Last changed on
Wed October 23, 2024 at 4:01 AM CST
Hello all, my name is Naomi Brooks and I am a current member of the Conway High School Varsity Forensics Team. I have competed in Prose, Poetry, Storytelling, and POI, and I have earned a few medals and trophies along the way! I am familiar with most speech events from sitting in on tournament rounds and helping my teammates practice. As for debate, many of my closest friends are in debate and have taught me a lot about the different styles, rules, etc. I have watched several debate rounds, although I am not nearly as experienced in debate and highly prefer judging speech. That being said, I always do my best to flow and give a fair verdict based on the content of your evidence and how you present your argument, rather than simply the resolution or your speaking style.
Some things I require of you as a judge in forensics:
-Give content warnings no matter how little you think the issue is, it cannot hurt to give a quick warning. I have seen too many kids forget to give warnings, and it can be very triggering. Even if someone doesn't need to leave the room, it makes the world of a difference to be prepared for what's coming. You never know what might make someone uncomfortable. Give a content notice for anything you'd see in a movie rating: mentions of violence, crude language, mentions of alcohol/drugs/other substances, descriptions of mental health, etc.
-Please avoid excessive cursing or using any slurs. Basically keep it PG-13. If you're mentioning racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, etc. as a way to spread awareness about an issue, I understand, but keep it respectful and make it clear that you are not supporting it.
-Be respectful of your competitors! This means treating them with kindness both inside and outside of the competition room, not being on your phone during the round, and not exiting/entering the room while someone is performing. It can be very distracting and hurtful, and if I see you disrespecting your teammates, it will not go unnoticed.
Things I like to see in forensics:
-Have solid, clean blocking and don't sway or fidget while you're performing. This typically comes out for characters that are speaking "naturally" or are very similar to the performer. Be aware of how much movement is recommended for your piece, and use that to your full advantage. Also, make eye contact with audience members as much as possible and have clear and distinct eye lines.
-Be very mindful of how you are holding your black book and where it is at all times. I shouldn't see the pages, and it shouldn't be held limply or be passed from hand to hand too often. I like to see it held rigidly at around belly button level if not being used as a prop.
-Have very distinct characters and clean transitions. This is typically much better in pieces that are well memorized. An accent is not enough and it is not necessary to create a new character! Your changes in body language, posture, speaking rhythm and style, tone of voice, etc. should tell me who your character is.
-Take us on an emotional rollercoaster. What I mean by that is have variation in your volume, pacing, and emotional intensity. This is more than just not being monotone, your story should have a clear plot structure with highs and lows. Include levity in heavy pieces and do not include anything in your piece just for the sake of shock value. Make sure you are being loud enough and are speaking slowly and clearly so you are understood. Experiment with volume changes in ways that make sense for your piece; volume makes one of the biggest impacts on your audience.
-Get me to care about the piece. Your topic should be unique to you and a clear representation of something you are passionate about. Avoid overused or depressing topics, and let your piece be a display of your character as a performer. Tell a story that is intriguing and provides a resolution (note that a resolution does not have to be a happy ending, just make sure there is a clear ending). Most of all, show me that YOU care about your piece and are having fun!
Things I require of you as a judge in debate:
-Please, please, do not spread or even speak too rapidly! I shouldn't have to struggle to keep up with what you are saying, and neither should your opponent. I believe that it is unethical, and as someone who primarily judges speech, I quite frankly can't handle it and will likely dock points or simply be unable to judge your actual argument fairly.
-Be respectful to your opponent. Do not insult them or their argument or present anything in your case that discusses your opponent. Tell me why you won, not why your opponent lost. Criticizing their argument is fine, just don't personally attack them.
-Avoid using jargon or trying to confuse the judge. Just as important, avoid "babying" the judge and acting as if they don't know what they're doing. Your case should be simple enough for a lay judge to understand, but there is no need to explain the rules to them or act as though you know better than them (unless I ask you a specific question). If I make a mistake, be very respectful and polite when correcting me.
Things I like to see in debate:
-Know your case. Don't be looking back at your case during cross. You should be able to provide sufficient evidence without needing to read things off of your legal pad.
-Let your case speak for itself. Don't repeat yourself, it makes it sound like that's the only thing your case is relying on. Keep adding new information and elaborating on what you already have. The judges know what you have already said. What I mean by this is that too many times, I have seen students using the same two pieces of evidence over and over again. Even if you're just making something up, add more to your case. Don't "prove it right."
-Be a strong speaker. Be confident with your case, and avoid stuttering or overcorrecting yourself. Don't nervously fidget while you're speaking, and be sure you are speaking loudly enough to be heard and enunciating your consonants so your words are clearly understood.
-The content of your case should be your strongest evidence, not the number of sources or ethos of the source. Of course, this doesn't mean you can cite sources like Wikipedia or Internet blogs, etc, but there is no need to restate what your source is to add credibility to your argument. Similarly, it is unnecessary to point out the opponent's lack of sources or quality of sources. It's okay to elaborate on what your source or opponent's source is briefly, but your primary criticism should be of their claims and evidence as the main content and quality of their case. The judge will decide how much to weigh in the sources.
Thank you for reading! Best of luck to you all!
