I am a first-year parent judge. I appreciate clear well-developed arguments tied directly to your chosen value. Since I am relatively new to this, I find signposting very useful. I prefer topical debate, but I’m willing to consider out-of-the-box arguments if they are still clearly tied to maximizing value. I take a lot of notes so that I can provide actionable feedback, but I won’t be able to keep up if you talk too fast. I’d much prefer that you have 2 to 4 well-crafted and supported contentions than 8 to 10 ideas that are poorly developed and unsupported with evidence. (Hint: I do not appreciate spreading in novice-level debates.) I encourage you to repeat your value and contentions at least once beyond your initial constructive.

I want to hear that you understand the real-world implications of your arguments and that you can go “second-level” deep. In other words, I expect that you can articulate a clear response to both an initial question and a deeper follow-up during cross while still tying back to your value proposition.

It is imperative that you treat the debate and your opponent with respect. As an example, I understand and appreciate the need to cut off an opponent who is dragging out cross responses to burn your clock, but I do not find it respectful if you ask a question and then cut off your opponent before they can provide even a single sentence response.

In my admittedly limited experience, I’ve found that the strongest debaters are not the loudest, not the fastest, and not the most aggressive. They are those rare individuals who can respectfully and clearly articulate their contentions, explain (and backup with evidence) the value derived from those contentions, and respond calmly and thoughtfully to their opponent’s arguments.

Finally, please take the debates seriously but try to have fun as well. It’s ok to smile. This is an amazing experience that will benefit you throughout your life. Thank you for participating!

Follow the rules of competition

Respect the other side and all team members and their position on topic.

Track your time

Speak Clearly

To all competitors

About me: I have an engineering background with a bachelor's degree from FIU and a master's degree in Engineering Management from FIU. I pay attention to flow and supporting data behind each contention and rebuttals

Please speak clearly. I prefer not to have off the clock road mapping.  I am not trained in spreading. If you choose to use this technique and I cannot understand you, I will not be able to judge appropriately.  Do your best, maintain good eye contact and be respectful throughout the debate.  Most importantly, enjoy the debate

School Affiliation: Carrollwood Day School

Judging Event Types: Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum

When I am judging, I will be awarding points based on effectiveness of argument, use of references/sources and clear communication. I look for respectful and thoughtful counter-arguments and sources/references to the opponents' arguments to demonstrate that real listening and understanding of the opponents' arguments occurred.

I welcome any roadmap or outlines to provide a clear walkthrough of what will be presented.

I also look for verbal communication - pitch, tone, and pace (no spreading) and non-verbal communication - eye contact, body language, use of space, hand gestures. Additionally, I do not judge technical debate.

School Affiliation: Carrollwood Day School

Judging Event Types: LD and Public Forum

When judging, I will be awarding points on effectiveness of argument, consistency of logic, use of data and references, and clear communication.

Sometimes I take notes as reminder for myself to reflect on during later scoring.

In cross examination I look for respectful and thoughtful counter-arguments and data/references to the opponents arguments, to demonstrate that real listening and understanding of the opponents arguments occurred.

Substance is an important element in the overall evaluation, as is the effectiveness of communication and argument.

1. General Philosophy: As a judge, I prioritize clarity, organization, and engagement across all speech and debate events. I value respectful communication, strategic thinking, and creativity in argumentation or performance. Regardless of the event, competitors should focus on delivering well-reasoned arguments or performances with clear structure and compelling content. I respect diverse debate and speaking styles but will always consider whether they are appropriate to the context and goals of the event. --- 2. Debate Events: #### Lincoln-Douglas Debate (LD): - **Framework:** I consider the framework crucial, as it sets the foundation for how arguments are evaluated. I expect debaters to clearly explain their value and criterion, and show how their case aligns with them. - **Philosophy/Argumentation:** I prefer well-reasoned philosophical arguments over purely technical debate. Clash is important—debaters should engage directly with their opponent's case and offer clear weighing mechanisms. - **Speed:** While I am familiar with progressive debate, clarity is key. If I cannot understand an argument due to speed or unclear delivery, I will not consider it. - **Evidence/Analysis:** I value strong analytical reasoning. Evidence should be used to support claims, but a debate full of card-reading without explanation will not be persuasive. #### Public Forum Debate (PF): - **Clarity and Structure:** Public Forum should be accessible, and arguments should be communicated clearly. I appreciate a conversational, persuasive tone, and well-structured arguments with clear impacts and weighing. - **Evidence vs. Persuasion:** A balance of evidence and effective persuasion is important. I value debaters who explain their evidence in a way that’s accessible and relevant. - **Framework/Weighing:** I expect teams to provide clear weighing mechanisms for their arguments. Comparative analysis between impacts is necessary for me to make a decision. - **Crossfire:** I enjoy a respectful yet rigorous Crossfire. It’s an opportunity to clarify points and create clash, but it should not devolve into a shouting match. #### Congressional Debate (Congress): - **Speech Quality:** The quality of speeches, in terms of structure, delivery, and argumentation, is paramount. Speeches should be well-organized, address the issue clearly, and offer unique perspectives. - **Engagement:** I value proactive participation in questioning and rebuttals. Debaters should be responsive and respectful, aiming for meaningful clash and engagement. - **Legislative Strategy:** Competitors should offer thoughtful amendments or arguments, demonstrating a deep understanding of the issues at hand. --- 3. Interpretive and Speech Events: Timing and Signals: For IEs, wherever applicable (and upon request from debaters), I will provide standard time signals (2 minutes left = 2 fingers, 1 minute left = 1 index finger, 30 seconds = making a "C" shape with one hand, Time Up = Fist). I will not verbally stop competitors if they cross the -30sec mark, but will count it against them in giving points and ranking. #### Declamation: - **Delivery:** I value strong delivery, emphasizing vocal variety, pacing, and clear enunciation. The speaker should convey the original speech’s intent and emotion. - **Engagement:** Competitors should engage with the audience and demonstrate command over their material, making the speech feel fresh even if it’s an interpretation of someone else’s work. #### Original Oratory (OO): - **Content and Persuasion:** Originality and depth of content are important. I look for speeches that not only inform but also persuade. Competitors should present a clear, well-supported thesis and build towards an impactful conclusion. - **Delivery:** Persuasive delivery is key. I value speakers who use vocal variety, eye contact, and physical presence effectively to enhance their message. #### Extemporaneous Speaking (USX/IX): - **Structure:** Speeches should be well-organized with a clear introduction, body, and conclusion. I appreciate clear roadmaps and signposting throughout the speech. - **Evidence and Reasoning:** Competitors should demonstrate strong reasoning and analytical skills. Evidence should be integrated smoothly and used to support the speaker’s overall argument. - **Engagement and Poise:** I expect speakers to engage confidently with their topic, even if they are unfamiliar with certain aspects. Poise under pressure is essential. #### Interpretation Events (DI, HI, Duo, POI, Prose, Poetry): - **Characterization and Emotion:** In interpretive events, I look for strong characterization and emotional authenticity. Performers should embody their characters fully, creating a clear distinction between different roles. - **Pacing and Delivery:** I appreciate performers who control their pacing and delivery to build tension, humor, or emotional impact. Transitions between characters or scenes should be smooth and purposeful. - **Connection to the Material:** Performers should show a deep understanding of the material, using their performance to highlight the underlying themes and emotional arc. #### Program Oral Interpretation (POI): - **Structure and Theme:** In POI, I look for a cohesive program with a clear thematic arc. Each piece should contribute meaningfully to the overall narrative. - **Performance:** As with other interpretive events, delivery, pacing, and characterization are key. I value performers who make strong emotional connections and demonstrate versatility. --- 4. Other Considerations: - **Respectful Conduct:** Respect for opponents and the activity is a priority. I will not tolerate rudeness, condescension, or unsportsmanlike behavior. - **Adaptability:** I encourage competitors to adapt to their audience. Competitors who are mindful of their audience and adjust their approach accordingly will leave a strong impression. - **Overall Impression:** Ultimately, I evaluate based on the overall impression the competitor leaves. How compelling were their arguments or performances? Did they effectively communicate and engage with their material and audience? --- 5. This judge paradigm provides an overview of my judging style for various Speech and Debate events. I encourage competitors to focus on clarity, depth, and audience engagement in all aspects of their performance or argumentation.

I am currently an undergraduate student at the University of South Florida. I was previously a competitive debater for Public Forum all throughout high school and was Co-President of our Speech and Debate organization.

I value both arguments and delivery in a debate. Clear organization and logic is crucial; however, I do also consider presentation. I take notes and would appreciate an off-time roadmap before the debate begins.

I do not believe in extinction impacts.

You do not need to change your speaking style for me to follow. I will adapt to you. I may ask for evidence cards if need be.

Please follow proper debate etiquette. Be mindful of the structure of the debate and adhere to debate rules, such as time limits.

Be respectful. Maintaining professionalism is the foundation of becoming a good debater. This is to be an educational experience. I wish all of you the best of luck.

Timing and Signals: For IEs (and upon request from debaters) I will provide standard time signals (2 minutes left = 2 fingers, 1 minute left = 1 index finger, 30 seconds = making a "C" shape with one hand, Time Up = Fist). If a competitor continues speaking for ~3-5 seconds after time is up, I will verbally instruct them to stop, as this is abusive to your opponents (this will also result in a .5 speaker-point infraction (.1 - .2 at national circuit events)). I will not verbally stop competitors if I am part of a judge panel, but the speaker point infractions will continue to accumulate the longer a speaker extends their speech beyond the event category time limitations.

For Extemporaneous (EXT) speakers: I find substantive information related to your topic (facts, history, expert opinions, etc.) more compelling than personal experience or how the issue impacts you personally.

For Congressional (CON) speakers: I value presentation of new issues over new facts about the same issues and especially more than a repetition of previously raised points. Also, I am judging you not just on your public speaking prowess, but even more so I am ranking you based on your ability to move legislation in your preferred direction. For example, I would give additional weight to speakers who amend legislation to successfully pass a more palatable bill.

Competitors will be penalized if they negligently cause other competitors to be disrupted (e.g. phone or laptop noises during opponent's speech). Competitors that purposefully disrupt another speaker will be automatically disqualified from winning the round, and will suffer penalization to their scores.

DEBATE SPECIFIC:

Add me to the email chain: Hunter.Sexton@sydneygrp.com. BUT, you must verbally convey your argumentation for it to appear on my flow. This is not read and debate - its SPEECH and debate, after all.

I prohibit any "off-the-clock" rules explanations or argumentation. For example, if a competitor wants to clarify that no new arguments can be introduced in rebuttals, they must use their speech time to do this, and NOT the opponent's prep time or their own prep time. This includes any attempt to "clarify" something after the round has ended. I will prohibit this and politely ask the competitor to cease their "off-the-clock" communication. There are speaker point deductions associated with this behavior. The amount of the deduction depends on how egregious the off-the-clock communication is in the context of the round (example: disruptions of an opponent's prep time is seen as a serious violation of this paradigm).

I permit "off-the-clock" road-mapping.

I do not permit any timing convention perversions. This mean you can not earn extra prep time if you end a speech or cross early.

"Spreading" arguments will not result in material point gain if the arguments raised are not fully supported or are presented haphazardly. I can reasonably flow complex arguments at a 7/10 spread rate. Anything higher becomes increasingly incomprehensible.

Debate Argumentation Weight: I weigh evidence-based argumentation relative to the analytical point debaters are making. This means, neither evidence alone, nor analytical arguments are fully persuasive. Your claims need to be warranted. Fully explain implications, links, impacts, etc. Importantly, you should explain why I should give you my ballot as the round comes to a close. For LD specifically, I give the most weight to argumentation that is expressly related to Value/Criterion frameworks (e.g. arguments that support your V/VC, undermine your opponent's V/VC or prove that you meet your opponent's V/VC better than they do).

Debate "Styles": I can judge any style, though I am best described as a "trad" judge. I enjoy "tricks"/"traps" on cross, but they wont win you the round outright. kritique and other "non-topical" argumentation is fine-ish if well argued, but they are highly susceptible to eloquent procedural counter-attacks. Generally, K and Performance styles are less persuasive to me. I am a "rules"/"norms"/"institutions" matter kinda guy, so if you've deviated from the topic to make an advocacy speech or engage in performance art, cool, but I just think there are better categories for this (like OO or even Congress).

For Policy (CX) and Lincoln Douglas (LD) events, I prefer the Affirmative to present to my left (Competitors' right) and the Negative to present to my right (Competitors' left). For Public Forum Debate (PFD), Pro to my left, Con to my right.

A note on "Cap K" arguments specifically: Strike me. I have yet to find an anti-capitalism kritique ("cap K") argument compelling or persuasive. It is never an automatic loss to run a cap K, but debaters that run it have a steep hill to climb when I am their judge. The issue with cap K argumentation is that it these arguments reek of inauthenticity; and thus, the speakers presenting the argument lose credibility. The core of the "K" argument is that an issue is SO important, that it supersedes the more limited topic/resolution and so the judge should disregard the topic/resolution limitations and focus on the REAL issue - in this case Capitalism's shortcomings/unsustainability/immorality/etc. In essence, the debaters running K are using the Policy Debate medium to make an advocacy speech. A desperate real-world call-to-action. The issue for me, is that the cap K arguments ring extremely hollow. After all, it's hard to take a cap K seriously when it is being delivered by debaters wearing business suits (the unofficial uniform of Western Capitalism) and reciting their constructive argumentation from $1,500 laptops. Its also hard to be persuaded by an advocacy speech when we all know the same team running cap K is all too happy to defend the merits of Capitalism (or at the least recommend incremental policy changes to its current structure) when they draw the other side of the resolution. If the issue is indeed so important that it merits perverting the actual topic/resolution, then an authentic, credible advocate would forfeit the Affirmative and instead utilize their constructive speeches to present the same cap K advocacy they present on the Negative. If it is not so important, then debaters ought to respect the medium and debate the actual topic/resolution. TL;DR: run cap-K at your own risk.

Debate:

-Affirmative/Pro please stand on my right and Negative/Con on my left

-Off the clock rules explanations and road-mapping permitted

-No off the clock argumentation

-Do not ask judge for clarification after the round has ended.

-"Spreading" arguments will not result in material point gain if the arguments raised are not fully supported or are presented haphazardly. I can reasonably flow complex arguments at a 6/10 spread rate. Anything higher becomes increasingly incomprehensible.

-Competitors will be penalized if they negligently cause other competitors to be disrupted (e.g. phone or laptop noises during opponent's speech). Competitors that purposefully disrupt another speaker will be automatically disqualified from winning the round and will suffer penalization to their scores.

Congress:

-Please state your name, code, bill number, and aff/neg before speaking. Students who fail to do so may risk incorrect notes.

-Please no spreading

Speech:

-EXTEMPORANEOUS: Please verbally confirm your speaker code and topic. If you have a written copy of your topic, please provide. It helps a lot. Sources, analysis, delivery are equally vital to your success.

-ORIGINAL ORATORY: sources, analysis, and delivery are equally vital to your success

-All IE's... have fun and adhere to time constraints.

I prefer debaters who speak at a conversational rate and avoid spreading. Define relevant terms clearly. Make your well-structured argument early in the debate. I find arguments grounded in facts and real-world impacts to be the most persuasive. I value rebuttals that are based on quality evidence and clear reasoning.