I did Public Forum for 4 years, and have been judging for 3.

I can handle speed as long as you aren't reading at the speed of a policy constructive

I trust you guys to time yourselves

I lean toward tech>truth

I do not flow cross, It is a clarifying period for both debaters, however, if you deem something important was brought up in cross, please mention it in a speech in order for it to continue on the flow. Make sure not to end up having cross becoming a yelling match, it is not going to make me want to vote for you more.

Make sure to weigh and use Impact Calculus in final speeches, ex.(magnitude, timeframe)

if you need my email for email chains: scottccoller@gmail.com

Be courteous.

Explain everything to me as if you need to each step of the way.

Make every effort to connect; remember your job in this round is to persuade me that you are correct and your opponent(s) is/are wrong.

Less is more. I will be attempting to flow. If you speak so fast that I cannot keep up, you will not get credit for everything.

I did Speech and Debate through out High-School, my main event was Lincoln-Douglas. I also competed in Impromptu, Spar, Oratory, Policy, Big Questions, Public Forum, and Informative. I know the debate space and am familiar with debate Jargon.

I like to take notes during round, and will flow debate rounds that I judge.

I really value clear arguments and signposting throughout rounds. I believe that speaking ability and delivery is as important as content within cases and arguments. Well assessing a debate or speech I consider how consistency, clarity, confidence, and logic within the round.

In debate I am a big fan of cross examination, and feel that it can be used to ones advantage within a round. I will not be flowing cross, so bring it into the round.

I expect kindness in the round. However, I understand passion, and think that being competitive is important.

As a judge I look for three things.

1. I want to see that you care about the round. Show up on time (as much as possible given how tournaments run). Be kind and respectful to your opponents and the host school.

2. I want to be able to understand you. I do not like spreading, and you will get likely get low speaker points if you do this. The most common feedback I give is, "slow down when you speak."

3. I am also looking for precision. I want to see that you know what you're talking about and make it very clear what your arguments are.

I don't mind critiques (or "Kritiks" as I believe you debate kids call them) but I want to see that you have good evidence.

The most important thing for me is that you are able to do your best. Please take the time you need to set up your notes, laptop (as permitted), table, water bottle, etc. I know you have put a lot of work into speech and debate and I want you to be able to do your best and improve after every round.

I have a lot of experience judging LD and PF in Utah. In 2024 I was a World Schools judge at the NSDA national tournament.

Under personal review please ask before round for paradigm.

Congress Paradigm:

Debate Paradigm:

Speech Paradigm:

Welcome to TOC debate! This is probably one of the more competitive tournaments you will compete at this year, so I will try to be as detailed in my paradigm as possible. I will give detailed information for each event.

LD

I'm very experienced in this format. I did Lincoln Douglas debate as my main event all throughout high school, and I competed in the LD division at nationals. I've judged or gone against pretty much every strategy, and I am pretty much okay with whatever you want to run. Some caveats to this: plans/counterplans are fine, but I need to see some logical validity in both the plan itself and your reason for presenting it with or as opposed to the resolution. With critiques, you need to show me why your critique actually matters, and why it should be weighed over the resolution. You also still need to adequately address your opponent's case even if you are running a k. In terms of case construction, both theory- and fact-based cases are equally valid, but no matter which you are running you need to be prepared to go against the opposite type of case, and explain why yours is more relevant/important. Finally, I believe the voters you give in your final focus are the most important part of your presentation. This is where you lay out the most important points of the round and why you have won them, and this is where you really need to convince your judge that you have carried the round. If you are effectively able to tell me what the major issues are and how you have solved for them, you will win the round.

PF
I will admit that this format I am significantly less experienced with than LD, but I have still judged and competed in my fair share of public forum rounds. In this event I am looking for fact not theory. I want to be convinced by facts, statistics, and sources, not by compelling ideas. Please also keep in mind that this is not policy. Plans and critiques are not valid in this format, and presenting them is grounds to lose the round. As in LD, the voters you present in your final focus will be crucial to your ability to carry the round, so please be clear and concise as to why your team has won the issues brought forward in the round. If you are able to articulate why your team has won every voter, and what the impacts of those voters will be, you will win the round.

Email: greyseng170@gmail.com

As a lay judge, I focus on clear, respectful, and engaging debates. I don’t appreciate debate theatrics like spreading—keep it simple and allow me to follow you. Here’s what I prioritize:

• Argument Depth: I prefer a few strong, well-explained arguments.

• Organization: Your arguments should be logical and easy to follow.

• Engagement: I value direct responses to your opponent’s points—show you’re listening and adapting.

• Adaptability: Adjusting to the flow of the debate shows skill and awareness.

I base my decisions on the strength and persuasiveness of arguments.

Email: Gen@gunnarsonent.com

I did Public Forum for 3 years in high school and am so excited to be back to judge!!

DO

• Speak clearly and loudly, my auditory processing isn't the greatest
• Use roadmaps and let me know where I should be flowing what you're saying
• Have sources to back up your points (If they have me judging an event that's not PF this one doesn't apply as much)
• Relax! You're going to do a better job, and it's going to make the vibes so much better for everyone.
• Ask good questions during cross. It will benefit you and make it more fun to watch for me.

DON'T

• Spread or spew
• Gender your opponent in round. This is one of my biggest icks and you will immediately lose speaker points (especially if you get it wrong).
• Interrupt too much during cross. If they're going on a tangent I don't care, but let them finish answering your questions please.
• Get too heated or upset. It's just a debate round, you'll live.
• Make too many jokes. I enjoy a little bit of humor, but I'm weighing the round on flow and the quality of your points, not how funny you are.

I will be flowing the round and judging who wins mostly on that. I'm not going to flow cross, but I will keep it in mind, especially if I need a tiebreaker. Overall just take a deep breath, be professional, and have fun!

Hello! My name is Alyssa. I did policy throughout middle school and high school. I did attend policy camp in Wyoming summer of 2022. My senior year I mostly did various speech events (primarily Dramatic Interpretation). I competed on the nat circuit and won quite a few local circuit tournaments. I was fairly involved in policy for the majority of my high school career but I was also very involved in theatre and that is what I am pursuing in college. (I am currently a freshman in the Theatre Teaching Program at the U)

Alyssamiller996@gmail.com is my email for the email chain.

Speech

I have experience competing in DI, Spar, Character Spar, Impromptu and National Extemp. I typically focused my time in DI and Impromptu and I received achievements in those events. My background is in theatre so that heavily informs how I judge any speech event ( especially DI, HI, POI and DUO).

Some things I value are

Commitment: I should believe that you believe the things that you are saying, even if you think they are silly. If you are in an event where you are portraying someone else (DI, character spar...etc) you should never break character.

Diction: This means you need to speak clearly. If I cannot understand what you are saying that is not good.

Presence: You need to command the attention of the room. Be confident, have good posture, be passionate.

Eye contact: I am someone who likes eye contact. However, Never make eye contact with the judge the whole speech, thats creepy. I also like when a person gives the speech to the entirety of the room instead of only the judge. This is largely a personal preference though, honestly I'm fine with anything that feels natural.

Emotion: Depending on the event this can look different, but I do think every speech should make me feel something. Even an informative speech should make me think about a topic in a different way or call me to action. People who can make me feel something will always do better than someone who is bland and cannot.

Stuttering: I am not the type of judge to mark you down for stuttering once, but obviously the less filler words and stuttering the better you will do. I say this because everyone stutters every once in a while. What I care about is that you recover and continue to have a good speech after the fact.

Policy

some of my opinions/preferences :)

VOTERS ARE HUGE, 2NR 2AR it is your job to tell me why you won this debate. It makes it way easier for the judge and is just generally good practice.

I am not going to vote on what is not in the 2NR and 2AR. (don't worry 2NR I do finna be checking the 2AR lying)

performance is great, lovely even.

Who took away telling a good joke in Policy?? bring that back

I default to util framework and impact calc

Tech Over Truth.....In fact I care about 0% about truth. debate is a game :)

I LOVE AN AFF WITH A SILLY GOOFY NAME

DO NOT introduce yourself and your partner in the 1AC. I already know who is who and it doesn't read well in the policy debate space.

I do not flow CX but I do listen to CX. Please use CX to get great arguments but you have to make those arguments in your speeches. I hate a boring CX.

If you start a CX question with are you aware.... I will be sad.

K's slay just make sure you have a good link. I'm good for the K on neg. Also pls have an alt

I love a good K aff but I have never ran one myself- Ur good to run one but I do not have a ton of experience there just an FYI.

I probably won't vote for an anti spreading procedural (argument against spreading in policy debate).

T- Im not a fan of broad t definitions unless the AFF is genuinely untopical. I don't love T debates cause I am a former 2A who LOVED to write bearly topical AFFs. However, let the best debater win of course. Framework is also super important here. You have to prove both why they are untopical and why being untopical is bad. If the AFF drops T is prolly an automatic Neg ballot.

Plan text in a Vacuum is silly goofy.

Love going for Condo! However, if you go for condo with a team that does not know what condo is that's kinda just mean. You would still win but ur speaks would be BAD.

Don't Laugh at your opponents if they don't understand your argument-we were all beginners once too and ur gunna win anyways :)

Love a good reference to Legally Blonde, Musical Theatre, 2000's Pop songs, Sabrina Carpenter, anything trending on tik tok -may increase speaks

I am a lay judge but I have experience judging LD and PF. I became involved with debate because I wanted to support my daughter and my teaching colleagues. I appreciate slow, logical debating with good warrant comparison. Explain your arguments clearly in your summary and final focus and signpost clearly. Please be polite to each other and have fun!

Well, I had a much more detailed paradigm here but it has somehow disappeared.

I´m tabula rosa and a policy maker. Competed in policy in HS and coach now. Make sure you have clear impact calc. and clash. I don't like tag teaming during cross. Some speed is ok but don´t try to spread the other team out of the round you will likely lose clarity in the process and some arguments may be missed on my flow. Remember to persuade me, analyze your evidence and explain its meaning within the round clearly do not assume your evidence speaks for itself.

Kristen Parker

Judging Paradigm

I have 4 years of experience judging and coaching in competitive debate, with an extensive background in LD and PF. I am familiar with the current trends, strategies, and norms within NSDA debate formats, and I strive to apply my experience to ensure fair and effective evaluation of both the argumentation and the delivery of debaters.

Delivery Rate

I prefer a moderate delivery rate. While I understand the competitive nature of the activity, clarity is crucial. Too much spreading can be a distraction. I will not penalize debaters for a faster delivery as long as the arguments remain understandable. However, speaking too quickly to the point of making it difficult to follow or undermining the quality of delivery will impact my decision.

Note Taking/Flow

I am committed to taking thorough notes and maintaining an organized flow during the round. I will track the major points in each argument, counter-argument, and rebuttal carefully. In my decision-making, I will prioritize the logical structure, warrants, and the clash between teams. If something is unclear or not sufficiently developed, I will factor that into my evaluation.

Argument vs Style

While both argument quality and delivery style are important, I value argumentation more. A well-supported, well-reasoned case will often outweigh flashy or overly polished speaking style. That said, I believe a debater's ability to communicate clearly and persuasively is also vital and will consider style when it enhances the clarity and persuasiveness of an argument. I value the use of rhetorical appeals, and I do not value the use of any logical fallacies in arguments and rebuttals.

Expectations for in-round student conduct

I expect debaters to maintain a professional and respectful demeanor at all times. This includes listening actively, refraining from interruptions, and engaging respectfully with all sides of the debate. Civility is essential for a productive round, and I will not tolerate any form of personal attacks, disrespectful behavior, or unprofessionalism.

Active Listening and Constructive Feedback

Active listening is critical. I will focus intently on both the content of the round and the dynamics between the debaters. After the round, I will offer constructive feedback to help debaters improve, focusing on areas of strength as well as areas for growth. My goal is to help you become a better debater by providing feedback that is both actionable and supportive.

Fairness, Respect, Integrity

I prioritize fairness and integrity in my evaluation. All debaters deserve a chance to present their case and should be judged based on the quality of their arguments and conducts during a round. I value respect, both between debaters and toward me as the judge. I will always aim to provide a fair, unbiased decision grounded in the merit of the arguments presented.

Conclusion

Above all, my role as a judge is to ensure a fair and rigorous evaluation process while encouraging the growth and development of debaters. I look forward to a thoughtful and engaging round.

Lincoln Douglas is a value debate. I expect the framework to be a focal point of the round and debaters that drop the framework will likely drop the round.

It is not my job to fact check cards, however I have seen enough rounds where outright lies were presented as fact that I no longer can identify as a tabula rasa judge. If you blatantly try to BS in the round, I will put my thumb on the scale.

I do my best to flow the round in PF and LD. If you spread, I may miss things.

My background is in traditional LD, but I'm open to progressive arguments and will happily flow and consider Krtiics and counterplans.

======

If I am judging you in PF or Policy, I'll flow, try to follow the evidence

=====

Speech events :

I follow the rubric, I love speech events and do my best to provide valuable feedback.

Hello:) Just so you know, if you have questions about me or my paradigm that aren't answered here please take the time to ask me before the debate starts!

My Debate/Judging Experience:

I competed in PF debate for 4 years on the Utah circuit. I've also competed at 3 of the national tournaments during that time. I've done FX a couple of times but honestly, I'm primarily familiar w/ PF. I've judged a handful of tournaments since I graduated, and again, it's pretty much been PF.

Rate of Delivery/Jargon:

I am fairly familiar with most jargon you will use. If you use a term I don't understand, you will visibly see me get a confused look on my face. As far as speed goes, I'm fairly comfortable with talking fast. I'll weigh what I am able to write. The faster you speak, the more things I'm likely to miss.

My Flow:

As I said, I weigh the things I write. I will write down bullet points of each argument/response and track them as I hear them throughout the round. The more organized your speech is, the better my flow will look for you (I will ask for roadmaps before each speech). I will say this, if there is something you to stand out on my flow, literally tell me what you want me to write down during your speech and make sure I circle it. The most important thing to me on the flow is the impacts that are won. If you can clearly link your arguments to superior impacts and protect them throughout the round, you are likely to carry my ballot.

Argument vs Style:

Arguments ultimately win rounds for me. However, the better your style, the better I will receive your arguments. For example, if you are speaking in the same tone for your entire speech, I may likely zone out and miss your argument.

What Wins Debates For Me:

Like I said before, impacts are what win the debate for me. Specifically, there are two things I like to see when you present your impacts:

First, I want you to show me how your arguments affect real people. If you don't tell me how your argument is going to impact people's lives, it's not likely to influence my decision. Impacts like economic growth/decline are good, but I'll weigh it more if you can go deeper and tell me how those things will impact the lives of actual people.

Second, I want you to maintain a strong link between your argument and the impact. It doesn't matter that 50,000 people are dying if I can't clearly see how it connects to the resolution and your arguments. The stronger the connection between your arguments and impacts, the more weight it will have in my decision.

Because impacts are so important to me, I urge you to be very clear when explaining them to me. The clearer your impacts are, the better I will be able to flow them. If you really wanna make sure I catch your impacts, tell me to circle them on my flow during your speech.

Conduct:

I like it when teams are respectful. Please separate the arguments from the arguer. You can be critical of the arguments while still being nice to your opponent. My favorite rounds are the ones where both teams are having fun together! If you can have fun together, I will favor you!

Hello, my name is Tamara Townsend Faucette. I am an energy and environmental attorney. I really enjoy judging and am so impressed with the intelligence and professionalism of the competitors. Things I look for:

1) Energy- whatever side you are arguing, step fully into that role and persuade me that it is your preferred position. Often the passion and energy of a competitor shows their preparation and enthusiasm for the topic. Persuade me that you should win.
2) Responsive- Show your flexibility and depth of knowledge by specifically attacking your opponents case with logic and evidence.
3) Respect- A vigorous debate is encouraged but please maintain the highest level of professionalism and respect.

I have judged a lot of debate events. I do not mind spreading as long as I have a copy of the brief. If you plan to spread put me on the email chain.

I appreciate off-time roadmaps. Please do not spread during off-time roadmaps--that is a chance for me to understand your organization. Use words not lingo in your roadmap--it does not count against your time.

I do not like a ton of lingo or abbreviations, especially in policy debate. I understand the lingo but I would rather hear your analysis in full words not abbreviations.

Your debate experience will serve you well and build resilience. I hope you enjoy the process! Thank you, Tamara Townsend Faucette

I did LD debate in high school, so it's the format I'm most familiar with. I judge based on presentation, source citation, credibility, and defense for debate events. For speech events I judge based on ethos, pathos, logos, impact, and persuasiveness. In all debates I DO NOT stand for bullying, if you attack people rather than cases I will note it for your coaches and end the round in favor of the team not attacking people. 30 second grace period over and under, I only take one point per person per round

Quentin Unsworth - He/Him Pronouns

Experience:

I am currently the Head Speech and Debate Coach of Logan High School (10 years).

I participated in High School and College Speech and Debate.

Debate specific items:

I am fine if you want to go faster. I would stop short of "spreading". I like an urgent delivery but I do struggle with some "spreading" especially when students try to speak faster than their abilities allow. If you would like to go faster please slow down for your tags and authors. This is still a communication event and I need to be able to understand and follow you.

I do not want to be on the email chain. This is a communication activity and I will only evaluate what I hear in round. It is your responsibility to be clear.

This is your activity/round and you should do whatever you want. I will vote on anything you tell me to provided you explain why. I am not a huge fan of theory debates primarily because most students do this wrong. If you want to run theory arguments make sure that you know what you are doing and that you fully develop the theory in context of the round and topic.

Framework is important and should be carried throughout the entire round. If you tell me to view the round through a certain lens then all the work that you do needs to fit within that lens.

I need analysis on the card. Please do not just read the card. I will not do the leg work for you.

Please avoid "REHASH" if you want to bring up the same argument multiple times I need you to do something new with it. I want meaningful extension beyond the words: "extend my such and such evidence", again I will not do the leg work for you. Dive deeper.

If you need/want me to pay attention to something that happens during cross-examination you need to mention this in your speech time. I think cross-examination can be really important but I do not flow cross-examination.

Go line by line during rebuttal or at least clearly roadmap and identify where you are on the flow so that I can follow you.

Begin collapsing the round early, do not waist time on arguments you know do not matter. I like clear voters that show me you know how to prioritize and evaluate everything that has happened in the round.

Things to do Speech and Debate:

Have fun. This activity requires far too much effort and energy for us not to enjoy it. If you are not having fun you are doing something wrong or it may be time to consider trying something else (possibly a new event).

Be kind. I appreciate passion and conviction and think that witty observations are fun, however I do not enjoy watching rounds where students are rude to each other and/or the judge. We are all at different levels and are all here to learn.

Do the leg work for me. If something is important and you want me to vote on it, fully develop that idea. Do not assume that everyone understands the complex arguments you have spent countless hours developing. At times you may need to educate me/your opponents about a unique concept or interpretation in order to really have meaningful dialog.

Be professional. Act and behave in a manner consistent with the effort and energy required for you to participate in this activity. Respect the time of your opponents and judge. You need to be prepared, this activity is far too challenging to attempt with anything less than your best effort.

Be Topical. You can run unique and progressive arguments but you need to clearly (link) identify and establish why your approach is the most appropriate approach given the designated topic.

Things to avoid:

Foul language for the sake of foul language. I am not personally offended by "foul" language but I expect more out of Speech and Debate students. Do not feel like you need to edit language out of a script or quote but think about your own personal word choices and use language that reflects your intelligence and professionalism.

"Yelling" at the judge. I have found that students who try to go fast in round often "yell" at the judge. I am usually sitting a few feet from you and I prefer a volume level and tone that is appropriate for such a setting.

Stealing Prep Time.

The New England Patriots, onions, chewing with your mouth open/smacking gum or other food (this aggravates me more than anything else in the world) , snakes and sharks.

I value clear, persuasive delivery paired with solid, well-supported evidence. Presenters who articulate their arguments with confidence and structure will hold my attention and earn higher marks. I appreciate when evidence is not only cited but thoroughly explained and connected back to the arguments at hand.

What I Look For:
1. Delivery: Engaging and persuasive delivery makes a difference. Speak clearly, at a measured pace, and with emphasis where appropriate. Ensure your points are well-organized and transitions between arguments are smooth.

2. Evidence Quality: Strong arguments rely on strong evidence. I expect sources to be credible, relevant, and clearly linked to your claims. Avoid relying solely on high quantities of evidence; quality and relevance matter more.

3. Respect: I value respectful interactions between debaters. While debate is competitive, maintaining professionalism and courtesy toward each other reflects well on your character and strengthens the overall quality of the debate.

4. Clarity: I appreciate debaters who prioritize clarity over speed. Make your points understandable to all, and avoid jargon-heavy explanations without adequate context.

Preferences:
- Frameworks: Clearly establish and stick to the framework throughout the debate.
- Cross-examination: Use it to clarify or expose weaknesses, not as an opportunity for performative argumentation.
- Respectful Interactions: While debate is competitive, I value decorum and respect among participants.

What I Don’t Prioritize:
- Excessive speed without substance.
- Arguments that lack grounding in evidence.
- Overly technical arguments that don’t translate into clear impacts.

Present your case with confidence and clarity, and you’ll have my support.

I have judged Policy yearly for the past 15 years. I prefer LD and PF, but I am familiar with the ins and outs, but I don't know them intuitively as I have never competed in Policy. I am willing to try and follow whatever you present. However, I expect you to communicate with me. I am the judge, not your opponent. What that means is this, you need to tell me what you are doing and why. Slow down and communicate with me. When I say slow down, what I mean is this:

1. I don't follow speed. I try, but I won't get most of what you say if you are going a million miles an hour. However, I understand the strategy and need. If you spread, you need to slow down and tell why I should care about what you just said. Give me a quick, slowed down summary of what you said, and why I should care.

2. Make taglines very clear! Don't assume I heard your 'next DA' when you're going a million miles an hour. If you want it on my flow, make it clear what it is and where to put it. Spread the rest, but slow down for taglines and summarize what you just said! This is especially important for the 1AC and 1NC.

3. Email chains are helpful, but not. It is nice to have an email chain, but if I have to read the email to understand what you are saying, why give speeches? Also, trying to follow evidence because I can't understand you makes it difficult for me as a judge. I will refer to reference, but will not pour over it after a round to determine a winner. Doing that means I don't need to hear from you. I could sit at home and read your evidence to determine a winner. Don't rely on chains.

Lincoln Douglas

I prefer traditional LD Debate with a Value/Criterion. I have voted for flex-negs, and other more progressive type arguments, but I prefer debates that use Value/Criterion. Don't spread! If you spread in LD, I won't flow. You can go at a crisp pace. In fact, I prefer a crisp paces, but...spread and you will most likely lose.

I have participated in speech and debate for 5+ years, in high school and college. I participated in interp and memorized IE events (high school and college) and British Parlimentary, IPDA, and NPDA debate (college).

First, and most important, please show your opponent(s) the respect they deserve as fellow humans. I will not tolerate any hateful or discriminatory arguments, or any discriminatory behavior. If it happens, I will automatically give you the loss.

Second, be clear why you have won! They don't necessarily have to be labeled as 'voters' or anything, but you have to do the impact calculus to explain why those things are better/worse than the arguments from your opposition. Yes, I can probably do the work to understand the argument in my own head, but I'm not supposed to be doing that. Walk me through the steps that get you the win.

Third, stay organized. Don't jump all over the flow without telling me where you are going, otherwise I won't know where to write it down and I'll end up missing it. I want to be able to give you the best chance of winning, but if I miss any information, especially important information, I won't be able to use it to make my decision.

On some more specifics of debate:

- Spread at your own risk. I will do my best to keep up with you, but I cannot vote on arguments that I do not hear, cannot understand, or don't get written down. Also, please slow if I or your opponent ask you to, it is not a good look to deliberately speed others out of participating in a round. I will vote on speed bad arguments if they are made correctly.

- I think critical debate can be super interesting, but do not run it if you do not fully understand it. Additionally, if you are running a K aff please give me clear reasons why.

- If you are going to stick with a theory argument, please collapse to it. You should only be reading your disad/counter plan/etc in later speeches to give evidence why the round is unfair. Also please make sure to demonstrate proven abuse. I will vote on potential abuse if necessary, but I'd rather vote on proven abuse.

If there are any other questions you have that are not answered here, please ask!

ADDED JUNE 2023

I've had about one year of experience judging debates at the High School level. My experience has largely been with congress and public forum events. As a judge, my primary focus is to ensure a fair and objective evaluation of the participants' performances. I firmly believe that decisions should be based solely on the merits of the arguments presented and should not be influenced by personal or political biases. I will approach each round with an open mind, giving equal consideration to all viewpoints and avoiding any preconceived notions.

In evaluating the strength of an argument, I value the use of evidence from reputable sources. The inclusion of well-supported facts, statistics, and expert opinions can significantly enhance the persuasiveness of an argument. Participants who effectively incorporate such evidence into their speeches will receive due recognition for their analytical and research skills.

Furthermore, I will take into account the presentation style of each participant. While this includes aspects such as speech clarity, annunciation, and projection, it extends beyond these technical elements. I appreciate engaging speakers who effectively connect with their audience, employing appropriate gestures, vocal variation, and overall stage presence. These qualities contribute to the overall impact and effectiveness of the speaker's message.