NSDA Last Chance Qualifier
2024
—
IA/US
Speech Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
Lakeisha Cecil
Alief Early College High School
None
Hisham Abdelhamid
Evergreen Valley
None
Destiny Adams
Savannah R3 High School
None
Oluwadara Adebanjo
Franklin HS
Last changed on
Wed April 24, 2024 at 2:36 PM CDT
- I focus on solid storytelling. The most important piece of the puzzle is the script, please don't forget to hold true the story as a whole even though we are only seeing ten minutes of it. Connecting to the audience, it's about telling the story to us, so a solid connection to the audience is important. We want to laugh and cry with you.
- Clean pantomime and connection with off stage characters
- Take us on the journey with you.
- Take a deep breath and have fun!!! Leave it all out there and take your seat feeling like there was nothing else you could have done.
- Don't forget you are not speaking FOR them, you are speaking AS them. It is an ownership that you should take seriously. If you don't tell the story, how will they continue to live?
- Be honest. These are real people sharing real stories of their lives. Breath through their struggle and be honest.
- Believe in the story you are telling, be confident, be bold, own your time in front of us.
- Make sure everything you do has a purpose. If it doesn't have a reason, it begs the question of why do it?
Allie Adkins
Wooster High School
None
Azzah Ahmed
The Archer School
None
Timothy Ahn
Advanced Learning Academy (hs)
None
Sumana Akella
BASIS Peoria
Last changed on
Sat January 13, 2024 at 12:41 AM MST
hi!
I am a parent judge so please do not do anything that you wouldn’t do for a parent judge, and I have a few rules of thumb.
- Please do not speak too fast and make sure you are clear while you speak.
- I listen to everything during the round, and I will judge based off whose argument is more convincing.
- Please be respectful and kind to both me and your opponent's.
- Please have fun and try your best and good luck to both of you guys!
Larry Alcorn
Avon High School
Last changed on
Tue January 23, 2024 at 7:42 AM PDT
Corporate executive by day; speech coach, judge and mentor after hours. I've spent 20 years in corporate America listening to my share of dreadful presentations. I can always spot those who have NSDA experience because they keep me engaged throughout the presentation. As a judge, I'm looking for polished presentations that elevate the discussion.
I am committed to providing honest, constructive feedback, allowing students to develop their presentations effectively.
I have a very low tolerance for poor audience behavior. That includes, but is not limited to, the use of electronic devices while others are speaking.
Anna Alexander
Laurel Christian School
None
Sofia Ali
Bentonville West High School
None
Azizbek Alikulov
Sharon
None
Tarin Almstedt
Fullerton Union High School
Last changed on
Sun February 18, 2024 at 2:03 AM PDT
my email address is:
Talmstedt@fjuhsd.org
Please include me on email evidence chains and case sharing.
For WSD, I will focus more on the Style aspect. WSD, I feel, is not a regular debate round, but a way to promote and share your ideas. If a team starts talking about why they won and not showing me, and the other team is showing me, I'll lean towards the other. If you're making me laugh, you are doing something right. I've judged tons of speech, PF, LD, and Policy, so I can handle anything ya got.
I am a head coach of a Speech and Debate Team. When it comes to PF & LD, I am lay judge but can understand tech-type jargon. I do not flow, but take shorthand notes. If you give me a verbal outline, I can track it.
These are do’s and Don’t for me judging your round:
-
Please do not use ‘K’’s to win your round, or run anything progressive, as you probably won’t win.
-
I appreciate off time road maps. Sign Posting is also very helpful for me to track your arguments
-
I will defer to the tournament organizers as to disclosure at the end of the round. If there are no instructions, I will disclose at the end of the round
-
A disrespectful team will most often lose the round
-
Trigger warnings are appreciated, but must be followed if asked to
-
I default to most lives affected/saved if no other framework is presented
-
Please do not spread, I asked nicely.
-
Make link chains as clear as possible, with clear warranting, especially when they are lengthy
-
Evidence is important. Accurate evidence is even better. Valuable evidence is best. This means if your opponent is using faulty or poor evidence call them out on it. Thus, ask for evidence.
-
As a lay judge, crossfire allows me to see the caliber of each team. Respectful, meaningful, and purposeful crossfire will help me decide the victor of the round.
-
Post round questions are helpful for my growth as a judge, so please ask for reasoning. However, your obligation is to beat your opponent, not argue with the judge, so clarifying questions will be entertained, but attempts to change my mind will not.
Prabhat Aluri
Newport High School
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 2:58 AM PDT
UW'23
If I am your judge, please put me on your email chain: prabhat@interlakedebate.org
LD Paradigm
I prefer Aff to be topical. I prefer a traditional Value/Criterion debate. I like clear signposting, that opponents refer to when refuting each other. I also require evidence to uphold your warrants and link to your personal analysis. All affirmatives should have some kind of standard that they try to win, value/criterion. The negative is not necessarily tied to the same obligation. The affirmative generally has the obligation to state a case construction that generally affirms the truth of the resolution, and the negative can take whatever route they want to show how the affirmative is not doing that sufficiently.
When I see a traditional debate that clashes on fundamental issues involving framework, impacts, and what either side thinks, really matters in my weighing of the round, it makes deciding on who was the better debater during the round an easier process. I like debate that gets to the substantive heart of whatever the issue is. There are very few arguments I would actually consider a priori. My favorite debates are the kind where one side clearly wins standards, whichever one they decide to go for, and has a compelling round story. Voters are crucial in rebuttals, and a clear link story, with warrants and weighted impacts, are the best route for my ballot.
I will listen to a Kritik but you must link it to the debate in the room, related to the resolution in some way, for me to more likely to vote for it. I am biased toward topicality.
I hold theory to higher bar. I will most likely vote reasonability instead of competing interpretations. However, if I am given a clearly phrased justification for why I should accept a competing interpretation and it is insufficiently contested, there is a better chance that I will vote for a competing interpretation. You will need to emphasize this by slowing down, if you are spreading, slow down, speak a little louder, or tell me “this is paramount, flow this”.
Reasonability. I believe that theory is intervention and my threshold for voting on theory is high. I prefer engagement and clash with your opponent. If I feel like negative has spoken too quickly for an Affirmative to adequately respond during the round, or a Neg runs 2+ independent disadvantages that are likely impossible for a "think tank" to answer in a 4 minute 1AR, and the Affirmative runs abuse theory, and gives direct examples from Neg, I'll probably vote Affirmative. Common sense counts. You do not need a card to tell me that the Enola Gay was the plane that dropped the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima.
I default Affirmative framework for establishing ground, I default Kritiks if there are clear pre-fiat/post-fiat justifications for a K debate instead of on-case debate. I do not flow cross examination. If there are any concessions in CX, you need to point them out in your next speech, for me to weigh them.
Cross Examination
Sitting or standing, whatever you are comfortable with. I'm fine with flex prep. I think debaters should be respectful and polite. Cross examination concessions are binding, if your opponent calls them out in their next speech.
Speaker Points
If I do not understand what you are saying, don’t expect to receive anything higher than a 28. You will lose speaker points if your actions are disrespectful to either myself or to your opponent. I believe in decorum and will vote you down if you are rude or condescending toward your opponent. I do not flow “super spreading”. I need to understand what you are saying, so that I can flow it. I will say “slow” and “clear” once. If there is no discernable change, I will not bother to repeat myself. If you respond, slow down, then speed up again, I will say “slow” and/or “clear” again. For my ballot, clarity over quantity. Word economy over quantity. I reward debaters who try to focus on persuasive styles of speaking over debaters who speak at the same tone, pitch, cadence, the entire debate.
If something is factually untrue, and your opponent points it out, do not expect to win it as an argument.
Please give me articulate voters at the end of the NR and 2AR.
I disclose if it is the tournament norm.
If you are unclear about my paradigm, please ask before the round begins.
Public Forum Paradigm
RESPECT and DECORUM
1. Show respect to your opponent. No shouting down. Just a "thank you" to stop their answer. When finished with answer, ask your opponent "Do you have a question?" Please ask direct questions. Also, advocate for yourself, do not let your opponent "walk all over you in Crossfire".
2. Do not be sexist/racist/transphobic/homophobic/etc.... in round. Respect all humans.
I expect PF to be a contention level debate. There may be a weighing mechanism like "cost-benefit analysis" that will help show why your side has won the debate on magnitude. (Some call this a framework)
I really like signposting of all of your contentions. I really like short taglines for your contentions. If you have long contentions, I really like them broken down into segments, A, B, C, etc. I really appreciate you signposting your direct refutations of your opponents contentions.
I like direct clash.
All evidence used in your constructed cases should be readily available to your opponent, upon request. If you slow down the debate looking for evidence that is in your constructed case, that will weigh against you when I am deciding my ballot.
I do not give automatic losses for dropped contentions or not extending every argument. I let the debaters decide the important contentions by what they decide to debate.
In your summary speech, please let me know specifically why your opponents are loosing the debate.
In your final focus speech, please let me know specifically why you are winning the debate.
Kerrington Anderson
Vines High School
Last changed on
Wed March 6, 2024 at 7:31 PM EDT
I love to see honest acting in interpretation events. If you have blocking, l'd like it to be clearly purposeful and clean. Most importantly, have fun.
In platform events I like you have unique analyses of your topics with clear implications. Again, above all else, just have fun.
Joseph Annareddy
Edina High School
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 2:58 PM CDT
I used to debate LD in high school. I tend to have a preference for traditional LD, but if you want to run more progressive arguments you need to really explain how those arguments interact in the round.
Kiran Aralapuram
Monta Vista High School
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 11:19 PM PDT
My approach is simple -
1. content - original, no fabrication or speculation with transparent sources/examples.
2. Organization - flow => topic introduction, topic(s), and conclusion. The transition between topics.
3. Presentation - clarity, pauses, audience connect, language quality, voice modulation, and tone.
Thanks to Kids, Parents, Coaches, & Organizers.
Josue Arellano
Los Altos - Hacienda Heights
None
Yesenia Arias
Russellville HS
Last changed on
Tue April 23, 2024 at 10:18 AM CDT
Competed/ Graduated in Oklahoma under the GOAT and now NSDA Hall of Fame coach Michael Patterson
As far as policy and all debate goes I try to approach every round with tabula rasa so have fun and run whatever you normally run as long as it is not sexist, racist, homophobic, or anything hateful.
"racism....its bad kids...don't do it"- Michael Patterson
No spreading if possible your judges should still be able to understand almost every word and enunciate.
I don't think the debate should be a monologue of zombies, crack the occasional joke trust me I'll laugh even if I don't find it funny. All while still keeping decorum.
Sammie Armatas
George Washington HS
None
Amy Arnett
Lovejoy High School
None
Sobhana Arvind
Arbor Academy
None
Javier Ayala
Helix Charter High School
Last changed on
Sat April 27, 2024 at 4:11 AM PDT
What I Look For:
Engagement
Clarity
Persuasion with Passion
Versatility in Delivery
Owning Your Space and Time
Jennifer Baese
Lakeville North High School
None
Monecia Bailey
Fort Walton Beach High School
Last changed on
Tue March 5, 2024 at 11:28 AM CDT
The MOST Important Thing: Speech and Debate should be a safe space for ALL so respect is key. So any ad hominem will NOT be tolerated, this includes racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, and transphobia. I don't mind aggressive clash debate, but it must remain professional and nonpersonal.
Debate Policies:
I bring a flow pad into the room and you have to prove to me your side will create a better world than your opponent's. I am a flow judge, so be cautious of dropping points and make sure your crystallization is thorough- weigh evidence and contentions.
Speaker points come through in presentation and communication. Pay attention to hand gestures, body language, and eye contact. You CAN be the better speaker and the worse debater, they are two different scores for a reason.
Cross-examination will not be flowed or scored in judging, points must be brought up again in a speech to make the ballot. Does impact speaking points.
Dislikes:
Spreading is fine, but quantity does not make up for quality, analysis must be thorough.
Likes:
Stand during Cross. Look at me, not the opponent.
Love an off-time roadmap. Helps clarify the flow and clean up the organization.
All debate lies in Impacts and Clash. Prove to me why you r world is better than the opponents.
Sonal Bandi
Solon High School
None
Ning Bao
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Micki Barker
Fair Grove
None
Brandon Batham
Burbank High School
Last changed on
Tue February 20, 2024 at 5:46 AM PDT
UPDATED 02/20/2024
I am a coach with more than a decade of experience in the speech/debate community, including as the coach of two NSDA national champion teams in World Schools Debate. I spend most of my tournament days in tournament administration, or running/working Tab, though I still judge on occasion. I work mostly with World Schools Debate, Congress, Public Forum, and Parliamentary competitors, as well as with Speech competitors. I am somewhere between lay and proficient as an LD judge, and I should be treated as a lay judge in Policy rounds.
As of February 2024, I have squirreled less than 8% of rounds that I've judged.
GENERAL COMMENTS
1. Brief roadmaps are welcome and appreciated. Also, please signpost! I shouldn’t leave the round wondering what your primary case arguments were, and how they correlate with those belonging to your opponents.
2. Frame and weigh arguments/impacts/evidence/etc for me and provide a clear analysis of the various items on the flow. As important as it is that I can identify that debaters' arguments, it's even more important for you to guide me through comparative weights and why your arguments/evidence/analysis is stronger and/or more important than those of your opponents.
3. I generally believe the Affirmative has the burden of proof. If AFF can’t make the case why their proposition is better than the status quo, NEG is almost certain to get my ballot. On the other hand, it isn't enough for NEG to simply say, "AFF's world isn't perfect, therefore NEG's world is better and you must negate".
4. If you do not address your opponents’ arguments, I am assuming you do not intend to refute them. Time management is important when strengthening your arguments and still leaving room to refute your opponents’. Take a few seconds to collapse so my flow is clean at the end of the round.
5. Treat me as though I have an at-best average understanding of what you're debating. I consider myself a fairly well-informed and logical person, so while I'm likely understanding the terminology and abbreviations you are rushing through, I have blind spots (like all human beings). I generally provide more weight to things that you spend time emphasizing--if you're taking the time to make sure I understand something, I'm going to assume it's pretty damn important.
6. I am not really Tech>Truth or Truth>Tech. I probably vote more consistently on the side of tech, but if you make an argument that is wildly untrue/unreasonable, I'm not going to vote for it regardless of whether your opponents call that argument out or not.
7. I'm open to a good/reasonable K, but there are very few instances where I believe a K has both been argued effectively and makes sense in the context of the round. I will never, never vote on disclosure theory, so don't bother running it.
8. Please don't ask me for my e-mail address to send me your case. I should be able to flow without reading your case, and I'm also just fundamentally opposed to adult judges/coaches having correspondence with students who are not their own.
Preferences that do not normally factor into my decision:
1. DO NOT SPREAD. If you are speaking and moving too quickly that I can’t keep up, we have a problem that could end with me missing something crucial to your case. I will stop taking notes if I cannot understand you.
2. There is a fine line between charm and smarm. Know the difference, because I certainly do. Humor, when done well and at the appropriate time, will endear me to you as a speaker. Too much humor/sass/sarcasm, and I think you've misunderstood this competition for amateur night at your local comedy club. In World Schools Debate, I am generally more willing to give latitude for sass than I am in any other event.
3. If your opponent calls for a card, you should have it relatively readily available. I don’t expect it to be at your side immediately, but when we get past 45 seconds, I’m either losing my patience or start to suspect you don’t have it.
4. PF'ers - Cross and Grand Cross should not be seen as opportunities to see who can speak the loudest or be the most assertive.
WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATE
In general, my expectation for WSD rounds is that you are taking your opponents at their highest ground. Motions should be reasonably interpreted, but I am not interested in an interpretation-exclusive approach to rebutting your opponents' arguments. Call out abuse when reasonable, and move on.
Compare worlds for me--to win the comparative, you need to prove to me that your world is substantively better than your opponents', and explain why.
Content: What does your case look like? Are your arguments fully fleshed-out? I expect you to state your claim, establish plenty of warrants behind that claim, and link concrete impacts. I reward solid analysis with high scores. If you can present effective practical and principle arguments to me, you can expect a high Content score.
Style: This one's pretty straightforward. I mark down speech readers, and boost solid rhetoric turns/flips. I want to know that you, as a speaker, are fully engaged with your opponents and judge(s). This is the one event where I like debaters to have more "colorful" rhetoric--and as long as what you're saying isn't flagrantly rude or disrespectful, I'll probably enjoy the sass and humor, and boost your Style score for it.
Strategy: This is where I evaluate your approach to the motion, as well as how you approach your opponents' case and arguments. One of the most important things that I look for are your understanding of arguments that require your response and arguments that require your dismissiveness. I expect you to break down the flow, but not all arguments are created equally. I recognize solid strategy scores from debaters who are able to zero in on the arguments that are likely to matter to me at the end of the round. I also expect POI's to have a purpose--they're the Chekov's gun of this event. If you're asking a POI, it should be evident at some point in the next speech why that POI was asked.
CONGRESS
In general, I highly value Congressional debaters who are equally adept at rhetoric/presentation and argumentation/technical debate skills. I don't flow a Congress round the same way I might any other debate round, but I AM tracking arguments and who is helping to structure and frame the debate.
You can be the best speaker in the round, but if you disappear during other speakers' CX, you should expect to be marked down significantly.
Unless you are the very first speaker on legislation, I expect at least one small refutation from you during your speech. The later the round goes, your refutation bar rises higher.
Late-round speakers who do not add anything substantive to the debate will not stand out for me. Even if you feel there aren't many new arguments left to be made, crystallize other arguments for me and explain why some matter more than others.
Presiding Officers - I should feel like I'm very much in YOUR chamber, not mine. PO's who truly control the room are the ones who stand out. I weigh your efficiency, procedural knowledge, and style.
Ryan Baudler
Benilde-St Margaret's School
None
Joel Bauman
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Sat January 13, 2024 at 12:22 AM PDT
I am a beginner judge of speech and debate tournaments.
For speech tournaments, the guiding principles that I use to judge participants include the following:
- Was the speech compelling? Was it well delivered with maturity, poise, and a demonstrated understanding of the topic?
- Was the logic in the speech sound?
- How well did the speaker present? Did they use effective gestures and facial queues? Did they speak fluently? Were there nervous ticks or unnecessary adds such as the use of "like" or "just" repeatedly throughout the presentation?
For debate tournaments, I look for the following:
- Is the logic used in the debate sound? Are there inconsistencies or logic leaps that make the argument difficult or impossible to follow?
- Did the AF team effectively present a plan that I could understand?
- Did the Neg team present an alternative or effectively refute the plan presented?
- Was evidence used effectively?
- Were ideas communicated in a way that was understandable?
- Which team made the most compelling arguments/which team was able to respond most effectively to key points of the opponent to make or refute a case?
I do my best to remove any bias based on prior knowledge or a topic and/or presenter characteristics.
Hey guys this is Austin, Joel's son here to tell you a little bit about my dad. He is a LAY judge. NO SPREADING. you will lose if you do this. Don't run medium arguments and use jargon like internal link. It will not work well for you. My dad has been working in cyber for 20 years so he knows stuff about cyber but will listen to evidence.
Christine Beard
Cypress Ridge High School
Last changed on
Fri January 5, 2024 at 4:22 AM CDT
Interp Events:
My rankings are usually based on who is able to create the most believable characters and moments. There should be multiple levels within your piece and in the portrayal of your characters ~ not everything should be intense, or fast/slow, or super loud or quiet.
Everything you do in your performance should have a purpose. If you give a character an accent, be consistent with that accent. Make sure that each movement, mannerism, or gesture makes sense within the scope of the story you are telling. Additionally, I should be able to easily differentiate between multiple characters. Facial expressions, moments, and character development are very important for the overall performance.
Speaking Events
A clear structure is important: your delivery should be cohesive, and flow logically from point to point. A natural delivery style that allows for your personality to shine is preferable to the “Platform Speaker”. Put simply: avoid speech patterns.
Extemp: The most important thing is that you answer the question! A polished speaking style is important, but I will often default to a speaker that has stronger analysis and evidence over a pretty speech with fluffy content. Do not rely on canned introductions - creativity is important when trying to engage me.
Oratory/Informative: Your attention getter, vehicle, and conclusion should be creative, but they also need to fit well with the topic. Again, I will default to stronger analysis/evidence over fluffy content.
Madelyne Beard
Cypress Ridge High School
None
Tommy Bender
Lincoln Southeast High School
Last changed on
Tue January 30, 2024 at 3:20 AM CDT
I like big picture tie ins
I like sign posting
Not a fan of speaking over each other in cross
Joaquin Beretta
American Heritage Palm Beach HS
None
David Berger
Clark HS
None
Melissa Berger
Clark HS
None
Jae Berry
Peak To Peak Charter School
None
Justin Bertram
Shakopee High School
None
Kavita Bhakta
Tuloso Midway High School
Last changed on
Tue April 23, 2024 at 5:32 AM CDT
Throughout speaking events it is crucial that you always maintain the attention of your audience using organization, relatability, and a suitable platform. The delivery should be clear, concise, and feel conversational. Speeches should be well-organized so that the audience can follow along easily, and they should include sources to help establish credibility. Last but not least, speaking occasions should involve a range of vocal tones, facial expressions, and purposeful gestures.
When it comes to interpretation, I value natural acting, purposeful blocking, and experiencing the true emotion. The characters' feelings should be conveyed to the spectator. I also assess the characters' authenticity.
During the debate, you should have clear explanations so that I can follow along with the scenario you've developed. I do not approve when you are unpleasant or hostile to your opponent, and I do not approve when excess vice is propagated. It's challenging for me to absorb your ideas if I can't grasp what you are saying. Whoever has the strongest case will win, regardless of how many arguments they can provide.
Last changed on
Thu February 15, 2024 at 5:05 PM EDT
Hey! My name is Sneha Bhale (she/her) and I did 4 years of Speech and Debate at Westwood High School. I competed in extemp as my main event both locally and nationally and I did some congress. I currently attend UT Austin.
debate events- please add me to the email chain- snehabhale21@gmail.com
Extemp- I prioritize content over fluency. I give the 1 to whoever answers the question adequately and addresses every actor mentioned. The substructure needs to be easy to follow and your impacts need to be realistic and topical. For fluency, fluency errors should not impede my ability to understand you and humor can go a long way. As for sources, please do not make them up and try to diversify your sources (use think tanks and academic journals). As for time, I don't care a whole lot but make sure it's evenly spaced out for every point. Overall, your content should make sense and should have sources, and having humor incorporated and a conversational tone will go a long way with ranks.
PF- Treat me as a flay (maybe a little more flow) judge. I will flow the round and have some exposure to PF. I'm not too fond of spreading but if you speak fast, I would like a speech doc. My flow shouldn't be all over the place and easy to follow. I think weighing is extremely important as well as the continuation of arguments in the summary and final focus. I also would prefer to be added to the email chain and will call for evidence so make sure there is no paraphrasing or twisting of information. During cross-ex, please be patient and polite. Speaks will be assigned based on clarity and overall demeanor within a round. I'm not too familiar with progressive arguments but I will evaluate them. Overall, I like a clean flow, slow speaking, weighing, roadmaps, warrants, and proper evidence protocols.
Cong- The PO should know proper procedures and keep track of precedence and recency well. The PO should also ensure voting happens fairly and keep track of everything efficiently. I will keep my precedence and recency sharts and will double-check. As for the competitors, congress is a matter of participation so make sure you pay attention. Try to pay attention the whole round and ask questions. I'm not too fond of pre-prepared speeches. Speeches that follow the debate and clash go a long way. Rehash is also a no go and I will dock points for it- please bring in new evidence and new points. If you are speaking later in the round, please bring in new evidence and use Clash rather than rephrasing previous speeches. The questioning period should be respectful to all competitors. As a personal preference, I prefer precedence and recency to be tracked online. It gets very messy when it is on paper. Overall, I like clashes in speeches, effective questioning, proper use of sources, and clear speaking.
And most importantly, have fun with it! Please let me know if I can do anything to make the round a safe place or a better experience for you. Also, feel free to ask questions/clarification on my paradigm or for any feedback after the round.
Rajesh Bhatia
Mountain View High School
None
Julie Bobrowicz
Perry High School
None
CJ Bonk
Elk River Sr High School
None
Sarah Botsch-McGuinn
Cypress Bay High School
Last changed on
Fri March 1, 2024 at 9:04 AM EDT
Sarah Botsch-McGuinn
email: sbotschmcguinn@gmail.com
Director of Speech & Debate-Cypress Bay HS (2022-present)
Director of Speech and Debate-Cooper City HS (2018-2022)
Director of Speech and Debate-American Heritage Palm Beach (2017-2018)
Director of Forensics-Notre Dame San Jose (2009-2017)
Head Debate Coach-Notre Dame San Jose (2008-2009)
General:
I’ve been a debate coach for the past 16 years, and Director of Forensics for 9 at NDSJ, one year as Director at American Heritage, 4 years at Cooper City HS and now at Cypress Bay High School. I primarily coached Parliamentary Debate from 2008-2017, including circuit Parli debate. I've been involved in National Circuit LD pretty extensively over the last 8 years, but have judged all forms of debate at all levels from local south Florida and northern CA to national circuit.
First and foremost, I only ever judge what is presented to me in rounds. I do not extend arguments for you and I do not bring in my own bias. I am a flow judge, and I will flow the entire debate, no matter the speed, though I do appreciate being able to clearly understand all your points. I consider myself to be a gamemaker in my general philosophy, so I see debate as game. That doesn't mean that there aren't real world impacts off debate (and I tend to be convinced by 'this will impact outside the round' type of arguments). **I don't vote on defense. It's important but you won't win on a defensive answer.**
While I do appreciate fresh approaches to resolution analysis, I’m not an “anything goes” judge. I believe there should be an element of fair ground in debate-debates without clash, debates with extra topicality, etc will almost certainly see me voting against whoever tries to do so if the other side even makes an attempt at arguing it (that said, if you can’t adequately defend your right to a fair debate, I’m not going to do it for you. Don’t let a team walk all over you!). Basically, I love theoretical arguments, and feel free to run them, just make sure they have a proper shell+. *Note: when I see clear abuse in round I have a very low threshold for voting on theory. Keep that in mind-if you try to skew your opponent out of the round, I WILL vote you down if they bring it up.*
I also want to emphasize that I'm an educator first and foremost. I believe in the educational value of debate and it's ability to create critical thinkers.
+Theory shell should at minimum have: Interpretation, Violation, Standards and Voters.
Speaks:
Since quality of argument wins for me 100% of the time, I’m not afraid of the low point win. I don’t expect this to enter into the rounds much at an elite tournament where everyone is at the highest level of speaking style, but just as an emphasis that I will absolutely not vote for a team just because they SOUND better. I tend to stick to 26-29+ point range on a 30 scale, with average/low speakers getting 26s, decent speakers getting 27s, good 28s, excellent 29s, and 30 being reserved for best I’ve seen all day. I will punish rudeness/lying in speaks though, so if you’re rude or lie a lot, expect to see a 25 or less. Additionally, shouting louder doesn’t make your point any better, I can usually hear just fine.
If I gave you less than 25, you probably really made me angry. If you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, ableist etc I will punish you in speaks. You have been warned. I will kill your speaks if you deliberately misgender or are otherwise harmful in round. I am not going to perpetuate hate culture in debate spaces.
Speed:
I have no problem with speed, but please email me your case if you are spreading. I will call 'clear' once if you are going too fast, and put down my pen/stop typing if I can't follow. It's only happened a couple times, so you must be REALLY fast for me to give up.
PLEASE SIGN POST AND TAG, ESPECIALLY IF I'M FLOWING ON MY LAPTOP. IF I MISS WHERE AN ARGUMENT GOES BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T TAG IT, THAT'S YOUR FAULT NOT MINE.
A prioris:
Please explain why your argument is a-priori before I will consent to consider it as such. Generally I am only willing to entertain framework arguments as a-priori, but who knows, I've been surprised before.
Theory:
Theory is great, as I mentioned above, run theory all day long with me, though I am going to need to see rule violations and make sure you have a well structured shell. I should not see theory arguments after the 1AR in LD or after the MG speech in Parli. I also don't want to see theory arguments given a ten second speed/cursory explanation, when it's clear you're just trying to suck up time. My threshold is high for RVIs, but if you can show how your opponent is just sucking time, I'm open to this. Also open to condo-bad arguments on CPs/Ks, though that doesn't mean you'll automatically win on this.
Disclosure theory: I'm unlikely to vote on this if your opponent isn't reading something very strange. I think education and disclosure is good but that doesn't mean I think someone should automatically lose for not. Keep this in mind. PLEASE I DONT WANT TO HEAR DISCLOSURE LITERALLY READ ANYTHING ELSE IM BEGGING YOU.
Most other theory I evaluate in round. I don't tend to go for blippy theory arguments though!
Critical arguments:
I love the K, give me the K, again, just be structured. I don't need the whole history of the philosopher, but I haven't read everything ever, so please be very clear and give me a decent background to the argument before you start throwing impacts off it. Also, here's where I mention that impacts are VITAL to me, and I want to see terminal impacts.
I prefer to see clash of ROB/ROJ/Frameworks in K rounds. If you are going to run a K aff either make it topical or disclose so we can have a productive round. Please.
Presumption:
In general I default to competing interp. If for some reason we have gotten to the point of terribad debate, I presume Neg (Aff has burden to prove the resolution/affirm. Failure to do so is Neg win. God please don't make me do this :( )
Weighing:
I like very clear weighing in rebuttals. Give me voting issues and compare worlds, tell me why I should prefer or how you outweigh, etc. Please. I go into how I evaluate particular impacts below.
I like clear voting issues! Just because I’m flowing doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate you crystallizing and honing in on your main points of offense.
I prefer voter speeches follow a: Main points of offense-->impact calc--->world comp model. If you just do impact calc I'll be happy with it, but I like looking on my voter sheet for what you feel you're winning on. It helps me more quickly organize my ideas.
Impacts:
I put a lot of emphasis on impacts in my decisions. The team with bigger/more terminal, etc impacts generally walks away with my vote, so go to town. This goes doubly true for framework or critical arguments. Why is this destroying debate as we know it? Why is this ___ and that's horrible? Translation: I tend to weigh magnitude heaviest in round, but if you can prove pretty big probable impacts over very low probability extinction impacts I'll likely go that direction.
You should be able to articulate how your contentions support your position/value/whatever. That should go without saying, but you would be very surprised. I don't vote on blips, even if we all know what you're saying is true. So please warrant your claims and have a clear link story. This goes doubly true for critical positions or theory.
Preferences for arguments:
If you want to know what I like to see in round, here are my preferences in order:
K debate
LARP
Theory
Phil
Traditional
Tricks
This doesn't mean I won't vote for a tricks case but I will be much sadder doing it.
Kelsey Bowers
Grain Valley High
None
Richard Bowman
Ben Davis High School
None
Andrew Brady
Chaska High School
None
Isiah Briggs
Newark Central High School
None
Scott Brockman
Norman North High School
None
Megan Broussard
St Thomas More
None
David Brown
Miami High School
Last changed on
Tue April 23, 2024 at 2:09 AM CDT
I helped teach the new debate team while I was a Senior in High School in the old days.
As an old school speech and debate alumni, I flow arguments in debates (all types). I require the points be made clearly and fully. No sound bites. I also require clear evidence.
If you have a good point that fits the type of debate, you have good evidence, and the opponent fails to fully and credibly counter, you win the argument.
I also will not tolerate any bullying or inappropriate name calling.
I am a listener and seek truth and facts within your debate.
I also loved duo interpretation and humorous rounds. I apply classic performance techniques and will provide feedback on the cutting, presentation, and "acting".
These skills do help with future success.
Have fun, try hard, and do your best!
Michael Brown
Odessa High School
None
Treya Brown
Hattiesburg High School
None
Nancy Brown Thomas
Strasburg High School
None
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:35 AM PDT
I am finally updating my paradigm after about six years of using this site!
Here's me in a nutshell:
1. Experience
* three years as a college Parli competitor in the NPDA; Parli team captain
* wrote master's thesis on "Characteristics and Impact of Superior Forensics Tournament Ballots"
* twelve years coaching experience at four private high schools in three different countries (U.S., China, Kuwait)
* coaches all formats except Policy
* team has earned state and national titles
2. General Preferences
* flow judge
* Some speed is okay.
* Off-time road maps are fine, but unnecessary. Honestly, I don't listen closely to them, and they never buy you enough extra time to actually make the difference in the outcome of a round.
* Don't electronically share your flow or case with me--this is an oral communication event. If you want me to hear something and know it, you need to say it.
* Things I highly value in all debates include: Clash, Impacts, Voting Issues. As a general rule of thumb, remember that whatever you say to me, you should make clear WHY you are saying it. How does this argument connect to the round as a whole? Why does it constitute a reason I should vote for you? How does it relate to what your opponents are saying? Etc. Please don't let your rounds turn into "two ships passing in the night." Grapple directly with the arguments made by your opponents, and make my decision easy at the end of the round.
3. Specific Preferences - Parli
* Ask each other lots of questions! There is a reason you are allowed to do this.
* GOV should provide sufficient resolutional analysis in the first few minutes of the PMC for all of us to know what type of round we are dealing with (policy, fact, value) and how the round will be decided at the end. Don't skimp on this part. If any terms in the resolution are ambiguous, define them.
* For resolutions of policy, talk about stock issues -- Harms, Plan, Solvency, DAs, etc. I will act as a policy maker.
* For resolutions of value, talk about value and criterion, then help me weigh these in the final two speeches.
* I am fond of creative/unique interpretations of resolutions. However, I will also vote on Topicality if OPP makes the argument well.
* Counterplans are fun but are often misused.
* Kritiks very seldom win my ballot. Proceed with caution.
* I dislike generic off-case arguments. The arguments you make should be ones that you and your partner have come up with during your prep time in response to the specific resolution you were provided. Please don't just read shells your coaches/captains have written for you, especially not if you don't really understand them.
Nicole Brunsting
Smoky Hill
None
Lyssa Bryngelson
Kelly Walsh High School
None
Patty Bugland
Half Hollow Hills HS East
Last changed on
Fri April 19, 2024 at 2:07 PM EDT
I was a teacher on the junior high and high school level for nearly 44 years before retiring in June, 2018. I taught students with learning and emotional disabilities in New York City for 37 of those years. I also taught in a small private school before that. With degrees in speech, theater and history, I brought an expanse of information and a desire to pass on a love of learning, especially to those who found it daunting. I was delighted to be asked to judge speech and debate in 1990. For 33 years, I have enjoyed judging both Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum debate as much as I do all speech events, including Student Congress. I greatly appreciate the hard work, dedication, creativity and camaraderie the competitors demonstrate; it is a great source of satisfaction when many ask about how they might enhance their skills as well as what might be wise to avoid as they progress. It is a source of delight when I see competitors incorporate suggestions from the judges and/or are willing to try something new.
As for preferences and biases, I prefer a more traditional debate to tech. I appreciate crisp articulation, proper pronunciation and pacing which allows me to absorb all that a speaker has to say. I purposely avoid Policy Debate because I find its pace just too rushed. If I miss an excellent statement because it was delivered at an auctioneer's pace and went by too quickly, that is disappointing for both the speaker and the judge.
When I judge Public Forum, team work is important. I look to see how well each pair works together. I am particularly interested in how the second speakers follow through from their partners; the last speaker has a greater responsibility as I view a round because that speaker can crystalize all three previous speakers. I look to see how all the possible information brought out is used to prove or disprove the resolution. Was a point elucidated or dropped?
TECHNICAL NOTE: I advise having printed copies of your speeches, notes and documents handy. If the Internet freezes or your own device malfunctions, you have it all ready. I would highlight key points in color. This saves time if asked for it under questioning. This was especially apparent at the recent NY State Tournament. Competitors would have saved momentum had they printed out their references to hand to opponents instead of scrolling on laptops. Also, you are prepared if the WiFi fails.
I gear my critique comments toward encouraging speakers and writing some instructive remarks which I hope will give them ways to improve what they are doing in content and delivery. I will encourage those who speak too quickly to slow down so that their statements get across as they desire them to. I will write corrections if something is mispronounced, for example, Reuters is pronounce, "ROY ters, short e sound", not "Rooters", as some do. There are many important words, some foreign in origin, that good speakers should know. If something seems as perfect as it could be, I will say so, too. I encourage those skills with a statement about how the speaker may keep their delivery fresh and crisp.
It delights me to see former student competitors return as judges. It is also a huge source of satisfaction to see former student competitors use the skills they honed during their years in tournaments in their professional lives. How exciting!
The working relationships which have developed over the years with fellow judges is particularly enjoyable. Many friendships and pleasant acquaintances have forms. The overall experience has enriched my life as much as I hope it has everyone involved. I love these events and enthusiastically hope that I will continue to judge as long as possible.
- Patricia M. (Patty) Bugland
Tarrah Burton
GlenOak High School
None
Mel Butler
Polson School District
None
Bilal Butt
Charlotte Latin School
Last changed on
Sat March 9, 2024 at 11:03 AM EDT
I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Charlotte Latin School. I coach a full team and have coached all events.
Email Chain: bbutt0817@gmail.com - This is largely for evidence disputes, as I will not flow off the doc.
Currently serve on the Public Forum Topic Wording Committee, and have been since 2018.
----Lincoln Douglas----
1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.
2. Am ok with speed/spreading but should only be used for depth of coverage really.
3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks
4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:
----Public Forum-----
- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater but don't use speed unless you have too.**
- I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that, with some humor and panache.
- I have a high threshold for theory arguments to be valid in PF. Unless there is in round abuse, I probably won’t vote for a frivolous shell. So I would avoid reading most of the trendy theory arguments in PF.
5 Things to Remember…
1. Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)
After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.
2. Framework
I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.
3. Extensions
Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense extensions to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech which may include early defense extensions.
4. Evidence
Paraphrasing is ok, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. Make sure to extend evidence in late round speeches.
5. Narrative
Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.
SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS
30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.
29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.
28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.
27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.
26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.
25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.
Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.
***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***
Lynbrook-Ronglun Cai
Lynbrook HS
None
Liz Cambra
Royse City High School
None
Amy Campbell
Percy Julian High School
None
Martene Campbell
Episcopal Collegiate School
Congressional Debate Paradigm:
I'm looking for the best legislator overall which means I am considering your holistic participation in the round including the types of speeches you have given and the questions you've asked. I love that Congress is a unique blend with an emphasis on delivery and debate/analysis in the round.
Additionally, I value evidence based debate with credible sources. Cite a source so I can look at it if I'm interested.
Please don't re-hash arguments--Know when it's time to move on. I flow the round and will know when you re-hash arguments and evidence. It's also important to know where/when you are speaking in the round in terms of what type of speech you are giving.
Be prepared to speak on either side of a bill.
You are also role playing as a legislator--remember this as well.
John CAO
Valley Christian High School
Last changed on
Fri January 19, 2024 at 11:20 AM PDT
Public Forum
Emphasize logic and flow, facts & evidences; value respect and professionalism. Manner, behavior and sincerity matters.
Judged in SCU & North Bay.
Martin Carrillo
Crescenta Valley High School
Last changed on
Fri April 26, 2024 at 2:51 PM PDT
A theater educator, and 20 year professional Sound Designer and Composer for the stage, I'm proud to be participating as a judge for the NSDA and look forward to reviewing the outstanding talent all of you show.
Jade Casado
Nova High School
None
Daniel Ceci
Solon High School
Last changed on
Thu March 7, 2024 at 6:56 AM EDT
1. What is your experience level? Have you been
actively coaching or judging, and how long?
How often have you judged rounds on this
topic?
Former interp competitor, who has been coaching and judging all speech and debate events since 2002. I have served as an event specific coach, assistant coach and head coach of small and large programs. I have judged speech, PF and Congress at all levels of competition, from local tournaments, state finals, national circuit, and national final rounds.
2. Describe your preferences as they relate to
debaters’ rate of delivery and use of jargon or
technical language.
I can handle speed for the most part, but too fast to flow and it would be difficult to win the round.
3. Describe your personal note-taking during
the round. Do you write down key arguments?
Keep a rigorous flow?
I record brief notes on the key arguments and points of the round.
4. What are the specific criteria you consider
when assessing a debate?
I look at who won the most important/critical argument of the round based on the impacts presented.
5. What expectations do you have for debaters’
in-round conduct?
I very open to style choices; however, overtly rude or aggressive behavior is unacceptable. Debaters who are respectful of their opponents and understand the art of debate should be applauded.
Elizabeth Ceja
Middle College High School
None
Chandni Chadha
Leland High School
None
Julia Chen
Elkins High School
None
Yahua Cheng
La Canada High School
Last changed on
Fri January 19, 2024 at 5:17 AM PDT
I am a parent judge. I judged over 100 competitions.
I will rate the competitors based on two main parts:
-Composition:
If the content is effective writing or not.
Does the competitor's speech organize clearly and easy to follow?
Does the speech contain ample solid reasoning and logic
Is the speech too general or does it focus on specifics?
Does the speech make too many generalizations or assumptions about the audience?
Does the speech contain evidence and examples?
Does the speech have good rhetorical choices?
-Delivery:
I would like competitors to use effective oral presentation skills. I will check if the competitor is comfortable with delivery such as having a clear voice, good intonation, or a nice tone.
I will also check if the speaker uses effective body language or not such as hand gestures, facial expressions, and eye contact.
Naga Chengalvala
Marquette HS
None
Katie Chiu
San Marino High School
None
Kevin Chollman
Moses Lake High School
None
Vivek Chopra
Archbishop Mitty
None
Christopher Clarke
Benilde-St Margaret's School
None
Hannah Coleman
The Harker School
None
Veronica Colmenarez
St Thomas More
None
Kris Compton
Prestonwood Christian Academy
Last changed on
Mon January 8, 2024 at 1:12 PM EDT
Kris Compton
Background & Coaching Information:
*2 Diamond Coach with over 25 years of experience coaching both public and private programs in Florida, Alabama and Texas.
*Experience coaching and judging all events
*Have had TFA finalists in multiple events, NSDA Nationals Semi and Finalists and have coached numerous Alabama State Champions in multiple of events
- 2023 NSDA Duo Interp Finals Judge
- *I have a true passion for the overall educational and life changing skills of speech and debate. I expect competitors to be respectful of all events and each other.
INFORMATIVE & ORATORY
Content & Visual aids
*A NEW perspective on a NEW topic or a refreshing and inspiring topic that is not overdone.
*Informative should not be persuasive in nature; your job is to inform not persuade
*The best oratories provide stories and a genuine moments within the speech. I should feel and see your heart in your speech.
*Research should enhance and advance information presented. Research should be relevant, current, and reliable
* For informative, Visual aids should not be a distraction but add to the quality of what is being said. The focus should be on the words spoken and not the visual aids. Just because you have strong visual aids is not the winning point for me; a well written memorable speech and performance weighs more heavily.
*Speech should be well organized, easy to follow, and engage the audience
Performance
*Professional and engaging. Performance should enhance natural strengths. Don't force cheesy humor.
*Natural movement and gestures; blocked and robotic movements sometimes can distract from the overall presentation
*Apply all the needed vocal variation that makes speeches engaging
*I want you to be genuine and real. I am not interested in fake and robotic performances. I cannot stress this enough. I don't care how polished you are if you are not real.
*I should be able to tell why this topic is important; passion is imperative. This should be obvious in every aspect of your performance.
IE ( HI, DI, PROSE, POETRY, POI, DUO)
*Creative, engaging, relevant, entertaining.
*Maturity and age appropriate.
*Follow the event rules
*Easy to follow; don't make me work to understand what is happening.
*Take me on a journey of emotions
*Characterization should be genuine and real.
*Blocking should enhance and add to the performance; not be used in place of good performance.
*When working with a partner, strengths should complement one another
*Sometimes simple moments in a performance are the most memorable. A certain look or gesture can be gut wrenching and draw an audience in. Those moments are more impressive than overblocked and overacting attempts of winning my vote.
*Same as speaking events, I value genuine and real performances. I'm not interested in polished robotic performances that have not heart.
PF
*I am a flow judge BUT presentation also matters a great deal. If I can't understand what you are saying, it is difficult for me to flow your arguments.
*Respect in the round is essential. I don't care how good you are if you are disrespectful to your opponents or to the judges you will not get my vote. Be professional and respectful at all times.
*I am good with any kind of speed, but keep it clear and articulate.
*If you do not extend properly, I will not buy any of your arguments.
*Proper extension should include tag, short summary of evidence, and impact calc.
*I expect FF and even Sums to have impact calculus (magnitude, propensity, reversibility, etc.)
*Impacts are essential. I don't care if you don't tell me why I should
* I prefer you being true to what public forum was designed for, however if you happen to run theory and Kritik debate I will be ok with it.
* The second speaking rebuttal should respond to turns placed in the first speaking rebuttal.
*Offense wins rounds, so make sure your voters are offensive.
*Please collapse or the debate will end up being a mess. If you are going for Theory make sure to delineate what you want me to do with it (drop the debater, drop the argument, etc.), stance on RVI, clear voters.
*I consider it the burden of the Kritik to provide an alt and prove its uniqueness, so I will default buy the perm even if your opponent doesn’t argue it unless uniqueness is proved.
*AGAIN, I prefer traditional PF debate, butI will and can adjust judging according to different styles of debate.
*Organization is key; make it easy for me to follow
*Words matter; word economy is essential. Don't waste time with insignificant words and filler language that takes away from overall presentation points
Extemporaneous Speaking
-Be strategic about your question; play to your strength and knowledge, but avoid easy questions that don't require much analysis
-It is imperative you answer the question clearly and concisely
-Clearly link evidence with rhetoric and impact
-Using variety of sources is important; I am not impressed with multiple sources if those sources don't directly link with what you are saying. Just spouting off sources is not impressive. The information actually has to say something of importance and connect.
-The more current the information, the better.
-Organization and structure is important; but add some personality and flair to make it interesting and engaging.
-Knowledge of the topic is essential; more rhetoric and logic used in your speech is more impressive than anything
-Professional presentation is incredibly important.
-Don't add humor if it is not your strength.
-Tone should fit the topic.
-DO NOT BE POLITICALLY POLARIZING. Bashing any ideology or person is not impressive and will immediately give me reason to not consider a high ranking. Be respectful always.
Congressional Debate
- I NEED CLASH.This is congressional debate, unless you are 1st AFF Speech, you should have clash in your speech. Bring up NEW points and please do not keep bringing up same points as other representatives.
- When you clash be sure you mention representative's names when referring to their specific arguments.
- Your speeches need evidence, MINIMUM, one piece of evidence per point. More is appreciated.
- When using evidence, it should clearly link or I will not consider it. Include dates; the more current and relevant the better.
- DO NOT read your speech; engage your audience and do this in a original, creative and respectful way.
- I do listen to your speeches and questions, so if you give clearly falsified evidence or logic I will know. Be involved and know parliamentary procedure as well.
- You are judged on the WHOLE round, not just speeches, so if you are rude or aren’t involved don't expect a good score from me.
Yonghua Cong
Portola High School
None
Nicole Cooney
Lake High School
None
Stephanie Cozzens
Laramie High School
Last changed on
Sat January 27, 2024 at 7:31 AM CDT
Edit in progress! It will reflect the fact that I have not coached policy in a few years. Still a fan, but I'm rusty on what all the cool kids are doing these days.
Policy:
I'm happy judging whatever crazy, creative argument you think you can make me believe (which you will do by providing awesome evidence, links, etc.) BUT you better enunciate those crazy arguments clearly. My number one pet peeve in policy debate is debaters who try to spread but stutter and stumble through their speeches. I can flow as fast as you can speak, but if I can't understand what you're saying, I will say "clear" once or twice, and then simply not flow what I can't understand.
I'm fine with tag-teaming in cx.
If the round is shared via email chain, I'd prefer you still make an effort to say actual words.
A few caveats to the "I'll buy anything" -
I'm fine with Ks, but it's got to be a pretty killer kritik for me to vote on one K alone - it's more likely I'll weigh it as part of a larger strategy.
PICs are abusive as they take too much affirmative ground, BUT occasionally there's a PIC that justifies the existence of PICs, and those make me happy.
Run topicality if it's justified. If it's not, and you're running four Ts as a time-suck, I won't buy any of them.
I prefer textually competitive CPs. If it's only competitive through a link to a DA, then I'm going to give it the stink eye. Never say never - I do periodically vote for arguments I claim not to like - but you better advocate for that CP really, really well.
IN summary with the PICs, Ts and CPs - just run a good, relevant argument. If you're throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks, I'm probably going to dismiss it as crap. But if you're confident it's an awesome argument, tell me why I should buy it; it's distinctly possible I will, just understand those arguments have a higher threshold for me.
Signpost, give me clear voters, be polite. When a team starts showing contempt for their opponents, I start looking for reasons to vote against them.
And have fun.
Lincoln Douglas:
Value/Value Criterion Clash - I expect you to have a clear value and value criterion, but I use them as a way to evaluate the round (framework), not as a voting issue (unless they're really, really bad, abusive, or maybe unexpectedly brilliant). Show why you meet your opponents' v/vc as well as your own, or why yours makes much more sense in context of the round, then move on. It's probably not going to be a big independent voter for me.
If you're doing circuit LD - please don't make it dumbed-down policy. Arguments still need to be fully developed, relevant to the topic, and coherently articulated.
If you're doing traditional LD - I appreciate someone who can talk pretty, I really do, but I want to see CLASH. Weigh arguments. Compare sources, and delve into what cards actually say. I like to vote for debaters who can help me see the big picture in the round, but can also weave a convincing narrative out of all the minutiae.
As with all debate - be confident, be aggressive, but don't be a jerk.
Public Forum:
I'm fine with speed in PF - but same as other debates, enunciate clearly!
More than any other debate, I expect PFers to be respectful of opponents. Be confident, be aggressive, and never show contempt.
Please maintain a consistent strategy between both partners' speeches - you need to be on the same page as to what you're going for and how you argue things. If I see two different debates from one partnership, I don't know what I'm supposed to vote for, so I'll usually vote for the other team.
Most (not all, but most) topics benefit from a framework, so have one! Tell me how to evaluate the round so I can judge the debate on what's debated, not on my preconceived notions of what's important.
I am okay with paraphrased evidence, but make sure to represent the facts and perspectives of your sources accurately. If I ask for a card after the round, I want to see the paragraph before the portion (highlighted) read, the paragraph after, and of course, the evidence itself, with all non-read portions viewable as well. Do not send or show me a 30-page journal article.
I prefer that you begin to narrow the debate in your summary speech, and then highlight voters in your final focus. Maybe that's obvious?
Anyone, good luck, have fun.
Lori Crews
Bishop McGuinness Catholic
Last changed on
Fri April 26, 2024 at 2:08 PM CDT
I will adopt the debaters' paradigms and hear just about any type of argument as long as analytics are given to explain. I won't intervene by providing my own links or analysis if debaters just read cards at me.
Likewise, give me a framework and tell me how to weigh the round. In LD, I want this to be explicitly stated, even if it is a progressive framework. I'm fine with a non-traditional framework. Just explain it to me. In PF, the framework may or may not be explicitly stated, but I should be able to easily extrapolate a standard.
I like an LD 1AR/1NR or PF Rebuttal to be line-by-line, but feel free to tell me what you think is more important/has more weight in the round. I like LD 2AR/2NR to crystallize and give voters-not more line-by-line. Same with PF Summary and Final Focus.
It is imperative that debaters give voting issues and impact calculus linked back to the framework. If you don't, I'm stuck comparing argument to argument.
I am fine with both progressive debate and traditional debate. A bit of speed is fine, but I would prefer that it not rise to the rates in CX. I can follow you, but I'd prefer to have time to digest your arguments. Also, keep in mind that more isn't necessarily better. Be strategic. Introduce what you think you can reasonably handle. I'm fine with debaters kicking out of arguments. Funnel arguments down to what is really important and viable in the round.
Krystal Crisostomo
Gabrielino High School
None
Ijahnae Cross
Shakopee High School
None
Celeste Cruz Rivera
Lincoln East High School
None
Diana Cuomo
Sacramento Waldorf High School
None
Cheli Curran
Centerville
None
Wendy Curran Meyer
The Colony High School
Last changed on
Fri April 26, 2024 at 9:11 AM CDT
I am the Speech/Debate teacher and coach at The Colony High School in Texas and although I've judged quite a few tournaments over the past two and a half years, I consider myself still learning about coaching and judging debate and interp events. I pledge to do my best to judge events fairly and accurately. I appreciate articulate and easy to understand speakers and do not like spreading. I may ask you to slow down if you are speaking too fast so that I may adequately judge your speech. I may disclose results to you after your performance or may choose for you to review my comments on Tabroom. I consider myself a coach first and judge second - so if you ask how you did after a round/performance, you will hear words of encouragement or gentle critique. I want a judge to do the same for my students.
Know that I am listening intently to your performance or for the case you present in your argument and wish everyone the best of luck!
“As a coach member of the National Speech & Debate Association, I pledge to uphold the highest standards of humility, equity, integrity, respect, leadership, and service in pursuit of excellence.”
Holly Custer
Wooster High School
None
Gursimrat Dahry
Shakopee High School
None
Ting Dai
Valley Christian High School
None
Armando Daniel
Peninsula High School
None
Abby Darragh
Weatherford High School
None
bradley dash
Western High School
None
Joy Davis
Gloria Deo Academy
None
Laurie Davis
Bentonville High School
None
Juan De La Cruz
Hamilton High School
None
Bhavna Dedhia
Acton-Boxborough Regional High School
None
Stephanie Dement
Carson HS
None
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 8:55 AM EDT
Denslow, Keith Edit 0 3… Judging Philosophy
Keith Denslow,
Skiatook High School,
Skiatook, OK
I have taught academic debate for 32 years. I have coached both policy debate and value debate on the high school level plus NDT and CEDA for 2 years on the college level. I have coached regional, district, and state champions.
I give up. I embrace the absurdity which is post-modern debate. If you debate on a critical level, then it is your burden to understand and explain the philosophical position you are advocating and offer a rational alternative to the worldview.
Topicality is an outdated mode of thought with tries to put up fences in our brain about what we can and can not talk about. It harms education and the marketplace of ideas. As a negative, only run Topicality if the argument is 100% accurate not as a test of skill or response.
It is important that anyone arguing counterplans have an understanding of counterplan theory especially how a counterplan relates to presumption. DO NOT automatically permute a counterplan or critique without critically thinking about the impact to the theory of the debate.
Style issues: Civility is important. Open CX is okay. Clarity must accompany speed. Numbering your arguments is better than “next” signposting. Detailed roadmaps are better than “I have 5 off” and prep time doesn’t continue for 2 minutes after you say “stop prep” Flash evidence faster!
Kimberly Derby
Owasso High School
None
Adoriam Dewalt
Cypress Creek HS
Last changed on
Tue January 9, 2024 at 11:08 AM CDT
For Lincoln Douglas and similar events:
- I don’t mind spreading, as but as long as the contestant is articulan in their words then its okay
- Please be respectful to each other. I don't mind clashing, as long as its paramount to your point
- I like to hear where you got certain information to sound reputable. I don’t like ad hominid
For Single acting events:
- I look for a smooth flow of words and expression in bodily language
- Being able to transition from your skit to the title, along with different characters a voices is what I look for
- voice and dictation is important as well
For Duo and similar events:
- I pay attention to good chemistry and flow with partners to the skit
- Movements and acting should compliment one another and help the flow of the story
- I love to see uniqueness and individuality
For Exempt:
- Looking forward to interesting attention getters
- Smooth and thought out expositions along with fluid transitions
- citation of sources
For Oratory:
- Would like good attention getters
- unique topics along with creative ways of execution
- fluid transitions
Jeff Diaz
Middle College High School
Last changed on
Sat February 17, 2024 at 2:37 AM PDT
I am the head coach of Speech and Debate (primarily focus on Lincoln-Douglas) at Middle College High School in California, 2023-2024
As a judge I will be focusing on the arguments presented in the debate, meaning: the contents of what is said, and not just how it is stated, will make all the difference. Striking the balance between speaking persuasively, but also having sound logic behind your claims will set you apart from your opponent. I will take a step back and evaluate as a third party: the quality of the argumentation in the debate. The archetypal argument must consist of a claim (what you are trying to advance) and a warrant for that claim (why is it true). I don't need your case. Avoid including me in the chain. Strong evidence should be clearly stated, and not outdated.
Avoid spreading. If I can’t understand you, and you fail to articulate yourself clearly, I can’t judge in favor of your case. Speak clearly and signpost.
I will look to the structure of your cases and be on the lookout for framework (essential in LD). Topicality Frame for 1AC and 1NC: Define any key terms in the resolution that may come up later in the debate or will be crucial to your contentions. Give your Value and its definition. Give your Value Criterion and its definition. Address Significance and Inherency, harms and impacts along with solvency (aff)/clash(neg). Neg: Without clash, there isn’t any debate. Debaters must clash directly and specifically to their opponents’ arguments. CLASH is a central, deciding factor of a debate. If a debater fails to clash with major points, you will lose the debate.
1 AR- I will be looking that you provided answers to the Neg Clash. Do NOT extend your case or read more harms and impact evidence for your contentions. 1NR- Do NOT extend your case or read more harms and impact evidence for your contentions and NO COUNTER-PLANS. I will not consider new evidence presented in 2NR so please do not give new cards or provide new evidence
Avoid:
-
Getting confrontational. It’s a debate–it should not get personal. Face the judge, not your opponent.
-
Getting too loud. Louder does not mean you are more convincing or does not signal you are right.
Speaker points: out of 30 (however the scale starts at 26, unless the student was intentionally rude, made offensive or hateful comments-this will result in a 25). I may assign the winning debater the highest number of speaker points (granted there weren’t major issues and they weren't subpar), unless I believe it is a low-point win.
Results will be on Tabroom. Thank you.
Jordan DiNapoli
Valencia High School
None
Padma Divakaruni
Evergreen Valley
None
Kaelan Doolan
GlenOak High School
None
Jared Dosch
Raymore-Peculiar High School
None
Chris Dowell
Gabrielino High School
None
Aaron Drew
Chesterton High School
Last changed on
Wed March 20, 2024 at 5:39 AM CDT
I am familiar with debate and policy but I have been coaching speech for the last three years so I am going to prefer good communication skills and I will see who is winning on the Flow. Treat me more like a lay judge but I should be able to keep up!
Renee Drummond
Elizabeth High School
None
Christine Duong
Alhambra High School
Last changed on
Sun February 18, 2024 at 12:20 AM PDT
Congressional Debate: Show a good understanding of the bills presented and make a clear argument of your stance. Engage in the debate with good questions that challenge opposing sides, and be prepared to answer questions form the opposing side that challenges your stance. Be confident in the arguments that you present, but also respectful to your opponents.
Tarun Dwivedi
Monta Vista High School
None
Natalie Eames
La Cueva High School
Last changed on
Fri April 26, 2024 at 2:17 PM EDT
For all Speech events: I love learning new things and more about things I do know, so I generally find most speeches interesting, but regardless of topic or the event I am judging I am looking for a few specifics. Regardless of topic or event, I judge a speech based on how engaging it is to the audience. Also, while, I do not have preference for a specific formula for a speech, I do expect it to be easy to understand from one point to the next.
INF, USX, and USI: In addition to the above, I am looking for cited statements from reputable sources, so it is clear where your perspective and knowledge is coming from.
For the various interpretation events: In addition to the above, I am looking for the material presented to feel like the speaker wrote it themselves and are not just rehearsing what someone else wrote. In addition, it should always be clear who is speaking, characterization and blocking are important.
For Debate: I am going to be looking at the strength of the evidence you provide to prove your point, as well as overall persuasiveness of your argument both in presentation of arguments as well as how you answer crossX of your arguments. I do not like fast speaking. I try hard to take notes of points made, answered, and challenged by each team, if the speaker is going too fast I may miss something and you may not get due credit for a point made/answered/challenged. Lastly, and most important, I expect you to cite your sources.
Ross Eichele
Eagan High School
Last changed on
Fri January 5, 2024 at 11:14 AM CDT
I coach speech and perviously coached debate at Eagan High School and am the librarian/media specialist there.
I enjoy debate, so I look forward to hearing your round!
In general you may want to know this about me:
I want to hear you debate about the resolution/legislation at hand. Theory is very rarely needed. I like to hear real world impacts, and I want to understand how your arguments will impact the lives of people. I have little interest in unique/trick/squirrel/non-topical arguments. Weighing is important...so give me a clear way to weigh a round. Delivery is important, so speak well and avoid speed at all costs. Speaking of speaking, there have been five times when I've given a 30 in my life, and the lowest end I've given was 10. In all situations the speaker points were earned. My typical range is 26-29. I rarely disclose and there will be no orals after the round. Finally and most importantly, have fun and debate with class.
Specifically, in terms of congressional debate: I'm probably going to vote for the best legislator. You should speak well...but not have canned speeches. You should show me you can speak in a variety of positions (author legislation, introduce arguments, refute arguments, and weigh/crystalize the round). You should advance your arguments through questions. You should use motions to advance/end debate when appropriate. You should play the role of a congressperson with the decorum it deserves. You are always on...even during recess. You should be a good person (don't be a jerk).
In terms of public forum: I'm probably going to vote for the team that does the best job of explaining the big picture of what happens in the pro and/or con world. Real world impacts are important. Weighing is important.
In terms of LD: I'm old school. I would gladly judge a value debate. I would gladly judge a round in which the criterions are debated.
In terms of policy: Good luck. Use everything written here to adapt your approach to me. I might not be the best judge for your typical approach. I do not want to have to vote on presumption.
Good luck!
James Eiden
Eagan High School
None
Rachel Eli
Granada Hills Charter High School
None
Martin Ellis
Pompano Beach High School
None
Christopher Esparza
Harlingen High School
Last changed on
Mon January 22, 2024 at 4:29 AM CDT
I want to see you become the character(s) you are portraying and have the most believability in the role. Often times in the speech world, I see so many students caught up in the “statement” of the piece, they are no longer focusing on the acting.
I want to see completely fleshed out characters and actors who have thought about each moment! Breathing, operative words, and event work is crucial.
Blocking should be creative but not steal focus. It should be used to enhance your piece and not done for the sake of doing so.
passion and creativity in OO, INFO, and Extemp is ranked highest! When everyone has the same great analysis, it’s the small things like the intellectual way you created your AGD or vehicle that make you stand out!
Jeff Farber
Gabrielino High School
Last changed on
Mon April 22, 2024 at 1:35 AM PDT
I am a parent judge with limited experience. Please do not spread and remember to signpost. Please be respectful and remember to have fun!
Katie Fauria
Presentation High School
Last changed on
Wed January 10, 2024 at 2:36 AM PDT
I've been a Speech and Debate coach for the past 7 years, but primarily on the Speech side.
When it comes to policy debate, I tend to be more of a stock issues judge and believe that the Aff's burden is to protect and prove the stock issues; I especially look for that. I also want you to clearly articulate your positioning and prove why your arguments outweigh your opponent.
For Congress, be clear and efficient with your speeches. Feel free to lean into the "Congressional" part of it and performance is always key, but if you don't have sufficient evidence and don't explain or otherwise discuss the consequences and implications of that evidence then all the rhetoric in the world won't make up for it.
Overall, please speak clearly and slowly. Do not spread. And above all, analyze your evidence. Don't let it stand for itself - prove why it's important.
Last changed on
Sat March 9, 2024 at 6:15 AM EDT
I ask that competitors do not spread and that they let their opponent finish their sentences during cross. No spreading and no cutting people off while talking! Thank you :)
Brandon Fisher
Rosemount Sr High School
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 1:36 AM CDT
I've got quite a bit of experience coaching, judging, and even competing in all the main debate events - Congress, Public Forum, LD, Policy, and World Schools. I will understand your terminology, I'll time you, and I understand the rules/expectations of the events. I've been participating in speech and debate for 16 years, coaching for 10, and this is my third year in Minnesota.
PF and LD Specifically: I tend to prefer the debate to be a tad bit slower. I'm also a big advocate of very structured speeches and structure to the debate as a whole. So like, signpost, line by line, one case at a time, etc. Also, please collapse throughout and give 2-3 voters or big issues at the end. You can still address line by line in FF though I don't prefer it. If you do, just remember to collapse and categorize. I also tend to prefer front-lining in 2nd rebuttal. I'm a big proponent of weighing and extensions as well, but like don't just use those things as a time dump alone. The majority of your rebuttals and summary speeches should be focused on the flow and responding to arguments line by line, but make sure to extend key arguments that go unaddressed and either weigh as you go or weigh at the bottom.
LD Specifically: Framework debate is extremely important in LD... HOWEVER, framework debate is somewhat pointless when it has nothing to do with the resolution. I don't really care why your framework is more important than your opponents framework in a general sense. I care a lot more about why your framework is more important than your opponents framework in a resolutional sense. If you can't make your framework arguments specifically applicable to the topic at hand and the arguments you are making, then you are wasting your time debating it in the first place, and I will just end up using your voters, impacts, and weighing to make my final decision in the round.
PF/LD/Policy/WSD: I will rarely vote for a lazy debater. If I ever have to, you'll get very low speaker points. If you want to win a debate, you have to play the role of a debater. Here's how I break that down:
1. Debate has time limits for a reason. Your are practicing the art of understanding, preparing, and delivering arguments within a specific timeframe. If you have 3-5 minutes of prep time, you don't need 3 extra minutes to flash evidence/call for cards while you think of what you're going to say in the next speech. Flashing is prep time in all events.
PF: If you want to see a card, ask for it in cross ex, that way your opponents partner can pull it up and you can read it after cross ex when you start prep. Again, saving time. Ask for cards early, so we don't have to sit here waiting for them to find the card and I have to consider whether or not I should count that as prep and for which team.
2. Cross examination is not a time to ask random questions while you sit down and prep for your next speech. Every part of the debate counts. I'll also give low speaker points to a debater who sits during cross ex (other than grand cross in PF, and this doesn't include virtual tournaments. In a virtual debate, sitting is the norm and that is fine).
3. A large part of debate is presentational. In my opinion, spreading cards and cases alone is not debating. Cards don't beat cards, you have to explain the links, warrants, impacts, and weighing. I have ADHD and zone out very quickly if you aren't slowing down and explaining things or you aren't emphasizing the things I should be flowing. I can flow cases slower than I can flow rebuttals so please read a shorter case if you can so you don't have to spread. Exceptions for Policy only. If you do decide to spread, please slow WAY down on tags, and always include a short analysis at the end of each card.
4. K's and Theory are fine (especially in Policy), but slooooooow down. You have to explain that stuff to me or I won't be able to follow you. If you run it in PF just know that I may be very lost or unprepared as to how to deal with that or where to flow it. I'm not completely against it, but like only do it if you're really good at it, and be prepared to lose literally because I understood none of what you were saying due to lack of time to explain it.
5. Don't abuse prep time. Always tell me when you are starting and stopping prep. I'm timing you as well, so I will correct you if I need to but if I have to correct you it probably doesn't look good on you and may affect your speaker points.
6. Most importantly, do what you're good at. Like, I have a lot more experience with traditional styles of debate because that's the style we used where I was from. However, I also have a pretty strong understanding and comprehension of progressive stuff. Just do what you're best at. I'd much prefer a really good progressive debate, then a really bad traditional one and vice versa. I just might understand and flow the traditional debate a taaaad bit better though.
Congress:
PO: Between "Fast, Fair, and Efficient" I care most about fairness, second most about about efficiency, and I don't care at all about "fast." Be efficient of course, try to make sure that things are running smoothly and that you aren't taking extra time because you don't know the process or because you are adding unnecessary extra words to your phrasing, but I would much rather you take an extra couple of seconds to make an accurate decision which doesn't require me to correct you, than I would for you to make a quick decision in the hopes that you'll look better. It may not flow off the tongue as well, but "Accurate, Fair, and Efficient" would be my preference.
Also, some common phrasing that I think you can shorten:
- When calling on subsequent speakers after the first speaker on a piece of legislation, cut all the nonsense about "Seeing as that was the 3rd affirmative speech we are now in line for a 3rd negative speech. All those wishing to speak in the negation please rise." Cut it out. Just say "Negative speakers rise" "Affirmative speakers rise"
- For the end of a speech/start of questioning: "Thank you ____ for that speech of (time), questioners please rise" No need to say "We are now in line for 2/4 blocks of questioning"
- When calling subsequent questioners after the first questioner for a speaker, please do not waste time by saying things like "Thank you (questioner), the next questioner is (name)." Literally just call out the name of the next questioner at the same time as you tap the gavel twice for the end of one questioners block. "(tap tap) Rep. Blah"
Some other PO Notes:
- I appreciate when the PO shares their precedence sheet with the chamber in some sort of google spreadsheet or something.
- I think the PO should be consistent in reminding the chamber of any and all rules that are not being followed. "Please do not abuse the grace period" "You must ask permission to leave and exit the chamber"
- I think a really good PO can add super small yet effective elements to their responses which show more personality in general. I don't think "The chair thanks you" is necessarily enough for that since it's so common. I like when a PO is able to reword their responses to things in ways that are still accurate but which can add some slight, yet not time-consuming, humor to the round.
- The PO should recommend and remind the chamber not to stand for speeches or questions until they tap their gavel. This provides a more fair moment for all to stand rather than having some people stand right at the end of the speech while the PO is still talking.
- The PO should state at the beginning of the round: Gaveling procedures, how they are determining precedence and recency (and if it isn't preset, then what system will they use to fairly call on people at first), and any particular ways in which they will go about things like calling for speakers or questioners. If there are rules particular to a given tournament such as how precedence or recency should be used which are not common at other MN tournaments, the PO should also mention those at the beginning to make sure everyone is on the same page and there aren't random issues regarding precedence or recency or following those rules at the very start of the round.
Speakers: I dislike speaking from laptops. Laptops are generally best used when they can be placed on a podium or desk, not held up and balanced on one hand in the middle of a public speech. When you use a laptop to speak from, you are forced to have one of your hands constantly held up and there is a giant barrier between you and your audience. I prefer the use of a notepad, or second best would be an ipad with the intention being that you can actually hold those notes at your side for certain parts of your speech to show that you are prepared. I also believe strongly that you should be writing outlines, not speeches. You will likely receive a pretty low speaker score from me if you appear to be glued to your notes because you wrote too much down. The sign of a good speaker is someone who knows their speech or their topic well enough that they don't rely on the notes and can speak well regardless of whether or not they have them. Use the notes for sources or bullet point key ideas with short phrases. Please do not read to us, speak to us. Additionally, I think participation is important. You could be the number one speaker in a round but if you are clearly not engaged at all in questions, motions, etc. then it's likely I will knock you down some ranks because of that. On that same note, while I would hope all speakers decide to attempt to speak on all items, if you have purposefully made the decision not to speak on the first item for debate in a session, then my expectation is that you would be fully prepared to give one of the first speeches on the next item. On the note of preparation, please do not EVER delay a chamber for something that YOU want for YOUR own purposes but that you are NOT prepared for at the time you are asking for a delay. For example "We shouldn't move to previous question yet because I still want to speak" and then the chamber decides not to move to previous question, and when calling for speakers you don't immediately stand up.
Side note: One sided debate sucks. Please either swap sides or just be prepared to give an early speech on the next debate item. Also, I understand the culture of saying "I'm prepared for both sides" because that's a good skill to have as a debater, but I don't like how publicly and simply people are willing to swap sides in congress. I really dislike hearing students say "Yea I can swap sides" out loud in the middle of a recess. It really defeats the whole purpose of you actually trying to convince me that you care at all about the side of the debate you are on, and I think one of the things you should be trying to do as a congressional debater is really be assertive concerning your feelings on a topic. I'd much rather you say something like "I'm not sure which side I'm on yet" or at least make those side-specific decisions more privately. Perhaps even just hide the decision a bit better by making it seem like the decision was actually made after hearing some of the arguments and giving more of a refutation speech. On that note, I think the longer debate on an item goes on the more I should see speakers refuting other arguments.
Kristin Fitzsimmons
Rockhurst High School
None
Bill Fleming
Dwight D. Eisenhower High School
None
Gabriela Foligna Grasso
Amplus Academy
None
Julie Foong
San Marino High School
None
Noah Ford
Millard North High School
None
Carrie Fortier
Charlotte Catholic High School
None
Emily Fortner
Loyola High School
None
Robin Freyberg
Shady Side Academy
None
Christianna Friedrichsen
Sayre
None
Jessica Frizzell
Bristow High School
Last changed on
Sat January 6, 2024 at 9:31 AM CDT
I do not mind off-time road maps. A clear outline of each point and subpoint during construction is imperative. Linking each point to your value and criterion helps flow the case for judges and opponents. Definitions can make or break a case. Be confident in your definitions. Speak rapidly ONLY if you can also speak clearly. I like to see passion.
Himanshu Gandhi
Lincoln-Sudbury Regional HS
Last changed on
Sat February 17, 2024 at 3:36 AM EDT
I am predisposed to think that you:
- are smart
- have worked hard to research and understand the topic
- have prepared your arguments
- deserve a fair shake
You will do well if:
- you present your views clearly
- you stay composed
- your logical construct is persuasive
- you have a good measure of eye contact
- you are kind
All the very Best!
Prem Ganesan
The Potomac School
Last changed on
Fri April 26, 2024 at 1:25 PM EDT
Wayzata (MN) 21'
GMU (college) 25'
In High School I competed for Wayzata High School (2018-2021) and garnered multiple national outrounds in HI, OO, Poetry, POI, PPS (prepared prompt speaking) and even have a title in DI from the TOC. I now am a competitor for George Mason's Forensics team in Fairfax, Virginia where I compete in POI, Poetry, Prose, DI, Duo, ADS, CA, and Info with big level finals in most, (I have 11 national finals and 5 national championships across AFA/NFA). Since I graduated, I have coached at Stillwater high school, private coached numerous students to success at NIETOC, NSDA, UKTOC, and NCFLs. I currently am a volunteer coach at my Alma Matter, Wayzata!
I pretty much only use tab like this when I'm judging debate so here's debate at the top, and I wrote a speech paradigm because I was bored one day.
DEBATE
PF/Policy:
I'm a pretty lay judge (I'll probs talk a lil' bit before the round and give you a brief summary of this paradigm if you hadn't checked it out beforehand) but if there is one thing you do take away from my paradigm: please don't spread, (policy, sure, I'll try and keep up), but if you're in PF and are spreading, I may drop speaks, not astronomically though. I value your voice when you're not speaking at 100 mph. I'm generally a flow judge, but I don't always flow card authors/names. My focus on the flow is getting what the evidence claims and what the warrant is, rather than who the source was. Moreover, if you wanna add me on an email chain, go ahead @premganesan12345@gmail.com . That being said, I'll mainly use it SOLELY to see if you and your opp are exchanging cards correctly and timely, any evidence in those docs that YOU DO NOT BRING UP IN THE ROUND WILL NOT BE JUDGED UPON.
Generally: I like sign posting, off time roadmaps, clear voters, I like when you extend your flow, sensible impacts (not just war is bad), solid/timely citation.
I'm also a very very VERY expressive human! I'll make a face if I believe you misstated something. I'll nod if I think you're making a good point. I'll shake my head if I think you're making a poor point. This doesn't mean that I'm voting for you or against you. It just means I liked or didn't like that particular statement.
LD:
I study Economics with a concentration in Political and Philosophical Economy. I'm well versed in sensing balanced arguments and will look for balanced arguments. This is a values debate at the end of the day, so argue values. Argue morality. Argue Justice. Argue any of the 7 deadly sins for all I care. LD has become far more about random tangental examples and far less about value-based arguments. Play the game and bring me some weird cases, I don't care. You think I'm joking, but I am not. Just don't lose the flow.
Congress:
I usually let PO's work their magic. I love sitting back and watching congress. Here's some wise words from my friend Sam Padmanabhan, all of which I agree with:
- Cite complete sources → Author, Publication, Month, Year. Also be cognizant of source quality. I want to see expert analysis, empirical data, etc.
- POs should make the round feel seamless. The ideal PO runs the chamber so well that I don't even know they're there. I will rank good POs very well. (top 4 usually)
- I need to see clash. People often mischaracterize Congress as a speech event; this is not true. Congress is debate so I need to see clash, refutation, clear interaction between arguments. Especially if you give a later cycle speech, make sure you’re engaging with what’s been said in the round (either by refuting it or crystallizing the issues). New arguments in the 4th or 5th cycle won’t help you. When doing refutation, the preferred style is line by line OR picking the major arguments and arguing at the warrant level.
SPEECH
INTERP:
I had a speech paradigm but it was me saying normal speech norms in my own way so lemme just say. Have fun, do what the purpose of whatever even it is you're doing, and be In time. If you're under 8:00, your rank may be affected, fill the time, use the time. If you're over 10:30, I won't stop you, go 16 min for all I care, I won't stop you at all, you (unfortunately) will not get my one. But still you'd be surprised how many people miss these marks, I always say if you look like you're having the most fun in the round you're automatically top half. Speech is beautiful but jading, find the cool things and speak on that.
OVERALL
I don't tolerate bigotry in ANY form: racism, sexism, misogyny, transphobia, xenophobia, etc. If I see any signs of this in any speech/debate, I will not be afraid to drop you. I will be harsh, but I write some of the LONGEST ballots you'll ever receive according to my coach-friends whose students I've judged lol. Ultimately, I am a speech NERD. I watch so many speeches (high school and college) and know pretty much any speech on that final stage in the last few years. I love this activity, and love true advocacy. If you have ANY questions whatsoever, please reach out to me via email @premganesan12345@gmail.com : I mean it, if you have any questions about the ballot, reach out. This is a communicative activity built on communication.... so COMMUNICATE WITH ME!!!! Have an amazing time and have so so so much fun!
Prem Ganesan (they/them)
Maria Garcia
Helix Charter High School
None
Sarah Garcia
Richard King HS
Last changed on
Wed February 7, 2024 at 6:34 AM CDT
My goal as a judge is to provide critiques that benefit the performer by acknowledging areas that are effective and areas that could benefit from improvement. Performing is a art have fun with it. I know it can be stressful.
What I am looking for in Oral interpretation/Speech :
* Clear projection, articulation, tone, diction, eye contact, appropriate gestures and movement.
* Believability and authenticity of character portrayal and characterization.
* I enjoy engaging teasers or an attention grabber in the beginning of the performance.
* The delivery during the performance should be clear and have clear intentions.
Regarding Debate I expect:
*A clear understanding of the topic and the solutions.
*The outline of the speech clearly mapped out to follow.
*Credible evidence and sources that support the argument clearly.
*Confident Tone, diction, gestures and use of vocabulary.
*Respect towards the judge and fellow debaters.
Jessica Gary
Norman North High School
None
Benjamin Geiger
Two Rivers High School
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 3:30 AM CDT
I am interested in hearing arguments that show meaningful and plausible impacts. Well written constructives. Evidence that is not misrepresented or taken out of context. Most importantly do not leave me to make conjecture about if you are right or wrong. Spell it out clearly through weigh and impacts.
Gary Germano
Kamehameha Schools
None
Alexandria Gift
New Roads School
None
Chloe Gill
Flintridge Preparatory
None
Arun Goel
Monta Vista High School
None
Jeremy Goldberg
Milton Academy
None
Lucy Gong
James Logan High School
None
Mechele Gonzalez
Don Tyson School of Innovation
Last changed on
Thu April 25, 2024 at 12:01 PM CDT
Hi, I am a parent judge who has a daughter that does PF debate. I am looking for at your speaking techniques, case and topic debate not personal, good evidence, clear cut taglines, good argumentation, etc. I do not like progressive stye debate and will not be able to keep up with things like spreading so I ask that you do not do so.
LD-
I look for a good balance between evidence, analysis, and theory if used. I do not know as much about theory so if you are running it please explain thoroughly. I am not used to things like K's but will hear them out.
PF-
I am looking for mostly evidence, some analysis, and no theory. I will not accept or vote for a plan as that is not what needs to be provided in a PF round and is against NSDA rules. I am also not used to anything like K's in PF as that is not the standard, so I ask that you refrain from using them.
BQ-
I am looking for a balance between evidence, analysis, and theory but I will not count it against you if you use mostly theory with analysis.
World Schools-
I have never judged world schools before and know very little about it so this will be a learning experience for me.
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 3:22 AM PDT
I was the Asst. Coach for Wm. S. Hart High School in Newhall, CA from 2015 to 2023. I have recently moved to Nevada.
I have judged IEs for 26 years.
I have judged Congress for 23 years.
I have been judging LD, Parlie and PoFo for 20 years. I do NOT do Policy or Big Questions.
I ask that speakers avoid spreading and/or reading/speaking at an excessive rate of speed. Communication is paramount.
Respectfulness and courtesy are required at all times.
As a competitor, please do not tell me what decision I have to make. I'll decide that for myself.
I do not disclose. Nor do I give any oral critiques prior to the tournaments ending, although once it's all over, I'm happy to discuss. My comments will be on the individual ballots and RFD.
Christopher Goodson
Seattle Academy
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 1:36 PM PDT
Second Year S&D teacher / coach, with ever-increasing knowledge of the fundamentals of the debate (Value, Criterion, Disads, Counterplans, etc.)
50 + rounds judged last season (in LD and PF).
What I like to hear is a well-laid out case, clearly articulated, as well as solid and clear responses to the elements of your opponent's case.
Generally, I'm against spreading. Talking fast is fine, but it's important for me to hear and understand your case, as well as taking an accurate flow. Without a good flow, it's hard to judge the round. Spreading, especially if it inhibits articulation and clarity, is hard for me to follow.
I'm also not opposed to K's, as long as they are articulated well, relevant to the topic, and that the debater has a nuanced understanding of the K. Being able to answer questions about your K in cross is key.
For IEs, my preferences are for clarity of topic, engagement with the audience, dynamic delivery, memorization, and compelling narrative.
Thank you. And good luck!
Chris Goodson
Christine Gruhn
Sacramento Waldorf High School
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 3:32 AM PDT
I am an experienced speech and Congress coach, and a former competitor.
In Congress, I value respect and courtesy, delivery, an analysis of real-world impacts, evidence and clash - so unless you are the first speech, you need to show me that you are listening and responding to the other speeches in the round. I don't want to hear the same arguments restated and rehashed at the end of the round - give me some new ideas, or some summative analysis. Even if you give a fantastically delivered and well cited speech, if you aren't trying to ask good questions at every opportunity throughout the round, I'm not going to rank you highly. It is, after all, a debate event.
In Lincoln Douglas and in other styles of debate, please don't treat debate like a game. I am very traditional, and treating it like a game with progressive argumentation, performance Ks, K Affs, and RVIs harms those in small schools who don’t have the advantage of many team members to teach them the game, and it creates more inequities in debate. I listen carefully, write down excessive amounts of information and I vote off my flow so if you want my ballot, give a strong final speech that addresses, crystallizes and weighs the key arguments in the round. Show that you were listening to and have evidence to counter arguments presented by your opponent(s). These speeches demonstrate your ability to think and interact with your opponents’ case, much more so than your ability to read a prepared case, that you may or may not have written yourself. Don’t spread. If I can’t understand what you are saying, I can’t flow your case. And no one spreads in real life. Off time road maps are a waste of time. Just as a good extemp speaker should not have to read me the prompt before they start the speech, I should be able to follow your road map within your speech.
In all debate events, and in life, the most important thing is to be kind.
Saul Grullon
University High School
None
Charu Gupta
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 11:25 PM PDT
I strongly advocate that parents should feel completely at ease when evaluating public forum debates at all levels. It's the responsibility of debaters to adjust and accommodate, rather than the other way around.
I don't encourage spreading, talking extremely fast is not preferred. Have creative arguments. If you are the second speaker, I would prefer if you address the opponents argument during your speech and provide a rebuttal.
Don't use too many technical terms and if you do explain them.
Let your opponent complete their thought in cross before interrupting.
Always be respectful and kind to your opponents.
Mridula Gupta
Dublin Jerome High School
None
Neetika Gupta
Seattle Academy
None
Sean Gutteridge
Westmoore High School
None
Guadalupe Guzman
Mt. SAC Early College Academy
None
Manuel Halkias
Canton McKinley High School
None
Beatrice Handlin
White Bear Lake Area High School
Last changed on
Tue February 20, 2024 at 11:09 AM CDT
Hi! I am Beatrice Handlin (She/Her). I am a former speech competitor, current assistant coach, and judge.
Crystal Hanks
Jefferson City High School
None
Joshua Hansen
Jackson Hole High School
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 9:03 AM MDT
Competed for four years for Jackson Hole, Wyoming—NSDA national qualifier in Public Forum (2x), Congressional Debate (3x), Big Questions, and Duet Interpretation; most NSDA points in the U.S. for class of 2021; TOC National Champion Presiding Officer in 2021.
I won't vote you down for speed, but if I can't understand an argument, I won't vote on it. The quality of your speaking and presentation matters. Please weigh and contextualize your arguments.
For any questions regarding my paradigm or an RFD, I can be reached at joshuahansen@college.harvard.edu.
————————————
For Congressional Debate:
This is a debate, not just a platform speaking event. Speeches on a bill should flow coherently between one another, with rebuttal and refutation, not just existing in a vacuum. Outside of a sponsorship, I'll be much more impressed by a primarily extemporaneous speech that interacts with the round than a perfectly recited, pre-written speech read verbatim off your computer.
Additionally, I'm judging you for the entirety of the round—your questions matter, as does your behavior when you think no one is looking. Excessive whispering or disruption during another competitor's speech is grounds for losing ranks, as is talking over other competitors or otherwise lacking decorum during motions and segues between speeches.
————————————
For the Ronald Reagan Great Communicator Debate Series:
I was a 2020 National Finalist, competed at and made out-rounds in four regional tournaments, and have judged multiple final rounds at regionals since graduating. I take the GCDS prescribed paradigm seriously—be polite, be presidential, focus on the big picture, and don’t treat it like a normal NSDA debate event.
Tania Haratyk
Lander Valley High School
None
Allison Harmer
Elk River Sr High School
None
Tyler Harper
Randolph High School
None
Katie Haynes
Toppenish High School
None
Bret Hemmerlin
Roseville Area High School
None
Nick Herink
Lincoln East High School
None
Tanya Herrera
Davis Senior High School
None
Riley Herring
Choctaw Sr High School
None
Lisa Heussner
Bentonville West High School
None
David Hinkle
Wilson High School
None
Kayden Hoeke
Sioux Falls Jefferson HS
None
Lorri Holloman
Amplus Academy
None
Grant Horton
Vel Phillips Memorial
None
Laura Howell
The Harker School
None
Meg Howell-Haymaker
Mountain View HS
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 3:26 PM MST
I am what you would call "old school". I will entertain a progressive debate, but I much prefer a straight-up classic debate with value and criteria.
Elaine Hsieh
University High School Charter
Last changed on
Sat April 20, 2024 at 2:12 PM PDT
I am a parent who has judged middle school and high school speech events for the past four years.
I applaud all of you who have the courage and perseverance to compete in speech and debate tournaments. If you have made it this far, you are already a star in my book.
I am fairly new to LD, so I am still learning all the lingos and structures of debate.
I ask that each of you (either in speech or debate) speak clearly, without trying to cram too many ideas or arguments into your allotted time. I always appreciate a good roadmap of where your are going with your speech.
Even if you think your audience is knowledgeable in a certain field, explain from the beginning and make sure your listener understands your thought process.
There are many levels of experience amongst all the competitors and judges. I hope that everyone treats each other with respect.
Crystal Huddleston
Stockdale High School
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 2:31 AM PDT
General Notes
Don't be a bigot. This includes misgendering competitors. You will lose the ballot.
I generally give relatively high speaks due to the subjective nature of speaker points and the issues therein.
Remember to time yourselves and your opponents.
At invitationals, add me to the email chain using crystal.debate.speech@gmail.com .
In all forms of debate, I value logical argumentation and strong analytics supported by credible evidence. Speed, if clear, is fine, as long as it remains at a level that works for all debaters in the round. Out-spreading an opponent kills education.
Policy (and Policy-Style Parli)
I am open to theory arguments and will rarely vote on T , but you need to explain them clearly and thoroughly in the round. I studied critical theory as applied to literature in both undergraduate and graduate school, so I have a strong background in feminist, Marxist, deconstructionist, queer, and psychoanalytic theory. I enjoy a well-executed K, but only run kritiks you know well -- not something you grabbed off the wiki/open ev.
I strive to evaluate the round using the framework agreed upon by the debaters and do not have a particular preference regarding stock issues, policy maker, etc.
LD
Support and bring everything back to your V/VC -- even if you're running a plan (for non-CA LD). Evidence certainly matters but evidence without analytics will do very little for you.
PF
I'll accept theory arguments when necessary to address in-round abuse, but please proceed with caution. I still value Public Forum as a form of debate that can be understood by lay judges, so please don't spread or run a K, and keep the jargon to a minimum.
Speech
In extemp, I want to see your introduction connect clearly with the topic and the rest of the speech (bring it back briefly at the end). Please clearly sign-post your main points and cite your evidence (ideally with more than just "According to the New York Times this year..."). Don't be afraid to use humor -- even if it's a little dark. Most of all, be authentic, engaging, and keep things flowing.
I will give time signals in extemp and impromptu.
In original oratory, original advocacy, & informative speaking, I look for well-crafted speeches delivered with fluency and appropriately varied tones.
If you're competing in an interp event, your intro should make me care about the topic at hand and should, of course, be your original words. Also, if you're competing in oratorical interpretation and the original speech includes cursing, please say the actual words or select a different speech (e.g., AOC's 2020 address to Rep. Yoho in which she quotes his profanity).
Last changed on
Mon January 8, 2024 at 8:30 AM CDT
I debated policy for three years in high school. I am a policymaker and expect you to weigh the round. Tell me why you win and/or outweigh the other team. I believe topicality is important and, if blatantly nontopical, I will vote for it. I have debated in fast rounds and judged fast rounds but I PREFER a more slow to moderate speed round. Case debate is important and more clash/turns the better. Kritiks and CPs are fine but convince me why you win it. Have not judged a lot of Ks so please be very concise in explaining it to me. Be clear on your sign posting. I love and will listen to your CX - I don’t mind open CX. I value your arguments equally with your passion and speaking skills. Your final rebuttal should tell me why you win! Reading a bunch of pre-written arguments or analytics doesn’t do much for me. You can impress me if you do line by line. cmhund@hotmail.com
Experience: placed top 32 in policy debate at NCFL nationals, was Kansas 4-speaker state debate champion, was Kansas 2 speaker debate state champion class 4A
I was an assistant forensics coach for 10+ years in Kansas at Blue Valley Southwest. Placed top three in sweeps in class 5A twice.
Vicky Hyde
Chiawana High School
None
Bianca Igwilloh
Barringer High School
None
Steven Ihejirika
Thornwood High School
None
Chris Ingle
Buhach Colony High School
None
Lisa Ingle
Buhach Colony High School
None
Jade Ismail
The Potomac School
Last changed on
Tue February 27, 2024 at 6:02 AM CDT
Ovey Comeaux High School '23, Western Kentucky University '27
For IE/SPEECH EVENTS: I base ranks on passion, performance, and preparation. How much do you connect and care about your topic? How elevated and unique are you as a performer? How relevant and timely is your topic and how well do you understand it, as well as memorization?
Debate Paradigm:
Majority of my decision will be made on Clarity, Content, and Evidence.
How clear is the presentation of your information? How relevant, concise, and impactful is the content of your argument? Does the evidence support the claims and sides of your debate? A competitor who presents information in a way that I can repeat it back to you will, more times than not, get the win.
I am not biased on the medium of debate you take, but do consider how your form on debate contrasts or compares to the opponent. You want to build strong and virtually irrefutable arguments!
Above all: make the round YOURS. Have fun. Speech and Debate is, at its core, about expression, so express yourself. I am nothing but an observer, you are EVERYTHING! Good luck :)
Jaietta Jackson
Cardinal Mooney HS
None
Elizabeth Jaffe
Arrowhead Park Early College High School
Last changed on
Tue February 20, 2024 at 5:11 AM MDT
Spreading is not allowed and will be penalized.
Vaishali Jambhekar
Archbishop Mitty
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 4:10 AM PDT
I have experience in judging Policy, PF, LD and Parli debates, as well as Speech competitions for High School and Middle School tournaments.
- Give a quick off-time roadmap before you begin. If you signpost during your speech, it'll help me follow you better.
- I may be unfamiliar with your debate jargon, so please explain any terms simplistically.
- For PF/LD - don't assume I have judged your topic earlier, so please explain any terms related to the topic.
- I will flow with you and will take notes. I will use any missed arguments in my judging.
- Please be respectful of your opponent team, irrespective of their level of debate.
- Speaker points will be awarded on the clarity of speech and thoughts and your art of laying down your thoughts.
- In your final speeches, make sure to clearly lay out why I should vote for you.
Most importantly, debate is a friendly competition. Remember to have fun !
Nicole Jennison
Edison Computech High School
Last changed on
Mon January 8, 2024 at 1:30 AM PDT
I am a former policy debater and current speech and debate coach. I coach policy, LD, and PF. I am a flow judge. I want to see good communication in round.
Hongqun Jiang
Jordan High School
None
Emma Johnson
Lakeville North High School
None
Samantha Johnson
Fayetteville High School
None
Sean Johnson
School Of Inquiry & Life Sciences At Asheville (SILSA)
None
Rebecca Johnson-Geiss
Millard South High School
None
Agrim Joshi
Shakopee High School
None
Last changed on
Fri January 5, 2024 at 5:19 AM CDT
Prior to the strength of the arguments, I take into consideration the following:
1. Organization: This is key. In order to make an informed and complete decision, I need you to speak in such a way that I can make a decision using an organized flow. SIGNPOSTING and TAGGING are essential for this. Speed is not.
2. Professionalism/Character: Rudeness will absolutely not be tolerated. Speech and Debate should help build better humans, therefore if excessive rudeness or words/actions showing poor character happen in the round, you'll be much less likely to win that round.
Only after these are met will I move on to:
3. Strength of Argument: Every round is unique - one round might be decided on framework, one on a single contention, one on lack of argument on one side or the other, etc. Be a good speaker and get your argument across in a complete and logical way? You are likely to win the round.
Sonia Kaistha
Jordan High School
None
Kyle Kampfen D5 C
Pocatello High School
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 5:44 AM MDT
Good communication, with arguments based on evidence, logic, and persuasion. Reasonable arguments and impacts. Extreme harms such as mass extinction, nuclear annihilation, cannibalism, zombies, etc. require extreme real-world evidence. Not recommended.
Logical fallacies make for weak debate. I watch for logical fallacies, but also expect the opposing team to point out if their opponent is relying on a logical fallacy as part of their case.
I expect the following during debate rounds:
- Debaters should provide their own timekeeping. Judges should be observers and not controlling the round.
- Tag-teaming protects a weak debater by hiding in the shadow of a strong debater and consequently slows their growth. I do not allow tag-teaming in rounds.
- Debate should be focus on discussion of the topic. No ad hominem attacks.
Joseph Karwin
Denver School Of The Arts
Last changed on
Thu April 11, 2024 at 8:14 AM MDT
More than anything, I value strong logical arguments full of clear links and a strong line of reasoning. I think being able to look at both quantitative and qualitative data is useful, and I appreciate debaters who can weave together narratives throughout their case.
I don't mind a little bit of speed, but I much prefer clarity and depth over quantity. If you talk at a pace that is too difficult to comprehensively flow, it will be difficult for me to give you the ballot.
I'm not a fan of theory or kritiks. We are here to debate a resolution, so let's debate the resolution.
Don't overload your case with debate jargon.
I do value strong presentation, but it will never win you the ballot over a better argument.
Decorum is important, but I don't mind passion and strong clash. Just don't be a jerk.
Hate speech and prejudice will always lose you the ballot.
Kristy Keely-Goldberg
Reno High School
None
Willow Keller
Ottawa Hills Sr. High School
None
Jayden Kennedy
Miami High School
Last changed on
Tue January 23, 2024 at 2:40 AM CDT
My paradigms would be in the construction and fluidity of presentation and how well a speaker is able to engage an audience and actively spread their message/point!!
Kellie Kern
Fishers High School
None
Ravi Kesiraju
BASIS Scottsdale High School
None
Ammara Khan
Seven Lakes High School
None
Abby Kirkland
Hewitt-Trussville High School
Last changed on
Wed January 24, 2024 at 1:59 AM CDT
I am a speech and debate coach as well as a high school history teacher. I have no preferences in round, but I do expect each side to be respectful. Speak and debate your hearts out, but leave it in round. Congratulate each other on a great round. I will follow you as you present your argument. Mess up? Don't stop, keep going.
Brendan Klein
Burnsville
None
Ian Klein
Burnsville
None
Cody Kneipp
Rocky Mountain HS
None
Gina Koehn
Brandon Valley High School
None
Bret Korbesmeyer
Kickapoo High School
None
Tatevik Kotanjyan
Crescenta Valley High School
Last changed on
Fri April 26, 2024 at 1:56 PM PDT
I would love if you could say your name and the name of your piece before you begin speaking!
Sarah Kreger
Perry High School
None
Nate Kruger
William Tennent High School
Last changed on
Wed April 24, 2024 at 11:33 AM EDT
for speech: im cool with whatever and am excited to judge!
hey! i'm nate. put me on the email chain. natenyg@gmail.com facebook.com/nate.nyg
he/him! will boost speaks +.1 for debaters who ask before round :)
i did ld at hunter and qualled to the toc my senior year. I was a 2n at wake forest for 2 years where my partner and i reached quarters of ceda. i did pf my freshman year, so i'm familiar, but don't assume i know every single thing about the activity and its conventions.
i'm willing to vote on anything and am purely tab with the caveat of intervening against oppressive argumentation. if you're reading theory or k's in pf, i'd vote on it, but please make an effort to make your arguments accessible to your opponents -- pf has not entirely adapted to new norms and if you don't try to adapt your arguments to pf and instead just assume your opponents will know your exact format and everything i'll be annoyed and speaks will suffer. bad theory and k debates are lame, frivolous theory in pf is probably the stupidest thing i can think of lol
oh also i'm judging policy now lol -- what i said above is still true -- was a 2n at wake, haven't debated in like a year, my partner and i quartered ceda reading black feminist lit on the aff and cap on the neg, that's a pretty good indicator i think of the types of arguments i enjoy voting on and judging the most. i'll judge a policy round if you want to have it obviously, i also have been coaching pf 2 years now so my ears are at least a little more attuned to util impacts than previously. in the same way that critical teams are expected to justify why they are moving away from the topic, i believe policy teams should be justifying why they are choosing to debate the topic in clash rounds -- this doesn't mean i'll hack for Ks -- it just means that the same standards apply because i view topicality/its reading as a speech act and i'm not sure why the fact that a speech act is also a procedural would mean i should disregard its implications or its context. that being said, my sophomore year my partner and I won R1 at the season opener reading disclosure, i'm willing to vote on whatever. if you're racist or talk down to women or misgender your opponent or do some other messed up stuff without both making good faith attempts to repair the potential for a safe debate and apologizing without reservation for said messed up act you will get an L20. one time my partner and i debated this guy who would only respectfully talk to me and refused to listen to her whatsoever, talking over her constantly. when we called him on it he said it was because of his adhd and then kept doing it (as a psych major i have never heard of adhd that only appears when you're talking to women!). please use that as an example of what NOT to do.
in the same way i try to hold policy teams to higher standards -- if you're reading a k -- i'm not just gonna hack. justify why the aff is necessary in debate, this round particularly, what my ballot does, make and justify spill up claims, have an awesome theory of power, make material arguments (the best thing i ever learned as a debater is how to read cap links that are 100% disads to the aff -- do that)
good luck have a great round hope it's fun feel free to ask me any questions i am happy to answer them
if you're curious -- my thoughts on debate right now are most influenced by asya taylor, darius white, jacob smith, and the wake coaches who read Ks when they debated (jgreen also)
for k teams -- i am in big support of high schoolers reading k's, i think it's super educational and definitely made me a lot of who i am now (ew. hate typing out that debate made me part of who i am, kinda gross), in support of that practice please feel free to after rounds ask me any random questions you have about lit or strategy, even if it's not related to the round you just had -- i'll do my best to give you some help! it's my understanding these tournaments are designed in part to increase debate access/let teams that might not otherwise get to too many nat circuit tournaments attend -- i coach a lot and have worked at ld camps the past few summers, i also understand wake has a very genius/expensive coaching staff and would be happy to redistribute some of what i've learned from debating here down because truthfully the coaches here are incredible and it should not just be a few debaters at random colleges getting their knowledge!!
John Krunnfusz
Summit HS
None
Cassandra Kuo
Flintridge Preparatory
Last changed on
Tue April 23, 2024 at 11:32 PM PDT
Here is a very brief summary of my high school debate experience and how I vote. Please ask me at the beginning of round if you have any follow-up questions and I'd be more than happy to elaborate. I apologize for the brevity of my paradigm, and I would've liked for you to have the opportunity to enter your debate round with the most informed approach possible, so I will do everything I can to make my judging stances clear to you at the start of each round, if you only ask me.
Three years of Parli, one year of policy, one year of PF experience.
The best parli rounds to me have strong warranting, consistent extensions and weighing, and organized signposting. Please be polite to one another. I can handle speed. Theory is fine.
Tech over truth. Since your sources aren't available during the round, I will be convinced of your evidence (or convinced to discredit your opponent's evidence) if you can use logic to explain to me why I should (or shouldn't) reasonably believe you. I am not persuaded to believe the validity of your argument if you just tell me your source is reputable.
Ruth A Kuo-Giammanco
La Salle College Preparatory
None
Brian Kwong
Alhambra High School
None
Amy Laabs
Chanhassen High School
None
Jennifer Lake
Perrysburg High School
None
Shuba Lall
Khan Lab School
None
Pat LaMarche
Navajo Preparatory School
None
Markus Lammer
Scarsdale High School
None
Cheryl Langois
Penn High School
None
Chris Larcade
Muldrow High School
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 3:39 AM CDT
Email : chris.larcade@staff.muldrowps.org
BASIC NEED TO KNOW:
Spreading: Need taglines to be clear. If I can't flow it, I can't use it to vote for you
Argumentation | Rhetoric: I look for debate speaking. I love to see debate falsies being used to disprove arguments.
Topicality: I will vote on it if I feel the NEG proved it to be abusive.
K Arguments- I will vote on "K" if you break it down to an understandable level. The LINK must be clear and offset the impacts of the AFF.
Inherency: If the NEG proves it is already being done, I will vote on it
Things I DON'T like
- Framework: I am not a fan of heavy framework arguments. Your impact should provide the voters for me to make my decision.
- Abuse Arguments: I have heard a lot of these arguments this season. I can determine what is and is not abuse for myself throughout a round. If your entire case is based on abuse, it appears that your case is not solid on its own merit.
- Ignoring your opponent's argument just to extend your own arguments and hope that their argument goes away.
Things I DO like
- Confidence: Don't give me a reason to vote you down. If you show me that you lost an argument with your non-verbals, then you will lose the argument.
- CLASH: I love it! Especially in cross-examination.
- TAGLINES: Once again, if I can't flow it then I will not vote for it.
- Sportsmanship: Don't make personal attacks, be professional and HAVE FUN.
Amber Larkey
Belton High School
None
Michael Larson
Lennox High School
Last changed on
Wed April 24, 2024 at 5:58 AM CDT
Policy Debate: I am more of a games player. To clarify, I see debate as an educational game that is being played. There are basic rules that are established (sides are set, time limits are set, a resolution has been established). I do reject moves that seek to create a completely unfair environment for either side (I can talk about what ever I want because resolutions don't matter attitude). I am good with almost any argument that is grounded in sound theory.
Specific Issues:
Kritiks- I like a good kritik that actually explores what the affirmative/negative is doing in a round, but the team running the kritik must understand what the kritik is actually doing. I do expect every K that is run to have a clear link to the K, implications for me to weigh and an alternative that goes beyond vote for us (in 99% of the K's). If it is an extremely complex concept, don't assume I already know what you are talking about. You will probably need to slow it down a step or two to make sure I am following the logic you are discussing.
Performance Debate: I am not a fan of these concepts. The reason is simple. You showed up for a debate round. You should debate the resolution. What performance debates do in my opinion is come to a Monopoly tournament and dance in the hallway and expect to win the Monopoly tournament. You can't not do the event and expect to win the event.
I am not a fan of the politics DA. The leap in logic of plan causes people to vote in a completely different way just has no theory behind it. I will listen to it, but the threshold for beating the argument is very low.
Concepts like topical counterplans and such are fine, if you can present a clear defense connected to theory that explains why they should be okay.
In the end, I look at the offense that is left on the flow. I prefer teams that go after more offensive style arguments then those playing defense on everything.
On speed, my expectations are that you must be clear enough for me to understand you and the evidence that you read (not just tags). If you are not, then I will not flow it and I will not yell "clear." It is your job to communicate.
Lincoln-Douglas: I am more of a traditionalist. I prefer more focus on the framework in the debate and connecting your observations back to the framework and the resolution. I am not a fan of disads/counterplans/and other traditional policy arguments being run in LD since it ignores the unique distinctions between the two events.
Running of K's- A recommend that you read what I said about it in the policy level and know that this can be a bigger problem because of a lack of time in presenting and defending the K.
Speed is fine, but you must be clear. I need to understand what you are saying. I am more forgiving on the line by line in LD than I am in policy, but you do need to address the main issues and just not ignore them.
Public Forum: Good debate that uses strong evidence throughout to prove your positions. I do not weigh the cross-fires heavily, but I do listen to them and will allow for answers to be used in the debate. You don't have to win every point on the flow, but you need to provide me with clear reasoning why you should win and less about why your opponent should not win. Weigh the round. When citing evidence, make sure that you are not relying on paraphrasing.
World School: Coaching it for the second year. Do not try to define people out of the round. Focus on the stated judging requirements of style (delivery) and content (logical reasoning and appropriate backing). The logical reasoning presented is not the same as strategy. The logical reasoning is content.
Noah Lau Hee
Widefield High School
None
Kady Laudun
Comeaux High School
None
Alice Lay
Widefield High School
None
Angela Ledesma
DSST Cedar High School
None
Jensen Lee
Crescenta Valley High School
None
Matthew Lee
Spring Woods High School
None
Tony Lee
Bishop Gorman High School
Last changed on
Fri April 26, 2024 at 9:49 AM PDT
Parent judge.
Debate
- Be respectful. This is very important and a voting issue for me a judge.
- No ridiculous Ks or theories please.
Do not spread. I probably know very little about the topic, so if you talk fast and I can’t understand, I have no choice other than to vote for the team that I can understand.
- Collapse the argument for me. I don’t keep track of individual arguments, so do the work for me.
Speech
- Speaking skills are important to me.
- Have fun with it.
Brianna Lemaster
Southmoore High School
Last changed on
Sun March 31, 2024 at 11:22 AM EDT
Hello, my name is Bri :).
If you have questions please email me: briannalemaster1120@gmail.com
About me
I competed at Westmoore High School for 4 years where I was a 4x national qualifier and in multiple state final rounds. I also currently coach multiple events including all the debate events and some specific IE events. I also beat Taylor Rafferty in a debate round once.
TLDR: General Debate Things
1. Tech>Truth. This obviously excludes racist, homophobic, and other hateful sentiments.
2. You should be crystalizing and summarizing your best arguments in your last rebuttal speech going for everything is not in your best interest.
3. Clash is the most important thing for me in debate if you don't do it or are just avoiding it the round will probably not go well for you.
4. SIGN POST PLEASE. If you don't your speaker points just like your signposting won't exist.
Trad LD
1. Framework is pretty important to me especially when im looking at what arguments to prioritize in the round.
2. Since progressive debate is becoming more common among the local circuit I'm fine with speed and counter plans etc.... All I ask is that if you're gonna do it please format it correctly and just call it a counter plan or a "K" or whatever don't try to hide it as a contention.
3. If you signpost, extend your arguments, try not to drop stuff, and give an offensive reason why I should vote for you as opposed to a defensive one, you'll be in very good shape. (Offense = why I'm winning, Defense = why I'm not losing).
4. Your framework and your case should be able to match properly I don't want to see a Kant framework and then a bunch of extinction arguments I might sob internally.
PFD
1. FILL YOUR SPEECH TIMES. You already don't have a lot of time use it wisely!
2. Please don't make Grand Cross a big disaster please be civil and nice.
3. Make sure to carry your arguments all the way through final focus if they are not carried through I won't use it in my decision.
4. Public Forum Debate is called Public Forum for a reason it is supposed to be as accessible to a general audience as possible there shouldn't be a high use of progressive argumentation or debate lingo.
5. Don't be one of those teams that paraphrases evidence you will instantly lose all credibility.
Nicole Lemus
Granada Hills Charter High School
None
Jennifer LeSieur
Adrienne C. Nelson
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 6:59 AM PDT
I am a communication judge. I like students to clearly communicate, give real-world examples and have clear clash. Structure and organization are very important and will help me flow the round. I don't like progressive LD. I don't enjoy a definition debate in any form of debate but I will vote on topicality. I want civility, persuasion, and a clash. I generally vote on stock issues in Policy and I am not a fan of K's.
Bill Leung
Summit HS
None
Andrea Lewis
Shepton High School
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 5:14 AM CDT
In Public Forum and Extemp: I value delivery & analysis supported by evidence from credible sources. I want to know the significance of your topic and what are the impacts of your arguments, tell me why it matters. I can't vote for points and impacts I can't hear or understand, so slow up for key points and explain them clearly. Understand that you are Debating not Arguing, this is an important distinction that must be known by each debater!
In Congressional Debate: I value the natural delivery of points and impacts and reasonable positions. I look for acknowledgment of prior speakers' points and clash leading to good argumentation and refutation, and for purposeful questioning leading to clarity, understanding, or insight. A lack of clash is frowned upon. Knowledge of and adherence to Parliamentary Procedure is expected in the chamber. Skillful Presiding Officers make sessions a positive experience for all and will be ranked accordingly.
In Oratory, Info, and Impromptu: I value your originality, creativity, and persuasive presentation of ideas of personal importance. Cite your sources, explain their importance, and tell me why it matters.
In DI, HI, DUO, Poetry, and Prose: It is crucial that you tell a story in a meaningful and impactful manner. Characterization, gestures and facial expressions, and, vocal variation will all add to the overall decision. Along, with the dramatic structure of the piece and mindful storytelling!
Overall speaking skills or/and argumentation are critical to winning! But remember the most important thing is that you learn!
Spoken Word: It is crucial that you tell a story in a meaningful and impactful manner. Characterization, gestures and facial expressions, and, vocal variation will all add to the overall decision. Along, with the dramatic structure, organization, clear theme, and mindful storytelling!
Lisa Lewis
Minnetonka High School
Last changed on
Wed February 28, 2024 at 12:41 PM CDT
I am mostly experienced in LD, Congressional, and BQ. I prefer to hear your frameworks and contentions. I'm ok with spreading as long as you are articulate and I can hear your sources. Relax, Have Fun, Good luck! Please send me your case at lisa.lewis@mtka.org.
Judith Li
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Sat February 10, 2024 at 1:39 PM PDT
Looking forward to hearing all of your great speeches!
Carolina Lima
Shrewsbury
None
Marlo Limbeck
Las Vegas High School
Last changed on
Fri April 26, 2024 at 6:34 AM PDT
Hello,
I am currently working as an assistant principal. In the past, I have served as a DECA advisor and judge. This year, I had the opportunity to judge for Speech for the first time at State and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Witnessing the students showcase their talents and potential for the future is something that always amazes me. It reminds me not to underestimate the power of our young people. Their energy and enthusiasm inspire me to become a better leader. I volunteered to come back and judge again because I am empowered by what I see and hear from these students. the power of our young people. I am empowered by what I see and hear from students and I use that to make me a better leader.
Kindly,
Mrs. Limbeck
Danzhou Liu
Leland High School
None
David Liu
Palo Alto High School
None
Jennifer Liu
Arcadia High School
None
Sharon Noh Liu
Gabrielino High School
Last changed on
Wed April 24, 2024 at 4:09 AM PDT
Hi I'm excited to be judging your round! Just to start off with my Speech and debate experience:
- 6 years of Speech (national extemp mainly)
- 3 years of Debate ( 3 years public forum, policy national qualifier, Congress national qualifier)
- 3 time National qualifier, 2 time State qualifier
Fun fact: I've done every debate event except for World Schools
My preferences for round (ah yes what you're actually here for)
- Clash
I love to see good clash, it is what in my opinion, differentiates between an "eh" round versus a worthwhile one. But please heed when I say good clash, I get it things get complicated mid-debate, but my least favorite thing to see is a good res simplified into a repetitive definitions debate.
- Progressive
As a previous short time policy debater, I'm all for it!
- Speed
I'm good with Speed but please be coherent. Mumble rap should preferably be kept separate to this round.
- Impacts
Good Impact weighing is honestly one of my biggest likes. If it doesn't get you the W it'll at least get you amazing speaker points from me. Don't be afraid to really get into your impacts and I'll entertain almost any impact.
Racism, Misogyny, and Ableism of any kind is not tolerated. Furthermore, (I get that rounds can get intense and heated) but disrespect and rude behavior is also not tolerated. I trust we can all be cordial with each other and work together to have a good productive round.
Best of Luck to everyone! I'm looking forward to seeing you guys do your your thing.
James Long
Boerne Champion High School
UPDATE FOR TFA STATE 2024 - Since this is state and the level of competition is high, you should feel free to run theory, kritiks, framework debate, and things in that wheelhouse (despite what my LD paradigm says below). Keep in mind I don't have really any experience with them (so explain them well) but as I'm now coaching a lot of LDers I would like to learn more about progressive debate and will keep a open mind. However, still please don't spread and on this topic I will likely not be very susceptible to extinction arguments. Beyond that, I will vote on anything that is argued well.
Email is jamescraiglong@gmail.com
History/Current Position: I competed 10 years ago for Evanston Township High School (Chicago suburbs) on the national circuit in PF attending tournaments such as Harvard, Glenbrooks, Dowling, West Des Moines Valley, Mini-apple, and Blake. I reached the final round of Dowling and Blake and made it to the round of 32 at NSDA nationals. I currently am a social studies teacher and debate coach at Boerne-Champion.
LD Debate - I never competed in LD, as you can read above I was a PF debater my whole career. I am more of a traditional judge. Do not spread in front of me, otherwise I won't be able to understand you and you likely won't win. I generally don't like extinction arguments unless the topic clearly connects to extinction like something nuclear weapons or global warming but for example I constantly heard arguments about extinction in the right to housing topic which really doesn't make any sense. In terms of K's or theory, I don't have a lot of experience with them and prefer the debate to be topical only but it's LD so I know those are allowed and won't inherently vote them down. I like a mix of line by line debate and framework debate - I'm generally not a fan of trying to use a framework only to win, I think that trend encourages debaters to ignore the line by line which is a valuable skill. The biggest thing though for me, above all this, is clarity. Given that I don't have a background in LD, I sometimes have trouble following the structure. Please be clear. If I can't understand you, I won't be able to vote for you. Otherwise, I will judge the round similar to how I judge PF so read my PF paradigm below
PF Debate -
Things I don't Like:
I am a more traditional judge in the sense that I don't like spreading (or even "PF" spreading) and I don't like the use of policy/LD jargon in PF and especially don't like extreme impacts like extinction without very strong links. So unless a topic has clear relation to nuclear war, you really shouldn't be using it as an impact. I'm also generally not a fan of K's or Theory or any of that stuff in PF. PF was designed for lay judges and it's a bit frustrating to see that many competitors/programs seem to have forgotten this.
How I vote:
The way I vote is I see what has been mostly cleanly extended throughout the round either by the opponent dropping or failing to adequately respond and then I will weigh whatever arguments have been extended so make sure to explain why the arguments you are bringing to the final focus matter more than your opponents (don't just rely on saying their argument has been refuted, it's better to also say that even if their argument flows through - you still win. Ideally do this weighing using terms like probability, magnitude, or timeframe (but please don't just say these words without adding any explanation or context - you must explain why you outweigh on probability or magnitude, etc.)
Matthew Longmore
Neenah High School
Last changed on
Sat April 27, 2024 at 3:53 AM CDT
My wife is currently coaching for Neenah High school in Wisconsin.
I have judged sparingly in the past several years for her. I don't consider myself a strong debate judge. I would say I am a "lay" judge, but I did study philosophy and ethics in college.
I listen for the most well supported framework, then who makes the biggest/most likely impacts under that.
I usually am judging from a public space, so for privacy concerns I do not keep my camera on.
Lynbrook-Kefa Lu
Lynbrook HS
Last changed on
Fri March 22, 2024 at 1:36 PM PDT
I'm a parent judge. I'm an engineer with science background.
I like clear and articulate speeches. I like arguments supported by evidences. I don't have any pre-existing stance with pro or con. I make my final decisions primarily based on how well and strongly the teams support their contentions with evidences and convincing reasoning. Also I count how well the teams ask and answer all kinds of challenging questions for attacking and defensing purposes.
Show respect and be nice to each other. I will automatically vote for the other team if your team do the following,
1. show obvious disrespect for your opponent;
2. consistently interrupt your opponent when they are speaking.
Megan Lucas
Har-Ber High School
None
Garrison Lutch
Mercer High School
None
Andrea Luther
Chiawana High School
Last changed on
Sun March 3, 2024 at 11:17 AM PDT
If you are sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or ableist you will lose my vote.
About me:
I was a policy debater in the 90s.
Congress:
I want to see good speeches with meaning, not just a lot of speeches. You'll win more points from me with one better defined speech than three poor speeches. Be respectful of your fellow senators.
CX:
I lean toward a tabula rasa mindset when it comes to CX. I want to see a good clean debate, tell me where you win and how. I look at the flow and see where the winning points are and the better policy option wins.
LD:
This style of debate should not be able cramming as much information as possible into your speech. Speak clearly.
LD is a values debate and should be won based on how you best uphold your value. State your value and value criterion clearly. Then explicitly link your arguments and criterions back to these.
The weight of decision goes too who best upholds their value and/or can incorporate their opponent's value into their own.
All Debaters:
Just because a weak argument has been dropped doesn't mean you'll win on this point. If you have 10 points and lose on 9 but your opponent drops one you'll still lose.
I am the time keeper and my time piece is right. I don't mind self timing but don't bother with "and time starts now" when you start talking I'll start my time. I give hand signals starting at 3 minutes.
I don't find tricks where you paint your opponent into a box they cannot debate in convincing. Everyone has prepared for the same topic, let's debate on that.
Finally, treat each other with respect.
Add me to the card exchange: DebateDrea@yahoo.com
Dustin Ma
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Fri April 26, 2024 at 6:18 AM PDT
I primarily judged speech events and coached limited prep speech for some students.
My judging criteria for extemp:
Content:
Analysis: Does the speech demonstrate a clear understanding of the issue and its complexities? Does it go beyond simply summarizing the news?
Argumentation: Does the speech present a well-defined central thesis? Are there strong supporting arguments with evidence?
Source Consideration: Does the speaker utilize a variety of credible sources to support their claims?
Transitions: Does the speaker give a transition between points?
Delivery:
Voice: Is the speaker's voice clear, audible, and varied in pitch and pace?
Articulation: Does the speaker enunciate words clearly and avoid filler words ("um," "like")?
Stage Presence: Does the speaker exhibit good posture, eye contact, and use of gestures to engage the audience?
Time Management: Does the speech stay within the allotted time limit?
Last changed on
Mon April 8, 2024 at 5:23 PM CDT
In a good speech, I look for clarity, delivery, and content. I expect your message to be clear and well thought out.
Interp (DI, HI, POI, Duo/Duet):
If I am not taking notes or giving time signals, that's a good thing! It means I am enraptured by your performance. Characterization is key. It should be very clear. If I am not looking at you, that's a bad sign. Make your performance captivating. I want to feel what your character is feeling. I want to connect with them. Verbal delivery such as pitch and tone are very important, but I am also looking for good nonverbal delivery. I want you to use physicality to better connect with the audience.
Address (Extemp, OO, Info, etc):
In address events, I am listening to what you say but I am more so focused on your delivery. Nonverbal delivery is REALLY important. You can say great things, but if your nonverbal delivery doesn't line up with what you're saying, your speech is basically moot. I expect speakers to look confident, poised, natural, and comfortable. I'm old so I like extemp walk, but it's not required. In terms of content, clarity is the name of the game. I don't want to think too hard to decipher your message - I want it to be clearly laid out for me in a consumable format. Address events can be like a mini TED talk if they're done right and I love when that happens.
Do your best and good luck!
Sonja Madsen
Willmar Senior High
None
Siva Mahamkali
Randolph High School
None
Josephine Mai
The Village High School
Last changed on
Mon March 4, 2024 at 2:44 PM CDT
I am a speech judge who has been doing this for several years and is experienced in judging various interp events, platform events, as well as extemp. I look for clean and creative blocking for interp events and hope to see authenticity in the piece. Topics should be original with a fresh perspective and should have a cohesive argument. I appreciate preparedness including a fully memorized piece. Overall I look for performances that are fluid, easy to follow along while being captivating, and if you’ve invested time and passion into the performance!
Mark Mak
Gabrielino High School
Last changed on
Fri January 19, 2024 at 11:16 PM PDT
I am a parent judge. Please do not spread, do theory, run K's or any other technical parts of debate.
Hatim Malek
Windward School
Last changed on
Fri April 5, 2024 at 10:48 PM PDT
Generally, I accept any form of argumentation if presented correctly. I have been involved in this activity for the past 13 years of my life, as both a high school and college competitor, as well as a current middle+high school debate coach. Put simply, you don't need to worry about debate terminology, strategies, or anything else that some judges might not know. If you run it, I'll know about it. That said, please still treat me as a normal person that you're trying to persuade! I know that debate is perceived as a "game," but I think that the "game" is figuring out strategies to make your arguments as persuasive to as many people as possible, which often involves starting at a basic level of understanding and adding additional complexity and nuance as you go.
Beyond that, I tend to align more with "traditional" debate arguments (your classic claim, warrant, evidence, impact) structure with solid clash against your opponent's (hopefully) similarly structured arguments. The worst thing that can happen for me as a judge is a round where the teams are two ships passing in the night, because then it becomes my job to intervene and figure out how those two things actually interact with one another (and I think we can all agree that judge intervention is not good). Finally, while I am OPEN to technical debate (K's, Theory, etc.) the bar is higher for these things since you have essentially infinite time to prep them. You need to do work to explain to me how they clearly link back to THIS specific round and how they outweigh your opponent's SPECIFIC arguments. Please, please don't just treat them as a catch-all.
Otherwise, good luck! You got this!
If you'd like feedback from me regarding a verbal or written RFD I gave you, please feel free to reach out at hmalek@windwardschool.org and I'd be more than happy to help.
Vijayalakshmi Mannikeri
Pennsbury High School
Last changed on
Tue April 23, 2024 at 12:54 PM EDT
Key Points (it's honestly nothing):
- Keep it structured like an argumentative paper! (Intro, three points, conclusion [with several sub-points in your main points])
- Bring the VOLUME, not the PACE! In other words, try to SPEAK CLEARLY and LOUDLY, but not FAST!
- Repetitive contentions are allowed any time/any day!
- Do your thing. Just keep your flow going and do your best; anything works! Depict good communication skills and try to elaborate as much as you can on your arguments!
- Be nice! :) Any rudeness, discrimination, or any negative comments will NOT be dismissed and will be used AGAINST you during your rounds. (Keep in mind, this may be an automatic WIN for the opponent).
- I will use arguments, preparation, and speaking skills made to make my decision. Please make sure to participate at your best effort.
ALWAYS REMEMBER TO HAVE FUN!
Frankie Marchi
Phoenix Country Day School
None
David Marques
Northstar Academy High School - Newark
Last changed on
Fri January 5, 2024 at 10:48 AM EDT
Avoid spreading unless extremely necessary for your argument.
Avoid disparaging or discriminatory language both in your arguments as well as towards your opponents.
looking for strong argumentation directly related to res, as well as strong articulation of arguments.
John Marsaglia
Hector G Godinez Fundamental High School
None
Cameron Martin
La Costa Canyon High School
Last changed on
Thu January 11, 2024 at 8:34 AM PDT
This is my 10th year coaching, and I have judged debate every year of my career thus far. I am a flow judge and prefer if you do not spread. If you do, please at least enunciate on your taglines and share your case with us. I am a firm believer that debate is still a communication event, so if every person in the room cannot understand your every word, you're not really debating. I've spent most of my coaching world in Speech, so if you use heavy jargon, please explain it occasionally. i.e. I know what Theory is, but if you get into "Wag the Dog" or "ROTB" I will be totally lost without a little bit of explanation.
I'm fine with K's and Topicality, as long as they are well linked. I understand the allure of treating debate as a game, but I am a classicist in that I believe it should be about competing evidence, exchanging ideas, and above all, clash. You cannot win my ballot unless you clash.
That being said, this is your debate! Clearly tell me why you win in your voters and frameworks, and I will follow your lead. Enjoy yourself and I'm sure you'll do fine! Feel free to ask any other questions you may have before round.
Juan Martinez
Lamar High School
None
Lizeth Martinez
Mt. SAC Early College Academy
None
Michael Martinez
Wilson HS Hacienda Heights
None
Phyllis Masters
Owasso High School
None
Rachel Mauchline
Durham Academy
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 1:11 PM EDT
Rachel Mauchline
Durham Academy, Assistant Director of Speech and Debate
Previously the Director of Forensics and Debate for Cabot
she/her pronouns
TL;DR
Put me on the email chain @ rachelmauchline@gmail.com
speed is fine (but online lag is a thing)
tech over truth
Policy
I typically get preferred for more policy-oriented debate. I gravitated to more plan focused affirmatives and t/cp/da debate. I would consider myself overall to be a more technically driven and line by line organized debater. My ideal round would be a policy affirmative with a plan text and three-seven off. Take that as you wish though.
Lincoln Douglas
I've judged a variety of traditional and progressive debates. I prefer more progressive debate. But you do you... I am happy to judge anything as long as you defend the position well. Refer to my specific preferences below about progressive arguments. In regards to traditional debates, it's important to clearly articulate framework.
Public Forum
weighing.... weighing.... weighing.
I like rebuttals to have clear line by line with numbered responses. 2nd rebuttal should frontline responses in rebuttal. Summary should extend terminal defense and offense OR really anything that you want in final focus. Final focus should have substantial weighing and a clear way for me to write my ballot. It's important to have legitimate evidence... don't completely skew the evidence.
Here are my specific preferences on specific arguments if you have more than 5 mins to read this paradigm...
Topicality
I enjoy a well-articulated t debate. In fact, a good t debate is my favorite type of debate to judge. Both sides need to have a clear interpretation. Make sure it’s clearly impacted out. Be clear to how you want me to evaluate and consider arguments like the tva, switch side debate, procedural fairness, limits, etc.
Disadvantages/Counterplans
This was my fav strat in high school. I’m a big fan of case-specific disadvantages but also absolutely love judging politics debates- be sure to have up to date uniqueness evidence in these debates though. It’s critical that the disad have some form of weighing by either the affirmative or negative in the context of the affirmative. Counterplans need to be functionally or textually competitive and also should have a net benefit. Slow down for CP texts and permutations- y’all be racing thru six technical perms in 10 seconds. Affirmative teams need to utilize the permutation more in order to test the competition of the counterplan. I don’t have any bias against any specific type of counterplans like consult or delay, but also I’m just waiting for that theory debate to happen.
Case
I believe that case debate is under-covered in many debates by both teams. I love watching a case debate with turns and defense instead of the aff being untouched for the entire debate until last ditch move by the 2AR. The affirmative needs to continue to weigh the aff against the negative strat. Don't assume the 1AC will be carried across for you throughout the round. You need to be doing that work on the o/v and the line by line. It confuses me when the negative strat is a CP and then there are no arguments on the case; that guarantees aff 100% chance of solvency which makes the negative take the path of most resistance to prove the CP solves best.
Kritiks
I’ll vote for the k. From my observations, I think teams end up just reading their prewritten blocks instead of directly engaging with the k specific to the affirmative. Be sure you understand what you are reading and not just read a backfile or an argument that you don’t understand. The negative needs to be sure to explain what the alt actually is and more importantly how the alt engages with the affirmative. I judge more K rounds than I expect to, but if you are reading a specific author that isn’t super well known in the community, but sure to do a little more work on the analysis
Theory
I’ll vote for whatever theory; I don’t usually intervene much in theory debates but I do think it’s important to flesh out clear impacts instead of reading short blips in order to get a ballot. Saying “pics bad” and then moving on without any articulation of in round/post fiat impacts isn’t going to give you much leverage on the impact level. You can c/a a lot of the analysis above on T to this section. It’s important that you have a clear interp/counter interp- that you meet- on a theory debate.
Jordan Mayer
Munster High School
None
Sara McClendon
Francis Howell Central High School
None
Brittany McClure
Alta High School
None
Jennifer McCune
Siouxland Christian School
None
Michelle McIntyre
Washington HS
None
Amber Meadors-Fouda
Union HS
None
Jhalak Mehta
Reservoir High School
Last changed on
Mon March 18, 2024 at 12:52 PM EDT
Hello! I'm a parent judge, and this is my first year judging, so bear with me. I'm primarily experienced in PF, although I've done a bit of speech. I'm a lay judge.
In terms of speaking tips:
1) Stay below 270 WPM- the closer you get to this number, the more you're losing me!
2) Signpost, Signpost, Signpost- I need to know what your arguments are.
3) Be polite. I judge on argumentation, not speaking quality, but if you're overtly rude to your opponents I'll take that into account in a close round. Same for any bigoted argumentation.
On debate:
1) I follow "sky is red" theory. I.e if you tell me something outlandish and your opponent doesn't engage with it, I'll buy it. Don't abuse this though, and if you don't clearly impact and extend it, then I won't vote off of it.
2) Do the heavily lifting for me. Tell me why I should vote for you in your speech. Do the weighing for me- the more I have to decide who to beleive, the less likely it is to be you.
3) Evidence- I'm not really familiar with setting up evidence chains and sharing. I'll buy that your evidence is credible unless your opponent tells me it isn't, at which point I'll be pretty upset. Don't lie or abuse your cards. As in, I'm okay with questionable link chains, but don't straight up lie.
4) I'm very unfamiliar with K, Tech, etc. I don't judge much circuit. You'll have to make it make sense to me.
Lastly- Great work! I'm excited to listen to every round. Good luck!
Subbu Meiyappan
Valley Christian High School
Last changed on
Fri February 9, 2024 at 4:23 PM EDT
I am a parent judge. So please keep technical aspects of the debate to a minimum. If you can avoid spreading it would be perfect. Try and avoid speed-talk. I appreciate addressing and making eye contact with the judge. Please explain some of the definitions and/or acronyms you may be using. I give credit to sticking to the full topic. For example in one session "Should liberal countries coerce non-liberal states to become liberal', it is not about liberalism vs autocratic govermnents - it should be about the entire topic. I don't mind if you remove your mask to talk during your turn. I typically take notes and keep time. Before every section try and provide a roadmap of what you are going to present and stick to it. I love a good debate or a speech! Good luck!
Sara Micanek
Millard North High School
None
Gabby Michailides
Hoover HS
None
Gina Miller
Bentonville West High School
None
James Miller
Santa Ana High School
None
Jimmy Miller
Stow-Munroe Falls High School
None
Kim Miller
River Falls High School
None
Ryan Miller
Grain Valley High
None
Shelby Miller
Stow-Munroe Falls High School
None
Tanya Miller
Park Rapids Area High School
None
Malia Mills
Bend Senior High School
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 9:51 AM PDT
In debate rounds I expect:
Organization
Sign-posting
'Clash' as needed
Professional Behavior
In debate rounds I have difficulty with:
Spread (overly rapid delivery) - Due to tintinitis (ringing in the ears) I cannot fully understand 'spread' and thus if I cannot understand what the competitor is saying, I cannot give credit for what is being said, or the ability to 'flow' my notes so that I can judge accurately.
In Individual Event rounds I expect:
To hear a 'well polished' speech.
Michael Misak
Weatherford High School
None
Prachi Mohapatra
Valley Christian High School
None
Ofelia Moran
Nova High School
None
Lisa Morgan
Ida B. Wells HS
None
Jericho Morrell
Green River High School
None
Jacob Moss
School Without Walls High School
Last changed on
Fri March 1, 2024 at 12:16 PM EDT
I am a relatively experienced parent judge. For LD debate, I appreciate debaters who speak clearly, not too quickly (no spreading), and follow the proper flow for an LD round, without letting any threads of the arguments go unaddressed. I will be flowing the round. I prefer well reasoned responses rather than stock replies. And I very much appreciate when debaters clearly lay out voters issues.
Tanya Moss-Barry
Millburn High School
Last changed on
Sat January 6, 2024 at 12:43 PM EDT
Hi! I'm excited to be your judge today. I am a trained speech and debate judge but did not compete myself.
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!
Monica Moysen
Westridge School
None
Irene Mpofu
New Era Academy
None
Emily Myers
Worland High School
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 9:09 AM MDT
Experience- 4 years high school as competitor, 2 years competing on my college team, and 5 years coaching my high school team.
What I like to see- I joined the dark side of debate as a parli. debater on my college team. Because of this I value the logistics of the debate rather than cards/evidence. Meaning, I am not putting any ink down while you are throwing out information off of all the cards you are reading. I think that you should read your card and then explain why this is relevant in your case. Any type of debate is suppose to be a persuasive speech, not a competition of evidence. As far as technical debate I will vote on those arguments alone if they are done well. I don't appreciate spreading or just dropping arguments as a strategy, I think that is a waste of time. K's are welcome, especially if they are done right. Speed is fine, but if I have to ask for your case because you read so fast nobody could understand you I will vote you down. I believe that if I have to do the work and read over your entire case in order to understand it that you are not debating. Don't make me do the work for you! I will not flow during any cross x. I believe that the time is for opponents to clarify and get information. If you want to bring up what is said during your speech I am cool with that. Lastly, during cross x I would appreciate letting opponents finish their thoughts and being respectful, I don't think being rude during cross x should be used as a strategy.
Ashwini Nambiar
Davidson Academy Online
None
Bhavana Namburu
Irvington High School
None
Shelly Namchek
Canyon Springs HS
Last changed on
Fri April 26, 2024 at 3:18 PM PDT
Judging style
I believe that debate is a competitive event, and having its own specialized jargon does not necessarily hurt the event so long as using the jargon does not become the event. I do not mind the use of terms such as "drop," "extend," "turn," "flow," or "cross-apply," but they should not replace the substance and do not automatically add impacts. I am not big on technical wins, so your opponent dropping a contention or card does not automatically win you the round. I will not intervene: You must impact. You have to do the work: Impact and link back to the value structure and/or provide me with a clear weighing mechanism for the round.
I prefer well-argued and supported points to spreading. Being able to say so many points that your opponent is not able to address each one in their rebuttal is not truly a skill and does not show me that you understand your position. Don't spread!
Please time your speeches and prep time. I may not keep accurate time of this since my attention is to the content of your speeches. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.
Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!
I will not vote for arguments that are ableist, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. This should go without saying, but for the sake of anyone who needs to see it in writing, there you go.
Speaker Points
Being aggressive is fine, just make sure you don't say or do anything that is offensive
I judge on a 5-point scale, from 25-30.
25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said, or other glaring rhetorical issues.
26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.
27 is average. The speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity, or other areas of rhetoric.
28 is above average. The speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. The speaker was compelling and used rhetorical devices well.
30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, and very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.
Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.
While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.
Please please please cut cards with complete, grammatically correct sentences. If I have to try to assemble a bunch of disconnected sentence fragments into a coherent idea, your speaker points will not be good.
Vadi Narasimha
Walpole High School
None
Carin Nelson
Carlsbad High School
None
Eli Nelson
Mountain View High School
None
Trisha Niceswanger
Atlantic High School
None
Gail Nicholas
Bob Jones Academy
None
Marci Nickelsburg
Woodland Park High School
None
Christina Niu
Orange County School of the Arts
None
Nigel Norvell
Raymore-Peculiar High School
None
Marian O'Brien
Navajo Preparatory School
None
Corey Olson
Mayo High School
None
Laura Ortiz
Flintridge Preparatory
None
Madison Ortmeier
Mitchell High School
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 2:39 AM CDT
I am a former South Dakota debater who competed in PFo, oratory, and interp. I’m now the head debate coach at Mitchell High School. I’m a traditional Public Forumer; this event was created for lay judges and heavy Public Forum jargon should be left to the side.
- This isn’t policy. Slow down and give me a quality delivery for higher speaks. Throwing delivery by the wayside for a fast and robotic presentation is a massive mistake so many debaters commit. I’m an Aristotle girlie - persuade me with your ethos, logos, and pathos!
- I'll be closely following the arguments presented, and if you believe there's a pivotal point crucial for winning the round, please ensure to address it in one of your subsequent speeches.
- Please time yourself in speeches. I'll keep track of prep, but I encourage you to do so as well. If you call for a card your prep starts once you start reading the card.
- Direct quotes > Paraphrasing. I won't immediately downvote you for paraphrasing, but if your debate opponent can provide a compelling reason, I might reconsider. The same principle applies to the misuse of evidence. If your opponent requests a card citation, and it contradicts your argument or the way you presented it, it could be deemed abusive, potentially leading to a loss in the round.
- Creativity in arguments is encouraged, as long as you have the link chain to back it up. Using abusively creative arguments is not my favorite (ie., student loan debt forgiveness will lead to nuclear war.)
- Weighing metrics are SO IMPORTANT! Even if it seems obvious to you, lay it all out for me so you ensure it gets weighed how you see fit.
- Summaries should not be utilized as second rebuttals; use your summary for voters and to tell me why I’m preferring you on each flowed contention.
- Be assertive, not aggressive! I’m such a firm believer of “If you have to be mean to get your point across, you’re a bad debater.” Aggressiveness will cost you speaker points.
- I have come to despise off-the-clock roadmaps and asking if every individual in the round is ready; you can begin and we’ll catch up.
- Telling me what I’m going to be voting is such a pet peeve of mine. Tell me what to weigh, what to prefer, what to analyze, what to flow through - do NOT tell me what I’m going to vote. :)
Carlos Osegueda
San Marino High School
None
Elizabeth Pak
Sunny Hills High School
Last changed on
Fri January 19, 2024 at 5:48 AM PDT
Elizabeth Pak is has been a licensed attorney in California since 1994.
She has judged speech and debate tournaments.
Gillian Palacios
Edgewood High School
None
Ita Palma
Hector G Godinez Fundamental High School
None
Dawson Pape
St Cloud Tech High School
None
Priya Parthiban
Thomas Edison EnergySmart Charter School
None
Kelly Paulette
Horizon High School
None
Alexis Pedroza
Desert Vista High School
None
Justinmar Perez
Ransom Everglades
Last changed on
Mon January 8, 2024 at 10:23 AM EDT
I mostly did PF in HS.
email: just_mar25@yahoo.com
read bolded for a quick rundown if you're unwilling to go through the whole paradigm.
1. Truth>Tech. That being said, I will not prescribe my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance/bad faith arguments. If the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me.
2. On Speed/Spreading - Speed is fine but it must be purposeful. Speed is not purposeful if you're unclear and lack diction (I will yell 'clear' or 'louder' if I struggle but if I need to keep doing that I'm going to nuke your speaks). Speed is not purposeful if all you're doing is introducing blippy arguments in hopes that one makes it across and wins you the round (you could literally just read more cards on legitimate arguments to strengthen your links instead of the blips). Speed is not purposeful if you're actively disenfranchising the other team by spreading (you do NOT need to spread versus a novice team, just out-debate them). Just because I might have your case doesn't mean it's all on my flow, I am not as familiar as you are with your own literature. If you're incomprehensible all you're doing is making me uninterested.
3. On Ks - Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my understandings of terms of art/common terms from your authors, whose viewpoints I am likely unfamiliar with. Just because you're running doesn't a K doesn't mean you don't have to DEBATE and explain why you're winning on the K flow. Yeah if the K goes unresponded then its a winning argument but if you don't extend/explain to me why the K wins (aff or neg) beyond "they had no response to the K" then presume I drop the K. Extend the K.
4. On Weighing - Rhetoric impacts are bad arguments. Explain/Weigh why your impacts are impactful. Don't just tell me 'poverty bad', explain why poverty is bad and what poverty actually causes. You can't outweigh on "Scope". There is no implication to what "Scope" means unless you give it context. Impact calculus takes into account Magnitude, Probability, Timeframe. Implicate what your advocacy has in terms of contextualized warranting versus just yelling out "scope" and praying it works out (it won't).
5. On Evidence Sharing - Just use an e-mail chain/Speechdrop. Please don't be the reason the tournament is running 30min-1hr longer than needed. I'm not saying you have to send over your cases (PF), I know that the norm on that is still being established (in PF) but no judge wants to watch you stand awkwardly over someone's shoulder while waiting for a card, just send it electronically and that way judges can have it too if it becomes a point of contention. If a card you called out for is miscut/misleading and this is enough to win you the round TELL ME THIS. TELL ME TO READ THE CARD BEFORE I MAKE MY DECISION BECAUSE IT TURNS THE ROUND. Don't get mad at me after the round because you didn't explicitly tell me to read a card.
6. On New Arguments - I try my hardest to give debaters as much agency as possible to actually debate. That being said, DO NOT introduce new arguments in the last speech of the debate, I will - at best - ignore them or - at worst - vote you down if the team after you argues that the introduction is a voting issue (fairness/time, etc.) This happens enough that it needs its own section.
7. On Framework - I will default to a utilitarian framework to weigh unless given an alternative by either team. In terms of defaulting to utilitarianism, unless a team in the round offers an alternative framework then this is generally what people would end up arguing under anyway (I literally don't trust teams to weigh appropriately so I'll just save us all the time and say this in my paradigm to at the very least mentally prepare you to weigh in some capacity). You can lose the framework debate and still win the round. Winning framework does not inherently mean you win the round. It is entirely possible to lose (or concede) the framework debate and still win. Framework is about who operates better under that given paradigm.
8. On Crossfire - I don't flow crossfire. If anything happens during Cross that you feel is relevant to winning then refer to it in your next speech so it is on paper. This doesn't mean saying something like "In Cross they said Nukes aren't real so they lose C2." I want you to tell me the other team conceded the link on C2 so I can put it on my flow (SIGNPOST WHERE THE RELEVANT CROSS INTERACTION SHOULD/WOULD BE ON MY FLOW). Aff always gets first question. Why are we doing the whole "may I have first question" song and dance still?
9. On Extensions - Summary and Final Focus should be aligned - whatever you extend in Final Focus should also have been present in Summary. I don't believe defense is sticky. You should still extend defense on an argument unless the other sides explicitly kicks out.
10. On Tricks - Don't. Deliberate attempts to subvert clash by lying, misleading, hiding arguments, being unethical will be poorly received. What're you trying to prove by doing this? That you can't win a round by actually debating? I'll nuke your speaks since I believe this actually "kills debate". To be clear, a funny tagline is funny and okay, but you know when something is a pun and when something is deliberately misleading.
11. Don't be rude - Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you. There are more important things in life than winning while also being mean to other human beings. We're all trying to partake in something that we enjoy/makes us happy. Don't be the reason someone has a terrible day.
Leeza Perry
Archbishop Bergan Catholic School
None
Amy Peterson
Stillwater Area High School
None
Bradley Peterson
Stillwater Area High School
None
Karisha Petty
Head-Royce High School
Last changed on
Sat February 17, 2024 at 6:15 AM CDT
Interp Events-
- I focus on solid storytelling. The most important piece of the puzzle is the script, please don't forget to hold true the story as a whole even though we are only seeing ten minutes of it.Connecting to the audience, it's about telling the story to us, so a solid connection to the audience is important. We want to laugh and cry with you. Cleanliness does impact my ranking, Dont forget you are not speaking FOR them, you are speaking AS them. It is an ownership that you should take seriously. If you don't tell the story, how will they continue to live?
SPEAKING EVENTS/Debate
- Be specific with the topic at hand
- Not a fan pf spreading
- please be respectfull
- I pay the most attention during cross, like a lot. So please keep that in mind
Make sure your speech flows and each point connects to the last and the next.
- - We may not know anything about the topic at hand, think of yourself as a professor sharing knowledge, teach us.
- If you stumble over your words, keep going forward, don't go back unless that information was so important you need to recover it.
- Strong supporting material is key, like any good research paper the more recent the source the better. And with that strong source material is also important to the strength and legitimacy of your speech.
- Solid confident delivery style
Bryce Phillips
Adrienne C. Nelson
Last changed on
Sat April 27, 2024 at 4:06 AM PDT
Hello!
I am a newish judge, I competed in IE in high school and Congress in college in Illinois. So sometimes I have slightly different expectations than folks who have always been in debate in Oregon. This is my second year judging in Oregon. I am also a coach.
I try to encourage competitors to try their best to try to shape their arguments without attempting to tailor their arguments to an individual judge's paradigm. Particularly when you have several judges, it can be a challenge when their paradigms are not complementary. Nonetheless, a few general things for me
- I try to choose the person I think won the debate. Simply because you counter or respond to an argument and say "this shouldn't flow" doesn't mean I have to agree that it doesn't flow.
- I value organization greatly.
- I do weigh arguments, some are more central than others, and winning on one argument is sometimes enough for me to make a decision. Winning on two smaller points is not as good as winning on the biggest point. In debate terms, I am weighing impact.
- Stick to the resolution and the event you are in. Funding shouldn't be a key argument in LD or BQ, but it should be a central point in Policy/CX or PF. Additionally.... debate rules are not universal for all of the events. For instance... Public Forum does not have the "no no new arguments in final focus or summary" rule that exists in other styles of debate. It might be frowned on, but it isn't a DQ or anything.
- No personal attacks. I strongly frown on inferred or direct insults. Yes "my opponent is not a good debater" is a personal attack.
- I am generally open to people running Ks and Ts and other parts of the alphabet but I do not vote for them very often. My philosophy has always been that K's should be last resorts when neg or aff bias is unavoidable, not an excuse not to debate a resolution you don't think is cool.
- An extension is not a new argument. Debaters on not confined to only repeating themselves in their final speech.
- Saying "we don't have time to respond to that" is taking time to respond to it, especially if you repeat it a few times.
- My flows/notes are often general and often messy. I am sorry, that is also just how I take notes and how I flow for myself.
- Adding this one because I got a question about it... I will flow cross but I won't always flow like 'can you restate your 3rd sub-point" type stuff. If a question has an impact on the round or if I thought it was a good question, I will usually make a note at least.
Lily Pieper
Woodbury High School
None
Karesha Pigmon
Garland High School
None
Jeremy Pincock
Highland High School
None
Melanie Popovich
Gloria Deo Academy
None
Suma Potluri
Saratoga HS
None
Gloria Potter
North Allegheny
None
Tonya Powers
The Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men
Last changed on
Thu January 11, 2024 at 2:33 AM CDT
I consider myself a judge who will listen to anything as long as it is warranted. I have voted on just about any argument you can imagine. I am open to both traditional and progressive arguments. Do whatever works for you. Please give me voters. I love seeing clear ways you think I should evaluate the round. If you only read this paragraph, here is the TLDR version. I love direct clash. Voters are incredibly important in the rebuttals. Don't make me do the mental work for you.
I competed for 3 years in policy in high school, 4 years of NPDA, and 2 years of LD in college, and I was a graduate assistant for the WTAMU speech team. I have been coaching in some capacity for the last 8 years, so there's not much you can run that I have not seen.
Policy Debate
Topicality
I enjoy a good T debate. Stock issues are still very important in traditional policy debates, and I want debaters to do it well. Run T if there is a clear violation. Please emphasize voters.
Disadvantages
Please read specific links if you have them. Tell me exactly how the aff plan fits into your scenario. I'm fine with terminal impacts as long as they are warranted.
Counterplans
I like CPs when they are run well. Please have a unique net benefit on the CP. You can read CP theory for the aff or neg. It's a neglected argument, but I like hearing theories on different types of counterplans and their validity.
Kritiks
Just like disadvantages, I think Ks should have specific links. Theory is great, and I enjoy it when it is run well. Make sure you have more than just a reject alt. What does the alt call me to do besides vote for you? Do not run multiple Ks in the same round/speech. A good K is a big enough theoretical and ethical issue that it should be your main advocacy.
Lincoln-Douglas
I coached in a very traditional area, which means I see a lot of traditional debate. Ethical debates are incredibly important, and they've grown on me as I have coached the activity. That said, I am open to more "progressive" styles as long as the arguments are solid. Each side should offer a value and a criterion for their case. However, you choose to structure arguments after that is up to you.
Public Forum
I have less experience with PF than I do with CX and LD, but I enjoy judging it. Unlike traditional policy debate, public forum debate does not require a plan text. The time constraints make policy-style cases difficult. I'm open to hearing that format, but it's not required to win my ballot. I want to see well-reasoned cases and good clash in rounds.
Speed
It's very hard to speak too quickly for me. It is possible to mumble or speak too quietly, especially in a virtual debate. Debate is only good if both sides know what is happening. Please make sure you enunciate clearly. Please don't gasp for air while you read. It's one of the few things I truly hate. If you're doing that, slow down. Make your signposts and taglines very clear, so I know where to flow.
At the end of the day, it is not my job to tell you what you should run. Run arguments that you like and think you will do well running.
Datta Prasad
Prior Lake High School
None
Rashmi Prasad
Archbishop Mitty
None
Devi Prasanna
American High
None
Zachary Prax
Eastview High School
Last changed on
Sat February 17, 2024 at 2:00 AM CDT
I am a teacher and coach at Eastview High School (MN) - the 2023-2024 school year is my 21st year coaching and my 25th year involved in speech and debate. Full disclosure: I don't judge a whole lot. I'm usually doing other things at tournaments. But: I do actively coach, I enjoy judging almost every time I get to, and I like to think I'm fairly predictable in terms of what I look for and prefer.
You can ask me questions in round if you wish.
PF: I can "handle speed", though I don't know that I've seen many fast PF debaters. I have seen many blippy PF debaters. To me, speed does not equate to 40 cards, of varying word count, that are blippily extended. I very much prefer depth and extension of ideas than extension of tons of author names that all don't say a whole lot.
Congress: What I most value in this event include:
(1) Debating! Pre-scripted speeches (with the exception of an authorship) don't do much for me. Each speech should be somehow moving the debate forward; when speeches are merely read, they don't have that power. This also means that rehashing of points should be avoided. If you do discuss arguments previously made, what can you do to move them forward and develop a deeper line of analysis? Some type of impact analysis, new weighing, perhaps a new facet of the problem? Just repeating argumentation doesn't help move the debate forward.
(2) Thesis-driven speeches. I like to see a clear framework, clear organization, and a coherent structure that all supports some major theme within your speech. A hodgepodge of impacts and arguments that feel unrelated don't have as much weight as a speech that has a central, core idea behind it.
(3) Evidence. Moreso than an author name, I do like to hear credentials and dates. Not only that, evidence comparisons are so often key to the debate - why should I prefer your evidence over other evidence that has been heard so far in the round?
(4) Diversity of Cycle Position. If I hear a debater give me four first negative speeches, I don't feel like I get a true sense of the skill of that debater. Preferably, I'd like to hear each entry speak in different parts of the cycle. If you give me a first negative, maybe work to have a speech near the end of the debate to show my your crystallization skills. If you have a mid-cycle speech, maybe work to have a constructive speech next time. Obviously, your precedence and recency determines some of your order, but work to showcase differing skills in the round.
(5) Cross-x is important, but not everything. Speeches carry far more weight than questions. I do listen to questions, take into account your chamber activity, and really enjoy hearing c-x's that bring up holes in a position (or expertly bolster a position). But too often, I see debaters hurting themselves in c-x more than helping themselves. Overly aggressive, snippy, demeaning c-x's just don't help build a debater's eithos. Two competent debaters can have a good discourse without resulting to being mean. In c-x, I like to get proof that you truly "know your stuff" - that you're researched, have a handle on the topic, and didn't just read some brief that was given to you.
(6) Knowledge. The very best debaters, in my opinions, are the ones that have a fundamental understanding of the issues and can communicate them in a clear, impactful way. That simple statement is really hard to master. It is fairly clear when a person is well read, can respond to arguments with substantiated claims on fly, and can think on a deeper level. Show me your mastery of the content and you will be rewarded.
Finally, (7) Just Debate. I enjoy Congress - but when debate devolves into games and tricks designed to disadvantage any given speaker, I get frustrated. In my humble opinion, the very best debaters work to get their wins through mastery of the content, clear argumentation, and a firm but kind debating style. Resorting to games is beneath that. Have fun, for sure, but don't do so at the expense of others.
Evan Price
The Montgomery Academy
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 3:04 AM CDT
Willing to give progressive a chance.
Kari Primeau
Smithville R-II School District
None
ErinLynn Pritchard
American Heritage Palm Beach HS
Last changed on
Sun February 18, 2024 at 6:41 AM EDT
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.
Kirk Prucha
Comanche Speech and Debate
None
Dylan Pursley
Central HS Springfield
None
Jeff Puukka
Sam Barlow HS
None
Ange Qin
VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy
Last changed on
Tue April 16, 2024 at 1:29 AM BST
angelinaqixuanqin@gmail.com (for the email chain)
I debated four years of PF for VDA. I currently judge and debate for UCL - BP format, which is probably the baseline for where I default in terms of judging practices right now.
Some general stuff:
- Treat me as the average informed voter rather than tabula rasa
- i have a strong preference for good analysis on why your argument works as opposed to just matter dumping a bunch of stats at me - in close clashes competing evidence will be evaluated but it is up to the teams to tell me why their empirics are more convincing/matter more
- i love weighing. weigh your analysis, your impacts, the clashes, comparatives, etc. weigh everything like you're packing for a trip and ryanair is about to charge you 60 quid for your luggage being 0.3kg overweight
- don't be mean! the line between assertiveness and being rude is actually clearer than people imagine!
Things that will help your speaks
- sign posting
- being strategic with your time (ie focus on biggest clashes, group arguments together, etc.)
- being accessible (please don't spread or read complex theory at me - the round will not be enjoyable for either of us)
Laura Quistgaard
Cleveland HS
None
Raji Radhakrishnan
North Allegheny
None
Lakshminarasimhan Raghunathan
BASIS Scottsdale High School
None
Vijay Ragunathan
Archbishop Mitty
Last changed on
Fri April 26, 2024 at 4:22 AM PDT
Welcome to the competition! Debates and speeches are exceptional events and a fun way for students to engage discussing social, economic, and a wide range of topics.
I have been judging both speech and debate in the current stint for 3 years with 4 years of prior judging experience. I am a parent judge. I am a former competitor as well.
Please follow your methodology relevant to your event and respect your fellow competitors. All the best!
Kharun Rajwany
Stoneman Douglas High School
None
Manoj Rana
Bellarmine College Preparatory
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 11:23 PM PDT
I am a parent judge. I look for the data and and evidence supported arguments during the debates.
Michael Rankin
NSU University School
None
Dana Reed
Magnet Academy for Cultural Arts
None
Olga Reeves
Ravenwood High School
None
Amy Remley
Riverside HS
None
Alexander Renteria
Westridge School
Last changed on
Fri February 16, 2024 at 8:22 AM PDT
Students @ Berkeley,
I have no formal speech and debate experience. This will be my second tournament. Please speak clearly and avoid jargon. I am looking forward to the debates! âš½
Elizabeth Rice
Frank H Morrell HS
None
Brandon Rich
Mullen High School
Last changed on
Sat January 27, 2024 at 12:17 AM MDT
For LD, Value Clash is important. Make sure you link your value and criteria to your contentions. Tell me how they work together in your argument. No spreading.
For PF, no spreading. Make your impacts clear and make sure you give me clear voters at the end. Tell me why you win.
Rachel Roberts
Classical Christian Academy
None
Melissa Robinson
Lincoln College Prep
None
Tea Robinson
Odyssey Institute For Advanced & International Studies
None
Brian Rodriguez
Elizabeth High School
Last changed on
Tue May 14, 2024 at 10:16 AM EDT
Please don't spread.
For Presiding Officers, I consider in the top half of rankings, provided they are seamlessly running an efficient chamber. I lower ranking based on blatant errors that run counter to the momentum of the session.
Matthew Rodriguez
Harlingen High School
None
Zachary Roland
Canyon Springs HS
None
Yesenia Romero
William Workman High School
None
Robert Root
Boerne Champion High School
Last changed on
Fri January 5, 2024 at 12:26 AM CDT
IE
I am comfortable judging any speech event, but am best when I judge extemp and oratory. I favor content and substance over style but believe that both are important in speech rounds.
Congress - I judge speech content/presentation over procedural skills. I will strongly consider a PO for advancement unless they are acting in an unfair way or significantly struggling with recency. Remember that where you are in the speech cycle impacts what your speech should be doing.
CX Debate
I try to be open minded in arguments but with this topic I have been more drawn to traditional policy case arguments and disads. With that said if you prefer to run kritikal arguments be prepared to show solvency arguments for the affirmative advantages. Too many people cannot explain what the K world looks like and I do not like it when K debaters go down the rabbit hole without a clear idea of what the world looks like.
Do not run T as a time suck only.
Framing arguments are crucial.
Some speed is ok but I have old coach ears and the virtual debate thing makes it easier to lose you if you move too quickly. If I cannot hear or understand it. I will not flow it.
LD
I try to be open minded but I hate progressive debate for the sake of progressive debate.
Some speed is ok but understand that historically LD was created as an alternative to CX Debate. In the final set of speeches you need to slow down and explain the argument that you are going for and why you should win the round. If you are spreading in the last two rebuttals it will not impact win/loss but it will impact your speaker points.
I look at arguments over presentation and believe that criterion are especially important.
Do not run generic link disads or K arguments. The evidence needs to have specific links and specific impacts to the resolution and the value/criterias used in the round.
I do not buy CPs in LD rounds since there is no presumption in LD.
Since there is no presumption in LD, negative must run a case and value/criteria not just respond.
Matt Rosenau
George W. Norris High School
None
Mary Rosetti
Winston Churchill HS
None
Emma Caroline Rund
Fishers High School
None
John Russell
Navajo Preparatory School
None
Katy Russell
Louisville Senior High School
None
Alyx Sabina
Choctaw Sr High School
None
Tasneem Sabri
Rise Academy
None
Ramis Sadrieh
University High School Charter
None
Rebel Saint Lilith
The Harker School
Last changed on
Sat April 6, 2024 at 3:14 AM PDT
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.
Patrick Sammon
St Thomas Aquinas High School
Last changed on
Sat January 6, 2024 at 2:17 PM EDT
**Please add me to the email threads/email chains so I can follow along with the evidence presented: patrick.sammon@aquinas-sta.org
DEBATE:
**Remember that Public Forum Debate is the format of debate that most of the general public can follow and understand.**
I'm a citizen judge who will decide the round on clear, concise arguments from both sides based on the evidence presented. I follow the clock and Regs fully.
Avoid running Kritiks and T. The meat and potatoes of this format of debate is to reach the masses.
Decorum and Behavior: Everyone in the round needs to be respectful and act accordingly. Anything out of acceptable and energetic debate (attacks or backhanded comments on gender, race, etc.), I will throw the round to the other team, end the round, tank your speaks and notify your Coaches.
Spreading: I do not like spreading in PF (or LD). Having the ability to speak at 200 (OR MORE...MANY more) words per minute is a fantastic skill to have, but it doesn't belong in this arena. You are not the famous fast talker John Moschitta, Jr.. You have your Constructive speeches and adequate time to lay out your cases. People (opponents and judges, as well as any spectators in the gallery) need to understand everything you say and the evidence that you reference in order to follow.
During the rounds, please be sure to speak clearly. Be respectful to everyone in the round/on the 'call.' Even though this is a competitive event, we are still in the educational orbit. Use these tournaments as learning experiences and opportunities to further work at your craft.
Last but not least, please have fun and enjoy this experience! GOOD LUCK!
If my judging strategy doesn't match what your team is looking for, please feel free to STRIKE ME. I won't take it personally. Everyone has their tastes and are entitled to them - especially in tournaments where you have say in your judge panels. Take advantage of the benefit! :)
SPEECH:
Remember to relax, have fun and enjoy the experience!
Rami Sammond
East Ridge High School
None
Kevin Sánchez Cueva
Har-Ber High School
Last changed on
Fri April 26, 2024 at 12:10 PM CDT
He/him
I'm a former debate student from last year, and I have experience in everything except LD. I focus on both your arguments as well as your speech/tone. My only real issues are if you're impolite to your opponent or if you personally attack them instead of their argument. My general specialty is informative. That's about it, have fun :)
Michael Sandberg
Saint Joseph Notre Dame High School
None
Ganapathy Sankar
Leland High School
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 11:57 PM PDT
Parent Judge:
Don't spread, make sure to make your arguments clear.
All responses to constructive must be in rebuttal. If an argument is not extended through FF & Summary, then it won't count. Make sure to frontline your defense against the opponents through all speeches as well.
Sign post
ganu.sankar@gmail.com -- add to the email chain
Nancy Santana
Ft Lauderdale High School
Last changed on
Tue April 23, 2024 at 12:21 PM EDT
I'm by all means a mommy judge, i've been in around 7-10 tournaments in the past, including Nat Quals last year so I do have a certain grasp of how I judge my rounds.
I primarily judge on 3 aspects: Content, Presentation, and Time management
Content:
- I value structure highly in your speech, I want to be able to mentally follow through your content and not feel lost on what you are talking about
- Include sources! If you have interesting statistics tell me where you got them from, whether that be an Organization, a Study, or University I want to know.
Presentation:
- Walk with purpose! I can't stress this enoughI get hysteric watching competitors walk around aimlessly and it distracts me which has cost competitors the round. Yes movement is essential but do it with purpose, so 3 point walk techniques and things like that I like but if you're moving unnecessarily I will dock points
- Eye contact. It's not as essential as purposeful movements, but it's nice to see and it's those little things that take you to the next level
- Be engaging! Good speeches need to be engaging for me, if theres no voice inflection or you're too monotone, you're going to lose me in the first 2 minutes and it's going to be very hard to get me back
Time Management:
- I have no issue with giving time signals I don't see it as unprofessional at all, just let me know before your piece and i'll be happy to help
- Time management is essential. The saddest thing is seeing competitors have incredible pieces and do amazing for 90% of it, and then ruin it at the end because they're speeding up to make up for time
For Interpretation Events:
My biggest thing for Interpretation events like Duo, HI, or DI, is that I need to understand who's doing what.
If you have 3 different characters, I need something that tells me who's who. If everyone sounds the same, talks the same, and even moves the same, it will going to cost you the round.
Fun stuff:
- I like knowing my competitors read my paradigms, so if before beginning your piece you tell me your House or favorite Harry Potter Character i'll judge you in a better mood and more optimistically! (don't just say Harry Potter is your favorite thats lame)
Devin Sarno
George Washington HS
None
Mark Schenkman
Desert Vista High School
None
Adam Schoenky
Creekview High School
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 9:10 AM CDT
I tend to include performance, diction, voice, energy, etc. in my evaluation for events like oratory, info, and extemp, along with the obvious analysis of content, ideas, and supporting material.
I think creativity in blocking and staging should be rewarded in a digital atmosphere as much as they are in a live one.
I am pretty liberal on content - language, sexuality, etc. do not bother or offend me, as long as the performer has a real grasp on the subjects they are talking about and understands them fully. However, I view 'profanity' much differently than slurs, derogatory language, etc. In general I would prefer that they not be used. There are scripts that use them in order to bring home a point about the vileness of such ideas and beliefs, but in my opinion, that must be very earned, and in most cases, it is not.
Max Schroeter
Hoover HS
None
Amelia Schubert
Bloomington J F Kennedy High School
None
Ashley Schulz
Cheyenne East High School
None
Devon Schwartz
Stratford
None
Sarah Schwartz
La Jolla High School Speech and Debate Team
None
Breanne Selah
Cabot High School
None
Jason Serrett
Louisa County High School
None
Arun Sharma
La Jolla High School Speech and Debate Team
None
Kim Shedd
Kelly Walsh High School
None
Brenda Shouse
Reservoir High School
Last changed on
Sat April 27, 2024 at 3:04 PM EDT
I have been judging primarily debate events (except for Congress) for fifteen years, first as a parent of a debater and now as a coach's parent. I also judge speech events as needed. I have been judging in the NCFL for fifteen years and in the NSDA for the past four years. For debaters, watch the speed, please -- about 225 words per minute at maximum, and no spreading. Good sportsmanship is very important to me as a judge; please be polite. Good luck with your rounds!
Suba Shri
Pine View School
None
Sonali Shrivastava
Notre Dame San Jose
None
Inaya Siddiqui
James Logan High School
None
Samantha Sikes
West Broward High School
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 1:08 PM EDT
I'm a very lay judge, please say out loud your type of argument, e.g., turn, extend, de-link, non-unique. Don't run theory or K, preferably send your cases 30 minutes before the round to my email or add me to any chain on samantha.sikes@browardschools.com . Explain why your arguments win and your opponents don't. Weighing is the most important part of the round and is how I'll look at the debate. Explain simply the importance of your framework and I'll prefer it. Truth>Tech. No spreading. Like at all.
Sandra Simi
Amplus Academy
None
Parikshit Singh
BASIS Chandler High School
None
Stephen Singleton
South Sumter High School
None
Amitabh Sinha
Bear Creek
None
Lindsay Skelton
Texhoma Schools
None
Jeff Sloan
Pueblo West High School
Last changed on
Fri January 5, 2024 at 2:54 AM MDT
I've been judging LD and PF debate for 11 years, mostly locally but also at nationals and some circuit events.
LD
I tend to prefer traditional V/VC debate, as that is what I am most experienced in, but I am open to progressive LD with some exceptions (see below).
This is my preferred form of debate: I look for strong framework threads from contentions up through criterion and value. I pay close attention to cross-ex questions and answers. I prefer quality over quantity, which means I like focused, robust, tightly-knit, well-reasoned arguments, and not an evidence barrage designed to overwhelm your opponent. Ultimately, I'm looking for clear clash.
Counterplans are fine only if topical. If you are planning to read a K, do so at your own risk. I tend to be more receptive to Ks that directly challenge an assumption within the resolution as opposed to calling some aspect of your opponent's presentation offensive or unethical. If you are running anything complex, explain it thoroughly and avoid jargon, because I likely will not be familiar with it given my traditional judging background. I am OK with fast talking, but do not spread. If you have a quick delivery, please share docs. I do flow. Anything beyond Ks and plans (tricks, spreading, theory, etc.) are a no-go.
PF
Like LD, I prefer a traditional PF debate with clearly delineated contentions, a strong framework and good linkage between contentions. Because a close round usually comes down to evidence clash, I want you to make clear to me which evidence you consider strongest and why it should sway me. Similarly, I expect you to help me understand how your evidence and arguments stacks up against your opponent's. On cross-ex I look for good, probing, thoughtful questions that help me see potential weaknesses in your opponent's case. Gotcha questions are a non-starter and should be avoided.
PF is not CX — do not spread. That said, I am OK with a rapid delivery, but please share docs if that is your tendency.
General notes:
- Don't forget the resolution — a good argument that does not effectively address the resolution can be a loser.
-
I will vote for anything that is not racist, sexist, abusive, etc. as long as you win the argument.
-
Do not be abusive or try to win simply by overwhelming your opponent (you likely will not win this way).
- I will ask to see evidence at the end of the debate if I need clarity or better understanding. My asking to see evidence should not be construed as meaningful for either side.
-
If you have any questions, feel free to ask. I am happy to talk about myself and my paradigm.
Pronouns: he/him/his :)
Aaron Smith
Crescenta Valley High School
None
TaNiyia Smith
College Prep
Last changed on
Tue January 9, 2024 at 5:27 AM PDT
I am not a flow judge really, so ideally if we can steer away from spreading that would be preferred. Can definitely have some speed but obviously within reason. If you have your case in a Speechdrop that I can follow that would make my life a lot easier however not a requirement. In terms of in-round behavior not a big fan of passive-aggressive behavior (i.e. snide remarks you may think are said under your breath but everyone can hear you) so please be polite, and play fair. Any problematic or ill-mannered behavior will cause me to give the ballot to your competitor.
Lakshmi Soman
Monta Vista High School
None
Lauren Sonneborn
Thornton Academy
None
Linda Soudek
Mount St. Mary Catholic High School
None
Nami Southern
The Woodlands College Park
None
Catherine Spalding
Bardstown High School
None
Sarah Speltz
Rosemount Sr High School
None
Carrie Spina
Tuscarawas Valley High School
None
Nathan Spunt
Brookline High School
Last changed on
Tue February 13, 2024 at 6:50 AM EDT
I am a parent judge with some experience judging traditional LD. Please talk slowly. I am looking forward to hearing your debate!
Kannan Srinivasan
Leland High School
None
Bria Stacy
Knott County Central High School
None
Wendy Staten
Bentonville High School
None
Anna Steed
RISE High School
None
Donald Steiner
Ida B. Wells HS
Last changed on
Mon January 15, 2024 at 2:48 AM MST
I have been debating and doing IE's as a competitor and judge since the 1970's with a long break in the 90's and 2000's while working in the private sector. I have been coaching a team that does primarily Oregon-style parli and Public Forum debate, but I did NDT and CEDA as a college competitor and understand all formats.
I judge as a policy maker looking for justification to adopt the resolution, and will accept well-justified arguments on both substance (the issues of the resolution) and procedure (framework, theory). In policy rounds I have a bias against affirmative K's, because I believe the Aff prima facie burden requires that I be given a reason to adopt the resolution by the end of the first Aff constructive in order to give the Aff the ballot. Arguments founded in social justice approaches are fine as long as they lead to a justification for adopting the resolution and changing the status quo.
I can handle speed but remember I'm not seeing your documentation--a warrant read 600 words a minute at the pitch of a piece of lawn equipment might as well not be read from the judge's seat. You flash each other, but not me, so make sure I understand why your evidence supports your argument. I won't debate for you, and I don't flow cross-ex/crossfire. If you want me to consider an argument, introduce it during one of your speeches. In formats other than policy, particularly in Public Forum, I expect a slower rate and more emphasis on persuasion with your argumentation as befits the purpose of those other formats. In LD, I expect arguments to be grounded in values, not "imitation policy."
I will automatically drop any debater who engages in ad hominem attacks--arguments may be claimed to have, for example, racist impacts, but if you call your opponents "racists," you lose--we have too much of that in the contemporary world now, and we are trying to teach you better approaches to argument and critical thinking.
Above all else, I like good argumentation, clash, and respectful conduct. No personal attacks, no snark. Humor welcome. Let's have some fun.
Melissa Stevens
Coronado HS
None
Saimeen Subedar
University
None
Karthikeyan Subramaniam
Archbishop Mitty
None
Supraja Sudarsan
Apple Valley High School
None
Julia Sullivan
Archbishop Mitty
None
Uppiliappan Sundaram
Cupertino High School
Last changed on
Sat March 23, 2024 at 12:44 AM PDT
Speakers,
Please present your topics clearly & slowly. This will help me to follow your presentation and judge better.
Sunny D Sundaramoorthy
Gabrielino High School
Last changed on
Sat February 24, 2024 at 6:49 AM PDT
Gabrielino High School 2019-Present
Top of the Flow:
Signposting, impact calc, and overviews increase your chances of winning exponentially.
For Springboard: I'm judging from my school so my internet will be poor. If you want to make sure I understand what you are saying, then you should send your case to gahilans@gmail.com
I've done Policy and Public Forum for several years which means I know what I'm doing AND what you're doing. You ain't getting any of that cheeky debater stuff past me. ex: I don't appreciate things like calling for cards to steal prep. Scroll down to speaks for more info.
Spreading is fine, speed alone is not:
Speed + Enunciation = Spreading. If I cannot understand you, I will not understand you. It's that simple. Actually, to be honest, unless you know you're super good at enunciating, you're better off going slower.
For PF/Lay LD: I feel like you shouldn't be spreading, and definitely not at a novice tournament. If you are planning to spread, your opponents have the right to say no, and you need to let me know beforehand.
I like analysis and will evaluate it so long as there is no evidence directly contrary. Analytics can be used to answer evidence. Analytics are not listing off things that you "know to be true," but actually critically thinking about the arguments made by your opponents.
I claim to be tabula rasa, but is that true? I don't know.
I will only evaluate evidence if the round is close, or if the evidence dispute is an important argument in your last speech.
Speaks:
Speaks are arbitrary so I WILL dock/give you speaks for anything I want, but here is a general guide.
-2 for stealing prep. If you keep calling for cards but don't mention them at all, I will think that you are stealing prep.
+0.5 for sending analytics in email chains
30: No
29: Top speaker of the day
28: I got you
27: I didn't get you
26: Words were spoken?
25: No, but different
Kailash Swain
Bentonville West High School
None
Michelle Swanson
Mullen High School
None
Sarah Swedburg
Willmar Senior High
None
Kimberly Tallant
Bentonville West High School
None
Trisha Tanaka
Gabrielino High School
None
Dayanidhi Tandra
Skyline
None
Qin Tang
Valencia High School
None
Tina Tanner
Kickapoo High School
None
Dylan Tanouye
Flintridge Preparatory
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 9:06 AM PDT
Background: 4 years of high school speech and debate with Flintridge Prep. Competed mostly in Parliamentary and Big Questions but I have done Worlds and Policy
Overall, I'm game with whatever kind of round makes you feel the most comfortable and I'm willing to vote on pretty much any argument. However, please make it accessible to everyone else in the room (opponents and judges) who may not be comfortable with certain jargon or argumentation. I like rounds that have a lot of clash, but that doesn't mean you should expect me to remember every warrant you've read. Therefore, you should use the last speech to tell me a) what argument you won b) why you won it and c) why it should be enough to win the ballot- I should be able to follow this without having seen any of the debate beforehand (I will of course be flowing though). I will do my best not to intervene. Please maintain a sense of decorum and respect your opponents/judges- this matters more to me than who wins the round. Most importantly, make sure you are having fun!
Varsity Policy/LD stuff
I'm ok with speed as long as all judges/competitors are as well (access is important to me). Just send a speech doc (dylan.tanouye@gmail.com) and slow down for tags and analytics. If I can't understand your arguments, I won't be able to vote for you. Don't read theory just for the sake of trying to get your opponent to drop a disclosure shell, save it for genuine violations and I'll be more compelled to vote on it. I'm willing to listen to a K on both the aff and the neg, just explain your advocacy a little more than you normally would since I don't have a ton of experience here.
Good luck and feel free to ask me any questions before round!
Jake Taussig
Classical Christian Academy
None
Asha Taylor
Forensics at Troy HS
Last changed on
Fri February 16, 2024 at 3:31 PM PDT
I did policy debate in highschool, Parli and IPDA in college and I teach MS LD and PF. However, with that said, I mainly coach speech so I'm definitely not as proficient in flow as I was years ago. I am familiar with circuit rules. In terms of debate, I like sign posting, clear turns and impact calc. Basically, don't make me do your work for you. In terms of solvency presses, mmm its LD so not really. Kritiks, I'm really not a fan of them (unless its legitimate) but if dropped or not addressed I'll take it into voters. Finally watch cp language I'm using CHSA rules this tournament so no go. Also not a fan of evidence battles but will hear out framework debates. Basically, run it more trad and all will be well.
Indumathi Thiyagarajan
Dougherty Valley High School
Last changed on
Fri February 9, 2024 at 3:03 PM PDT
I am the parent judge and this is my 2nd year judging speech. I value well-structured cases, clear arguments, and explicit weighing. I like empirical evidence rather than emotion. I like a well thought out/planned case that makes sense logically - I like to connect the dots.
Bridgett Thomas
Cosby High School
None
Kobe Thompson
J. Frank Dobie High School
Last changed on
Tue April 23, 2024 at 4:57 AM CDT
Overall Interp: I look for expressive characters that are distinct from one another. I want clear ideas that are elaborated on with all plot lines to be resolved nicely and give to the overall performance. I also want diversity in performances, whether that be diversity in age, race, gender/sex, etc. This should help in making them distinct from one another anyways.
Overall Speech: I want the topic at hand to really be picked apart and explored in new and interesting ways. The topics should be comprehensive, with the perspectives of marginalized groups acknowledged if not centered. The speeches should be entertaining as well as informative, and the way that those two are weaved through the crafting of the speech is extremely important to me.
LD: I'm okay with speed reading (spreading) and do prefer to be included in email chains if possible. I focus more on good CX and strong rebuttal, so even if your argument is leaving something to be desired there is strength in a good counterargument. I do not mind K cases if they're argued well but you have to commit and be convincing of your point. I also want to see good sportsmanship, even when you're aggressive be respectful.
Brandon Thornton
Bloomington High School
Last changed on
Thu January 18, 2024 at 2:13 PM CDT
I'm a sucker for ethos, pathos and logos. Please include your sources when making claims. Above all, I'm looking to BELIEVE the words you're saying, and that you're fully engaging in the debate. If you're furthering debate, you've got my attention. Please avoid personal attacks during cross examination and/or direct questioning.
Alexandria Tippings
Valley International Prep
None
Brittany Tippings
Valley International Prep
None
Lyndsey Toce
Grapevine Faith Christian
Last changed on
Wed April 24, 2024 at 8:28 AM CDT
I am a high school science teacher and speech and debate coach. I've coached speech and debate for 9 years. I competed in speech and congressional debate in high school, then some speech in college. I am very passionate about the power of communication. Above all, it is extremely important to me that you articulate and enunciate well. This can still be accomplished with reasonable speed. Take care to explain your arguments well. I strongly prefer constructive speeches with resolutional analysis, framework, key definitions, and a standard that I can use to weigh arguments. I should have a solid understanding of what you think are the most important issues in the round. Please use voters! If you want me to vote on it, please make sure it is in your final speech and explain it thoroughly so I can understand it.
Arguments
Argue on logic, not emotions. Construct well-impacted, well-supported arguments. Quotations have no meaning without explanations. Therefore, always explain the significance of your evidence. The debater that most clearly presents a logical argument AND effectively refutes the opponent will be the victor.
Evidence
I may ask you to post your case or cards, if a virtual tournament. I may call for cards if your opponents ask me to, if the card is widely disputed during the round, or if it sounds exceptionally sketchy. According to NSDA rules, you can also access the Internet during round if you need to show your opponent the full citation.
Speed and Flowing
Anything below spread speed is fine. If you go fast, you should: SLOW DOWN when using tag lines and signposting. Give clear citations. Make sure you tell me where you are on the flow (off time roadmaps). Please look out for physical cues if you are speed-talking. If I look visibly confused or if my hand isn’t moving, that’s probably because I can’t understand you. While I don’t flow crossfire/cross-ex, I’ll remember anything exceptionally witty or smart you say. Make sure you repeat anything significant from crossfire/cross-ex in your next speeches. Rebuttal speeches should be well organized. Please go straight down the flow.
Behavior
Don’t be mean. If you’re mean, my brain will naturally find a way to vote against you. Being assertive is valued. Being aggressive is unnecessary. There is a difference between a passionate debater and an abrasive or condescending debater. Crossfires/cross-ex needs to be conducted with civility. You can be civil and still have clash in the round. I enjoy good clash.
Specific to LD
My judging paradigm for Lincoln Douglas (LD) Debate is a clash of values. The value represents a means to an idealistic, just world. The criterion is the standard by which to measure the opposing value and to ultimately define the value that should be upheld. The contentions are used to uphold the value. Impact all your contentions back to your value. Value, criterion, and contentions must be clearly stated by both sides. Therefore, the debater that upholds their value and criteria with the strongest contentions and strongest cross examination will receive the higher points, thus (generally) the win.
Speaker Points
30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.
29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.
28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.
27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.
26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.
25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.
Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.
Ann Tornberg
Beresford HS
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 4:35 AM CDT
Ann Tornberg has been a Debate coach for 35 years. She has coached Policy, Lincoln Douglas, and Public Forum in addition to coaching Speech and Oral Interp.
"I want to be persuaded in LD. I want to be able to evaluate the evidence based on a strong, reasonably paced delivery. Do not speed read in LD if you want high speaker points. As you summarize make sure that you are referring to evidence that has been read in the round. I do my best to take a careful flow. Give direction to your argument and always signpost. Let me know where I should put your argument on my flow. Finally, give me your estimate of the primary VOTERS in the round, but don't be surprised if I find other issues that are just as important to my decision." Ann Tornberg
Guadalupe Torres
Edgewood High School
None
Patrice Townsend
Lincoln College Prep
None
Travis Tucker
Norman North High School
None
Javkhlan Tulgaa
Granada Hills Charter High School
None
Anandhi Upendrana
Rock Bridge High School
None
Louis Uribe
University Schools
None
Kristan Van Houten
Stillwater Area High School
None
Rachel VanEngen
Millard West High School
None
Sheetal Vartak
Leland High School
Last changed on
Sun January 21, 2024 at 10:46 AM EDT
Everyone has to be clear. I do not take notes so I am a typical lay judge. be nice to eachother.
William Venzke
Stillwater Area High School
None
Makarand Vidwans
Mason High School
None
Richard Villarreal
Judson High School
None
Aaron Villegas
Jackson High School
None
Hema Vithalani
Mountain House High School
None
Mahesh Vittal Viveganandhan
Archbishop Mitty
None
Lydia Voss
Apple Valley High School
None
Diane Wagener
Battle Mountain High School
Last changed on
Fri April 26, 2024 at 9:32 AM MDT
Hello! Here´s some things to know about me as your judge. I am in my twenty-fourth year of coaching and have brought competitors to Nationals for the past 12 years straight. My overarching paradigm in Speech and Debate is ethics. You need to be supportive of your fellow competitors in Speech events and respectful of your opponents in Debate. For the later, focus on the actual debate (cross examinations) and show me that you really understand your opponent's case by asking specific questions about their evidence rather than trying to explain to me how their case doesn´t flow for some reason or another. Don´t give me voters - that´s my job. In Speech events, I´m looking for creativity and a true connection to the piece (whether you wrote it or someone else did). Lean into it, and own it. That´s what I´m looking for.
Thank you for all your hard work. Good luck to you!
Kathleen Walker
Fairmont High School
None
Michelle Walker
Fort Bend Christian Academy
Last changed on
Thu February 29, 2024 at 8:20 AM CDT
I believe that speech & debate offers an invaluable experience for students in that it provides a platform and an audience. Your voice matters, and I am honored to be but a small part in the process where you speak your truth.
I competed in LD, Extemp, Poetry & Impromptu throughout most of high school. I had a very brief relationship with Policy that left a bad taste in my mouth, and I think I tried every speech/interp event that existed at the time. I judged debate tournaments in college, began coaching a debate club about 9 years ago, and started teaching a speech & debate class two years ago. I truly believe it is THE class that most prepared me for my career in business because it improved my analysis, helped me create ideas, and gave me confidence in communication - both written and verbal.
Now for the paradigms you seek...
DEBATERS: debate is first and foremost a speaking event. I expect you to stand when you speak, make eye contact with your judge and not speak so quickly that you spit on your laptop. I also expect for you to provide evidence AND analysis for your arguments. Please do not expect me to provide the link in your justification. I am a relatively traditional flow judge- if it's not on my flow at the end of the round, then you didn't carry it over, and I don't intend to vote for dropped arguments. I also do not flow CX- if you bring up a really great question during that time, I expect that you will then mention it in your next rebuttal speech.
Specifically, I'm comfortable with LD, PF, WSD and slower/well-posted Policy rounds. If you're reading this paradigm right before you walk into a Congress round with me, let's hope I'm on a panel. :) I don't mind Kritiks or theories, but I do not like abusive arguments. If there is really NO WAY for your opponent to outsmart that idea, then it is abusive and has no place in a high school debate round. I don't have to believe your argument to buy it in the round, but you do have to sell it. If you want to put me in a box, I'm probably a Stock Issues judge with a dash of Policymaker and on some topics a bit of Tabula Rasa thrown in. But feel free to not put me in a box.
I really appreciate signposting so I know where you are in rebuttals, but I absolutely DO NOT need an off-the-clock roadmap where you just say aff/neg or neg/aff/voters. There are no times during a debate round where I am listening to you when your time is not running. Oh, and to be clear, your time starts when I press the button, which is likely to be on your first word. I do not need for you to tell me when your time starts. If you trust me to judge the outcome of the round, please trust me to press the button on my phone clock appropriately.
SPEAKERS: in speech events, I expect you to come across as the expert on the topic at hand, whether it's an Info or OO you've researched for 6 months or an Extemp topic you drew 30 minutes ago. I expect all of these to have strong research, well cited sources and solid analysis on your topics. Remember that you are conveying a message to the audience that you care about and we want to listen to. Enjoy your time in the speech!
INTERPERS: I know how difficult it is to continue performing the exact same piece over and over again for months- it's hard to keep it fresh. Think of it as a juicy piece of gossip (the good kind- don't spread bad vibes!) that you just can't wait to share. Then it stays fresher each time you say it because now you're excited to share it with THIS audience.
Who knew I had so much to say about judging in the speech and debate world? If you're still reading my paradigm, my sincere prayer is that you are enjoying this journey and wherever you are in it right now. Oh, and hurry up and get to your round! :)
James Wallace
Asheville High School
Last changed on
Fri April 26, 2024 at 8:24 AM EDT
Second year parent judge.
CONGRESS:
My Congress comments should have speech/PO criteria ratings based on National Forensic League training guidance between 3-6, entered as you're speaking so you have some minimal feedback on how I decided on final score for individual speech and eventual ranking. 3=Mediocre, 4=Proficient, 5=Excellent, 6=Superior
Examples: Originality of Thought, Organization and Unity, Evidence and Logic, Delivery.
I also attempt to score (in comments) how you handle questioning of your speech.
If time allows, I attempt to give constructive written feedback in the comments as well. Overall rankings take into account your entire performance in the round.
SPEECH:
Second year judging speech. The most polished student in a round with an easy to follow and interesting presentation (while also satisfying rules/objective/criteria of particular event) generally rises to the top of the rankings in my rounds. Please don't rush your introductions/teasers as it really helps me follow the rest of the piece.
I've also decided to try and assign speaker points to three main categories in your feedback depending on the speech event. This is to hopefully give you some minimal feedback indicating the elements of your piece that may have room for improvement. I always attempt to give detailed comments as well, but time doesn't always allow for this.
Points listed in comments do not necessarily average or add up to your final speaker point score.
27=Average, 28=Above Average, 29=Excellent, 30=Superior
From the National Forensic League:
INTERPRETATION (DI, DUO, HI)
Characterization
Is each character well-developed? Is each character relatable? Does a character’s response seem believable given the situation being portrayed?
Blocking
Can you tell what the performer is doing in the scene? Is it clear what character(s) they are playing? Is the movement motivated?
Cutting
Do you understand what is happening? Is the story line easy to follow? Does the sequence of events make sense?
PROGRAM ORAL INTERPRETATION
Programming
Were at least two of the three genresof literature (Poetry/Prose/Drama)used in the program? Did all of theliterature contribute to the theme orargument? Did the flow of theperformance make sense? Was therea balance among genres in theperformance?
Blocking
Can you tell what the performer wasdoing in each scene? Was it clearwhat selection the performer wasusing in each section? Did theperformer maintain control of themanuscript at all times? Was themovement motivated in theperformance?
Characterization
Did each selection have distinct andengaging characters? Did theperformance match the genre (e.g.,did the performer emphasize poeticelements when performing a Poetryselection)? Was the performancedynamic?
INFORMATIVE SPEAKING
Relevance:
Is the topic timely? Is the thesis clearly established? Does the delivery assist in establishing the importance of the topic?
Relatability:
Can the audience relate to the topic? Is the delivery personable? Does the speaker establish how others are impacted by the topic? Does the speaker do a good job informing?
Originality:
Does the speaker address the topic in a unique, inventive way? Are the supporting examples new and interesting?
EXTEMPORANEOUS SPEAKING
Argumentation and Analysis
Is the student directly answering the question? Does the student develop justifications for their ideas and establish the significance of their points? Have they established a clear understanding of the topic area?
Source Consideration
Does the speaker offer a variety of sources? Are the sources provided credible? Are appropriate citations used when citing a source?
Delivery
Is the student using voice, movement, and expression effectively? Is the speaker confident? Is there consistent eye contact? Is the volume appropriate?
ORIGINAL ORATORY
Importance
Is the topic significant? Is the thesis clearly established? Does the delivery assist in establishing the importance of the topic?
Relatability
Can the audience relate to the topic? Is the delivery personable? Does the speaker establish how others are impacted by their topic? Is the rhetoric of the speech inclusive?
Originality
Does the speaker address the topic in a unique, inventive way? Are the supporting examples new and interesting?
STORYTELLING
Tone
Does the performer's voice alignwith the type of story they'vechosen to tell? Is it clear this storywould be suitable for children tohear?
Expressiveness
Does the presenter bring thewords to life using effectivetechniques to convey appropriateemotion? Do the presenter’sfacial expressions aid the overalldelivery of the presentation?Does the presenter seem engagedin the literature?
Relatability
Is the presenter delivering thestory in a manner that wouldengage young children? Does thepresenter effectively establish aconnection to the audience? Iseye contact used to engage theaudience?
Courtney Walsh
McMinnville High School
None
Robert Walters
Broken Arrow High School
None
David Wang
The Nueva School
None
Edbert Wang
Leland High School
None
Yan Wang
Olentangy High School
None
Amanda Wasylik
Mira Loma High School
Last changed on
Mon March 4, 2024 at 1:02 AM PDT
I am a lay judge who has judged middle school and high school debate, as well as high school speech.
When judging debate, I consider flow and evidence. I appreciate debaters speaking at a reasonable speed to ensure understanding.
Katie Waterman
Staley High School
None
Dave Watson
Upper St Clair High School
None
Gionna Weber
George W. Norris High School
None
Joseph Richard Weber
Hoover HS
None
Dakota Weisbecker
Washington HS
None
Brandi Weiss
Los Alamos High School
Last changed on
Thu April 25, 2024 at 8:41 PM MDT
Email: Brandirw29@gmail.com
She/Her
Graduate student in the department of Sociology at New Mexico State University
Speech background
-NSDA Alumni, class of 2019
-Competed for 5 years in public address
-Two-time National Speech and Debate Tournament qualifier in Informative speaking
Judging style
-Super big on the rules for the event
-Clear speaking goes a long way
-I give a lot of feedback
I look forward to hearing from all the amazing and talented speakers!
Last changed on
Tue April 23, 2024 at 3:32 AM PDT
I am an experienced coach and experienced competitor. I have been tournament champions of numerous tournaments (in Originals and Interp) and have been to State every year of competition and qualified to Nationals. My team has always sent a delegation to Nats every year we have been a program. I do my best to leave quality and constructive criticism on ballot.
Debaters:
I sure love it when debaters signpost. That helps me and you stay organized on the flow sheet.
If I can't understand you, I can't judge you. So make sure you are speaking clearly and slowly enough so I can digest what youre saying.
I have a conditional love towards "out of the box" plans and ks but keep them tasteful and thoughtful. Anything facetious or "edgy" is not it for me. But an interesting take and or something whimsical but thoughtful I will appreciate. In the end, is it something you would run in front of your coach? If yes, I'll take it. If you do extinction theory, it's not going to go well. That's not showing me how good of a debater you are. I am much more about the spirit and intention of argumentation, not the letter of the flow.
Speechies:
Please enunciate and project. Again, if I can't hear or understand you, I can't judge you. For originals I am expecting a well organized and analyzed speech. For you Varsity/Open competitors, you should be completely memorized (but a few flubs here and there will NOT make or break your speech). For interpies, please have clean and distinct character pops, and the cut of your piece should follow the elements of story telling and make narrative sense. Also, remember, if I didn't see you emote, did you? Be mindful of facial direction, and focal points. If I can't see you, I can't judge you.
Spontaneous speakers, if I see that you are canning your speeches, your rankings will reflect that. Spon events are testing on your ability to organize and complete a speech spontaneously. If you are using canned examples and just swapping out phrases or words, that is not speaking spontaneously. I will penalize HEAVILY.
Hannah Westwood
Central Catholic
None
Gabrielle Wexler
Morristown East High School
Last changed on
Thu May 16, 2024 at 6:14 AM EDT
(still working on this)
Hello! I'm in the Nationals judging pool for both LD and speech, so here's some info on both:
LD Paradigm:
I’ve coached and judged speech for 7 years, but this is my first year coaching debate post-COVID. I’ve mostly judged PFD this year, but I'm still pretty new. My NSDA district is small and the national qualifier is the only opportunity that students have to try LD. I only mention that to let you know up front that my experience with LD is unfortunately very limited. In preparation for Nats, I’m doing my best to learn as much as I can.
Typical “new guy” preferences - Signposting is nice. Set up a solid foundation in constructive. Keep going back to that while reinforcing key points and making things easy to understand. I prefer conversational speed. Impact is key - why do your arguments matter? How are individual people affected by this? Can you explain your points in a way that is accessible to a general audience, not just experienced debate judges? Spell it out and let me know how you want me to weigh the round. Crossfire is the point where I get to see you all unscripted; while cross is not the primary RFD, this is usually when strengths and weaknesses of individual debaters become pretty obvious.
Stuff that is annoying - Time yourselves. Stay within your time limits. I'm also running a timer, but in some local debates, I've had to stop (usually new) debaters that just want to keep talking beyond their assigned time for whatever reason. Your judge should be focused on listening to arguments, taking notes, etc. not babysitting someone who doesn't know when their turn is over. Don't waste time during the debate arguing in circles over something like a piece of evidence or semantics. Usually, that's an indicator that you don't have anything substantial to say, so you're trying to deflect. When you ask your opponent a question in cross, let them actually answer you. Quality > Quantity because having 20 different arguments isn't impressive when you speed through them and only address things on the surface and then expect to win the round because your opponent didn't address subpoint e on your 5th contention.
Decorum - Have fun. Just like when I'm judging Extemp, I do appreciate humor and sassy quips from debaters, but this isn't a US presidential "debate." Keep it respectful.
Speech Paradigm:
General Notes -
Interp - Personally, I don't think that dramatic events (DI, POI, etc.) need content warnings but if that makes you feel comfortable, go for it.
Public Address -
Both Speech & Debate Events:
As a competitor, keep in mind that you are being informally judged from the moment we meet. Don't leave a bad impression. Be polite, but you don't need to be over-the-top about it. Remember that your judge does still exist even when someone isn't presenting, and we can still hear all of your personal conversations that you have with your fellow competitors. Don't be a weirdo. Obviously, it doesn't affect your ranking, but the things I've overheard competitors just freely chatting about within earshot while I have the fate of the round in my hands is...yikes. Same goes for when you exit the room. Walls are thin. I can still hear you. If you are unprepared for the round or think you messed up, don't let that leave your mouth. We are all our own worst critics, and chances are, your judge didn't notice that small slip-up you're apologizing for...until you bring it up in front of everyone. And if you're unprepared, it will be pretty obvious once you start speaking. No need to self-deprecate or fish for compliments.
Audience Etiquette - Your role as an audience member is to support the other competitors in the round by providing them with a respectful and attentive crowd. Drawing attention to yourself when you aren't the one performing is tacky. Stay off your phone during the round.
I tend to write/type a lot during the round. If you're in debate or public address, I'm probably flowing your speeches so I may not look directly at you all the time because I'm focused. Interp people - I promise I'm paying attention to all of the cool subtleties and blocking that you're doing. I'm just bad at eye contact, and I like giving good notes instead of "good job! 5"
Mariah William
Aberdeen Central High School
Last changed on
Thu February 29, 2024 at 12:14 PM CDT
General - I will vote on whichever arguments I buy more. ALWAYS explain the why behind your arguments. I love hearing the phrase "here's why this matters" after you make a claim or present an argument. If I don't buy your evidence, I will call for it. I keep a pretty decent flow so don't be scared to refer to the flow and the points made/dropped. Make sure to tell me where you're at on the flow as well. In every final speech of every style of debate, please give me clear voters. A final general piece of info, please do not be super rude in your rounds. There is a CLEAR line between confidence and just being mean. If you're being mean, I'll find a way to vote you down. I'm all for a little salt every now and then, but make sure it is justified.
Speed - You can go as fast as you want as long as you can articulate well. I was a policy debater for three years so I can handle speed. I won't flow what you're saying if I don't understand you. Additionally, do not go fast just to go fast. Make sure what you're saying actually applies to the debate at hand. Don't read me a disad that has absolutely no link as a timesuck.
Theories/Ks - If you want to read these, go for it. I'm all for hearing it IF it actually applies to the round AND the topic. I will not vote for something that has nothing to do with the topic. I will vote for the other team if you read a K that has absolutely NO link. Debate is supposed to be educational. Therefore, I expect to be educated on the topic. When it comes to specific theories, make sure you explain what they are and WHY you're running them. Your voters better be excellent if you want me to vote on it. I have voted on theory before because of really good voters.
LD - I weigh framework over contention level in the debate. Please for the love of all things do not run a random framework just to run a random framework. It needs to make at least 75% sense in the context of both the topic and the debate. That means you should probably be explaining a clear link to me. Please do not turn LD into a policy or pufo round. They are separate debate categories for a reason.
TOPIC SPECIFIC - If you're going to trash the United States military, please be aware that I am marrying a man in the military and I find it extremely offensive when competitors say ALL US soldiers are bad. For example - please don't tell me that ALL US military soldiers are complicit in human trafficking. Additionally, if you are going to discuss the Israel/Gaza war, please be considerate that all people have different views and that's OKAY!!! Debate is an educational space and I expect everyone in the round to be RESPECTFUL. If I am being screamed at or I feel uncomfortable because you say something offensive on either side of the debate, I will vote you down. Not appropriate for a high school activity.
Heather Williams
Peak To Peak Charter School
None
Janelle Williams
W F West High School
Last changed on
Sat January 6, 2024 at 5:54 AM EDT
I have been a coach for 50+ years and am favorable to traditional arguments. If you have a traditional case I would suggest reading it in front of me.
- I won't evaluate non-topical arguments/performances etc.
- I do not like tricks and wont evaluate them.
- I will evaluate kritiks as long as I understand how they function in the round.
- If you want to spread I am ok with speed, however if I put my pen down I am not flowing. You must be clear; I will be flowing from your speech not a doc.
- If there is abuse in round just explain it in layman's terms and warrant it. I will not be a good judge for evaluating friv theory arguments.
David Winkler
Wrightstown High School
None
Judy Winship
William Tennent High School
None
Jacob Winter
Cajon High School
Jamie Wisda
Carroll High School
Last changed on
Tue April 23, 2024 at 5:42 PM EDT
Effective debate centers on a balance among the clearly stated position (based upon value criterion and supported by evidence), active listening for rebuttal, strong persuasion and effective delivery. Your job as a debater is to persuade using ethics, logic and appeal to emotion. You have to explain your arguments, why your evidence is compelling, and how the arguments weigh in the round. It’s your job to persuade me and communicate your positions in a way that is effective. Personal attacks, aggression, and disrespect are not a part of debate. I appreciate professionalism, kindness, and integrity balanced with compelling evidence, support and persuasion which are at the heart of debate.
Rate of speech may be quick, but it is much more important for your delivery to be clear and understood so you have the ability for the judge and competitor to analyze your technique and evidence to effectively debate and hear who possesses the clearer argument. One may have strong contentions, yet if their delivery (speech and speed) are not also clear, the debate may be lost on the count of not being effectively communicated to their competitor or judge. I look forward to lively debate and amazing arguments!
Anita Wokhlu
Buchholz High School
None
Julie Womack
Deer Creek HS
None
Nicole Wong
Saint Joseph Notre Dame High School
None
Richard Woods
Northwest Canal Fulton High School
None
Susan Wrampe
Clay Center Community High School
Last changed on
Thu March 28, 2024 at 8:40 AM CDT
I am basically a policy maker judge. However, I also consider stock issues.
Things I dislike:
Generic arguments unless they can be directly linked to case.
Speed. I'm an English teacher, and I can take notes. If I can't keep up, you're going too fast. And no, I don't want a copy of your speech. I am judging the round based on the speeches, not the written notes and cards. Your responsibility is to get the information into the round--verbally. That's what I judge.
*Counterplans: Debate the affirmative case! Unless the aff case is totally non-topical, then engage with them. Offering your own plan (which you had ready before the aff ever spoke) defeats the purpose of a debate round, in my opinion, and is actually dodging the responsibility of the negative.
* I know this year's topic is one that spawns counterplans, so I'm not going to give you the loss JUST because you offered a counterplan. I also understand how a counterplan with a Kritique could be effective. However, my basic philosophy is that you should debate the affirmative plan, not offer your own and ursurp the round.
Position on the following:
Topicality: Rarely do I award the win based on topicality. Unless it's blatantly non-topical, it's topical. I do understand though that running topicality arguments gives your partner more time to prepare their speech; just know that your splitting hairs over definitions isn't going to affect my decision.
Kriitiques: I haven't judged a round where a kritique is offered. However, I understand the concept and would expect it to be presented and explained as a Kritique, and an alternative solution/plan should be presented with it.
Zengjing Wu
University High School, Irvine
None
Yan Xu
William G. Enloe HS
None
Sandra Yacoubian
La Costa Canyon High School
None
Varsha Yadav
BASIS Peoria
None
Bin Yang
Canyon Crest Academy
None
Hua Yang
Concord Carlisle High School
None
Rohit Yarlagadda
Riverside HS
Last changed on
Tue January 16, 2024 at 1:30 PM EDT
WSD is about the burden of proof, so my main criteria for judging the round is whoever upholds and frames the debate under the burden best. Make logical connections, clash with the other side, and back it up with warranting and impact. Tell me why it matters and why I should care.
Delivery and Engagement in the round are just as important. You have 8 eight minutes for most of your speeches so make use of all of your time to the best of your ability. Speak clearly, don’t spread, I don’t mind if you speak a bit quicker than a normal speech rate, but make sure you annunciate and I can understand you. Be actively engaged in the whole round, I expect everyone in the round to be participating and standing for POIs at some point.
Most importantly, just have fun! You all prepared for this tournament to the best of your abilities, so this is your chance to showcase it. Take it round by round and try your hardest at every point, no matter the outcome of your previous debate. Good luck to everyone!
Choon-Hoe Yeoh
Valley Christian High School
None
changsheng ying
Archbishop Mitty
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 5:26 AM PDT
I’m a new parent judge, first year, please be on normal conversational pace.
I will vote on clarity, logical arguments and understandable explaining.
Help my decision by emphasizing your key arguments and applying comparative weighting in your summary.
Enjoy debating!
Last changed on
Tue January 9, 2024 at 11:06 AM EDT
I prefer speakers with a steady pace and whose case has a strong organization supported by appropriately cited evidence. If the pace is rapid, I will quit listening and lean strongly toward the opposing side. I expect speakers to be professional in their presentations and to treat their opponents with dignity and respect.
Beth Young
North Catholic High School
None
Rachel Young
Gabrielino High School
None
Robert Yu
Boston Latin School
None
Hao Hao Yuan
BASIS Phoenix High School
Last changed on
Sat January 27, 2024 at 12:46 AM MST
I am a parent judge new to the national circuit. I'd 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!
Corey Zatuchney
Hunterdon Central Regional High School
None
Jessica Zavala
West High School
None
Noe Zavala
West High School
None
Youwei Zhang
BASIS Silicon Valley
None
Miaoya Zhong
The Quarry Lane School
Last changed on
Thu March 7, 2024 at 9:17 AM PDT
I am a Quarry Lane Computer Science Teacher and am new at judging. I would prefer debaters:
- show respect to their opponents,
- speak at a reasonable pace,
- make strong impact calculus starting in the summary,
- only make arguments in the summary/final focus that exist in the prior speech ("no new args"),
- use cross-fire for clarification and resolution (and not brand-new arguments),
- and read direct quotes when first introducing evidence in a debate (i.e., do not paraphrase).
Daniel Zhu
Acalanes High School
Last changed on
Tue March 26, 2024 at 11:20 AM EDT
did pf for 3 years for monte vista high school. have competed for uc berkeley debate.
pf preferences:
i am hesitant to evaluate most progressive arguments but i could be convinced
if i'm judging speech i'll try my best
Julia Zhu
Bellarmine College Preparatory
None
Sam Zulia
Wadsworth City Schools
None
Darrell î¾€Sirignano
Fauquier High School
None