Hey dudes !

I am a rad debate dad. I’ve judged world schools pretty frequently and consider myself to be a pretty okay judge. I’ll vote you up on style content and strategy, but really try and sell what you’re saying to me.

truth> tech

signposting will help you a lot

im a proud speech dad:)

speech events for me:

info, OO :

am I being informed , am I being persuaded and am I being entertained? This all is important to me in these events

try your best to know your material back and forth so you are able to make the best presentation possible when it’s Go time ????

DI, HI:

Does your piece move me and bring emotion to the surface-is it thought provoking ?

Congress : this always is entertaining to me

a good mix of speech and worlds debate here-

Please know your bills and cases for them - I pay attention close to that as well as the cross fire of questions afterwards and how you respond or how you are asking the questions if you are in that case

PF/LD-

this is all about your cases being built very strong - so this is research and memory and able to be quick on your feet in the crossfire questioning

please no spreading

amen.

let’s have some fun!

Please no spreading! Be concise and clear. Ultimately what decides the round is how cohesive the team is and the unified voice. Also how you attack your opponents contentions.

Hi guys, I'm Suchit. I've debated at Coppell ('23) for 4 years, primarily in world schools, but I have some minimal experience in LD. Half the reason I'm involved in debate is that I have fun doing so, so let's keep it that way and avoid being problematic (racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.)

If I'm judging you in PF/LD, I'm not the most experienced with the format, so slow down a bit for me. You don't have to go conversational, but I'm not used to people spreading. I'd probably be best described as a flay judge. I'm willing to vote on anything, but it's your responsibility to prove why I should vote on it/why I should care. If you're running a k, you're going to have to explain it well to make me feel comfortable voting on it.

WSD:

The biggest thing I have is to be fair when you're debating. If your strategy is to straw man your opponents or use abusive models/definitions, I'm probably not going to vote for you. I like to see well-warranted arguments with impacts that are weighed in the context of the round. I'll try not to intervene whatsoever, but typically, the worse an argument is (in terms of warrants, how true it is, if there are any contradictions, etc.), the lower the burden on the other team there is to refute it. That isn't to say that I won't vote for an argument that I don't like/believe; if an argument is untouched down the bench, I'm left to assume that it's true.

I love principled arguments and have found myself voting on them a lot recently, but that's typically because the practical is too messy or isn't explained well enough. I have no qualms with valuing a principle over a practical, but you generally need to do a lot of work explaining why I should vote on it.

Speaking of which, weighing is a huge thing for me. I'll vote for anything (unproblematic of course), but only if you tell me why I should. This isn't just within a clash, but on an overarching level (meta-weighing). Tell me why some arguments matter more than others. Tell me why some impacts are more important than others. If I don't get any of this, I'm left to intervene and choose what I believe is most important, and you definitely don't want that.

If you have any questions about a round or want further feedback, feel free to reach out to me at suchitineni@gmail.com

WSD Scoring Model:

Each participant receives a baseline number of points (28/28/14) - points a reasonably prudent debater (RPD) would achieve in any given round. I then deduct or add .5/1 point increments for wins/losses in the each category (style/content/strategy). You can control your style - your team controls the content and strategy (POIs notwithstanding).

Style: Audience engagement/reading from your script, tonality, posture, clarity of speech, word choice, appropriate use of hand gestures/body language, overall act of performance. Be who you need to be to effectively communicate - extreme [drama, humor, sarcasm, etc.] should be played carefully. There are many styles that can be effective.

Content: In addition to the basics (soundness of argument/logical progression), I will ask myself (summoning my inner Bill Belichick) did you "do your job" relative to your position and the needs of the particular round itself. More specifically:

Pos1 - clear explanation of what winning looks like with a roadmap;

Pos2 - How did you deal with the clash/evolution thereof and setup your 3 for success - did you strengthen the argument, rebuild as needed, at least hold the line? Focus on the right issues and carry out the logic;

Pos3 - Evaluate your transition from the clash and crystalize. Weigh while adapting to arguments/issues that have evolved. I should be able to visualize the argument and you lead me to why you are (more) right.

Pos4 - Recognize where you are at, how far you need to go, and then execute a close that matches your facts and circumstances manifesting in a clear expression of how you won/the basis thereof.

Strategy: Did you focus on the right issues, did you order your arguments/clashes correctly (e.g. serial position effect unless compelling reason to list the best argument last), did you properly ignore/address POIs/raise them at the right time, did you address/ignore the right concepts/information as it arose in the debate. Choices in refutation method. Time management - generally and specifically.

Some notes re: decorum/other: I despise prolific use of the word 'like'. Exude professionalism despite the semi-relaxed setting. Discussion without being disruptive to my ability to hear or judge your opponent. Principle vs Practical - I'll accept either. Use of examples should be logical and not picking isolated cases that aren't representative of most cases or average cases (but it isn't my job to adjudicate such, it is yours). POIs: expressive without being intentionally disruptive - a RPD would offer some solid POIs and respond to some POIs. There is a nuance and art to using POIs effectively.

For TFA State:

Interp: I am a pretty open minded judge when it comes to judging interp overall but there are a few things I look for in performances. Creativity and honesty will always be the most rewarded in my book because it is why we do what we do at the end of the day. Showcasing your own interpretation, but staying true to the core of the story is important to me. Character development and emotional shifts are super important especially over a digital platform to keeping us engaged with the story and showing us the meaning behind the words. Have fun with the choices you make as long as they are PURPOSEFUL, doing something that distracts rather than enhances makes us lose connection between what is happening in the story.

Speaking/Extemp: Big thing is show your own unique style and approach to speaking because this is what separates you from other. I am a big fan of humor, but PLEASE, I BEG do not make it feel forced or this is just awkward for both of us. In terms of depth of the speech, I like more than just surface level arguments and I want to see you get to the higher end issues and core problems effectively. Structure is important obviously to make sure we can connect all of the ideas and know how you are getting to what you are wanting to. Finally, have variation in your delivery, it is important to showcase the different levels and power of your arguments and statements and so we should feel very engaged with how you are saying and what you are saying.

Worlds School Debate:

School affiliation/s : Northwest High School

Hired (yes/no) : Hired for WSD

High School Affiliation if graduated within last five years (required): Northwest High School

Currently enrolled in college? (required) If yes, affiliation? No

Years Judging/Coaching (required) I have been judging for 5- 6 years.

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event (required)

I pretty much started off my first year judging in interp and PF and then slowly incorporated all other forms of debate the following year.

Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year (required): Since August I have judged about 40 world school rounds around Texas.

Check all that apply

__x___I judge WS regularly on the local level

_____I judge WS at national level tournaments

_____I occasionally judge WS Debate

_____I have not judged WS Debate this year but have before

_____I have never judged WS Debate

Rounds judged in other events this year : 75 rounds including PF, LD, Interp, Speaking, and Congress.

Check all that apply

__x__ Congress

_x___ PF

__x__ LD

____ Policy

_x___ Extemp/OO/Info

__x__ DI/HI/Duo/POI

____ I have not judged this year

____ I have not judged before

Have you chaired a WS round before?

I have chaired multiple WS rounds before locally.

What does chairing a round involve?

Chairing a round basically is keeping the round in order and ensuring a productive and efficient debate. The chair is in charge of calling up the speakers, leading the RFD for the panel, making sure people do not ask questions during protected time (which I discuss students should keep their own timer at the beginning so we do not have this issue), and making sure a fair debate is occurring.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else?

I would describe WSD as a form of debate in which you are arguing ideas and issues to show which side of the motion is the most logical. This is way different than Americanized debate where theory and jargon is utilized more, so it is focusing on the core issues of the debate. Worlds is suppose to make sense to anyone who is listening to the debate and therefore the arguments should make rationale sense to anybody.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate?

I am fortunate enough to have a full setup for my computer. I have two monitors and on the main monitor I watch the debate, and the second monitor has my tabroom ballot where I am writing notes over each speech and speaker. I also in front of me use a notebook to flow the debate to make sure I keep up with what is being said in the round.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

This just simply depends on the topic itself. I am pretty open minded when it comes to arguments and do not have a personal preference as long as it is discussed why you chose what to advocate for. This clarity is needed to really emphasize why that approached is needed and it's on the debaters to tell me why it is preferable.

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy?

I think strategy usually is overlooked in terms of how you want structure arguments. A speaker's strategy is how do you connect the claims you present and how you word things in order to be effective in elaborating on arguments presented by the other side. Picking the right way to argue things and how you say it are definitely things to be aware of for your strategy.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast?

First, I am glad to have not judged a WSD where someone was spreading, so let's keep it that way hopefully. If someone is just not effective with their speed and tone I usually deduct points from their style.

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

As silly as it may sound, I usually vote on simply what makes sense. Since we do not have to have the 20 minutes of calling for cards (thankfully), I simply view whos reasoning and rationale makes the most sense towards the topic and arguments presented in the round. Show me your thought process through your speech and it usually comes down to who can prove their claims in a clear manner, rather than the throw everything at the wall and see what sticks strategy.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

I look at how effective and clear some model is to make sure it sets the foundation for your ideas. Make sure you think through your model to answer any potential questions individuals may have about it. I do not think all motions need a model or countermodel, so just make sure if you use one there is a purpose to it.

Paradigm Updated 3/9/25

I have been judging debate for 30 years, and I find it consistently disturbing that our community rewards debaters who try to manipulate a win rather than earning one. If you are attempting to beat your opponents through flow tricks they are unfamiliar with, speed beyond their threshold, or theory and kritiks that hold no meaningful value to you other than a win, I have serious doubts about your respect for the other participants in the debate space. The debate space must be consensual. Debaters enter into the space with the assumption that they have a 50-50 chance of winning, and that they will have equal space to present their arguments and have them legitimately considered by their judges. Judges enter into the space with the assumption that the debaters will attempt to win their ballots rather than exclude them from the round. Speaking faster than an opposing debater or judge is comfortable with is nonconsensual behavior. That's problematic. Making arguments that do not include a warrant, are presented as absolutes that cannot be opposed, and/or cannot be compared to opposing arguments that have equal ground is a strange approach to an activity where judges attempt to make a meaningful choice between two competing claims. Using your knowledge of current debate fads to intimidate your opponents and police their rhetoric and strategy by telling them how they can and cannot respond to you is a) nonconsensual, b) bullying, and c) pretty lame. I understand that organizing arguments into shells can make it easier to follow along. However, using shells as a tool of silencing the other team and not giving them equal space to present their opinion is... c'mon, do I have to say this again? It's nonconsensual. Judges, coaches, debaters - I implore all of you to stop normalizing teenagers acting in nonconsensual ways. It makes the debate space combative and exclusionary, it promotes patriarchal thinking that is never a good idea, and it just makes for blippy, messy, unpleasant debate rounds. Do better. If you come at me with your arguments about tech>truth being more "objective" and leading to less "intervention" I will happily laugh in your face for thirty minutes. There is no such thing as an objective way to choose a winner. There is no such thing as a debate round where a judge does not, at some level, make personal choices about what rhetoric and strategy they valued. The entire glorification of the flow as some 'objective' sacred text is deeply rooted in patriarchal assumptions and preferences, and I like to think that as critical thinkers we can go beyond that as a community. If you want to play a game because winning makes you feel less insecure, go play online poker. If you want to challenge yourself, compare yourself against other worthy opponents, learn something new every round, become a better human, and change the world - stay in speech and debate. Thank you for attending my lecture, and read on for additional paradigm information.

ALL DEBATE: Welcome to my ten second tutorial, 'Answering Arguments Wins Debates.' Notice I didn't say 'repeating arguments wins debates,' because it doesn't. You have to listen to your opponent's argument, then craft a response that shows why your side of the resolution is comparatively better regarding this issue. Telling me their argument isn't well-warranted isn't enough. You have to provide me with a warrant for why your side of the debate wins that point.

**PLEASE DO NOT SPEAK IMPOSSIBLY FAST. If you’re talking like you’ve had too many Dr. Peppers, we’re fine, but if you blur words together and start double breathing, I can’t understand you. Not only is that a consent issue, it's a disability issue. A decade ago I experienced a bipolar break, and since then my brain doesn't work as fast, and my ear-to-brain interaction isn't what it used to be. That doesn't mean I am stupid. It just means that I need to hear things at a normal, conversational speed. I also feel you should check with your opponent and judges before EVERY round to discuss what their threshold for speed is to make sure you are all on the same page and that the debate space is inclusive. That’s key to keeping people in this activity. Please don’t chase out people who can only compete sometimes. Be better.

GENERAL ARGUMENTS: I will consider anything that isn't offensive, but you have to give me a reasonable explanation for why it applies in this debate. If you're trying to make an argument based on debate jargon explain it to me. Just because you think you sound cool saying something doesn't mean I am going to vote on it. I do not vote off tricks on the flow. Not every dropped argument actually matters. On the flipside, don't ignore arguments. LISTEN to your opponent. Respond to them.

THEORY: I am open to any theory arguments critiquing your opponent’s rhetoric, behavior, or advocacy. I am NOT open to resolutional critiques, because in that instance you’re basically critiquing the wording committee. We have to have an agreed upon resolution to have a fair debate. It may not be your favorite resolution. It may not be my favorite resolution, either. However, it’s the resolution we’ve all walked into the round to engage with, so do me a solid and actually engage with it. I previously bought disclosure theory at national tournaments, but in updating my paradigm today I feel it's incompatible with an inclusive, consensual debate space. If you believe strongly that debaters should disclose, you should come to the room (physical or online) immediately after posting to make a good faith attempt to discuss arguments with your opponent. Breezing on in at the start time and reading theory tells me you care more about an easy win than fair debate prep.

WEIGHING: I don’t need you to use the words probability, timeframe, reversibility, etc. So long as you compare your argument with your opponent’s and tell me why your argument makes your world comparatively better than theirs, I’m good.

BEHAVIOR: Be respectful of me and of your opponent. If I am cringing by how rude you are in CX, you won't be getting high speaks. I don't vote for bullies. I vote for debaters. If you have questions about how to get better after the round, you can ask me. If you want to re-debate the round, I will not be tolerant. You had a chance to communicate to me, and if you lost, you lost. I am not going to change my mind, and arguing with me will just mean I will be in a bad mood if I ever have to judge you again. I judge often enough you want to be the person I smile when I see.

EVENT SPECIFIC PARADIGMS**

WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATE: Firstly, although I have judged this event for five years or so, I am not necessarily aware of every norm in the activity. If you feel your opponent is using debate norms from other events and they aren’t in line with world norms, tell me why their position should be disregarded. Secondly, I like to see a lot of worlds comparison in either the 3^rd or Final speech. What happens if we pass the motion? What happens if we fail it? What are the implications of that action across broader populations and through time? Especially with impromptu topics, I think it’s important to figure out what the effects are of voting either way. I’m not going to want to make a decision about a subset of the motion taken in one snapshot in time. I want to look at precedents the motion might start, or how the motion may change perceptions across the globe. Think BIG. Thirdly, don’t ask incredibly long POI’s just to waste opponent time. Your POI’s should be strategic in terms of their content.

PUBLIC FORUM: Firstly, do not make arguments in cross. Ask questions of your opponent. Weaken their link chains, make them explain warrants and evidence. Please let your opponent have a reasonable amount of time to answer, and only interrupt if they are being purposefully obtuse. Take turns asking. If you have a follow-up, it should be able to be answered with one sentence, or it is a second question. Secondly, I do not believe that policy and LD norms automatically apply in PF rounds. If you would like to access another debate event’s norms, you need to give me a reasonable explanation as to why your interpretation is best. Thirdly, I like to see incentive analysis done that helps me to see why certain policies might be preferred over others. This can be from a government perspective, a societal perspective, or even individual perspectives, depending on the argument. Fourthly, you have to give me more than the argument name to count as an extension, and arguments should be extended in every speech if they end up in Final Focus. Give me the evidence, the warrant, the way that argument outweighs the opponent’s argument – I’m flexible, but give me something to extend other than a word. Fifthly, be realistic about what you can do in a four minute constructive. You will not be able to go into massive depth with any of your arguments. Low probability, high impact arguments require a pretty strong link chain, and that’s probably not something you have time for in PF. Stick with what you can defend. Then defend it. Sixthly, be smart about evidence sharing. Have your evidence immediately accessible and shareable. Better yet, send the cards either right before or right after the speech so everyone can see them. I do not want to have to police both teams while searching and copying and pasting and refreshing emails. I also really, really do not want to see teams using evidence challenge as a way to get more time to mentally prep. PF debate should not take a lifetime. It should take less than an hour.

LD: I’m not judging much LD anymore because the activity is becoming less enjoyable for me. I’m not a tech happy judge, and I won’t vote on flow tricks. I will vote on comparative benefit in the overall aff and neg position. I would prefer you take prep time before the NC so that you are responsive to your opponent’s rhetoric and arguments. If your entire NC is cards that you don’t bother applying directly to opponent arguments, I’m probably not going to vote for you. Clash is key, and clash requires being in the moment of this particular debate with these particular people. Every debate should be different. If you’re making them all the same, you’re probably going to get the L from me every time, too.

POLICY: I judge policy only when tabrooms really, really need me to, or for UIL Texas debate where speed is not the norm. I recognize that on most circuits, speed is the norm, and I simply can’t keep up. If tab needs me to take one for the team, though, please respect my speed issues above. Also, I don’t understand all of the intricacies of policy debate norms, so if you want me to judge off something more obscure, explain it to me. My favorite thing in Policy to hear about is the solvency debate, so points there if you dig in deep.

To finish it off, this activity should be something all of us enjoy. If you’re miserable during the round, we probably will be, too. Find a way to make each debate interesting, unique, challenging. Stretch your world, and make your opponents and judges think in new ways. Being in debate should inspire you. If it doesn’t, there’s probably a better activity for you, and I hope you can find that joy elsewhere. We’re all spending a day or weekend together, so let’s all try to make it pleasant.

Hello everyone! I’m excited to be here as a judge, I genuinely enjoy the art and style of debate and how well-crafted arguments are shared. Below are some events I have judged (so far) and how I usually determine them:

Speech: Get right to the point, I like it when the topic and core of the piece is presented in the first 20-40 seconds. Don't take too long to set your point. Share personal narratives as much as possible, those show me how you truly feel about the topic and how real it is to you, which is conveyed through your oration.

WS: Don't yell, I understand having passion for a topic, but being over animated can come off as rude and makes it seem like you are not confident in your prop/opp. When presenting a problem, make sure to define the solution and how it can be applied today. If you are defending something already in place, make sure to present why a change would be detrimental.

HI: making me laugh is not easy, but I can tell you what immediately gets me not happy its yelling. I get that you are trying to convey emotions but yelling and shouting don't work. Using multiple accents, postures and styles is a plus, make me feel there are multiple people within you

INFO: Colorful visuals that you can use to enhance your piece really help, especially if they are adding visual layers. Personalization is key.

POI: This is an event I really enjoy and how the prop is used. Use of sound effects and accents, along with voice modulations really help set the scene. Sharing a personal narrative has been known to bring me to tears.

PF: This is an event that I like a lot because it shows the true debate. I enjoy a good and thorough back and forth, especially during cross and grand cross, when the questions asked enhance and support the side you are on.

Confidence in your presentation is key, and I believe there’s real power in how you carry yourself when making a point.

Try to avoid using too many 'um', 'uh', and 'like'; I will note and dock points for excessive use.

The way you use your sources to back up your claims can truly elevate your argument—it’s a skill that, when done right, is nothing short of artistic.

I want you to know that I’m open-minded and can be swayed by a strong, compelling argument. I value debates that are not only spirited and passionate but also well-planned and respectful. Keep it professional, stay focused, and make your points with clarity—I'm looking forward to hearing your perspectives!

I am a diamond level coach, who has been judging over 25 years. My background has intersected with most events throughout my experiences. I started competing on the college circuit in policy debate in the 90's and from there moved into Lincoln Douglas. After a year and a half I made the switch to platform events and I am nationally recognized in Duo, Dramatic, Poetry, Prose, POI, and After Dinner Speaking. TIFA which is the college version of TFA, I have been two time back to back Duo State Champion, as well as state Champion in Poetry.

In Debate:

Good debate is just good debate, so make sure you are clear, give weighing mechanism, link into the resolution, K's are fine but make them clear and understandable if you are going to include them. Speed is ok, just know when you need to slow down at times to solidify your case and make sure you are clear. Be assertive, not aggressive there is a line and make sure you know the difference. I also like purpose behind arguments, so please do not waste time just to run something because you think it is cool, trendy, or funny, as some adult may not share your thoughts on the choice. Debate is a wonderful event, that we have some many amazing tools to use, so please be respectful of this from of discourse.

World Schools is a great crossover event and it is one that I have been supporting at the national level for sometime, and very excited to see the growth of this event. That being said, I am a purist and I want it to stay World School Debate. I am looking for strong substantives, clear burdens, and for the model to be used properly and effectively, if you choose to provide one. Further, make sure you protect and defend the model. Please use POI's likewise be sure to give POI's, at least one to two. Use the key areas strategy, delivery, and content to ensure that you have left no points behind in the debate. You are building a narrative that must compel me to prefer your world view and meet your burden. Clash is crucial, so good coverage is essential down the bench.

The impact calculus is important in any style make sure that you are framing how I will weigh the debate throughout the debate.

Policy-

It is important to understand that good debate has certain essential components no matter the format. Framework and how you ask us to view and weigh the debate is essential. Whatever you use Plan/Counterplan, Advantages/Disadvantages, Stock Issues, and turns. Run your strategy with fidelity and do not just read cards, understand the strategy and impacts of what you are running. Further, know how your case interacts with your opponents. On Aff you need to establish the inherency and actually articulate the plan at the top of the 1AC. Road maps are good but if you are going in order of case, off case then you don't really need them.

Clash is key, you need to have line by line refutation in Policy so that you can maintain, extend, and attack all points in the debate, for me you cannot win on offense alone, you must engage in refutation. To that end, try not to just tell me that it is wrong or problematic, do not just read cards, make arguments and engage in analysis that demonstrates your comprehension of how and why this is important to the debate.

Link story and connect those dots is imperative, you need to show how your link chain and prove why something is or is not a key voter. Cards alone are not enough you as the debater will use your skills, argumentation, cross application, and analysis to win the ballot.

Crystalize by the time we get to the final rebuttals, solidify where you are in the debate and what voters are key in the round, reinforce framework, and give clarity to the link story.

Overall, this is a wonderful format of debate, and it requires both offense and defense to be successful.

Congress: I like well constructed speeches that are not read to me, referring to speech is fine, leave room for clash as this is debate, so I want to see you engage with the chamber. Stay active, the round is long so keep pressure with good questioning to stay relevant in the debate. I also welcome humor, if tasteful and done well.

Platform Speaking: (Extemporaneous, OO, Info, Imp)

I expect to solid speech structure with full introduction, transitions in body, and conclusion. The analysis should have some depth and should make a strong connection to your topic. Fluency should be smooth and if you have the occasional break, just work to not make it a big deal. I know being online can be difficult and there may be things that distract you where you are performing remotely, so that is understandable. Engage with the audience, your speech is for them, whether OO or Extemporaneous, you created a speech to tell it to us, so don't forget that. I know in Extemporaneous it can be tempting to have your speech on your screen, just know when you read a speech it is different and that connection with your audience can be lost, so I would rather have you perform to me, than read. Also, in Extemporaneous you need sources to ground your analysis, I also like a variety of good and challenging sources as opposed to the easiest finds. Pacing yourself is important, so is time management as you move through your points and finally do not rush. Three key things for me:

*Solid and fluent Delivery

*Clear Structure that supports your topic and adherence to time management throughout that structure

*Variety of sources, preference at least 5 as it is important to document and ground your analysis

Interpretation:

Interpretation is a personal favorite. I am open to all innovation and ways to bring your story to life. I do want to see a strong cutting that allows for you to build and reach a climax that will change your character in some way. If you are weaving POI, poetry, or Prose, make sure you structure your weave to give your program a climax that is clear. I have been a theatre director for over 20 years, so I love blocking and characterization as they are a part of breathing life into your interpretation. I like specificity and nuance, the text gives us so much as performers to work with. I like to see your performances as a collection of choices that ultimately allow the audience to experience the authenticity of your piece. I like purposeful gestures and mime work, but not just because it looked cool. I love moments, so make sure to be thoughtful in creating them, but hold them so we do not miss them whether in recording or live performance. At the end of the day, I am one of your biggest fans, so perform for me...allow me to get to know your character, to laugh, to cry, and most of all to experience why you chose to tell this story.

Interp Specifics:

Author's Intent-I am a writer and I believe it is important that the intent of the author is considered and respected. I do not mind if it a piece is cut, just that it doesn't violate the overall message of the author.

Introductions-I like to see purpose driven intros, that have pertinent information I need to know. I do not like introductions to exceed 30-45 seconds, or to become a performance art piece themselves. If I should know about conditions, flashbacks, time elapse that would help better inform my experience, then it should be in the introductions. If you choose to do an intro for humor only, and do not give us any information then I hope it is really funny, because you sacrificed the time you could have educated your audience. I am ok with humor in HI.

Blocking-Yes! Dream big and block bigger....I am ready for whatever you have come up with please engage us, build environments, and use your space in ALL events.

Binder work-Yes! See above, I love it! I want you to explore, so nothing is too much as long as well executed.

Characterization-I believe the story is paramount in any event. Please be thoughtful and authentic, organic over technical any day of the week. I like to be in the moment with you, so challenge yourself and your audience through believable and honest performance.

School affiliation/s - please indicate all (required):

The Hockaday School

Years Judging/Coaching (required)

24

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event (required)

22

Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year (required)

Check all that apply

__X___I judge WS regularly on the local level

__X___I judge WS at national level tournaments

_____I occasionally judge WS Debate

_____I have not judged WS Debate this year but have before

_____I have never judged WS Debate

Rounds judged in other events this year (required)

~50

Check all that apply

____ Congress

____ PF

____ LD

____ Policy

____ Extemp/OO/Info

____ DI/HI/Duo/POI

____ I have not judged this year

____ I have not judged before

Have you chaired a WS round before? (required)

Yes

What does chairing a round involve? (required)

Chairing means making sure everyone is present and ready, calling on individual speakers and announcing the decision. I usually announce the decision then ask the other judges to provide feedback before providing my own.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else? (required)

WSD is what debate would be if people stopped the tactics that exclude others from the debate and arguments. The delivery and required clash of WSD means that there is no hiding from bad arguments or from good arguments.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate? (required)

I flow on excel using techniques like other formats. I attempt to get as much of the details as I can.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain. (required)

It depends on the motion. On a motion that tends towards a problem-solution approach I will tend to prefer the practical, but on a motion that is rooted in a would or believes approach I tend towards the practical.

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? (required)

For me, strategy is how the speaker addresses the large clashes in the debate and compares those clashes for one another. For example, if the debate is about the efficacy of green patents I am looking for the speaker to address something that exists in the assumption that efficacy is good or bad.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast? (required)

I do that in the style section.

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read? (required)

I tend to grant both claims as being true and then look to see if the claims are mutually exclusive. If they aren’t then I look at whether the teams advanced a burden/principle that supports their side. Included in this is an evaluation of whether a side has compared their burden/principle to the other team’s.

How do you resolve model quibbles? (required)

I don’t like to resolve these issue because they often revolve around questions of fact, which I can’t resolve in a debate where there are no objectively verified facts. I tend to go through the same process as I do when it comes to evaluating competing claims.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels? (required)

First, I think both sides have the option to have a model or countermodel, but it is not required in the debate. Second, I think about the practical and the world each side creates. If a team is comparing their world to the world of the other team then I tend to follow that logic. Hopefully, both teams are doing this and then they are using their burden/principle to explain why their world is more important for me to vote for. One item that I tend to not enjoy is when teams treat models and countermodels as plans and counterplans and attack each other’s position without a comparison. Keep in mind that reasons the other team’s position fails are not reasons your position succeeds!

If I am judging you in an event other than WSD.

I am sorry, it has been several years since I have judged anything else but WSD. I do not subscribe to the technique over truth paradigm, nor do I want to listen to a mistakes driven debate. I want to see clash, not strategies geared towards avoiding/trapping the other side. Please do not spread, I will not flow that fast and I will not go back and reconstruct your speech using a speech document. Acts of exclusion will result in low points and possible loss of the ballot. I know this is a list of do not's rather than do's so I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.