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.

I have been judging multiple speaking event for the past two years. I am an English teacher, so, naturally, I will notice organization, credible evidence, clear arguments. For debate events: make sure you point out your framework clearly. I do not care for spreading and I do like when you layout why you think you've won. I have a basic understanding of the jargon, but do not usually speak to it in my critiques; however, I will try.

Head coach at San Angelo Central High School

Extemp:

The most important thing is that you answer the question as clearly as possible. This includes previewing your points, signposting throughout, and reviewing your points at the end that links into the conclusion. Adding a clear structure adds to the impact and value of your overall speech. It is to also help you not ramble on. It is also important to be creative with your attention getter, vehicle, and your conclusion. It will set your self apart in my eyes with creativity done well. Sources are very important, but answering the question your way is the most important, then use sources to back those up. Not the other way around. I look for all of those together and a good flow for my overall ranks.

Interp:

Everything you do in your performance must have purpose. I love creative movements, stories, and really anything as long as there is a purpose. I am ok with any theme or story being told as long as there is impact behind it. Facials, moments, and character development are all very important for the overall performance. DO everything you can to truly become your characters and be in the story you are telling. In close rooms, I always look at who does all of these things together the best.

Congress:

The most important thing in a congress room is to have a presence. Do what you need to do to stand out without personally attacking your fellow representatives. Always attack their points, speeches, and questioning to further strengthen your points, but not them personally. I look for how well you understand the legislation, how well you know the info, the impact your points have for fellow constituents, and the creativity of your speaking. You need to have passion and use points made in the round to help your own side out. I really like crystalization of points and not just continuing to repeat other people's points. Do these things and make me HAVE to put you at the top of the room.

LD:

I’m primarily an interp and speaking coach, so with that said, presentation of arguments is imperative. I still expect exceptional analysis on a substantive level, just know I judge debate as a speaking event first. The debater with the strongest link chain to access their impacts will win my ballot. The easiest way to win my ballot is in your voters section in your final speech, present your RFD for me. The less work I have to do at the end of the round the more likely it is you’ll win my ballot. Good luck and I'm excited to hear what you have to say.

Hello,

I am a UIL Science coach assisting in judging. I am looking for words to be clearly enunciated and tone emphasized. Body language and facial expressions should mirror the tone as well. I need to see a clear and defined path for your story and sources cited. Timing is everything! If humor fits, do it! If sadness or anger is the way to go, show it! I keep a straight face during the rounds as to not lead any person on to how I am feeling. Good luck!!

I am a parent judge.

Extemporaneous Speaking

• Content/Analysis: Prefer a conversational style with a natural flow. Lean into your own knowledge to maintain authenticity. Avoid formulaic openers—make them unique.
• Evidence: Focus on quality over quantity. Use at least three varied sources, citing dates for credibility.
• Delivery: Ensure you're clearly seen and heard. Confidence is key, and gestures should be natural and intentional, not forced.

Oratory/Informative Speaking

• Stylistic Preferences: Keep it conversational and passionate, even after many deliveries. Gestures should feel natural and purposeful.
• Evidence: Include enough statistics and credible sources to back up claims. Address opposing viewpoints and refute them with facts.
• Teasers: Start strong. Set the tone for your speech with an engaging teaser that draws in your audience.

Interpretation Events

• Introductions: Make them personal—explain why this piece matters to you and make the audience care.
• Blocking/Movement: Movements should be purposeful and meaningful, adding depth to your performance.
• Character Work: Fully embody the character with thorough research and commitment, whether it’s a humorous or serious role.
• Author’s Intent & Appropriateness: Author’s intent is less important, but appropriateness matters—keep it suitable for high school audiences.

Public Forum Debate

Speech & Rebuttal:

• Use signposting to clearly organize your arguments.
• Ensure all arguments are warranted (supported by reasoning and evidence).
• Frontline your opponent's responses in the second rebuttal; otherwise, they will be considered dropped.

Summary/Final Focus:

• Avoid introducing any new arguments during these speeches.
• Extend all arguments you want to be evaluated into the summary.
• Weighing should be comparative—explain why your weighing mechanisms are stronger or more relevant than your opponent’s.

For the Domestic/International Extemp, below are the things I looked for when I judge:

• Does the student answer the question?

• Does the student cite sources?

• Does the student have a clear speech structure​?

• Does the evidence and analysis convinced and support the answer?

• Does the student seem confident and speak clearly and fluently?

LD Debate

Aff has the convince me to support the resolution. Neg has an obligation to provide clash, and if either fail in their respective roles, then the win falls to the one that does it correctly.

Presenting arguments/speeches should be in an easy, digestible way.

PF Debate

Basically the same as above; theory is cool with me. Also, this is PFD, not CX--we don't really need to be spreading

As a parent judge I value clear communication, logical structure, and respect between competitors. I appreciate when arguments are well-explained and supported with evidence. Please avoid excessive jargon and keep spreading to a minimum. I’m open to all types of arguments, but I’ll be looking for well-reasoned points and strong delivery.

I am a parent judge with previous speech competition experience.

I focus on the clarity and relevance of the content, evaluating how well the speaker organizes and presents their ideas. I also assess the delivery, including voice modulation, pacing, and body language, to ensure effective communication. I consider your ability to engage and connect with the audience, leaving a memorable impact on me as a judge.

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

About me: I'm passionate about speech and debate. It was my primary extracurricular in high school where I competed in debate (LD), extemp (USX/FX), and oratory on the TFA/UIL (Texas) circuit. I also qualified and competed at NSDA Nationals (back then it was still NFL Nationals) and reached USX Finals twice. So, I'm very familiar with these events and am excited to return to judge. Since graduating, I've gone on to become a marketing executive and have always valued the skills and abilities learned through my years in speech to develop and deliver powerful presentations.

LD: I would consider myself a traditional judge who believes strongly that Lincoln-Douglas Debate is a fundamentally different style of debate from CX/PF/WSD. It is supposed to be a values debate, so I look for each side to present and defend what value is paramount and why their side upholds that value.

I will flow the debate and judge on the arguments presented. A few important things to keep in mind:

1. If I can't flow it - I can't judge on it.
2. This is a persuasive event. Reading evidence cards as fast as you can has never persuaded anyone that someone's position is best. Talking clearly and emotionally at speed is not a problem....throwing verbal spaghetti on the wall to see what sticks (or doesn't get dropped) will not be well received. Speed often KILLS great debates.
3. Signpost - Remember it's a speaking competition and I should be able to follow which are your key arguments and to what contentions your arguments/rebuttals apply. (the more time I have to figure out where an argument should be flowed is less time I spend listening to you)
4. Quality over Quantity. You don't have to win every contention.....you need to win the most important ones. Focus on those. I don't judge on the number of arguments contested.
5. Crystallize. Telling me what to vote on helps focus the debate.
6. I will not connect the dots for you. I will decide first on voters presented in the round. If that's a draw - I will then look at what was actually debated and how those arguments supported the value/criterion.

Speaker Points: Personally, I think it's silly that instead of using the full 30 point range, modern convention now uses a 40 point range by scoring as (mostly) 25-30 in 0.1 increments. I will keep to the ranges specified for the tournament, but will fully use it to distinguish between truly persuasive speakers from the others.

Side note: I will score lower than the bottom of the typical range for contestants that are verbally abusive or use inappropriate language. Basically - don't be jerks to each other.

For IE: First and foremost, I view all these events as persuasive contests. Your speech should clearly present a POV, defended with facts/stats/sources, and presented with passion to convince me that your POV is accurate. For extemp - please make sure to state and answer the question.

Please add me to the email chain: hstringer@princetonisd.net

CX Philosophy
As a judge, I look to you to tell me the rules of the round. I try to be as fluid as possible when it comes to framework and argument. I only ask that you make sure you explain it and how it impacts the round.

I enjoy topical affirmatives and unique arguments from the negative that link to the affirmative case. If an argument applies to any topical affirmative, I tend to not vote for it (provided the affirmative shows that it is non-unique). Really good impact debate is my happy place.

In regards to speed, I would say I am comfortable with mid-high, however it would be smart to think slower on procedurals and tag lines. Go ahead and add me to the email/flash chain and then do what makes you happy.

My facial expressions are pretty readable. If you see me making a face, you may want to slow down and/or explain more thoroughly.

I don't count flashing as part of prep, but prep for flashing/sending files (organizing files, trying to find the right speech, deleting other files, etc) are. It shouldn't take more than about 30 seconds to send files. Going on 5 minutes is a bit excessive.

In terms of critical debate: I am not opposed to it, but I am not well versed, so be sure to really explain any kritiks and how they impact the debate. One of my students called me a lazy progressive judge. That fits. I don't read the literature or envelope myself in the K. Do the work for me; I don't want to.

Counterplans, disadvantages and solvency/advantage debates are great.

I think topicality is necessary to debate, but tend to skew to the aff as long as they can show how they are reasonably topical.

All that being said, I will flow anything and vote on anything until a team proves it isn't worthy of a vote.

LD Philosophy

I have been near LD Debate for about 20 years, but have never been trained in it. So, I am knowledgeable about the event, but not about the content within it. You will probably need to explain more to me and why I should vote on a particular issue. As a policy debater, I tend toward evidence and argumentation. However, I will vote on what you tell me is important to vote on unless your opponent makes a more compelling argument for me to vote on something else.

Public Forum Debate Philosophy

My favorite part of public forum debate is the niceties that are expected here. I love to watch a debater give a killer speech and then turn to politeness in crossfire. Polite confidence is a major selling point for me. Not that I won't vote for you if you aren't polite, but I might look harder for a winning argument for your opponent. In PF, I look more for communication of ideas over quantity of argumentation. I don't coach public forum, so I am not well versed in the content. Make sure you explain and don't just assume I know the inner workings of the topic.

As a judge, I believe in fostering an environment of fairness, respect, and intellectual engagement. I value well-reasoned arguments, clear communication, and thoughtful organization in all forms of debate and speech events. Here are my key expectations:

1. Clarity and Structure: I appreciate speeches and arguments that are logically structured and easy to follow. Clear signposting and transitions between points are essential to help me understand the flow of your argument.

2. Content and Analysis: While delivery is important, the depth of your content and analysis is paramount. I expect you to engage with the topic critically and present well-supported arguments that demonstrate strong reasoning and evidence. Be sure to clearly address your opponent’s points in debates.

3. Delivery and Engagement: Confidence and effective communication matter. A well-delivered speech that captures the audience’s attention will enhance your performance. However, I place more emphasis on substance over style, so be sure to balance both.

4. Respect and Decorum: Respectful interaction is a core value in debate and speech. I do not tolerate any form of discrimination, personal attacks, or inappropriate behavior. Maintain a professional tone and approach in all your interactions.

5. Time Management: Stay within the allotted time for speeches and cross-examinations. Time management is a key skill, and going significantly over time may impact your overall score.

In essence, I appreciate thoughtful, well-supported arguments delivered in a clear, respectful, and professional manner. I am here to listen to your ideas and assess your performance fairly, so make sure to communicate your points effectively.

Good luck, and I look forward to judging your round!

I am primarily an LD, Congressional, and Individual Events judge (though I do have some experience in CX and PF, as well).

As a former competitor, I am pretty traditional in my approach to all forms of debate.

I view LD Debate as value/philosophy debate. Make sure that you address the value and criterion debate, as I will consider those central to the round and voting issues. If an opponent drops arguments, I will expect that you mention the drop and explain the relevance of the dropped argument to the round. It is necessary that you stay centered on the resolution and don't spend time getting bogged down in argument tangents (and, frankly, lengthy definition & author credibility debates).

I am more focused on the quality of argumentation and logic than on sheer quantity of evidence. Even though I can flow you when you spread in a debate round, in LD it will impact your speaking points for me. If you insist on spreading, you must make sure that you are very clear. I will also expect you to slow down on the taglines when spreading. I will vote based on what I flow in the round, not on what you email or flash to me. In fact, I will usually decline to be on the email chain and will prefer to flow the actual round (rather than just read your evidence and analytics emailed to me on a document).

Professionalism does matter to me. Of course, in cross examination you might wind up interrupting each other occasionally, that is to be expected. However, somebody who does not allow their opponent to speak or proceeds to be rude or lack professional demeanor in CX or during a speech may see a loss of speaker points. I also am not a fan of open CX and do not believe that opponents should be speaking to each other during prep time in an LD round. Also, even though I am certainly capable of timing you, I would prefer that you time yourselves (allowing me to focus on the flow and the ballot). It should go without saying, but please make sure that you are clearly signposting as you go down the flow.