Hello. In high school, I did LD debate for two years, and I highly enjoyed it I've judged on and off since 2020 (on this account and under another), and debate is something that I genuinely enjoy watching, and getting to judge is like all the fun of a good debate with none of the pressure. I look forward to judging future rounds. Here are my preferences so you can know going in what kind of judge I am (or if you want to strike/preference me). Email chain email: ellie.agler@outlook.com.

1. Spreading is fine as long as you are clear AND your opponent agrees to spreading. If you are not clear and I cannot understand you, likely your opponent cannot understand you, and we're all going to have a bad time. If one must spread, I do appreciate case sharing with both me and opponent.

2. I can handle K's, policy debate, traditional, philosophy, and theory. Traditional and philosophy are my favorites. For K's, and policy, one ought to know their material well, be well-researched, and be non-abusive. I am not a good judge if you intend to try tricks. I don't believe tricks to be a legitimate form of debate. I have a history degree and now work in library science, so I love hearing well-researched, creative arguments. I also believe one could have the best case in the world and still lose a round if their opponent argues better. If it comes down to case vs clash, clash wins with me.

3. I appreciate when one actually clashes with their opponent. If you spend all your rebuttals talking about why your value is so great and not why your opponent is in the wrong, you aren't actually debating, you're making a persuasive speech.

4. Please roadmap 1AR and 2AR, as well as Neg R. I love off-time roadmaps. They help me flow and make everyone's lives so much easier. If you want to email chain cases, go for it. I will have my laptop, but I try to flow the old fashioned way (pen and paper for life). Off-time roadmaps also help you practice being more organized in your arguments, as well as making executive summaries.

5. I allow and encourage debaters to keep their own time. I will also keep time on a stopwatch. I do not give warnings. If you go over by more than 10-15 seconds, it means deduction from speaker points.

6. Do whatever to keep yourself comfortable during the round (sit or stand, drink, etc). Please do not chew gum while speaking.

7. I evaluate debate over case or speaking ability. Meaning if you are an excellent speaker with an amazing case, but your opponent refutes all your points, and proves that their position better fulfills the obligations established in round, opponent wins. Don't get me wrong: I love it when debaters have awesome oratory skills, and I love a good case, but this is debate, not how well you are speaking and how well you can write a position paper. Additional thing: I can tell when you have no idea what you are talking about. I dislike it when debaters "teleprompt," meaning they read from their laptop in a monotone voice for 6 or 7 minutes without looking up. Look up. Get excited. LD allows you the perfect opportunity to practice public speaking skills.

8. I cannot believe I have to say this, but be respectful of yourself and others in round. Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, general jerkiness, anything like that is not okay. If you choose to pull an "ism" in round, I will be giving you lowest speaks and if we're at a local tournament I will be going and finding your coach and giving them a 15-minute lecture about why XYZ is not okay. In both debate and in life, it is important to be respectful to yourself and those around you. You never know what someone is going through.

9. I do not accept the Heritage Foundation as a valid source whatsoever. If you read Heritage Foundation as a source in round, you will get 25 speaks and an auto loss. I accept all other conservative think tanks (Cato, Hoover, Hudson, et cetera) just not Heritage.

10. Sportsmanship: I expect debaters to behave in a way that is dignified and respectful to both me and your opponent. If you are going to read disclosure theory, you better have asked your opponent in a polite, respectful manner to disclose. If you are going to read URL theory, you better have brought all the books with you that your sources are from. I'm not a fan of either URL or disclosure theory. If you do not treat me or your opponent with respect (and are not respectful to me when I disclose and give some feedback), I will go to tab and request speaker points be taken away.

TLDR: I am a classical LD judge by nature, and framework, clash, and proving your argument is better than the opponent's is what wins round. Strike me if you're going to pull tricks, I do not stand for them.

For PF:

1. Public Forum comes down to weighing in close rounds. Prove to me why you and your partner are right, and thus I must vote pro/con.
2. I do not flow Crossfire. If something important happens during crossfire, bring it back up in your next speech.
3. Signpost! I love it when debaters signpost. I do not know your case as well as you do, makes it easier to follow.
4. I can handle spreading, just disclose case to me.
5. Final Focus is for wrap up and telling me one last time why your opponent is wrong, NOT for new arguments. I do not flow new arguments after the 1st speakers 2nd speeches.
6. Same rules regarding respectfulness, sportsmanship, Heritage Foundation, and making yourself comfortable from LD apply to PF.
7. Random thing: I usually give 2nd speakers higher speaks. In my opinion, 2nd speaker is a little harder to do (they handle 1st rebuttal and final focus which cannot be pre-written). For 1st speakers, something I value is looking up during your first speech. You had time to rehearse your first speech.

IE: I value clear diction, clear voice, and a clear purpose while speaking. For either original speeches or POI, I value coherence as well. I believe storytelling ability is a CRUCIAL key to success in professional speaking, and this is an excellent space to practice these skills. I expect speeches to be organized. If you have a disorganized speech but excellent public speaking skills, I will weigh disorganization against speaking ability.

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 a PF "mommy" judge .

Do not assume I know anything, explain everything!!

My children say I like warrants and impacts...

If you want me to vote on it please make sure it is in summary and final focus and explain it thoroughly so I can understand it.

In all types of debate, keep in mind: QUANTITY IS NOT QUALITY. Don't try to win by simply overwhelming your opponent(s) with arguments. Gish gallops will not work with me, so don't try them.

I am an old-school LD judge. I want to see a clear values clash and hear some philosophy, not just a long list of cards. Cases that are not grounded in ethical theory will have a harder time winning me over. Kritik cases are fine so long as they are not abusive -- that is, so long as they leave the opposition some ground from which to argue. A kritik of the resolution is fine, but generic kritiks that could be run against any case / resolution are not.Also, any out-of-round kritiks just aren't going to work with me. These almost always revolve around claims that I have no way to verify, or debaters essentially making up rules that they they then accuse their opponents of breaking.

I am STRONGLY opposed to spreading in LD. I believe that it is the bane of the event. Certainly it is an excuse to toss out a lot of abusive one-way hash arguments. Anything much faster than a typical conversational pace is likely to cause me to stop flowing your case. Make your point with QUALITY, not quantity.

Please do NOT offer to send me your case. If I cannot follow your case AS YOU PRESENT IT IN THE ROUND, you are NOT communicating it clearly enough.

Tech cases are unlikely to impress me. Win with strong arguments, not technicalities.

Semantic arguments are fine, but keep them on point; don't descend into trivialities.

In Public Forum, I am similarly NOT a fan of "progressive" debate. This is PUBLIC forum, so make arguments that could impress any reasonably well-informed and attentive audience, not just judges who know all of technical debate language. Make reasonable claims which clearly support your side of the resolution, support them with significant and relevant evidence, and weigh impacts. Tell me why your impacts outweigh your opponents', tell me why your evidence is superior to theirs, tell me why your claims lead to me voting for your side of the resolution.

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 lay judge.

Stay on topic. Clash on key contentions. Weigh and impact your arguments.

I prefer traditional over progressive approaches to debate. Spreading is fine but not preferred.

I will score the round based on your flow, not your presentation style.

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.

I'm an experienced judge and current coach, with a specific focus on the speech and deliver side of the art of public speaking.

Debate:

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

-Off the clock rules explanations and road-mapping permitted

-No off the clock argumentation

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

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

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

Congress:

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

-Please no spreading

Speech:

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

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

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

In my experience as a competitor and as a judge, I have never been a fan of spreading. It makes it difficult to flow and understand as a judge, making it a method I look down upon. Arguments should be cohesive regardless of style. Insults to the opposition are not an option. I take notes on structure - claims, evidence, and impact should be easy to follow. I am only meant to score you, not be in anyway intimidating. Feel free to ask any questions and make the room as accommodating as it can be.

I am am new to speech and debate, and have not judged at a tournament in years, so please be patient if I make mistakes. Good luck to everyone!

This is my 40th year teaching and most of that I have also coached speech and debate. As far as my background in debate goes, I coached LD starting in the mid 80's running on and off through 2017. I coached policy on and off from 1990-2000. I have coached PF on and off since its inception. I have coached congressional debate since the early 80's. I don't have a paradigm for Speech events, but I have coached and judged all speech events since the early 80's as well.

As a Congress Judge:

Delivery: I embrace the role play. You are all portraying legislators from across the country and should behave with the decorum that role suggests. That being said, we have legislators from across the country with various styles and habits -- that makes congress debate AWESOME! There is no single, perfect way to deliver!

Evidence Usage: CD is, at its core, a debate event. Arguments should have sound, sourced evidence that follows NSDA rules. Empirical claims require empirical evidence.

Analysis - If I am judging Congressional Debate, chances are the tournament is a national caliber tournament (otherwise I would be working in some capacity). I expect high level analysis at a high level tournament. If you are the 4th speaker and beyond - I expect unique arguments and I expect analysis and refutation of earlier speakers. Crystallization speeches do not merely mention every speaker that spoke earlier on a piece of legislation. It literally crystallizes the two sides, weighs the impacts of the two sides, and persuades me of their chosen position.

Argument Impacts: Please identify who or what is impacted. Be specific. In CD, please explain real world impacts. The narrative of impacts is as important (if not more) as the numerics of impacts.

On the topic of cost benefit analysis and weighing... Be careful of playing the numbers game. A large number of persons harmed may not necessarily outweigh a single person harmed, if the single person's harm is total and complete and the larger number still enjoy existence.

Decorum: Behavior in and out of chambers is important. Respectful, educational, kind, and full of fun... these should be in balance! (I don't like boring debate)

I don't have a calculator on the above. Very seldom is there a debater who is awesome at them all... But all need to be part of the mix. If I am judging a top round, I suspect that all speakers will be amazing! That means the final ranking will come down to relevance in the round. If all speeches were brilliant, questioning and answering were spot on, and knowledge of topics is at the top, who stood out as the genuine, 'real deal'?

PF Paradigm - I embrace the notion that the event is intended to be judged by an informed public forum. That does not mean dumbing down arguments because you think the judge is dumber than you because they didn't go to camp (adults don't go to camp). I think most judges want to hear good arguments that pertain to the resolution and want to hear clash between positions. That being said, here is my more specific paradigm:

Speed - I love an energetic debate, but save spreading for policy (and sadly LD). You should have written a prima facie case that either affirms or negates. It should be written so that the first speaker can energetically deliver it. Most PF spread isn't really spread, it is spewing and incoherent choking due largely to the student's failure to adequately edit their case. I am fine with clean, clear, speed. Can I hear arguments delivered at 385 wpm? yes. Will I flow them? probably not.

Frameworks - Sure, if you really are running a framework. If it is legit (and stays up in the round throughout), both sides will be weighing impacts within that framework.

Observations - Sure, if they are observations. Observations are not arguments. They are observations. "It is raining - observation: things are wet." "If Trump wins the election it will trigger nuclear war" is an argument, not an observation.

Warrants and Impacts are your friends!! Numbers are just numbers - how do they happen? why do they happen? who is affected and why them? is there possible counter causality? Really good logic if well explained will beat blippy numbers. Well explained statistics that are connected and clear will beat poor logic.

Flowing - Yes, I flow. I expect you to do so as well. I don't flow card names and dates - so make sure when you refer to a piece of evidence you reference what it says, not a name.

Jargon - I am not a fan. Don't say de-link. It is often unwarranted. Explain how and why. Unique is a noun, not a verb. You cannot 'non-unique' something. I love turns, but don't just spout 'turn.' Explain why their argument works against them. Or show how their impacts actually are good, not bad. At its heart debate is a communication education activity; I take your education seriously.

Kritiks - They are arguments. I was okay with them in policy when they were a 'thing,' largely because policy is more game than debate. I was not okay with them in LD when used as a gimmick. I am the LD judge that still clings to the notion that we should have value debate. However, a well thought out K that communicates the impact of the issue being critiqued must be answered in any debate! In PF, I might be okay if a team ran a kritik that they truly believed in, and they clearly had the ethos and pathos to convince me it wasn't just a gimmick. I MIGHT vote on the K if it is argued well. OR, if their opponents clearly understood the K but just didn't want to deal with it. A K is still an argument, and the premise of the K needs to be responded to as an argument. If not, chances are I am going to vote for the K.

I am not a fan of: rude behavior, gender put-downs, dog whistle language, or individuals being mean/cocky just for the heck of it. =26s-27s. I would go lower, but most tournaments won't let me.

I love intense and lively debate. I love true arguments that are well researched, argued, and impacted. I love smart. Smart gets 29.5s and 29.9s. Smart debate with intelligent wit/humor might just get you a 30. It has been a very long time since I gave 30's but I do give them!

I am thrilled to be the head Speech & Debate coach for Olympia High School. I also teach Debate intro, intermediate and advanced classes every day.

In a speech or debate, I look for clear, crisp diction and organized thought. I also work closely with my local Toastmasters club and value good speech mechanics. Also in the spirit of Toastmasters, I strive to point out strengths that the competitor should make sure to continue as well as areas for development in my evaluations.

I have judged both Speech & Debate events on the national and local circuit for several years. I am not a fan of spreading, progressive debate or K cases. I prefer a traditional debate style. I value solid links and impacts and debaters that can take a complicated subjects and distill them down to solid clear points. Off-time road maps are preferred.

just be kind :) and pay attention to your words just as much as your delivery.

Experienced Parent judge

I am a Cancer with a Gemini moon and a Leo rising :)

I am currently a speech coach at the Potomac School with 10+ years of experience in the activity. Pronouns: He/Him

If you would like to send me docs my email isjacobkemp23@gmail.com

Debate - PF/Policy

I AM LAY! A SIMPLE SPEECH COACH!! PLEASE BE NICE TO ME, I WILL CRY.

With that being said, passion and clarity in speaking is very important to me (speech coach, OBVIOUSLY). If you don't SAY it, in terms of evidence/cards, I'm not likely to pay attention to it.

I WILL FLOW THOUGH!! I PROMISE!! AS LONG AS YOU DON'T GO TOO FAST.

I am interested in hearing Kritikal arguments and Theory debate, so do not stray away from that just because you see I'm a lay judge (I'm not the lay-est tbh).

Please make sure you are being as specific as possible in your description of arguments.

Logic and realism is important to me. Make me logically believe your argument and impacts. If its TOOO much of a stretch it may affect my decision. But I'll probably buy more than you think.

Hello, my name is Veronica Kerr.

I am a sophomore Marketing and English student at UF.

I did about 3.5 years of PF in high school and a bit of oratory.

I love giving feedback, if you have any questions after the round please let me know.

My email: verogrovegirl@gmail.com

I know tournaments and speech and debate are super stressful, so please try to relax. I'm not going to bite, I promise.

As a judge, I come in with a clean mind, leaving any personal beliefs about anything or biases out of the room. I hyperfocus on the skill level of the speaker, their ability to meet the requirements of the different kinds of speeches, how well it is organized and power of delivery.

I evaluate based on flow. Stay topical and be respectful, but also provide clash. Jokes are appreciated. 

I’m the Director of Speech and Debate at American Heritage Schools, Palm Beach Campus (since 2018). Formerly, I competed for Suncoast High School in Congress and Extemp, coached at multiple schools in Florida, and worked at summer institutes. I teach all events, except LD and Policy, and primarily coach Congress, Extemp, Oratory, and Info.

Congress

I’m “old fashioned” when it comes to Congress. I like solid argumentation (read: have warrants and impacts) and clash. I expect every speaker after the author/sponsor to refute. As the debate progresses, the pendulum should swing from mostly new arguments in speeches to mostly refutation in speeches. Congress is not designed to be a “fully prepared beforehand speech” event; you MUST react to what’s happening in the debate. In terms of speaking, I’m open to a variety of styles ranging from faster/more aggressive debate-y speakers to more oratorical speakers. I tend to prioritize content over speaking. The PO usually makes my top 6 and, on occasion, gets the 1.

Speech

Speech students rarely read paradigms, so I’ll keep this brief. In Extemp, Oratory, and Info, I will flow your content and will reward speakers with sound structure and clarity of thought. In the Interp events, I look for a storyline, blocking, and characterization. In all IE events, I always rank speakers who are genuine, confident, and showcase true emotion over those who are fake, overly practiced/scripted, and uncertain.

PF

I don’t judge a lot of PF, but you need not be scared if you see me in the back of a PF round. I teach PF all the time and have judged many, many rounds. I do my best to flow all speeches in the round (not CF), but only if I can understand what you’re saying. I can handle a little speed, but not a lot (I will motion for you to slow down if you’re going too fast). It will work in your favor to signpost contentions and sub points. I like line-by-line Rebuttals that clearly line up with the opponent’s Constructive. You should collapse in the Summary and weigh in the Final Focus. A few general guidelines: 1) PF is an evidence-based event, 2) don’t drop arguments, 3) don’t say outlandish things like “my opponent dropped all our arguments” when they didn’t, etc. I will always disclose unless the tournament has a strict policy against it.

LD/Policy

It’s HIGHLY unlikely (I can count on 1 hand the number of LD and Policy rounds I’ve judged in the past 11 years) that you’ll see me in an LD or Policy judge pool.

**Updated November 2021**

she/her

eyliterski22@gmail.com

i did policy debate for 4 years in high school; wisconsin and some nat circuit

1. i will not vote for any ontologically violent args (racism good, sexism good, homophobia good, ableism good, etc.); make these args or be any ist/phobic and you get an L and 0 speaks

2. tech>truth (but u still need to explain why what they dropped matters)

3. spreading is fine (slow down on tags, analytics, theory) being unclear is not - i will say clear x2, after that i’ll attempt to keep flowing but it will prob be bad

4. i’m a tabs judge so run what you want - don’t try to judge adapt too much

5. feel free to ask questions

6. have fun and be nice ! debate is cool so enjoy it

**i have not judged this year's topic

READ IF U WANT:

the following are thoughts i have ab dif args and background info; could help u to understand how i evaluate rounds or improve ur chances of getting my ballot. *good debating can change any of these thoughts

case:

-idc what aff you read

-no, teams don't need to defend the hypothetical implementation of a topical plan but u should have a reason why you aren't

-tell me how to frame the impacts of the 1ac otherwise i default to magnitude x probability

-your impact scenarios should probably be more than two, 5-sentence cards

-for neg - case turns r super cool and good

-plz don’t drop ur case :(

T:

-competing interps > reasonability

-definition quality matters !!

-potential abuse can be a voter but in-round abuse is more persuasive

-if u go for T it should be all 5 min of the 2NR

-T is not a reverse voter

theory:

-theory is cool; neutral on all theories except disclosure (DISCLOSE TO UR OPPONENT)

-generally think condo is fine *if your strat is to bombard the aff with 9 off and hope they drop something, pref me low

-almost all theory is a reason to reject the arg not the team

-i dislike when teams try to trick their opponents into dropping their 3 sentence theory that was shoved into a T shell - if u do this i’ll be very open to the other team getting new answers

-some theories are not cool, pls don’t read them or i will tank ur speaks (eg. formal clothes theory or shoes theory)

disads:

-DAs that turn case make me happy

-for aff - link turns to DAs make me happy

-plz have a coherent link chain

-good ptx DAs are rare but awesome

-yes, do impact calc

cps:

-should prob be functionally and textually competitive

-this should go without saying but i’ll say it anyways: u need to prove why the cp is better than the plan to win it

-i won’t judge kick unless u tell me to

-for aff - perms are good

ks:

-default to weighing the aff against the alt

-good for ks of reps/rhetoric, cap, set col, anthro, statism, security, etc.; anything beyond that you’ll need to explain a bit more

-no matter what k ur reading u need to clearly articulate the links, impacts, and alt (put the work in even if ur reading a generic k)

-for aff - just saying ‘extinction outweighs’ is less persuasive than actually engaging with the k

k affs v. FW:

for aff:

-i don’t think that FW is inherently violent

-turning their impacts is good, prob better than counter interps of their definitions

-prove to me why your model of debate is better

-i think the 1ac should defend something and a shift from the squo, what that something happens to be is up to you

for neg:

-if your model of debate completely prevents kritikal args from being ran i will have a hard time voting for it

-having a TVA is prob good but not necessary

-i’m pretty neutral between education/skills impacts and clash/fairness - both can be persuasive

SPEAKS (nat circuit only):

• a 28.5 = average, above that means good job and below that means practice more or be nicer

• anything below a 27 means you did something wrong (were super rude or left like 3 minutes left in a speech)

When I judge I am listening for students to clearly state what they believe and why they believe it. I will not take my own opinions/biases into consideration. I am looking for information that is well-supported and speeches/arguments that are organized clearly.

I am a parent judge. Do not spread, use jargon, or run progressive debate. Please be respectful in round, and good luck!

If you do not like my judging style, strike me.

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.

Please maintain professionalism and proper decorum at all times, feel free to speak as quickly or slowly as you are comfortable with. I did Speech and Debate in high school, and am experienced with the type of spreading usually only seen in Policy Debate. I was also a coach for 5 years.

Within Speech events, I tend to be a very technical judge. I want the rules and intentions of the event to be followed. Creative liberties are great as long as they do not conflict with the explicit rules of the event. This goes into OIL, DI, HI, OO, INFO, Impromptu, and DUO.

For Extemp, I value evidence, structure, and a conversational but professional speaking style. Keep humor professional.

In the context of all debate events, make sure you state your evidence explicitly - don't make me work for it. It's your job as a speaker and debater to argue your stance using words.

I will not read anything sent to me. I will only consider what is presented verbally in the round.

I consider cross and questioning heavily. If you ask just clarifying questions, that’s weak.

As an LD judge, I prefer a traditional argument to a K. You have been given a resolution and a stance to argue, and it is your job to debate within the definitions and assumptions of that resolution and stance. Debating around the resolution is, at best, a waste of time, and at worst, inappropriate in my opinion.

As a PF judge, like LD, I also prefer traditional argument, but especially within PF, I need your impacts linked properly. Stating evidence is not enough. Tell me why that evidence matters and what it affects.

In Congress, I appreciate the strategic use of speech timing. As the legislation goes on, it becomes more and more important to have novel arguments and evidence so if you don’t have anything, be sure to use clash to refute the other side.

Hello everyone, I am an ex-speech kid that dabbled in debate events. With that being said debate is not my forte. These are some of the things you should do if I am judging you.

1. Speak clearly, do not speed. If you are used to speeding then learn judge adaptation. If I can't get your arguments down and understand what you are saying then you have lost the round.

2. I like empirical evidence - you will not win the round by trying to win an emotional argument.

3. I like a well thought out/planned case that makes sense logically - I like to be able to connect the dots.

4. I can flow, but am not as good at flowing as someone who judges PFD every weekend.

5. Do not be rude. I can deal with assertive, but screaming, belittling opponents, eye rolling, head shaking and showing general contempt is not acceptable. You may win the round but it will be with 20 speaks.

I am a former participant in speech & debate. I just graduated from college and have read up on the current topic for the Varsity State Tournament. These are some of the things you should do if I am judging you.

1. Speak clearly, do not speed. If you are used to speeding then learn judge adaptation. If I can't get your arguments down and understand what you are saying then you have lost the round. I mostly did speech events in high school so I will be taking A LOT of notes during the round, speak clearly so I can follow your arguments even when I'm not looking.

2. You will not win the round by trying to win an emotional argument - please make clear connections//links

3. I like a well-thought-out/planned case that makes sense logically - I like to be able to connect the dots.

4. I do not flow so please make your arguments clear and organized.

5. Do not be rude. I can deal with assertive, but screaming, belittling opponents, eye-rolling, head shaking, and showing general contempt is not acceptable. You may win the round but it will be with 20 speaks.

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.

I mostly did PF in HS.

email: just_mar25@yahoo.com

read bolded for a quick rundown if you're unwilling to go through the whole paradigm.

1. Truth>Tech. That being said, I will not prescribe my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance/bad faith arguments. If the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me.

2. On Speed/Spreading - Speed is fine but it must be purposeful. Speed is not purposeful if you're unclear and lack diction (I will yell 'clear' or 'louder' if I struggle but if I need to keep doing that I'm going to nuke your speaks). Speed is not purposeful if all you're doing is introducing blippy arguments in hopes that one makes it across and wins you the round (you could literally just read more cards on legitimate arguments to strengthen your links instead of the blips). Speed is not purposeful if you're actively disenfranchising the other team by spreading (you do NOT need to spread versus a novice team, just out-debate them). Just because I might have your case doesn't mean it's all on my flow, I am not as familiar as you are with your own literature. If you're incomprehensible all you're doing is making me uninterested.

3. On Ks - Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my understandings of terms of art/common terms from your authors, whose viewpoints I am likely unfamiliar with. Just because you're running doesn't a K doesn't mean you don't have to DEBATE and explain why you're winning on the K flow. Yeah if the K goes unresponded then its a winning argument but if you don't extend/explain to me why the K wins (aff or neg) beyond "they had no response to the K" then presume I drop the K. Extend the K.

4. On Weighing - Rhetoric impacts are bad arguments. Explain/Weigh why your impacts are impactful. Don't just tell me 'poverty bad', explain why poverty is bad and what poverty actually causes. You can't outweigh on "Scope". There is no implication to what "Scope" means unless you give it context. Impact calculus takes into account Magnitude, Probability, Timeframe. Implicate what your advocacy has in terms of contextualized warranting versus just yelling out "scope" and praying it works out (it won't).

5. On Evidence Sharing - Just use an e-mail chain/Speechdrop. Please don't be the reason the tournament is running 30min-1hr longer than needed. I'm not saying you have to send over your cases (PF), I know that the norm on that is still being established (in PF) but no judge wants to watch you stand awkwardly over someone's shoulder while waiting for a card, just send it electronically and that way judges can have it too if it becomes a point of contention. If a card you called out for is miscut/misleading and this is enough to win you the round TELL ME THIS. TELL ME TO READ THE CARD BEFORE I MAKE MY DECISION BECAUSE IT TURNS THE ROUND. Don't get mad at me after the round because you didn't explicitly tell me to read a card.

6. On New Arguments - I try my hardest to give debaters as much agency as possible to actually debate. That being said, DO NOT introduce new arguments in the last speech of the debate, I will - at best - ignore them or - at worst - vote you down if the team after you argues that the introduction is a voting issue (fairness/time, etc.) This happens enough that it needs its own section.

7. On Framework - I will default to a utilitarian framework to weigh unless given an alternative by either team. In terms of defaulting to utilitarianism, unless a team in the round offers an alternative framework then this is generally what people would end up arguing under anyway (I literally don't trust teams to weigh appropriately so I'll just save us all the time and say this in my paradigm to at the very least mentally prepare you to weigh in some capacity). You can lose the framework debate and still win the round. Winning framework does not inherently mean you win the round. It is entirely possible to lose (or concede) the framework debate and still win. Framework is about who operates better under that given paradigm.

8. On Crossfire - I don't flow crossfire. If anything happens during Cross that you feel is relevant to winning then refer to it in your next speech so it is on paper. This doesn't mean saying something like "In Cross they said Nukes aren't real so they lose C2." I want you to tell me the other team conceded the link on C2 so I can put it on my flow (SIGNPOST WHERE THE RELEVANT CROSS INTERACTION SHOULD/WOULD BE ON MY FLOW). Aff always gets first question. Why are we doing the whole "may I have first question" song and dance still?

9. On Extensions - Summary and Final Focus should be aligned - whatever you extend in Final Focus should also have been present in Summary. I don't believe defense is sticky. You should still extend defense on an argument unless the other sides explicitly kicks out.

10. On Tricks - Don't. Deliberate attempts to subvert clash by lying, misleading, hiding arguments, being unethical will be poorly received. What're you trying to prove by doing this? That you can't win a round by actually debating? I'll nuke your speaks since I believe this actually "kills debate". To be clear, a funny tagline is funny and okay, but you know when something is a pun and when something is deliberately misleading.

11. Don't be rude - Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you. There are more important things in life than winning while also being mean to other human beings. We're all trying to partake in something that we enjoy/makes us happy. Don't be the reason someone has a terrible day.

12.Post-rounding - Post-rounding is educational. Be polite/curious - I’m not going to change my decision. Ask to learn more about why I wasn’t persuaded, but there is no debate between you and me.

Hello Debaters

I am a parent judge; this is my 2nd year judging, (3rd year being around). I expect good sportsmanship, respect and for you to enjoy your experience.

I prefer regular rate of speech; I can keep up with accelerated fluency, but my feedback will not be as thorough as it will be if your rate of speech of a conversation and not an auctioneer.

I will keep time, and my time is final time.

I look for eye contact and appropriate expression that matches your understanding of your position or piece.

Hello contestants,

* I am looking for logical and evidence-based debate. I can digest some rhetoric, but only where backed by strong evidence.
* I will promote debaters who successfully frame or reframe the debate beyond the stock arguments.
* I will have special credit for debaters who articulate and role model the change needed in our public discourse.

Hi! My name's Elizabeth, but feel free to call me Lizzy. I'm a senior at UF studying Anthropology and Education Sciences.

I prepped and trained in mostly LD, DI, and OO for about 2.5 years in high school but never got to compete (#COVID). That being said, I understand how stressful these situations can be, and I want you to know that it's okay to breathe, take a second if you need it, and do what's necessary for you to relax and perform your best.

I look for cohesive arguments and stories, respectful language, public speaking skills/strong performance quality, and your ability to engage whoever's in the room. To me, how you deliver your speech/performance is just as, if not more so, important as the content of your speech itself. I'm more than happy to provide additional feedback if you have any questions after your round in person or via email at elizabethriotto@outlook.com.

Hello,

I am a parent judge who has judged a few tournaments; both online and in person.

Sorry for being really extra about Congress. I just want to make it clear what I think of each speech

Congress

I judge a lot of Congress. Congress to me is half speech and half debate. The best congress students have a mix of both qualities. I find myself in prelim rounds and local tournaments frequently rewarding better speakers because there is a greater talent disparity in those rounds, and kids who are phenomenal speakers break. However, you likely are only reading this if you are a student who takes Congress seriously and expects to get into break rounds. Here’s the thing, once you are in Congress break rounds, everyone is a good speaker and the gap between 1 and 12 is really often negligible to me. Therefore, if you expect to make it into the top 6 and move on, you have to give the appropriate speech at the appropriate time. Here is how I classify different speeches. Each one is judged differently

• 1st Aff/Authorship/Sponsorship

• Judged to a higher evidence standard since you are literally setting the table for the entire round

• Needs exceptional structure and argumentation. This should read like a debate case in PF/LD. No claim should go unwarranted, no argument should lack a variety of strong evidence, the impacts should be clear and heavily emphasized

• Speech is generally easier since it is prepared in advance, so this speech needs to be very well written

• 1st Neg

• Same standards as the 1st Aff/Authorship/Sponsorship

• Difference, you must directly refute what the previous speaker stated. You do not need to refute everything necessarily (although better speakers will), but you should definitely pick out whatever was the key point of their case and directly refute.

• 2nd Aff/2nd Neg-7th Aff/7th Neg (roughly, this depends on chamber size)

• Speeches need to address what is happening in the chamber. A good rule of thumb is to always address the claims of the speaker who went right before you plus the key issues of the round up to that point. If you are not making the debate unique by refuting previous speakers and extending previous speakers from your side, you will have a tough time being ranked top 6

• Unique arguments are great and you should draw attention to them. However you are not going to win the debate with a rando argument at the very end with limited impacts. Unique arguments are not a replacement for refutation and extension of previous speakers

• Closing Affs and Negs (like the last 4 speeches or so)

• Crystalize/Weigh voting issues. At the end of a cycle of debate, it needs to be like a final focus in PF or a 2AR in LD. Isolate the key issues of the round and explain why your side is winning. Speeches that do not weigh this late in the cycle do not add anything to the debate and are judged as unnecessary.

General Congress Speaking Tips

• Remember to always use decorum and professionalism

• Be consistent in the language you use (don’t flip between bill and legislation randomly)

• Important. At the end of the day, you are acting. You are a legislator, not a high school student. You are a legislator whose personal worth is attached to either the passage or failure of this bill because of how it affects the United States citizens. You delivery and disposition should be that of someone who is desperate to see its passage or failure. Show me this is important to you

Role of Cross Examination

• I am not paying attention to how many questions you guys ask. I am only really paying attention to the person’s answers. Cross ex should be a time you try to get the opponent to make concessions or show the judges they don’t really know what they are talking about. Be aggressive, but be respectful

• Ask lots of questions though. I may not be noting it down, but if you ask a lot of questions, I’ll remember that and it can be used to break ranking ties

Evaluating the PO

• If the PO does the following, I am going to rank them top 3 no matter what

• Maintains excellent professionalism and decorum

• Showcases strong knowledge of parliamentary procedure

• Maintains control of the chamber

• Makes no mistakes with recency or frequency

• One more thing to point out. Running an effective chamber also involves encouraging motions in order to continue facilitating legitimate debate. If there are 3 negs in a row with no Aff, and the debate has been done to death - you should be actively asking for motions and reminding the chamber about how we frown on one sided debate and can move on

One final note about Equity

• It is important to be fair to everyone in the chamber. However, this is a competition. You are trying to destroy your opponents and proceed in the tournament. You have no obligation as competitors to ensure all speakers get to speak the same number of times. Now I will admit, other judges may frown on this - so it is risky behavior. I am just letting you know that I will not take points away because you force a motion to call the previous question and end debate when the debate is clearly over and keep someone from speaking.

• Tabroom will not let me eliminate this stray bullet

LD/PF Paradigm

1. Speed kills. Spread at your own risk.

1. In LD, you need to win the framework to win the debate

1. Case needs to tell a cohesive story. You should not include arguments that don’t function under your framework for the sake of just having extra offense

1. You have to weigh the debate

1. Respect your opponent. Ideally you should be stone faced when your opponent is speaking and never snicker or make any comment of any kind. I’ll drop you

1. Voting issues. Gotta have them. What are the key issues of the round in your view? How do I know what to vote off of if you don't tell me what matters?

2. There is no 7, tabroom will not let me backspace

Speaker Points

• If you are competent and minimize mistakes, you automatically finish with 28.5 speaker points (29 if decimals are forbidden). To improve on that, there need to be zero mistakes, zero arguments that go unrefuted, clear weighing of impact analysis, etc. If you get lower than 28.5, it means you missed something somewhere. I’ll try to put it on the ballot. Overall, if you do your job, you are not finishing with less than 28.5. Going to be honest though, I can't tell you what a 30 is. You have the impress me in some way that I really can't quantify

Former extemp and impromptu competitor.

My first 20 years of coaching were devoted almost exclusively to policy debate. My second 20 years were spent on every other forensic event. I am a fan of both speech and debate with PF as my personal favorite. Coming from a policy background has helped to mold my judging preferences:

What I like:

Clash - arguments only

Respectful crossfires

Evidence that actually supports the argument it is supposed to

IMPACTS - if you don’t have impacts, you won’t win; if you don’t link your impacts, you won’t win

I actually care about topicality and talking about the actual resolution

Real world issues plus a comparison of pro world vs con world

What I don’t like:

Ks

Plans

Rudeness

Unintelligible grand crossfires because everyone is talking over each other

Squirrelly arguments

HOLLERING

I don’t mind some speed, but policy garble won’t fly.

I look forward to direct clash in a respectful environment with well vetted ev supporting real world issues.

Debate:

-Off the clock rules explanations and road-mapping permitted and encouraged

-No off the clock argumentation

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

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

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

Congress:

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

-Please no spreading

Speech:

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

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

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

I am the currently the debate coach at West Boca Raton High School. Prior to this year, I was an Instructional Facilitator for Broward County Public Schools on the county-wide debate program. Before that I was the debate coach for 10 years at Coral Springs High School.

I am generally open to any type or style of argument, as long as it is relevant and topical. Explain to me why you have upheld your standard (which can be as traditional or creative as you wish, as long as you establish why it is topical), and/or (preferably "and") your opponent has not upheld theirs, and you will win the round. I will judge the round based off of my flow, but that does not mean that dropped arguments are an automatic disqualification. The weighing of arguments is incredibly important to me, and if I judge the dropped argument to be a comparatively minor argument, then I won't vote based on that argument.

The only arguments that I generally find unpersuasive are arguments that are completely non-topical and have no relevance to the resolution or the specific cases being debated. Any theory you decide to run should be in response to actual, legitimate abuse from your opponent. Other than that, be creative and have fun. Just make sure you tie it into the resolution and/or your opponent's case.

I will not explicitly factor speed into my decision. However, I am not terrific at understanding speed. Pay attention to whether or not I'm flowing. If I'm not flowing, I'm not understanding you. I won't say "CLEAR"; it's up to you to be understandable.

I award speaker points based on general clarity (Which does not necessarily mean speed. You can be fast and clear.) and the quality of support for your arguments.

❧ 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! ☙

Hey everyone!

I competed on the Speech circuit for a little over six years. I focused largely on Extemp and Informative Speaking, but I dabbled in Impromptu and Congress at the national level.

For speaking events: I want to see clear structure and articulate speaking. Good humor will get you very far for me!! If your event has a structure, I expect to see it (in extemp especially! I want data, warrants, and impacts for all points!!). Be confident and you will do fine.

For interp events: I want to understand your message and your characters. I have helped construct parts of POIs, DIs, HIs and DUOs so I know what I am looking for. If it should be funny, it better be funny; if it is dramatic, I need to feel the drama. Your intro, while short in comparison, is very important to me since this sets the stage for the entire performance. If I do not understand your story and message, I will not be able to follow you.

Congress: I want to see very clear arguments and unique points. If you speak and it is rehash, please know ahead of time I will drop you. You are not helping the round by having non-unique claims. If you are giving a refutation speech, it better have refutation. If you are giving the authorship/sponsorship, introduce the bill and why it is important.

General note for politically-based events: I am very well versed in politics domestically and globally due to (1) religious reading of the news and (2) I am studying it in college. If you are presenting an argument and I find the evidence to seem fake, I will challenge it or make my point known. If you are lying about something political, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and look it up to confirm, but I will protest if found to be false. Also, I am studying political science and international relations - I know what evidence means and when data is misused. If you are using data, use it correctly or I will call you out on it in ballots and ranking.