Creative spin is welcome. Zero risk is possible and extremely small risk of an extinction scenario can matter a great deal or not much at all depending on the evidence and analysis accompanying these arguments.

8. Theory - Defaults: Condo -> drop team. Everything else = drop argument.

Hi! I'm excited to be your judge today. I am a trained speech and debate judge.

For debate - Please don't speak too quickly. If you speak too fast, I will stop flowing and your arguments will not be evaluated as part of the round. Please add signposts to make arguments as clear to me as possible. Impacts are important to me - I want to understand the real world significance of the argument. Don't just tell me the argument, tell me why I should care.

For speech - I love speech events where you incorporate personal stories and humor. Have fun, because your energy will be contagious!

Hello! I’m a 1 Diamond Assistant Speech Coach with 8 years of speech coach experience and 25 years of active participation in the speech and debate community. I competed interpretation events as a high school student between 2000-2004. I have 22 years of speech judge experience on the local and national circuits.

In interpretation events, I appreciate strong character development, unique and distinct characterizations, and authentic and meaningful storytelling.

In public address events, I appreciate a clear and persuasive thesis/argument, extensive examples, a compelling analysis, cited research, and strong performance elements (e.g. use of humor, interesting topics, excellent speaking skills, and thoughtful gestures/movement).

I have no experience judging or competing in Congress. I have only judged 1 round of LD, and less than 10 rounds of PF.

Extemp:
Extemp is my favorite event and, I believe, the one with the most long-term practical applications after leaving the world of debate. The best extemp speeches are ones where I forget to flow because I am so engrossed in learning about your topic. I believe strongly in clear structure and substructure - please do not simply ramble for 7 minutes. I would much prefer an organized 5 minutes to a 'stream of consciousness' 7:30. Please have a clear AGD, link, statement of significance, and background in your intro. Ideally, you will have 6-10 sources in your speech. Do NOT makeup sources - I read a lot and will know. I have definitely checked sources mid-speech if something seems fishy.

WSD:
I love WSD. Please do not try to turn it into a different form of debate than it is. It should be cordial, professional, and focused on communication. That being said, I am not of the mindset that 'sources don't matter' in WSD - they absolutely do. Again, I will fact check mid-round if I think you are lying or making things up. While you should NOT be 'reading cards' like you do in CX, it is both acceptable and, in my opinion, necessary to back up your arguments with sources when writing WSD cases (for prepared motions).

Public Forum:
I think that public forum is, at its core, the melding of sound argumentation and solid speaking. You should present well-structured, rational, and strongly warranted arguments in a way that can be relatable to whoever 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, and 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.

About Me

I competed in policy in high school and college at Copper Hills under Scott Odekirk and then at Weber under Ryan Wash. Both coaches heavily influenced my views of debate. For reference on what I'm most knowledgeable about, I always read a K aff that focused on the experiences of migrant women, but read a diversity of arguments on the negative, ranging from performance-based K debate to more traditional DA/CP/T strategies. I don't support the exclusionary and uneducational practice of deciding rounds based on one's ideological preferences. I am willing to listen to any argument and will judge it based on the competitive framing done in round.

Since graduating high school, I have coached and judged Policy, LD, and Congress on and off. 2024 - 2025 will be my sixth-year judging.

Policy / LD / Kind of PF (Congress paradigm is at the bottom)

debatewrecksmyinbox@gmail.com

Add me on the email chain now rather than later (if there is one)

Basiz Biz

Time yourself. Tag teams fine. Don't be explicit about your racism/sexism when interacting with your peers if you don't want me to evaluate it. Evaluations tbd.

"Anyone not ready?" doesn't work in online debate. If my camera is off, then you can presume that I am not ready.

Clarity is a prerequisite for me flowing the debate. If I have to say clear more than 3 times, I will stop. Any instances of clipping will stop the round and be an auto loss.

Card quality is important in the sense that it shouldn't be cast aside as a) author credibility only being something PF discusses b) overcharged tag lines being accepted as fact and c) presumably having warrants for each of the claims that you are asserting. I will read the cards that are referenced in the last speeches.

Affirmatives

I think I have a lower threshold for presumption arguments. I usually believe going into a round that most affirmatives don't solve as much as they say they do, nor do they have internal link scenarios that are as cohesive as their tag lines would suggest. The first thing I look at after round is whether the burden of proof (however that is defined based on the framework of the debate) for the aff has been met.

If you are reading a kritik, I believe having a method is necessary.

If you have a topical plan - please write out the full version of acronyms under tags if they are not in the body of the card or your tags themselves. I don't usually research the topic prior to judging at a tournament, so there are some terms that may not be familiar to me even if they are a common phrase under the topic.

Framework vs K Affs

I view these debates as competing models of the activity. Debate is inherently competitive, but how we compete is also important. I am not easily persuaded by "you destroy the activity" impacts. I prefer arguments centered around creating better interactions, whether that be a dialogue, political, accessible, fair, educational, etc, and default to how that affects debaters. If you want me to default to something else, please tell me in your speech.

Kritiks

Connect the theories to events / experiences / history and the affirmative if you want to make it more compelling for me. Connecting it to the affirmative may seem self-evident with the K requiring a link and all (at least if you want to win), but in most debates I find myself not being told how the K relates to the answers the aff has given or certain parts of the AC. I'm not saying you need a link for every word they say, but that a link to the story of the affirmative is important sans an explanation of why the part you are critiquing comes before or outweighs other parts of the aff.

Counterplans

Be explicit about the NB in the 1NC. I do think some CPs cheat more than others but have not seen enough tricky counterplan strategies to have a strong opinion on whether some are just bad for debate. Feel more than welcome to inform me through a theory debate that has clear explanations of your impacts.

Disadvantages

I have a very vague understanding of Politics DA theory, so if you're going for it you should contextualize it to the round (ex. winding way, bottom of the docket, anything w fiat).

Theory

Enunciate as much as you can or slow down on your blocks for theory. It feels like going bloop bloop bloop fairness and education is a common practice, and like I said at the top, clarity is a prereq to me flowing.

Everything is up for debate as far as what should be done in debate.

Topicality

My third-grade knowledge of grammar is not thriving. Any standard relying on English grammar tests runs the risk of my Google interpretation being incorrect.

Congress

There are four things I evaluate when ranking, in order of importance:

1) Quality of your content: Construct your arguments effectively and efficiently. I define effectiveness by the ability to use credible sources, FRAME YOUR IMPACTS, display strong evidence analysis and introduce new claims and warrants for why we should pass/fail. After the first two speeches, each speech should have some matter of refutation. Efficiency is shown through clear and concise verbiage, sign posting, and only using repetition strategically.

2) Speech delivery: The best congress folks recognize that body language is more than half of our communication. The speech triangle works because it makes us use intentional movement in our transitions. If you don't understand the reasoning behind why it works and apply it to other parts of your speech, you are limiting yourself to the culture of "doing things because that's what other people do" found so often in Speech and Debate. Being cognizant of your hand motions, foot movements, posture and facial expressions and then using them to your advantage will set you apart for me, particularly if you demonstrate a large range. Project your voice. I strongly prefer that students do not read off of their laptop, particularly if they are doing it because it is the best way to have the most pre-written content available. In general, only reading pre-written content cuts you off from your audience in body language, doesn't translate well to spoken word, and limits the possibility of vocal emphasis. I've noticed that these speeches also tend to not be timed well.

3) Cross ex: Use your questions to establish presence and style in the round. Maintain control of the tempo of the discussion, meaning that you don't try to give a speech in cx or try to speak for your opponent. In my opinion, the goal is for you to get them to say what you want them to say without saying it yourself. Defend your points or set them up effectively, depending on when you give a speech in the session in relation to the cx at hand.

4) Round awareness: Demonstrate that you are capable of assessing when to speak, what arguments are important on the bill in discussion, and most importantly, what refutations or framing will be most convincing. I think all three of these are dependent on you asking yourselves questions throughout the round that determine how you change your behaviors from session to session. What hasn't been said? Who are my judges? If that representative has already said "my framing is going to clarify the debate," then should I do the same thing because I always do? What other formulaic behaviors do I need to adapt?

I am a coach and teacher at Isidore Newman School in New Orleans. I have been involved with debate on the local, regional, and national circuit as a competitor, judge, and coach for more years than I care to put in print.

Non-traditional Debate Warning: If you are looking for a judge that is into non-plan, non-topical K affs, poetry, or other interp affs, I am definitely not the bestjudge for you. I love a good POI, Oratory, and DI, but I love them in those event categories.

Speed: Once upon a time, I kept a fairly fast and thorough flow. I think that I still keep a good flow, but I'm probably not as fast as I once was. I suggest starting at a mid-rate and then pick up speed, which will allow me to get used to your cadence. Another issue concerning speed is that debaters, more often than not, think they are clearer than they actually are. Paperless debate has made this worse. I'll usually try give one "clearer" or "louder" warning per speaker, but after that, either you or your partner need to be paying attention to my facial expressions and whether I’m flowing. I have a terrible poker face, so it will be pretty obvious. If I don’t flow the argument or card text then that argument or card text it is not in the round and I am definitely not going to ask about it and I will not use the speech doc to fill it in for you. I am inclined to be more impressed with a debater who is clear, efficient, and persuasive who speaks slightly slower than a debater who feels the need to show me their mad spreading skills. In terms of speed and T, theory, and k’s: SLOW DOWN - slow way down (see notes on kritiks). Please read my comments at the end of this page concerning the ever growing negative aspects of paperless debate.

The Role of the Affirmative: I expect the affirmative to advocate the resolution through TOPICAL PLAN actionclearly stated in the AC. If you want to run a critical aff stating that the resolution is racist, ablest, ageist, or anything else that suggests an unwillingness to affirm the resolution at hand, as written, then I am not going to be a good judge for you. I am possibly willing to listen to a critical aff that advocates the resolution. (Please see my notes on kritiks later). Performance/Project teams may find it a challenge to meet my view of the affirmative's role.

Topicality: It’s a voter. I like a good T debate that involves actual evidence and a description of why the aff does not meet the interpretation. The standards debate should include a viable limits argument. Why is the affirmative's interpretation of limits bad for debate? If you are going for ground, make sure you impact why it's a big deal to you in the round, and/or even for debate as a whole. Negative teams who plan to go for topicality should be prepared to go “all in." At best, you could weigh “T” and one other position. You’re unlikely to get much ground or be terribly persuasive if T is one of 3 or 4 positions in the 2NR (And really, why have four plus positions remaining in the 2NR?). Impact analysis on T is just as important as it is on any other position. Don’t bother to kritik T with me in the room. T is not racist. Do not run RVI’s on T. It is worth noting that a T debate needs to be a bit slower due to its needed explanation, but it does not need to be handled as slowly as a kritik.

Counterplans: Preferably, counterplans are non-topical, which creates a clearer division of ground. Counterplans also need to be clearly competitive. A CP that is basically just steals the plan is probably not competitive and is just stealing ground, but the idea of PICs can be debated in round. Conditional CP’s are probably a bad thing, but the debate as to why must be specific. A clear net benefit is better for competiveness. If going for the CP in the 2NR, the negative does not automatically get the assumption of the Status Quo as the alternative in place of the CP as a voting issue. This choice must be explained in the 2NR. The aff should definitely argue whether the neg can operate in multiple worlds, or must treat the CP as their new advocacy. Note: I find most severance perms abusive. When I have voted on such a perm, it has usually been because the neg mishandled the flow and allowed the aff to get away with it. The neg needs to note that it is the affirmative’s job to advocate their plan, in its entirety, through the 2AR. It is one thing for the Aff to kick an advantage, but it's an entirely different thing to sever part or all of the plan. Affirmatives should not argue that the "neg does not get any fiat." That's ridiculously limiting.

Disadvantages: I’m old school policy, so I like disads. Disads should have a comparable risk to the net benefits of the AC and/or serve as a net benefit to the CP. There should be a significant link debate (offense/defense) and a clear impact calculus. I hate it when teams wait until the 2NR/2AR to finally weigh the impacts. Reading more cards is not weighing an impact; it’s just reading more cards. An impact calculus requires clear analysis. I will put as much effort into weighing the disad risk as a decision calculus as you spend trying to persuade me that the argument is worth the vote.

Kritiks: I still have not grown to love kritiks. This is definitely true in terms of non-topical K affs and neg kritiks that probably have little to do with the actual plan. Some teams have become overly reliant upon them (running the same position every single year) and use them to avoid having to debate the topic or debate policies they don’t like. I find that most kritiks have ambiguous implications at best and the alternative (if there is one) is often not an alternative at all. I have found myself voting for some of these arguments, despite my not even understanding the position, because the other team failed to explain clearly why the argument has little bearing in the round or fails to point out the shortcomings of the alt. You should also be aware that I most likely have not read much of the critical literature you are referencing and citing. Although I use philosophy in my English class, I do not use at a grad school level. If you plan to run any critical positions in my presence, you must do the following:

1) Slow Down. Really. Slow down. I mean conversational speed slow down

2) Explain your position clearly – no blippy tag lines or argument extensions

3) Have a specific link

4) Have a clear alternative – something more tangible than “being part of the ___ mindset," “avoiding the evils of capitalism,” or "do nothing." Huh??

Despite my personal disposition on the kritiks, the opposing team will still need to say more than “The K is bringing down policy and should go away.”

Performance/Project Debates: I’m still a cost-benefits analysis policy judge at heart. I have not changed my mind on the position that performance/project positions leave little ground for the opposing team. I have no idea how to weigh your performance against the other team’s position (performance or traditional) for the purposes of winning a debate.

Cross Ex: CX is important for fleshing out a strategy and provide clarification of arguments; I generally think that answers in cross ex are binding. I actually listen to cross ex, often take notes and even find it interesting. I also find it not that interesting on many occasions. Tag team CX is okay, but avoid taking it over. Not being able to handle your cross ex will result in lower speaker points. Taking over a partner’s CX will also result in lower speaks. CX starts when the speaker is finished. If you need 30 seconds to “set up” then that will come out of prep.

Role of the Ballot: My ballot determines who wins the round. That is all. If you win, you are (perhaps) one round closer to clearing. If you lose, you are (perhaps) one round closer to not clearing. My ballot does not send a message to the debate community; it is not a teaching tool; it is not an endorsement of a particular action or philosophy.

Theory: Save theory debates for when they really need needed and warranted. Too many debaters are running theory as their “go to” argument. Debating theory as a "default" argument every round cheapens the arguments and makes judges less likely to take them seriously. Do not run any theory arguments against Topicality (see above).

Miscellaneous:

Paperless Debate: Speaking style has simply become worse with paperless debate. Card reading has become choppy, debaters have problems toggling back and forth on the computer, debaters are taking liberties with prep while flashing or emailing speech docs, and instead of flowing the arguments as they are being presented, debaters are back-flowing from flashed material that may or may not have actually made it into the speech. Some judges have resorted to reading the email chain. These are all poor debate practices. Teams are saving paper and tons of money when flying, but debates have become sloppy. If I don't/can't flow the argument/card, then it isn't in the round.

Prep Time: Your prep ends when you have finished loading the flash drive and hand it off to the opposing team. If an email chain is set up, your prep ends when you hit “send.” This means that you are standing up to speak. If you start conversing with your partner, I will continue to run prep and I will probably dock your speaks for stealing prep.

Flowing: Do it. Follow the flow, not the “flashed” cards. Do not mess up my flow!!

Label Arguments: “First off, A-uniqueness” is not a label for my flow. Label each off case – every single one of them. When you move to the case debate, be clear as to where you are and when you are moving on to another advantage, etc. This is also true for the 1A; the AC needs to be crystal clear.

Reading Cards Post Round: I rarely do so. To get me to read a card requires a specific request during your speech and an explanation as to why and what I am looking for exactly. If I am part of the email chain, this does not mean I am automatically going to read cards. If I call for a card without you requesting it or go to the email chain without direction then something was so unclear that I felt I had no choice. This presents an opportunity to intervene, which I do not like doing if I can avoid it.

Card Clipping: It’s cheating. Don’t do it. If an accusation is brought up in the round, I will take it seriously (even stop the round if necessary). If you bring it up as an accusation, you need to be darn certain you are correct. Be clear where you stop reading a card if you do not finish. "Stop card" is probably not clear enough.

As we say in New Orleans, “Be Nice or Leave”. It is fine to be competitive, but have fun. You are competitors in the round, but you should be friends outside of the round. Being a jerk in the round will not lead to friendships and it will definitely hurt your speaker points.

For all debate events and especially policy debate:

I have coached all the events at the national level and I have been coaching for 20 years. I spent the first 10 of those years coaching college policy debate. I like all forms of argumentation except cheap theory tricks. What I like is less important than what you are good at. I would like to see what you are best at.

There are two things that I despise about how debate has evolved:

1) I despise the emphasis on the speech doc: this is a speaking activity. I value persuasive speaking. I will be flowing on paper and I will not be looking at a speech doc while you talk. I will be looking at you, listening to your voice, and flowing. I also call for very few cards after the round so as to put the emphasis on the round that happened not the one in your coaches' heads. Persuasion matters. Pathos matters. Nuanced Evidence comparison in the round matters. Tactical ability matters. Style matters.

2) I despise the lack of creativity that I observe in the arguments: I am especially bored by the way that jargon flattens our characterization of things to ready made labels so that everyone speaks and thinks the same. My favorite DA debaters I have ever watched have their own singular ways of characterizing impacts and even their 1NC shells have unique structure and emphasize different internal links than the standard form. My favorite Kritik debaters of all time see the connection between the content that they are presenting and the form that they use to communicate. They try to do something new and they take some risks.

One last note: I understand that debates can get heated but when the debate gets personal I get cynical and I wonder why I am still giving time to the activity.

For speech events:

Exaggeration seems fake to me. Realness and subtlety draw me in. When a student puts an emphasis on the ideas and the scholarship of the activity they get extra points from me. Polish and perfection are not everything. I would rather see a speaker with some rough elements of their delivery who is taking a chance to express something of meaning than a perfectly rehearsed speaker delivering a safe speech without a lot of conceptual depth.

For docs, please use speechdrop. My stupid school email has a ridiculous filter and it will often take a few hours for your email chain to get to me.

parkert@ltisdschools.org

Background: I'm a second year debate coach at Lake Travis (Austin, TX). I'm also a lawyer and teacher. I debated mostly LD but graduated HS in 2004.

ALL Debate: I'm a mostly tech judge, with some exceptions. Presumption goes to the neg unless otherwise established in round.

Arguments need to be warranted when they're initially made if you want me to evaluate/vote for the argument later (meaning: don't just blip out a bunch of unwarranted claims in an underview and expect to win on a drop).

I will generally not vote on frivolous theory. If you want to make an argument about abuse or norm violations, I am open to it, just make sure you're telling a clear story here. I am willing to vote for RVIs if that argument is won.

I have no qualms about voting on T. If your aff is going to be non-topical (or borderline-topical), you need to establish why/how you can still win and be prepared to beat back the inevitable T.

K's are fine, though I'm not personally familiar with much critical literature so you're going to need to explain it.

I will not evaluate or consider "30 speaks" theory arguments or similar arguments that lock speaks. It disrupts the competitive integrity of the tournament at-large.

I will usually drop speaks for repeatedly telling me that your opponent dropped or conceded an argument that was clearly addressed. Point out drops, but don't lie to me. (this is not about a mistake or accidental statement, this is for the people who compulsively say that every argument was "clean conceded" when they weren't).

Along with "don't lie to me" above, I reserve the right to vote against teams that I notice are fabricating or significantlymisconstruing what evidence says during the round even if the other team does not make it a voting issue. Assume Iam going to read your evidence. I don't like power-tagging and it will make me skeptical of your other arguments.

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

CX: I'm not generally a policy judge so I am not going to be fluent in the deeper jargon (if you're abbreviating everything in particular). Explain your arguments if you want me to vote on them, don't just blip through them.

Speed is fine, so long as you're clear and you slow down for analytics or complex argumentation. If you're planning on really spreading, I find it very helpful to have the doc.

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

LD: My LD experience is a bit outdated from the current circuit standard. I am very open to new innovations and outgrowths since I debated, but my fluency in modern off-case argumentation is a bit limited. I'm open to voting on those, but you'll need to explain them well and be clear with your voters. I don't have any strong feelings on policy vs philosophical approaches, but I'm not going to be deeply familiar with a lot of Phil stuff, so if it's complex you should probably hold my hand through it a bit.

Tricks suck, especially if they're purposefully hidden. You want to argue epistemic skepticism or something - sure that's really just a phil argument (though it needs to be appropriately warranted, not off-doc spread-through as half a line hidden in the middle of some card). I will flatly not evaluate arguments that tell me to evaluate the round after the 1AC or similar. Iwill consider voting for theory arguments on why such things are abusive.

If I don't understand the argument, I won't be voting on it.

Speed is fine, so long as you're clear and you slow down for analytics or complex argumentation. If you're planning on really spreading, I find it very helpful to have the doc.

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

PF: The above information applies to PF rounds as well, with the added provision that I will reduce speaks for being cruel/disrespectful of opponents (and I don't like that I have to put that here for PF)

Speed is fine, so long as you're clear and you slow down for analytics or complex argumentation. If you're planning on really spreading, I find it very helpful to have the doc.

(credit to JS) - Don't play the "I can share this card if you want me to, oh which card was it? Hold on let me find it..." game. You read a card? Drop it in the speech drop. Every other debate event is efficient with this, let's do better if we want to be taken seriously.

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

Congress: I am looking for both strong content and speaking for my Congress ranks. One without the other is not a recipe for a good score. Speakers that use the bulk of their speech rehashing earlier points usually get scored down. Clash is good, just make sure you're not mischaracterizing the opposition's argument when you do so.

Particularly incisive points (especially as clash points) are likely to draw my attention. I do pay at least some attention during questioning - strong lines of questioning (or defenses to your own position) are likely to result in a higher rank.

You should be cognizant of the speech you're giving in a round. For example, if you're giving a sponsorship, you should be explaining how this bill solves the problem you're trying to address. If you're speaking last, crystallize the debate that's come before.

Being able to deliver a strong speech without relying too heavily on a script is important when I’m evaluating the difference between two strong competitors.

For POs: Generally the best POs are the POs where I barely notice them as the round runs smoothly. I typically rank good POs well, but rarely will they get the 1 unless it's a particularly weak round.

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

Extemp: Similar to Congress, I'm looking for both Strong content and strong speaking skill. One without the other will rarely receive top ranks on my ballot. I'm not looking for a specific number of sources, but good/varied sourcing is important.

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

Interp: Interp events are where I definitely have the least experience. Generally, though, I'm pretty standard as an interp judge - i'm looking mostly for strong characterization and (in the relevant events) narrative structure.

17+ years as competitor and coach in Texas and New Jersey

Spreading - I am fine with spreading as long as you can be understood. The point of spreading is not to confuse your opponent, it's to deliver as much material as possible within the time limit. Articulation and enunciation are key. If you aren't doing vocal warm-ups before the round, you probably aren't ready to spread.

Case sharing - I do not give my email for case sharing. Unless there is something specifically mentioned in the debate that I need to read, my job is not to read your case to understand it. You should deliver your case in a manner that is comprehensible without having to be read. That is the art of debate; this isn't just about reading, it's about presentation.

Sportsmanship - Part of being a good debater includes the time when you are not speaking. Be aware the round starts the minute you enter the room. Carry yourself with professionalism and respect.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA POLICY PARADIGM (INSERTED FOR BARKLEY FORUM 2025): I will flow and am cheerfully sympathetic to all kinds of arguments. Policy was my first home; I coached it exclusively for many decades; I have not coached it since 2014; excuse my rust.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)

I would like to be on the email chain [lphillips@nuevaschool.org and nuevadocs@gmail.com] but I very seldom look at the doc during the round.

If you are not reading tags on your arguments, you are basically not communicating. If your opponent makes this an issue, I will be very sympathetic to their objections.

If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.

NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and register distress if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.

Teams don't get to decide that they want to skip grand cross (or any other part of the round).

I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses). Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. I am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF. I will work hard to understand continental philosophers, even if I am not too familiar with the literature. I really really want to know exactly what the role of the ballot is. I will default to NSDA rules re: no plans/counterplans, absent a very compelling reason why I should break those rules.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments, and most recent NPDI tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. Once upon a time people though I was a topicality hack, and I am still more willing to pull the trigger on that argument than on other theoretical considerations. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary.

I will obey tournament/league rules, where applicable. That said, I very much dislike rules that discourage or prohibit reference to evidence.

I was trained in formats where the judge can be counted on to ignore new arguments in late speeches, so I am sometimes annoyed by POOs, especially when they resemble psychological warfare.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?

When I operate inside a world of fiat, I consider which team makes the world a better place. I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. "Fiat is an illusion" is not exactly breaking news; you definitely don't have to debate in that world. I'm receptive to "the role of the ballot is intellectual endorsement of xxx" and other pre/not-fiat world considerations.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged fast LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a debater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.

--Speech--

What are your stylistic preferences for extemp? I enjoy the traditional format of extemp speeches, but prefer them to be as conversational as possible. if you're going to have a standard opener that you use religiously, be sure it makes sense. also be sure it isn't the exact same as every other person on your team. Use what YOU know and lean into that so that conversation flows naturally.

How much evidence do you prefer? quality over quantity for me. cite your sources with the date included, and use varied sources. at least 3 different ones! and make sure if you're bluffing that i can't tell you're bluffing.

Any preference for virtual delivery? acknowledge the camera if we're competing virtually! make sure you are in a space where you can be seen and heard.

What are your stylistic preferences for Oratory/Info? CONVERSATIONAL. Do not make it seem like this is the umteenth time you've competed with this piece. The beauty of oratory/info is that this is, or should be, your passion piece! YOU wrote every word. and if you're going to speak on something for 10 minutes over and over again, you should love it. And no matter how many times you've run it, it should feel like the first time every time. Your topic is near and dear to you and it's your job to make it near and dear to us. Universality is key. Though I may not be a part of the community or group or conversation, I need to understand why i MUST become a part of it or aware of it. Your passion and excitement for your speech should be palpable. Make it feel like the first time every time because for most people in the room it is the very first time we've gotten to hear this speech. and you have ten minutes to use this room as your platform and speak on what's important to you. make sure we leave this room talking about YOU! Your goal should be for us to be at our family dinner table telling everyone who will listen about this moment we took away from your speech. your gestures need to make sense and be natural. do not simply fall into gestures that you see being done just for the sake of doing them. if you wouldn't normally use particular hand gestures or vocal variations DONT DO IT for the sake of a round.

How much evidence do you prefer? I need enough statistics to not feel like you're just giving me your own personal think tank. back up what you're saying with multiple different credible sources. offer viewpoints that challenge yours, and then back them up with your facts.

Any unique thoughts on teasers? Your teaser sets the tone for the entire piece. Think about how you want to introduce us to the next ten minutes that we are going to watch!

Any unique thoughts on introductions for Interpretation events? Make them personal to YOU! Tell me why this piece matters to you while also telling me about the piece. What qualifies you to speak on this? Why should we listen and care? If you don't know who/what you're speaking on don't waste your time. oftentimes we are lifting up and bringing awareness to a community or an issue that is very delicate. use your intro to tell us why you're doing this and why it matters. Even in HI!!! i LOOOOVE a good tie in to real life. leave us talking about what we learned regardless of whether we are laughing, crying, or everything in between. take me on a JOURNEY.

Any preferences with respect to blocking, movement, etc: Make every movement a moment. I should be able to snap a photo of you and tell what you're doing and where you are. make movements and pantomimes intentional and thoughtful. break the mold! take me somewhere I've never been.

What are your thoughts on character work? you absolutely must BECOME your character. you need to study people who have experienced what your character has experienced. embody them wholly. whether it's in a humorous or serious way. do not halfway commit to something and expect us to buy in.

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)? Author’s intent- doesn’t bother me too much. Appropriateness is BIG for me. You’re in HIGH SCHOOL- crude sexual humor and excessive cusswords just aren’t necessary. It’s also cheap comedy IMO. If you’re that “mature” aim higher for your content. A few innuendos are okay, but don't get crazy. There are far more ways to get laughs then to take it literally below the belt.

I am a new debate coach at Summit HS! Therefore, I am a lay judge, but I do know how to flow your cases. I am a biology teacher, so I love science! Any science jokes are greatly appreciated! I can also take debate joke suggestions! My one joke is getting old ):

No points if you are a bully.

Preferences: No spreading! If I don't hear it and it's not on my flow, then you didn't say it. The purpose of debate is not trying to get as many words in as possible but it is to convince me of your argument, whether if it is a lay judge or not. I am not a tech judge but I try my best to make sense of your case. I always ask myself the WHY and HOW on my flow. I should be able to answer this based on the information you provided to me. I do not usually flow crossfires however I do listen to pick up any information I may have missed during case/rebuttal/summary. During the RFD I try my best to provide you with an exact reason why I voted for or against your ballot based on my WHY and HOW, but I don't have enough experience with case writing/debate to really go into specific links within the argument. I would not mind judging a theory/K round I am open to trying it, as long as you are thorough in you explanations. I would love the experience!

Most importantly... you do this for fun! Don't stress about winning/losing/bids you are still going to do great post debate regardless.You are learning a new skill from this.

EMAIL: erinlynn.pritchard@ahschool.com (please just use this if you need to include me on a live doc I will not answer paradigm questions without the other team present.)

MY BACKGROUND: I was a public forum debater on the Houston circuit in high school. I found lots of success in this event and would subsequently attend Texas Tech University on a debate scholarship. I competed in and was a top NPDA (policy) debater, and won numerous national tournaments. I was a k debater, and was most well known for running de-col the mind, witchcraft, rhetoric, and fem rage. I have coached LD, PF, and CX (along with various speech events) for years, and am currently the head LD, and PF coach for American Heritage in Florida.

IMPORTANT:

Do not text or message with anyone outside of the round, during the round for any reason whatsoever.

Be mindful of the opponents preferred pronouns, listed on tabroom.

Read trigger warnings prior to your speeches that may obtain sensitive material.

ARGUMENT PREFERENCES (PFers IGNORE, UNLESS YOU GOT IT LIKE THAT):

T - 1

K - 1

LINE BY LINE - 1

TURNS ON CASE AND/OR FW - 1

DISADS - 2

CP - 2

PHIL - 2

PERM WITH DOUBLE BIND ARGUMENTS - 2

THEORY TO CHECK ABUSE - 2

KICKING ARGS - 2

NON-T AFFS - 5

ARGUMENTS READ AS TIME SUCK - 5

LARP - 5

MY JUDGE PHILOSOPHY: You can run ANYTHING you want in front of me. I know this is such a bot thing to say, and I clearly have arguments that prefer over others (as mentioned above) but at the end of the day I am a flow judge who will vote on whichever debater/team is winning on the flow. Tech > Truth. I WILL drop the debater if they engage in any obvious forms of otherization (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc) against their opponent(s).

PET PEEVES:

Bad spreading.

Lying about the flow.

Poorly ran/misunderstood representations of K args.

Hi! I'm Cameron (Jack C Hays '22)

I competed primarily in extemp throughout high school but dabbled in oratory/info and congress

• my biggest factor when determining ranks (in extemp) is analysis -- make sure your points answer the question!
• In all interp events I prefer pieces with solid points of advocacy that move beyond the speech/tournament.
• have fun!! this is for fun!!

If you ever have any questions regarding a ballot please don't hesitate to reach out to me via email at clr9188@nyu.edu

Thanks!

I have been involved in competitive speech and debate since 2005 as a competitor and a coach. While more of my time has been spent on the speech side of things, my primary events were Extemp and Impromptu. I have served as a debate coach for University High School in Normal, IL since the fall of 2015. I teach high school Oral Communication, Argumentation and Debate, Contemporary Rhetoric, and AP Language and Composition.

In terms of Public Forum Debate, I am looking for a combination of appeals to the average person as well as to a more nuanced audience. Progressive Debate strategies are OK, but the link to the resolution better be solid. I also am OK with some speed, but not full on spreading. If I can't hear/understand something, it doesn't make it on my flow. DO NOT BE AFRAID OF COMPLICATED ARGUMENTS, but you have to be able to explain them to a diverse audience. At the end of the day, links are everything! I need to see how your evidence actually links together and to your argument as a whole. I also want impact analysis. Explain to your judge(s) how and why your side will impact more lives, I won't do the work for you. If you are the second team to speak in a debate, I expect your Rebuttal to respond to the first team's Rebuttal as well as their case. Second summary is too late to bring in something new as your opponents will not have adequate time to respond. Please consider everyone impacted by a debate resolution. I do care if we are saving lives in the US or in another country. I am only a flow judge in the sense that if you do not mention something in your summary speech, I will not weigh it in my final decision, even if it is brought up in final focus. At the end of the day, I also want a professional debate. It is OK to get heated in the moment, but please refrain from crossing the line into completely unprofessional! Finally, in PF, please be ready to exchange evidence in a timely manner. (Oh, and I don't flow cross, so if something good is happening there, make sure you mention it in the next speech if you want me to weigh it).

In Speech, I am looking for the best combination of speaker and content. In Extemp, I am going to vote up students that answer the question and provide compelling evidence as to why that answer is true. I will vote those students up over the cleanest speakers every time if the cleanest speakers do not answer the question. In Oratory and Info, I am looking for an easy to follow structure and compelling delivery. I am OK with older sources as long as they are justified by the topic. In interp, I want to feel something. I typically vote up students that have a clear connection to their piece that connect with the audience in the room.

I care about argumentation and analysis more than most all else. I emphasize the flow, and care about the credibility of evidence. I'm not the biggest fan of theory debate for the sake of theory debate. I prefer topic centric debate.

I have about 10 years of experience in the speech and debate world. I primarily exist in speech land, but I have judged a lot of debate and love a strong argument and good links. That being said, I enjoy when a speaker can clearly articulate their arguments, and use delivery based methods of persuasion to help sway the ballot.

I am always hopeful for a debate where there is a lot of clash, and a clear path to the ballot.

I love when debaters give me voters and a clear articulation of why they believe that they have won the ballot.

New coach here. I'm familiar with speech and forensics, but new to debate.

Please don't spread. I'm not savvy enough to figure out what you are saying and flow your case.

Please be respectful to your competitors.

I value truth over tech and focus on the impacts for my decisions.

I'm looking forward to your debate, best of luck.

I am a parent judge who has judged for about five years. I won't understand super fast talking of any kind, so I advise you to speak at a normal pace.

I will only vote based off what is said in the round, and will not make any assumptions myself. This means that you should assume that I know nothing about the topic, which is probably true. If you want me to consider an argument, I suggest you bring it up in the final speeches of the debate. This is mainly where I will make my decision, so I think clearly stating your reasons on why you won here is important.

Other than that, have fun.

I am a parent judge who competed in high school... Extemp and Sales (similar to Informative Speaking).

Extemp - main goal is to answer the question. A logical argument with good supporting evidence goes a long way. Fluency, humor, and good use of time helps me break a tie.

Other IEs - bring your energy, I love good blocking and good cutting. For multiple characters - vocal variation is important if you want me to be able to distinguish between them.

My "1" will go to the one who is able to convince me the best that they are the character(s) they portray.

Congress:

-It's a good to break down the what exactly a piece of legislation says and does as the first negative and/or first affirmative speaker.

-Refuting or extending the argument of at least one specific person by name is mandatory if you're the fifth speaker or later.

-Decorum matters, you are IN CHARACTER as a member of the United States House of Representatives or Senate. Breaking character (even during recess, or AGDs) and acting like a high schooler will disappoint me.

-Quality > quantity of speeches

-Strong debate > parliamentary shenanigans

I am a parent judge with experience judging both speech and debate events at the local, state and national levels. With this in mind, let me share a few things:

With regard to Debate:

• I have very low tolerance for speed; please do not read cases or rebuttal evidence at a pace that I may not understand. I don’t want to be added to an email chain or sent a speech doc - if that’s necessary, you’re reading too fast.
• I have no experience with theory, Ks, tricks, and the like; please do not attempt these in rounds with me. I will not be able to evaluate the round. If your opponent has a serious violation that you must bring my attention to, say it outright. Again, this should be only something blatantly harmful/round-altering.
• I will not vote for any argument that’s blatantly discriminatory.
• Do your best to extend your arguments throughout the round; the more clear your reasoning is the easier it will be to vote for you.
• I definitely pay attention to cross and it will impact your speaker points. I do not, however, flow arguments made during it. Mention anything you want me to flow from cross in the next speech.
• Weighing makes a round 100x easier to evaluate. That said, just saying “we outweigh on probability and magnitude” (for example) is not enough to convince me. Explain your justification, and you will be significantly more convincing.
• Have fun and think on your feet! Reading evidence will only take you so far; I am most impressed when you can logically and concisely explain your position.

With Speech events:

• I’m happy to provide whatever time signals you request.
• Be cognizant of your time limit.
• Cogent, engaging and content rich speeches will be most successful.

I look forward to having the opportunity to support your endeavors in Speech & Debate as one of your volunteer judges and your audience. Best of luck!

Bentonville West High School Speech & Debate Coach

I have been a coach and competitor in the forensics/speech/debate world for 20+ years. I specialize in speaking. Speaker points are important to me. Sloppy or disorganized speeches can cost you the round. Please don't just read to me. I want to see your speaking & delivery skills as much as I want to see your arguments. Make clear arguments and focus on line-by-line analysis. When it comes to splitting hairs for a win, I will go with the team with the best line-by-line argumentation.

Back your claims and counterclaims with solid cards. I'm an analytical thinker when it comes to debate rounds. I want to hear your claims back with more than your opinion.

I am a tab judge and willing to listen to any argument. However, don't kill a dead horse or bet your case on minuscule points. Support your claims with professional backing. Make your points clear and understandable. Make sure you link to the resolution.

I enjoy a clearly organized debate with strong signposting, road-maps, and line-by-line analysis. Organization is key to keeping the flow tidy as well as maintaining clash throughout the round.

PLEASE DON'T SPREAD IN PF & LD.Adapt your case structure/speaking style, to adhere to this request. I'm a speaker. I expect solid speaking skills. I can deal with fast speaking as long as you are clear. However, I'm a traditional judge. Don't spread in styles outside of CX. Just because I am a traditional judge does not mean I won't evaluate or vote up progressive arguments. They just better be good. :)

Be sure to read arguments that have a clear link to the resolution/framework. If I don't understand the argument itself or don't understand how it links, there is no way I can evaluate it.

You're not going to win rounds with me in cross. Just because you bring a point up in cross does not mean I will flow it. If you want it considered, bring it up in your rebuttal. Keep it professional. A true debater can give their points without sounding demeaning or disrespectful. It will cost you the round with me. Learn to disagree respectfully.

I am by no means a lay judge, but I judge PF & WSD rounds as if I am. Don't use debate jargon in these rounds. Speak to me as if I had never heard the word debate before. That's the design of these styles.

If you have any questions, please ask me prior to the round.

Avoid arguments that are homophobic, sexist, racist, or offensive in any way. Be respectful to your opponent and judge. Use professional language at all times.

Email for chain: jskordal@bentonvillek12.org

This is your debate so have fun with it! Best of luck to you!!

Oh Hey! I didn't see you there. Your hair looks AMAZING!

My name is Ray smith and I'm an alumni of Knott County Central High School (Class of 2005) located in Hindman, KY. At the very bottom I've included categories I've competed in during my time at Knott Central. Since then, I've had the opportunity to help judge competitions (in the early 2000's with paper ballots ????) and assist as a freelance coach. Additional professional experience includes working as an actor and educator with The Kentucky Shakespeare Festival as well as acting with Savage Rose Classical Theatre and Louisville Repertory Company. I'm currently signed with Heyman Talent Agency located in Louisville, KY where I primarily focus on film, television, and commercial projects. One of my favorite gigs was a lead role on a Spotify shoot.

When it comes to judging, I keep my poker face strong. It's a preference to help ensure no favoritism is being shown so don't be discouraged. When it comes to interpretation events, I look for solid character development and how polish the piece is. For example, in Humorous Interpretation, I really look at how well you pop into characters, focal points, as well as looking to see if characters blend into one another.

One piece of advice I would give We all started somewhere so don't give up. My freshman year in high school, I wasn't following the scripts and I believe I broke into finals once at a local competition. By my senior year, I quadrupled in state finals and even won a category. And my direct experiences in speech and debate have led me to a successful career as an engineer and actor.

Here are categories I've competed in along with some of my titles:

After Dinner Speaking (Humorous Oratory at the Great Smoky Mountain National Invitational) | 2005 Semi-Finalist
Broadcasting
Dramatic Interpretation
Duo Interpretation | 2005 KHSSL State Finalist
Group Interpretation (Non-Sweepstakes points at KESDA State)
Humorous Interpretation | 2005 KHSSL State Champion
Impromptu Speaking
Improv Duo
Poetry
Storytelling | 2005 KHSSL State Finalist (Top 3)

Rick Spoonemore

Background: I was the 1985 Washington State Debate Champion in Policy (LD had just started way back then), 1st in State in Impromptu Speaking, and 2nd in State in Extemporaneous Speaking. I went to college on a debate scholarship, then to law school at the University of Washington School of Law where I was inducted into the Moot Court Honor Board, and won the Falknor Appellate Competition during my third year. I have been a Seattle litigator since 1992, and have been named a Washington State Super Lawyer every year since 2005, including six years as a "Top 100" lawyer in the state. I am currently the managing partner of Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore Hamburger PLLC, a Seattle-based litigation firm. I have taught speech and debate, moot court, and trial advocacy to high school students, law students, and young lawyers. My professional profile is here: www.sylaw.com/

How to Lose a Debate Round: I have a great deal of respect for speech and debate and have little tolerance for those who disrespect the process or their competitors. If you are rude, you'll likely lose. If you are sexist, racist, or anti-LGBTQ+, you'll likely lose. If you are unprepared, then you are not respecting the process and that will hurt you. If you attempt to bend or break the rules, that also shows a lack of respect for the process. Don't bring up brand new arguments in rebuttal -- a twist or spin on an existing area of contention is good, but wholly tangential new arguments will hurt you. Speed is fine -- see below -- but if you attempt to spread, make sure you can do it with sufficient enunciation to make it intelligible.

How to Win a Debate Round: Clash, clash, clash! A good debate round is not two ships passing in the night with pre-canned arguments that fail to clash with the points advanced by the opponent. Sure, openings are set, but once the case moves to rebuttal I expect to see real engagement. I will give a win to a speaker or team who advances the most logical, reasoned, and supported arguments over a speaker or team who is smooth, but lacks depth, every time. I will flow all your arguments, make sure you engage all the positions advanced by your opponent. Dropped arguments can kill in policy, and will hurt in LD. I can handle speed, but make sure you can too if you decide to spread. If I can't understand you, I can't flow it. It took me years to unlearn speed after I got into the real world, so I don't penalize lack of speed, especially in LD. I generally buy problem area arguments and positions in both policy and LD. I like humor, where appropriate. Core principles, standards, burdens of proof/persuasion are key: I'll pay a lot of attention to the fight over the playing field in LD, so make sure you don't just engage on the details but neglect the superstructure.

Individual Events:

Impromptu: I admire any student with the guts to do impromptu. I am open to any form of speech in this genre -- from a story to a serious discussion about a current event. Give me a structure or roadmap, and attempt to tie in your conclusion to the introduction in some form. Pauses, stumbles, gaps and the like will not surprise me in this event, so chill if that happens to you. Just, please, don't go fast -- I know many people who do impromptu are also debaters, but this is the time to slow down and make a speech that has resonance with normal, non-debate people. Speed kills in this event. Finally, I really hate pre-canned impromptu speeches where the speaker takes one of the prompts and attempts to shoehorn it into a canned speech. That's not impromptu in my view, even if many students make it to nationals with this approach. If you do it, then make sure I don't know that you are doing it because I think it undermines the purpose of this event.

Extempt: See Impromptu. You have time to create a roadmap and structure (and hopefully a message or theme) so I view those elements as important. Like impromptu, this is a time to slow down from your debate tempo. I am not looking for volume of information -- don't spread extemp -- but a well-constructed outline with a theme or message that is, hopefully, thought-provoking.

Informative/Oratory: I have definite thoughts about good speeches in each of these events, but understand that by the time you are reading this there is nothing you can do. I'll make constructive comments on the ballots. In general, I think both of these events have become too formalistic and patterned. If you have a unique approach, you will likely be rewarded. The same tired formula (espicially in OO) has existed far too long, in my view. If you have a formula speech because that is what you have been coached to do (because the coach was coached the same, etc., etc.), just do it well.

Interp Events: Interp is far outside of my wheelhouse, and if the tournament decides to have me judge one of these events then treat me just like a "parent judge." I'll do my best . . . .

I am a parent judge and this is my fourth year of judging. I will only vote for arguments that I will understand, So please be clear with your warranting - don’t just tell me that something will happen, tell me why it will happen.

Clearly explain your framework, why it should be used , and how I should weigh the round based off it.

I don't flow cross-examination.

Weigh Impacts, If you don't do it then I have to and you may not like the outcome.

Be polite and respectful always, If you cross the line I will drop you from the round solely for that reason and report to Tab.

In terms of experience, I competed in some collegiate IPDA tournament's, but I mostly competed in platform and interpretation events. I competed at Mt. San Antonio College and we just recently won Gold at our national Phi Rho Pi tournament. My experience in forensics as a whole allows me to know specifically what I look for in a speaker.

Some general rules:

Do not be rude while you’re speaking or while anyone else is speaking.
You do not need to change your style for me. I will be able to keep up.
I appreciate off time road maps.
No spreading and I do not disclose after the round is over.

In general, I’m here to help you grow and thrive in this event. I hope it is fun and rewarding!

email is megan@adcominc.us

I am a junior high speech and debate coach. While I do tolerate some speed please do not spread. Please make sure to signpost. Impacts are important please make sure you connect them back to your value/criterion. Have fun and be kind to each other.

I am a communications teacher (I was never a debater) therefore I focus more on the educational aspect of the debate. Please do not assume that I understand all debate terminology and techniques. I need you to educate and persuade me through organized speeches and clear explanations.

Debate:

I am a newer/less experienced Debate judge and would appreciate debaters use traditional speaking speed.

Speech:

I have been judging speech events since 2017 and have coached students who focus in Original Oratory, Informative, and Impromptu. Prior to my U.S. high school speech judging experiences, I was professionally trained in pubic speaking in my native language; my career involves a high amount of marketing content development, corporate/executive communications, and public relations.

In speech writing, I look for a clear roadmap, strong arguments backed by research (I don't need to agree with your statistical findings or your conclusion, but your findings should fully support your viewpoints), and pragmatic solutions for issues you identified.

For interpretation events, especially those that compose of multiple literature works, I hope to not feel that the selections are pieced together. In other words, the structure should be logical, cohesive, and seamless.

For speech delivery, I look for genuine emotions that help me relate to the urgency of your topic: why is it important now and why your viewpoints, research, and life experiences are the right ones to help your audience understand it holistically. I also appreciate speakers who are able to present with their unique styles, even if there are parts where further polishing is needed.

Over the years I've heard a good number of strong speakers who sound just like Haris Hosseini or JJ Kapur in one of their NSDA speeches. While I admire these students' technical excellence, I also feel that their speeches inevitably become less personal and less distinctive in my ears. It's a fine balancing act between finding inspiration from great speakers/speeches and developing your unique voice.

Congress:

Don't speed through your speeches, speed matters to me. Style matters to me as well, I am looking for structured arguments with clean rhetoric that comes in a polished package. Introduce new arguments. In questioning, I look for fully answering questions while also furthering your argument. I notice posture and gestures -- and they do matter to me. Evidence should be relevant and (for the most part) recent. Evidence is pretty important to me, and outweighs clean delivery if used properly. A clean analysis will rank you up on my ballot as well. Don't yell at each other. Overall, be respectful of one another. If I don't see respect for your fellow competitors, it can be reflected on my ballot. Don't rehash arguments. An extra speech with something I have already heard that round is likely to bump you down when I go to rank. As far as PO's go, I typically start them at 4 or 5, and they will go up or down depending on how clean the round runs. A clean PO in a room full of really good speakers will likely be ranked lower on my ballot. As far as delivery goes...as it says above, I am a speech coach. Your volume, rate, diction, etc are important. Make sure you are staying engaged and talking to the chamber, not at the chamber -- I want to be able to tell that you care about what you are speaking on.

Speech:

EVERY performance must tell a story.

Extemp: Someone with zero knowledge of your topic prior to the round should be able to walk away from your speech with a basic understanding of your topic and your stance on the issue. You should include a variety of sources, and they should be as current and relevant as possible. I look for organization and structure, but I also like to see some evidence of your personality to keep me engaged. Knowledge of your topic is important, as is rhetoric and logic throughout the speech.

Info: These speeches should be clear and entertaining, and should include concise and organized ideas, thought-provoking takeaways, and interesting, engaging visuals. I will be looking for how well you inform your audience about your topic.

Oratory: Original oratories are a place to share personal experiences, either lived or researched, and should showcase your passion for an idea that matters to you.

HI, DI, Duo, POI: Tell a compelling and meaningful story that can be clearly followed. Acting and blocking should ADD to the performance, not detract from it – remember that drama is not always about crying, shrieking, and falling on the ground. Oftentimes, the best performances utilize pauses and soft spoken words more often than noise to convey emotion.

Prose and Poetry: I was an English teacher before coming to coach Speech and Debate, so I absolutely love listening to prose and poetry. I will evaluate characterization, insight and understanding as far as the mood and meaning of the piece, how clearly themes and ideas are expressed, and overall delivery (aim for distinct enunciation without sounding pedantic).

Final Interp ranks are based on the story, acting, blocking, message, and overall effect of each performance.

I am a parent judge. I would like to see debaters debate in a civil and professional manner demonstrating sound logical reasoning while building a strong case. Please pay attention to your warrants, link chains, and questions you may ask during crossfires. Please speak clearly and do not spread or speak too fast, so I can fully understand you. Please do not use too many technical jargon but treat me as someone who had minimal knowledge on the topic, so please explain your logic and convince me fully why I should vote for you. I am looking forward to seeing you in rounds. I wish you all the best!

TLDR: Warrant out your arguments, weigh, tell my why I should vote for you, be nice, and have fun :)

Background: I'm currently a junior at Stanford University and I've coached PF at Redwood MS and am currently the Speech coach for Palo Alto HS. I've competed in PF debate, Original Oratory, Extemp (primarily international extemp), and have done POI and poetry during my 4 years in high school.

Email: yuyu.yuan927@gmail.com (feel free to contact me about my comments on your ballots or if you have any questions :)

PF Paradigm: I prefer tech over truth so I'll buy any argument you present as long as it's well-warranted and not unethical (i.e. racist, sexist, etc...). I want to see clash and weighing because I think that makes for more interesting debates. That being said you should tell me how I should vote in the round. I won't intervene in the debate. However, if you don't tell me how to vote I will definitely evaluate the link debate first and probably vote off of whoever has the biggest impact second. I will consider dropped arguments as conceded unless you can give me a reason why I should consider the new answer. I don't really want to hear any new arguments in summary though. If it's something that can be cross-applied to an argument that you have already made, most likely I'll buy it as long as the argument still stands. If there was only defense read on your contention but it's something you're not going to go for I'll let you kick it if you don't bring it up again in summary or final focus. If there is offense on the contention and you don't want to go for it you have to kick it yourself, I will not kick it for you.

Policy Paradigm: I'm good with you reading any type of argument. Speed-wise, I'm fine with it as long as you're clear and you send me the doc. I'm a big fan of critical literature and definitely think it belongs in the debate space, but would only appreciate it if it's actual discourse and not just because it's a meme. I think you can read your k aff if you justify it but I want you to actually make sense. I'm good with framework and topicality but any other type of theory arguments I'm not as familiar with. For example, I'm not the most experienced with condo debates. I personally don't think unlimited condo is fair but as long as you tell me why condo is good and your opponents don't adequately address your response, I won't vote you down for it.

LD Paradigm: I don't have much experience in LD but I have judged a bunch of LD rounds. I am open to K's being read in LD because I love the literature, but treat it like you would any other argument (i.e. tell me how I should evaluate it, why I should evaluate it that way, why the links are there, and why your opponents should lose the round). I will not automatically vote for you if you prove that your value and value criterion matters more than your opponent's value and value criterion. I often find that some LDers think that if they prove their value and value criterion matters more then they should win the round and end up forgetting about the rest of their case, but just because you define the utility function doesn't mean you maximize it (i.e. just because you prove your value to be more important, your case or how the arguments are interacting in the round may not necessarily prove it). Otherwise, the rest of my paradigm applies :)

It should be assumed that you shouldn't be mean in rounds so I expect good debate etiquette. If you are rude during the round, at the very least I will give you low speaks. Debate is supposed to be a fun and open environment and we should keep it that way. Overall, just have fun!

Speech: I judge based on content, delivery, and creativity. I appreciate a speech that has solid content where the arguments are well structured and supported. For platform events, I find that many points are surface level so speeches that go in depth on your points will get extra brownie points. I love for analysis to connect and piece together everything for me so that it's obvious the message that you're getting at. Ambiguity in speeches does not equate to nuance and I would make sure that you know why you're leaving things ambiguous so that it is more purposeful in your speech.

For interp events, I focus specifically on blocking and the clarity of the storyline. I like pieces that have a lot of meaning but a clear exposition, climax, and "resolution" (doesn't have to be an exact solution to the problem you present and are showing us, but should be a good ending to showcase your message).

Hi, I am parent judge and I've judged IEs and debate during the 22-23 debate season for TFA and NSDA District.

IEs:

For speech delivery, I appreciate that you speak clearly without excessive word crutches. Use time wisely to fully develop the speech. Fluid speech and professional mannerisms will be noted.

On EXTEMPT/INF/OO, make sure your points discussed clearly address the question that you’ve chosen. Following the standard speech outline and including clear impact analysis would help. Cite your sources. I read broadly about economics, geopolitics and technologies on a regularly basis. Logical analysis of event and impact will be noted.

On INTERP, it is a performance and characterization is important. All movements (gestures, head, and other body movements) are done with purpose.

Debate:

- I do not mind speed as long as words can be understood. I also evaluate on speaking ability.

- I will evaluate how each side address other’s arguments with good logic and evidence.

- Off-clock road map is much appreciated.

- Please add me to the email chain: joyzhang08@gmail.com

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.