My favorite event is Extemp, so I treat all debaters like I would a national finalist in Extemp. Talk at a human pace so that the audience can understand the debate, but feel free to extend your impacts as far as possible pending you keep up the warrants for each claim. Impact turns make debate more fun, try to turn them. Work to cross apply your contentions to your opponents impacts. Making voting claims that I missed during the round won't be used to judge the round. The speakers have a duty to communicate what they want the audience to hear, the judge has a duty to listen to the best of their ability and shouldn't feel burdened by advanced debaters who go beyond the judge's means. I've got a PhD in Communication Studies and embrace a qualitative perspective, values matter. Be smart, be concise, and be respectful. If you can deliver the argument well, feel free to also be creative. For what it's worth, demanding language is a peeve, as opposed to suggestive; in voters, please tell me what I should(n't) do rather than what I can't do.

I have been a middle school coach for speech and debate for the last 9 years. I do NOT judge PFD/LD/CX/WSD on a weekly or even monthly basis. I follow the original idea that PFD is supposed to be kept to a conversational pace, where we could grab anyone off the street to be able to judge your round.

Things you should be aware of if I am judging you:

1. Do not speed through your case/speeches. If you do, I will miss multiple things and if I cannot understand what you are saying I will give the win to your opponents. If speeding is required to get through your case, this is where you learn how to change it up (adapt to your judge).
2. Do not be rude to your opponents OR to your teammate. Making rude comments/gestures/body movements is not acceptable. Your speaks will go down if you are rude.
3. I have my own way of flowing and will do my best to make sure I get everything, including dropped/unanswered contentions. Please, please, please do not lie about what your opponents did/did not say.
4. I like evidence being used to be from reputable sources.
5. Do not run a case that has NOTHING to do with the topic (those of you trying to bring LD into PFD, no "K"s)!

As a judge, my evaluative framework is firmly rooted in fairness to all competitors, respect for their individual perspectives, and a commitment to fostering their growth and development. I place a high value on the clarity of argumentation and expression, while also recognizing the unique challenges that each participant may face. It is essential to consider these factors in the judging process. I encourage speakers to transform any perceived weaknesses into strengths.

I am particularly interested in the logical structure of arguments and the effective use of evidence and citations, as I believe these elements are fundamental to a compelling speech. I appreciate debaters who can maintain a respectful tone while passionately advocating for their positions and supporting their claims with factual evidence.

I expect competitors to provide clear roadmaps to facilitate the understanding of their arguments. While I am open to various styles of debate and speech, I have a particular appreciation for creative arguments that are substantiated by empirical evidence.

My overarching goal is to cultivate an environment that promotes critical thinking, respectful discourse, high-quality presentations, and intellectual growth. I value the efforts of each competitor and recognize the dedication that goes into preparing for competition. Remember that just by competing you are already a successful speaker and debater. I wish the best of luck to all participants.

I am new to Judging Debates. I will look for quality of arguments and diction delivery. In other words, I am lay judge, so please do not spread.

I am a former debater and university student based in South Florida. I'm a very relaxed person but please be respectful to your opponents.

I need traditional rounds without spreading. Besides that, I encourage being as silly and/or goofy as you want.

Beyond that let's get into the round and have some fun. :)

Hello, my name is Kelley Bastien and I am a newer judge. I completed an extensive in-person training course offered in Palm Beach County and have had one previous judging opportunity at a tournament in PBC. I have many years of professional training and expertise working with exceptional students in academic and clinical settings.

I will adhere to the tournament guidelines and judge without bias. My event preferences are DP/ DUO/ HI/ OI and POI

I look forward to judging events at this tournament which will involve impassioned presentations, humorous portrayals, and/or thought-provoking performances on a wide variety of subjects, regardless of my own personal beliefs!

nicholas.borgmeyer@palmbeachschools.org

Tech > Truth

Progressive arguments are fine, but err on the side of over explanation for voting issues

Extend everything

Cross is binding

I have more experience judging substance

Hello, my name is Rebecca Bradford. I have one other judging qualification, as I previously judged the Broward MAST Championship. I would consider myself as a newer judge, even with that said. When I judge, I like to research my event, so I have a fuller understanding of what is occurring in the room. I also follow the guidelines provided. I am a Broward Schools teacher. Because of my experiences with students, I have numerous experiences of judging with no biases. I don't have any potential conflicts, and I admire hearing different opinions on subjects. When judging, I will look for the student's ability to understand a topic and present it in an entertaining matter. I do not currently have any limitations about judging any speech events that I know of. I look forward to judging at this tournament.

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

Email: bravim@cghsfl.org

• LD Prefs

• In order of preference:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* PF Prefs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* Congress Prefs

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

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

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

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

• Big Questions

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

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

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

PET PEEVES

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

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

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

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

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

FOR FUN

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

Academic Interests:

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

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

Good luck to all!

Hi. I'm a parent lay judge who did S&D in college and worked in communications. I'm looking for solid fundamental performance. I want you to be comfortable and feel supported while you're competing. I understand you want to improve, so the best way I can help you is to give you as much info as I can to help you succeed in future tournaments. I do expect everyone to be supportive of each other as audience members - if you want a HINT from me - be kind and attentive when others are speaking. Thank you for the opportunity to see your work in action! I'm cheering for you!

I am a first time parent judge. Make sure your arguments are clear and easy to follow. Be respectful to your opponents and speak slowly and clearly.

I am a lay judge. I typically look for classic argument.

Some tips for success:

1) Speak clearly. If I do not understand your argument, I cannot vote positively.

2) Be sure to support your position with facts. I will be looking for facts.

3) Use credible sources.

3) Be attentive and respectful to your colleagues and judges.

4) Remember to keep track your own time.

I've judged about 8 tournaments for speech. I consider style and content equally.

I am a parent. I have been a litigation attorney for 30 years and I am one of the founders of a professional regional theater company in Miami called Zoetic Stage. I look forward to seeing you all compete.

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, and delivery are equally vital to your success.

Original Oratory: Sources, analysis, and delivery are equally vital to your success.

All IEs: Have fun and adhere to time constraints.

Hi, I'm a parent/lay judge. Don't be rude. Be loud and clear, I can't judge you if I can't hear you. Explain what your argument is and why you win. Signpost, make the round easy for me to follow.

I really enjoy judging speech events. Always let me know about the time cues ahead of your piece.

For Debate:

I am a lay judge. When speaking, I prefer that you speak slowly, clearly, and try to avoid using a lot of debate terms that a first time judge might not understand. I expect for you not to spread. I do not understand what you are saying I will not be able to vote on it. Make sure to explain everything. Do NOT assume I understand everything. Make it clear what you are doing and what you want me to do. Please make sure to give an off-time roadmap before your speeches. During cross I will be listening, but if you want me to vote off something said during cross, mention it in your next speech. Thank you, and I wish you luck.

Hello. My name is Kate Hadley and I am very new to not just parent judging but Speech and Debate as a whole. This tournament will be my largest and my third time as a parent judge. I have only judged Speech competitions and feel I would be best utilized in those categories.

As I am learning more about each competition style, my judging approach has been to keep it simple. I mainly focus on how well prepared is the speaker, how informed is their speech and their overall presentation. During each speech I look for articulation, movement, prop usage(when appropriate), and eye contact. I judge fairly and unbiased and do not see any situations where that would change. I am excited to see so many young people excited in competing and feel everyone deserves a chance to grow and hone their communication skills.

LD/PF:

I am a lay judge, I do not want any Theory Shells, K's, or Trix arguments.

I will usually choose truth over tech, but it depends on the topic and case specifically.

No Spreading! I will take away points if I cannot understand what you are saying. LD/PF were created to combat the issues in Policy, I would like it to stay that way. I do not care if students stand, sit, use a computer stand, or do not, as long as their voices and arguments are clear.

I would like clear evidence, if an opponent asks for your card, show them to prove your point. If there is confusion on whether or not a card is valid, ask me and I will decide on the ballot, or in person, if needed.

I will do my best to flow the argument, but I am not the best at it, so be patient with me. Do Not Send Me Your Case,I do not want to read a case, I would like to be able to hear and flow it. The only exception is if there is confusion on a student's card, contention, or observation, then you can send your case so I can decide.

Obviously, no bullying, no Ad Hominem attacks, and no discrimination on religion, race, etc. There should also be no unfounded accusations of discrimination, as this is just as bad as discrimination.

PF/LD:

E-mail:Hrenj@trinityprep.org

If you are looking for my paradigm in a few words:

I will start by looking at theimpactsas articulated in your final speech.I will thencompare them the way I was told to in your final speech(ex. Prefer on Timeframe. Prioritize probability). If there are competing comparisons, I will choose the one that is best articulated. I will then checkthe link to the impact and see if, in the final speech and previous speech, the other team told me a reason not to give the you access to your impact.If they did, I will make sure that this reason was articulated, at least from the second speech of that team.

My flow can be best described as chaotic, so make sure that you have been really clear and not blippy- if you are blippy, I am liable to miss it.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I have experience judging LD at the College and High School level (but it has been a little bit since I have consistently judged LD) and Public Forum at the High School level (fairly consistently). I would by no means say I am an expert. These are some things to keep in mind with me.

Assume that I know nothing. This includes shorthand, theory, or K literature. Even if I do know something, I will pretend I don't to avoid intervening in the round.

Speed Kills (your ability to win the round).I want to be able to flow everything.To this end, I will say “clear” two times and then I am able to flow what I can flow: if I miss something because you’re speeding then it won’t be considered.I do not want to look at cards unless you or your opponent have a tiff about what they actually say.

Additionally, I think that spreading should be a tool to allow for deeper and more specific arguments as opposed to allowing for more short, blippy responses.If you're speeding through a response and that response was only a sentence or two to begin with, it probably doesn't register as that important to me.

Tech over truth except in extreme cases.Tell me what to vote on, tell me what to care about. Clearly weigh your impacts against your opponents do not assume I prefer one over the other without you giving me a reason to prefer.

I care about dropped arguments- you need to extend and that means more than just saying “extend.”Functionally reiterate your arguments or at least summaries of them.

CX- I often will flow this, but it will not factor into my decisions unless you bring it up in your speech. Don’t shoot yourself in the foot, DO use this time to clarify, NOT make new arguments.

I hate hate hate people being hyperbolic or lying about what their opponent said or did: Ex. “they dropped this point” when they clearly did not. Just know if you do it I will be inclined toward your opponent. If YOU misheard or misunderstood your opponent’s argument, I get that, but pretending they didn’t respond to something they did is as good as dropping the arg. Also- don't tell me what my paradigm said- I was there when it was written.

Congress:

-The most important things to me are delivery and content.

-If two people are very close on both these aspects content will be more important than delivery.

-I pay attention to questioning, but it is more of a tie breaker for me. If you ask a particularly good question I will note it and you will be ranked higher than someone with the same scores on speeches and no notes about questioning.

-Very important to my ranking of speeches is whether you are moving the round forward or introducing new ideas.

-I prefer evidence usage, though in some analytic cases it is not strictly needed.

-I very much like interaction with the other speeches that have gone (rebutting directly or adding more to a previous argument).

-Taking risks with content or delivery in ways which push the boundaries of the norms will certainly earn some bonus points in my head.

-I think that decorum is important- pay attention to what others are saying, don't engage in personal attacks or generally be rude.

I am relatively new to judging debate and speech, with one prior experience. My goal is to approach each round with an open mind and provide fair and constructive feedback. I value clear arguments, logical reasoning, and respectful engagement.

As someone who enjoys debate concepts, I appreciate when debaters take the time to explain their reasoning and show how their arguments interact with their opponent's. While I prioritize clarity over speed, I am open to creative arguments and frameworks as long as they are well-explained and supported with evidence.

I believe debate is not just about winning but also about learning to understand different perspectives. Demonstrate why your position matters, and help me follow your thought process. Above all, keep the round professional and engaging.

I am new to judging and look forward to becoming a seasoned evaluator.

My approach is focused on three key aspects: understanding the arguments, evaluating the evidence, and assessing the overall presentation of the debaters. First, I prioritize the core ideas and structure of each argument to ensure clarity. Then I'll assess the debaters' presentation skills, including their delivery, organization, and ability to respond effectively to counterarguments.

I'm committed to judging fairly and equitably, ensuring that every evaluation is grounded in objectivity and free from personal biases. My approach emphasizes impartiality by focusing solely on the merits of the arguments and the effectiveness of the presentation. I give equal consideration to all perspectives and will maintain an open mind throughout the process

When evaluating a debate, I'll focus on key factors such as clear articulation, logical reasoning, and effective refutation. Clear articulation ensures that arguments are presented in an understandable and impactful manner. Additionally, I recognize my limitations when it comes to particularly complex or highly specialized topics. In such cases, I will focus on evaluating the clarity, structure, and general soundness of the arguments, while acknowledging the potential for nuanced details to extend beyond my expertise. This approach ensures a transparent and balanced evaluation process.

As a parent judge with experience in evaluating speech categories but relatively new to the debate side, I approach judging with an open mind and a focus on understanding topics and assessing overall presentation. I am committed to fairness and equity, ensuring that personal biases do not influence my decisions. While my perspective as a parent may occasionally inform my thinking, I remain vigilant in mitigating any potential bias to uphold the standards of the competition. When evaluating a debate presentation, I will prioritize clear articulation, logical reasoning, effective refutation, and overall organization. My goal is to provide thoughtful, constructive feedback while ensuring a fair and positive experience for all participants.

I'm a parent judge in my 2nd year of judging. I've been a judge at 6 tournaments so far (2 as speech judge 4 as PF judge). I work as a life sciences strategy consultant and have degrees in math and engineering. I was not a debater myself - my exposure has come as a mom of a Debate (PF) kid. So definitely a lay judge.

When judging a debate, I'm looking for well structured, persuasive, logical arguments, supported with evidence with clear statement of why they are impactful. I'll also be looking for balance and consistency across team members. I'm fine with speed so long as you still enunciate well and can be understood. I expect all rebuttals and responses to be respectful in both delivery and content. I will try to track the arguments but I'm not a tech judge so i will not be flowing. If you have both a lay vs tech case, you are probably better off with a lay case.

I enjoy judging all the events and am in always impressed by what you all do.

My background as a paralegal and my academic pursuits in Supervision and Management, Human Resource Management, and Artificial Intelligence provide me with a unique perspective on debate judging. I value clear communication, logical reasoning, and thorough analysis, and I am particularly interested in how debaters use evidence and logic to support their arguments. I believe that debates should be informative and engaging, and I encourage debaters to present their arguments clearly, concisely, and persuasively.

When evaluating arguments, I consider their clarity, evidence quality, and engagement. I prioritize arguments that are well-reasoned and supported by evidence. I also consider the potential impact of each argument and how it relates to the broader debate. I am open to various debate styles and strategies, but I encourage debaters to focus on developing clear, well-supported arguments relevant to the topic at hand.

Logistics…

1) Let's use Speechdrop.net for evidence sharing. If you are the first person to the room, please set it up and put the code on the board so we can all get the evidence.

2) If, for some reason, we can't use speechdrop, let's use email. I want to be on the email chain. janettmartinez83@gmail.com

DO NOT Be: rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, etc.

I prefer you speak at a conversational speed always. Slightly above is also good, but try not to spread, especially in PF (Super Fast Rebuttals/Summaries are pretty cringe and hard to flow).

I've found I'm a pretty expressive judge, and if i am confused or can't understand you my face will make that clear.

Have fun, be clear, be clever.

Please utilize off time roadmaps.

Keep track of your own time. Just let me know when you run prep is all.

Signpost so I can follow on the flow. If I miss an argument because you "Jump Around" without signposting, that is on you.

I will always vote in favor of the side with better quality arguments and better comparative analysis of the biggest impacts in the round, not the side that is necessarily "winning the most arguments."

I consider myself a flow judge (though not SUPER technical).

Frameworks should always be extended.If your opponent doesn't respond to it in 1st or 2nd rebuttal, it needs to be extended into 2nd rebuttal or 1st Summary in order for me to evaluate the arguments under that framework. Teams who speak 1st do not necessarily need to extend their FW into their 1st rebuttal, but should provide some context or clarification as to why the framework is necessary for the round (can be included in an overview). If there are 2 frameworks presented, please explain why I need to prefer yours over the opponent. If no explanation is provided or extended, I will default to my own evaluation methods (typically cost/benefit analysis)

I like when teams focus summaries on extending offense and weighing, more specifically explain to me why your impacts matter more than your opponent’s. Don’t just say “(...card) means we outweigh on...,” then move on to the next point. I love details and context, and will always favor quality weighing over quantity.

Please collapse. It helps to provide focus in the round rather than bouncing around on 20 different arguments. It just makes my life as a judge much easier.

Use FF to crystalize and highlight the most important points of contention and impact that you believe are winning you the round (things like offense and turns that go unresponded to, for example). Explain to my why I should vote for you, not why I should not vote for the other side.

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

World Schools

I truly love world school as an event. It is my favorite event to coach and I've been coaching worlds since 2018. I focus heavily on the event’s rubric to guide the ballot; however it ultimately is a debate event so remember to focus on the warranting and implication of your arguments. I do think there is a lot of room for stylistic flair that can add to a worlds round that can carry down the bench throughout the round. I see a lot of value in POIs for both sides - for the asking side to break up the flow of the debate and for the receiving side to clearly contextualize an answer that helps guide them to their next point of clash.

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.

Hello, I am a first-time parent judge.

I will be writing down and keeping track of your arguments.

Please make sure to speak slowly (do not spread or talk fast).

Please write the ballot for me -- weigh your arguments and explain why they matter more than the opponents.

There is no need to send me evidence or cases.

I look forward to judging!

Most importantly, I'm looking for a well researched and articulated argument. You'd probably call me a lay-judge.

As this is a speaking event where your goal is to persuade me to side, good pacing is key and I am not a big fan of spreading. I'd rather you drill down into your contentions rather than throw out a ton of different points to try to make it hard for your opponent to address everything you said.

Theory generally won't impact my decisions, unless you are able to clearly demonstrate that you have a good understanding of it. I am not a fan of Kritk.

I want to hear you demonstrate through your debate the work that you have put into your prep and am looking for quality over quantity. More than you "scoring" the most "offensive points" I'm concerned that you are able to defend your contentions with clear links and prove how your impacts outweigh those of your opponents. At the end of the debate I want to feel you are more right than wrong.

Hello! I am a middle school speech and debate coach, now in my second year. My primary experience lies in judging speech events, but I am familiar with middle school Public Forum and Lincoln-Douglas Debate.

General Philosophy

I believe that everyone has a story to tell and that using your voice effectively is both an art form and a means to challenge and change the world for the better. The art of rhetoric is foundational to building strong and compelling arguments.

Debate Philosophy

• Frameworks & Arguments: I prioritize clear frameworks and well-organized arguments. Evidence should be recent, relevant, and directly support your claims. Logical reasoning and well-explained impacts are crucial.

• Delivery & Decorum: How you communicate matters. Speak with clarity, confidence, and respect. Debate can be intense, but it should never compromise professionalism. Disagreeing gracefully demonstrates maturity and commitment to this community.

• Spreading: I am not a fan of spreading (speed-reading). If arguments are presented too quickly, I may have difficulty understanding them. Clear and deliberate communication will always be more persuasive to me.

• Weighing the Round: I weigh the round based on the persuasiveness of arguments, the strength of evidence, and the overall clarity of the narrative. If you want me to evaluate the round a specific way (e.g., prioritize framework, cost-benefit analysis, etc.), explain it clearly and justify why.

Speech Events

In speech, I look for emotional resonance, clear structure, and confident delivery. Make your story or message connect with your audience, and showcase your ability to use your voice as a powerful tool.

Additional Notes

I value kindness and collaboration. Debate is a space for growth, and I appreciate competitors who uphold the spirit of learning and sportsmanship.

As a learning professional with a master’s degree in learning psychology, I value the pursuit of truth, knowledge, and the research that supports these ideals. When judging speech and debate, I look for the following key elements:

Research and evidence: I highly value speeches backed by credible research. Facts, statistics, and evidence should support your arguments and demonstrate a clear understanding of the issue at hand. Depth of research shows your commitment to seeking truth and ensures you’re contributing meaningfully to the debate.

Clarity and structure: Organized, well-structured speeches are essential. Clearly state your position, support it with evidence, and conclude with a clear impact. Logical flow is key to helping both me and your peers follow along and understand your points.

Critical thinking and knowledge:I appreciate debaters who engage in a meaningful pursuit of knowledge. Demonstrating awareness of counterarguments, questioning assumptions, and exploring different perspectives will strengthen your position. Those who can respectfully challenge opposing views while supporting their stance with strong reasoning will stand out.

Passion and delivery:Your delivery should reflect genuine passion for the topic. Speaking with energy, conviction, and a clear voice enhances your persuasiveness. However, passion should not overshadow respect for decorum. Strike a balance between enthusiasm and professionalism.

Collaboration and engagement:For events that require collaboration and cross examination,I’m looking for those who engage with their peers by asking thoughtful questions, building on the debate, and actively contributing to the collective pursuit of truth. Debaters who enhance the discussion and add value to the session will be rewarded.

Humor:As someone who studies the use of humor in motivation, I appreciate speakers who use humor effectively and appropriately. While not essential, well-placed humor can lighten the atmosphere and enhance engagement—so long as it remains respectful and supports the argument.

In sum, I prioritize well-researched, clear, and respectful contributions to the competition. Show me that you are committed to seeking knowledge and truth, and that you can communicate that effectively with passion and professionalism.

Hello, I'm Lucas, a former debater with experience in world schools and congress formats. As a judge, my focus is on several key aspects:

1. Case Interaction: I highly value debates where teams actively engage with each other's arguments.

2. Organization and Clarity: A well-structured argument is crucial. I appreciate arguments that are logically organized and clearly presented. This helps me follow your line of reasoning and understand the crux of your arguments.

3. Quality over Quantity: Please prioritize the quality of your arguments over the quantity. I favor depth over breadth. Overloading with too many points can be counterproductive, as it can lead to superficial treatment of important issues.

4. Speaking Style: While I do value clear and confident delivery, the substance of your argument is far more important to me.

5. Spreading: I prefer that debaters do not rely heavily on spreading during the round. I cannot guarantee that I won't miss information.

6. Evidence and Examples: While empirical evidence and examples can strengthen an argument, I also value logical reasoning and theoretical frameworks. Make sure your evidence supports your claims effectively, and explain its relevance to your overall argument.

7. Respect and Decorum: Maintain a respectful attitude towards your opponents and the debate process. Civility is key in any debate, and I expect all participants to adhere to this principle.

**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!

Gaurav Seth – Paradigm

I have experience judging Policy Debate and all types of speeches at both the local and state levels. While I have attended Nationals, I did not serve as a judge there. My approach to judging is focused on providing detailed and constructive feedback, aiming to help students improve and refine their arguments and delivery. I value clarity, logical consistency, and strategic argumentation. My notes are thorough, to guide students to build upon their strengths and address areas of improvement effectively.

TLDR: I'm mainly but I can judge prog just speak slow and explain your args. Any type of racism/discrimination will be a insta loss and might get you reported to tab.

Ask for verbal feedback.
Email: enzosighinolfi@gmail.com

How to read my feedback

I noticed my feedback is better when it's shorter so if I don't comment on something it probably isn't good or bad its usually just mediocre. (Like hand gestures or eye contact)
For debate and congress I flow on paper so I might go back and add more feedback after I submit your ballot.

Debate:

• Tech > Truth

- This isn't absolute depending on how absurd your arg is, also NO TRICKS

• I'll vote for mostly anything as long as I can understand it

- If you run something completely absurd I'll only vote for it if the other side completely fails to respond

• Some speed for PF is fine but absolutely no spreading.

• You can spread in LD I just need a speech doc and I’ll flow off of that, no spreading in PF

- If you go against a trad school and spread I'll drop you no matter what, make debate accessible

• I don’t buy extinction arguments. Probability > Magnitude

• I’ll vote for arguments that are good for debate. I LOVE DISCLOUSRE,if you don't disclose and the other team runs it you will lose 9/10 times unless you have a really good reason/response

Congress:

Argumentation:

• PLEASE have good warrants for your arguments

• Every speech after the first cycle should have some type of clash or response

• If you don’t flip at least give a good late round speech

• Make sure you cite your evidence properly with the cite and date, if I can’t find it I won’t consider it.

Rhetoric:

• I like intros and rhetoric that is unique to the bill
  
  

• Have new good rhetoric (I can tell if its reused/stolen)

• Im looking for whos the “real deal” so good rhetoric that will pull at my heart strings will make you place high.
  
  

PO:

• You start high on my ballot but you keep dropping every mistake you make

• I expect you to lead the chamber and be involved in chamber politics.

• Most PO’s rank for me 4-5. You can only rank higher if you make no mistakes and the round isn't great.
  
  

Speech/IE:

Ask for hand signals if needed

Just be confident and memorize your speech and you will probably do well

Even if the event is something like info I still like humor and I want you to be engaging.

Final notes:

Thanks for reading :)

I might be young but I usually drop you for brainrot so beware unless its actually funny.

If you make a reference to any books I've never heard of ill give a small bump to your spks.

Congress - Argument is well-organized, points are clearly developed and supported by a variety of credible sources, evidence is analyzed, compelling language, smooth transition between points, movements are purposeful and signal a new point, easy to follow your argument, introduction and conclusion are clearly connected, purpose is established throughout your argument. Responds to questions with confidence and clarity, responds to previous speakers' points to either refute or affirm with new arguments and evidence, speaks clearly, is active in questioning throughout the round.

Speech - Have judged various individual speech events and extemp. When judging a round it is important to pay attention to the content and the structure of the speech. It is important that the speech is structured in a way that shows a clear road map, easy to follow, shows research from credible sources, and shows reflection. The content is important. My comments will reflect strengths and areas that should allow for some growth. The debater should speak at a conversational rate and speak clearly with vocal variety that reflects the piece. Your speech should be grounded in real world impacts and be persuasive.

Have been an assistant coach for several years and has recently taken on the responsibility of head coach, has been active in speech and debate since 2009, have judged numerous local tournaments, invitational tournaments, and national tournaments.

Completed the National Speech and Debate Association Adjudicating Speech and Debate course.

Did Congress in high school. Have been judging speech and debate on and off since 2015, mostly ie.

I am new to judging debate but I am well aware of arguments and what I will be looking to vote for. I will look for analysis, well-supported arguments with evidence and persuasion. Please do not spread or talk fast so I can hear and evaluate arguments made by both teams. I will be looking at cross-examination, but will not weigh it too much in my decision. If there is any disrespect in the round, you will be immediately dropped on my ballot - this event is for fun so please do not ruin it.

Overall, I am looking forward to a great debate and wish everyone the best of luck!

I would like to understand the concept and why you support your opinion. If you can make it simple for everyone to understand that would be awesome.

I am judging for the first time !!

All the Best !!

Hello

My name is Imran Thobani. I have represented my clients on Property Tax matters for over 25 years. I present cases before Special Magistrates, trying to pursue them on my valuation argument for my clients' real estate. My background is in the valuation of real property. My basic principle is to keep the arguments simple for all stakeholders to comprehend. In summary, point out differences and offer a resolution to the problem. I believe that cases are won based on compelling rebuttal arguments. You will have my undivided attention during your presentation as I am an active listener and not a note taker. I look forward to this opportunity to judge.

Imran

Background:

• I teach English 11, Journalism, and College Writing at Moorhead High School. This is my 11th year at MHS.
• I have coached speech for the past 11 seasons, primarily PA events (Discussion, Ex. Speaking, GS, Info, OO).
• I was the Head Debate Coach at MHS from 2017 when we revived the program to 2024. Over those seven years, I coached PF and Congress. Our team also competed in LD.
• I regularly judged PF and Congress during the regular season and have judged Congress and PF at State for the past four years. I've also judged PF at national circuit tournaments and NSDA Nationals. In speech, I've judged all events at the local, regional, and national level since 2015.

A more detailed paradigm is below but, regardless of the event, please know that respect, integrity, and decorum are paramount. Offensive language, condescension, and aggression at any point in the round will ensure a loss/lowest possible rank. In short, be kind.

Public Forum:

• Speed is fine so long as it doesn't come at the cost of clarity. Quality over quantity usually prevails. Clear signposting and extending voters goes a long way toward winning the round. Take the time to ensure that 'dropped' contentions are fully explained.
• Please do not bombard us with cards. Evidence (directly and appropriately quoted) is important but I am far more interested in your analysis and deeper explanation. Demonstrate your understanding and show us how that evidence functions with regard to your opponent's claims and the case you are building.
• Stay cool and composed, especially during cross. Shouting matches serve little purpose. When you ask a question, I expect that you actually want to hear the answer.
• Timing - While I expect debaters to honor time restrictions and keep record, I will also keep track and will hold you to those parameters. Please don't abuse it.

Congress:

• Much like PF, it's quality over quantity for me. Two, or maybe three, sub points defending or negating a piece of legislation with sound, clear analysis is more important than a lengthy list of reasons with little time to explain. Long intros that meander before reaching the thesis, to me, are not the best use of time (I know, I sound like a curmudgeon. Have fun with it but not at the expense of dropping or rushing a point previewed in the intro).
• Demonstrate your understanding of the bill/resolution and its language. Reference specifics within the legislation (section and/or line numbers are helpful). I think it can be easy to find small, grammatical or typographical errors and point solely to that as a reason for negating (and in some cases, those issues should be noted), but please take the time to debate the merits of the legislation as well.
• Active listening - Above all, this one stands out to me the most and usually becomes my tiebreaker when ranks are super close. This can be as small as directly referencing -- by name -- previous speakers and their points or even making occasional eye contact while others are speaking . . . Active listening also means building upon established claims/reasons in your speeches and in questioning. If there's nothing new or insightful to add, it's best to move to previous Q to retain your spot in line. On a related note, please make an effort to correctly pronounce the names of your fellow competitors (and if yours is mispronounced, please correct them...and correct me too).
• POs - I tend to start POs in the top 5-6 of my rankings and adjust based on the overall organization, order, and smoothness of the round. I try to track P/R when scoring and definitely do as a Parli. Small errors can be forgiven (we're all human) if recognized but, especially late in the season, running for PO tells me that you are comfortable with the job. As such, I will hold POs to that standard much like the standards set for Reps/Sens in the round.

For debate events, I look for respectful, fair, and polite debates. Attacking someone's character or not following recency guidelines is a pet peeve of mine, I mainly look at the development of your argument (Claims, evidence, and discussion), but I also look at the pacing, clarity, and non-verbal communication as well. I am a speech and debate coach, so I hold students to a higher standard of following decorum and being respectful.

P.F.

I am a parent judge, so please talk slower than you would with a tech judge. If you talk too fast, it won't make it on my flow anyway.

Make sure you have effective weighing in your summaries. if I don't hear your impacts, then I can't effectively decide if you won.

Please be kind and respectful. Clash is good, but being rude is not.

Congress

Please address and announce your name slowly and clearly, I am judging many students, so anything that's clear and effective will make my job easier.

Congress is a debate event, presentation is encouraged, but content is prioritized. Having good presentation won't make up for having inadequate content.

Don't ever be rude in the chamber, it will reflect poorly in my reflection of you in your ranks.

P.O.: If you P.O. fairly and well, you should get ranked accordingly.

If you're speaking after 3rd aff, you should only be bringing refutation/crystals. No constructive should be said after 3rd aff. I am not a fan of students who don't make enough eye contact/look on their papers too much. Looking at your speech Is fine, but don't be glued to every word you have to say.

I am a coach. I vote off the flow, but I am not well versed in technical or meta-theory debate (I also just don't respect that game). Please avoid debate jargon. If I don't understand what you are saying, it is harder for me to vote on it. Don't spread or talk too fast (200 wpm is the max where I can still catch everything you say). Be respectful in cross. I will not tolerate Ad Hominem attacks (attacks against your opponent and not their argument). I do not like theory arguments that are off topic and trying to be "clever" to win on technicalities. I will likely not vote on it, especially if you are abusing it.

LD: Please make your value and value criterion clear and carry them throughout the round. I prefer more traditional LD arguments. If you are going to try to tell me that mass extinction is good, for example, it better have some hard evidence and strong logic backing it up.

PF: Make sure your arguments all make logical sense. I probably will not vote on kritiks or weird theory. I prefer you have evidence to back up your claims, but it is not always needed for logical arguments. I want you to sign my ballot for me. If I am left with a confusing round and have to infer things for myself, it will likely not go in your favor. Please present me with clear impacts and carry them throughout the round.

- trad preferred

- don't spread

- disclosure theory <

- no other preferences

❧ Each Event in Bullet Points (More Info Below)☙

ㅤ‎ ‎ ‎

⦿ Congress:

Should demonstrate mastery of topic/s at hand, engage earnestly with subject matter and competitors, and follow decorum. Content should maintain transparent links to the bill/s, be cited adequately (IE author, publisher, date), and organized into a clear structure. Speech should not be redundant, and it should illustrate your perspective through both relevant examples and recent data by using cause and effect. Usage of space should be purposeful and not be so wild that your audience has to turn their body/head to keep up (for speeches given in rooms that demand a weird seating arrangement, this is null). Your speech and questioning time should not meander without purpose or be so short that nothing of substance can take root. See the body of my paradigm for more information about PO's, tiebreakers, etc.

‎ ‎ ‎

⦿ Interp:

Should demonstrate mastery of memorization, consistent characterization, and meet the minimum standards for audience understanding (IE speak loudly and clearly). Delivery should have clean pops/ morphs (if applicable), utilize purposeful physicality/ sound/ pantomimes (if applicable), and be narratively engaging (IE the narrative should not meander without purpose or be so short that nothing of substance can take root). Characters should be consistent in both physical and verbal manifestations, and intro should have the piece's title and author at minimum (anything else is gravy). Usage of space should be purposeful and not be so wild that your audience has to turn their body/ head to keep up (for performances given in rooms that demand a weird viewing arrangement, this is null).

‎ ‎ ‎

⦿ POI:

Lean into the strengths unique to POI as an event (IE creative use of binder). Should demonstrate mastery of memorization, consistent characterization, and meet the minimum standards for audience understanding (IE speak loudly and clearly). Delivery should have clean pops, utilize purposeful physicality/ sound/ pantomimes, and be narratively engaging (IE the narrative should not meander without purpose or be so short that nothing of substance can take root). Transitions between sections/ authors should be purposeful. Intro should have the titles and authors at minimum (anything else is gravy).Usage of space should be purposeful and not be so wild that your audience has to turn their body/ head to keep up (for performances given in rooms that demand a weird viewing arrangement, this is null).

‎ ‎ ‎

⦿ Extemporaneous Speaking:

Maintain transparent links to your prompt, cite adequately (IE author, publisher, date), deliver confidently and with the appearance of memorization, organize your thoughts and thesis into a clear structure, and finally illustrate your perspective through both relevant examples and recent data by using cause and effect. Usage of space should be purposeful and not be so wild that your audience has to turn their body/ head to keep up (for speeches given in rooms that demand a weird viewing arrangement, this is null).

‎ ‎ ‎

⦿ Impromptu:

Maintain transparent links to your prompt, cite adequately (IE author, publisher, date [Impromptu exempt from sources, but it's a nice bonus]), deliver confidently and with the appearance of memorization, organize your thoughts and thesis into a clear structure, and finally illustrate your perspective through both relevant examples and recent data by using cause and effect. Usage of space should be purposeful and not be so wild that your audience has to turn their body/ head to keep up (for speeches given in rooms that demand a weird viewing arrangement, this is null).

‎ ‎ ‎

⦿ Original Oratory:

Should demonstrate mastery of memorization, have a clear organization of ideas with a strong thesis that is followed through on, and meet the minimum standards for audience understanding (IE speak loudly and clearly). Delivery should utilize purposeful physicality and be narratively engaging/ persuasive (IE the narrative should not meander without purpose or be so short that nothing of substance can take root [IE have beginning, middle, and end obviously present]). Consistency, relevancy, and sources are the name of the game. Utilize specifics and real examples over vagueness and hypotheticals. Usage of space should be purposeful and not be so wild that your audience has to turn their body/ head to keep up (for speeches given in rooms that demand a weird viewing arrangement, this is null).

‎ ‎ ‎

⦿ Informative:

Lean into the strengths unique to INFO as an event (IE visuals should be leveraged where verbal descriptions do not suffice). Should demonstrate mastery of memorization, have a clear organization of ideas with a strong thesis that is followed through on, and meet the minimum standards for audience understanding (IE speak loudly and clearly). Delivery should utilize purposeful physicality and be narratively engaging/ informative (IE the narrative should not meander without purpose or be so short that nothing of substance can take root [IE have beginning, middle, and end obviously present]). Consistency, relevancy, and sources are the name of the game. Utilize specifics and real examples over vagueness and hypotheticals. Statistics should be used to illustrate the point but not be the point. Any visual is better than no visual, and a moving/ creative visual is better still.

‎ ‎ ‎

⦿ Anything Debate:

Trad judge, so please no funny business. I keep flow. Please keep your own time. Include me on email chains (msgracewigington@gmail.com). I prize understandability and clarity; do not spread or it's an automatic loss. Even if you think you're not spreading, GO SLOWER. I will stop flowing if I can't follow what you're saying, so keep an eye out for that. Define jargon. Assume your audience doesn't know what you're talking about, but they're willing to learn. Organization is key, sources should be relevant and cited (I tend to not ask for cards, but I might if something is fishy), cross should be respectful, disclosure theory won't get you anywhere, and overall it should be a clean debate. See 'on dishonesty' below.

‎ ‎ ‎

‎ ‎ ‎

❧ How I Give Feedback ☙

ㅤ‎ ‎ ‎

I, as a former competitor and now assistant coach, aim to give the type of thorough ballots that I enjoyed as a competitor. Please understand that I give more grows than glows as they say, but make no mistake; I am more than proud of each and every one of you. Getting up in front of people and speaking your mind is perfect for growth in all aspects. Full stop. I myself competed I was in high school, so I'm no stranger to its benefits and customs.

Speech and debate is, to me, a glowing example of practice and skill becoming one. With this in mind, there are many trade practices that better allow accessibility, enthusiasm, and knowledge to rise to the top. I abide by these best practices, so my feedback will reflect these values.

‎ ‎ ‎

❧WHO I AM ☙

ㅤ‎ ‎ ‎

Assistant coach for Bishop Moore Catholic High School of central FL: 2021 to present.

Assistant to UCF speech and debate team starting 2025.

Four year HI competitor and attended four national tournaments for HI. Placed top 100 in two.

‎ ‎ ‎

❧ ON DISHONESTY ☙

ㅤ‎ ‎ ‎

No one person can know everything, yet I believe that any person ought to be able to understand and have faith in the speakers of any event. To mislead or bring forward fraudulent/ plagiarized/ stolen claims and evidence is not acceptable, and I rely on you to ensure we can have a productive, respectful, and truthful round by ensuring nobody profits from dishonesty.

→ If there are instances of cheating or misinformation during your round then do not hesitate to call it out.

→ In debate, if you rely on stolen cases or are told, even by authority figures, to steal cases from your competitors then please think twice.

→ In debate, if you are on a doc with people not currently in your round giving you ideas or lines during the debate you are denying yourself, your opponent, and the practice any semblance of dignity. Write and deliver your own content and rebuttals. Please do the right thing.

‎ ‎ ‎

‎ ‎ ‎

‎ ‎ ‎

❧ Specifics for CONGRESS below ☙

⦿ To Our Lovely PO's

Since each chamber always needs PO and you stepped up to take that role, we appreciate you! Thus, PO's, in my mind, start at the top of the rankings and are knocked down based on how much they mess up or lose control of the chamber.

→ Assert and maintain control over the chamber at all times.

→ Demonstrate mastery of PO's duties and obligations.

→ Prove that your authority is not misplaced. (IE If you won the position via vote or tiebreaker then expectations will be higher since you have asserted yourself as the best choice.)

THIS INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO:

‣ Keeping track of how many questions each speaker has asked.

‣ Disallowing excessive or abusive recesses.

‣ Ensuring competitors follow decorum expectations and all applicable rules.

‣ Quickly and accurately calculating recency and precedence.

‣ Utilizing consistent and transparent gavel procedure.

‎ ‎ ‎

⦿ Speeches

Delivery is one of the most important factors to me; be sure to speak at a pace and volume that may be understood by any person no matter the circumstances.

→ If I can't understand you due to your excessively high or low speed, your reliance on filler words like 'um', or any volume inconsistency then I can't follow your content. To me, delivery and content go hand in hand when it comes to audience accessibility. I will always comment on your delivery for that reason.

→ Redundancy happens to the best of us, and if you're a novice with a prepared speech that has already been covered in the chamber then by all means please still give it! That said, for experienced varsity or during high level competition/ tournaments, I expect adaptation or recontextualization to bring a fresh perspective to the table.

→ Physicality should be purposeful, and not become repetitive, distracting, or background-noise.

→ Non-invasive humor is always appreciated, but flattery will get you nowhere!

→ Content should be explained and guided by context and, preferably, real examples.

HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLES WILL BE WEIGHTED LESS IF THEY:

‣ Appear like an un-cited source due to hyper-specific details.

‣ Are non-applicable to the bill or argument made.

‣ Are misleading or vague.

‎ ‎ ‎

⦿ Cross-Examination and Questioning

I use cross-ex as a speaker's last chance to prove themselves in the event they are between speech scores. A tie breaker, essentially.

→ If two speakers give equally scored speeches and there must be a tie breaker, the speaker with more questions asked during cross-ex will win out. This is due to their demonstrated confidence on and understanding of the various topics.

‣ BUT, if a question is redundant, grossly off-topic, or sets up an argument not already in play/relevant (like bringing up arguments they plan to introduce in their own upcoming speech without proper transition/ context) then it will count against the tie breaker since it is not indicative of a fruitful chamber.

IF, during cross-ex:

→ The speaker defends their speech and demonstrates mastery: scoring will be rounded up.

→ The speaker is disproven and they cannot adequately refute: scoring will be rounded down.

‣ Grace will be given to novice/ middle school chambers.

‎ ‎ ‎

⦿ Decorum

"Be good, be kind, be talented!" -Brian McAninch

→ Know and operate under the rules and expectations of the chamber.

→ Do not abuse recesses or exiting of the chamber.

→ When addressing a fellow competitor during a speech or cross-ex refer to them by their proper title. It's all an act at the end of the day, so take the stage with pride.

→ Remember that you are debating your competitor's argument and NOT their character!

‎ ‎ ‎

❧ Good luck, competitor! ☙

Have fun, stay focused, and do your best! This is a process.

How you conduct yourself as an audience member is very important to me and could affect your ranking!

Good luck, everyone!

Hey! My name's Frank, and I'm currently a college student. I have one year of Congressional Debate and three years of Original Oratory as my experience in high school. I was in the Central Florida circuit, and competed in countless national tournaments.

Speech/Congress: I write paragraphs in my ballots, and a lot of it will be negative parts of your performance -- please don't take any of my criticism as an attack on your character, but as advice to improve your piece/speaking. That doesn't mean I don't think you did good, or don't deserve praise! I simply find that the best way to improve is to know what can be worked on.

Debate: I'm definitely lay considering I never competed in non-congress debate! My rule for deciding who wins depends on who convinced me more that their points were right and defensible. As long as you remain respectful to your competitors and debate in a way that's fluent for me to understand, you'll do just fine.

If you have any questions or concerns about any ballot I write, feel free to message me on Instagram at @frank._yang, or email me at frankyang009@gmail.com :)