I have been judging multiple speaking event for the past two years. I am an English teacher, so, naturally, I will notice organization, credible evidence, clear arguments. For debate events: make sure you point out your framework clearly. I do not care for spreading and I do like when you layout why you think you've won. I have a basic understanding of the jargon, but do not usually speak to it in my critiques; however, I will try.

For reference, I competed mainly in a Traditional circuit, so i have more experience with traditional arguments. That said, I'm not totally opposed to progressive styles when done correctly.

Speed: I can keep up with a pretty fast pace, but I do based my evaluation of the round based on the flow. Meaning if you go too fast for me to flow, it won't get counted towards the round

Role of the ballot: i believe the ballot is to determine if the resolution should be affirmed or rejected. as such, I only value arguments on the affirmative that affirm the resolution itself and arguments of the negative that reject the resolution itself.

Plans: I generally am comfortable with plans if they are within the scope of the resolution.

Counterplan: I am okay with counterplans on the neg that are still negating the resolution. I don't like Counterplans that are just affirming the resolution in a different way.

K arguments: Topical K's to the resolution are generally okay. I don't value non-topical K's and am not a big fan of Language K's.

Theory: Theory is fine as a mechanism to argue against abusive tactics in debate.

I am a volunteer and this is my first time judging

The role of a judge is to provide a fair and constructive evaluation of each speaker's performance. Following that, I will be assessing the performances, primarily, based on content, delivery, and organization.

• Content should be clear, relevant, with a clearly stated impact.
• Delivery should be at an appropriate pace and volume.
• Organization of content should be reflected by a clear introduction, body, and conclusion.

Along with this, everyone must show respect for their fellow participants.

good luck!

I am a 2nd time judging parent.

My name is Petteri Litmanen and I'm a parent judge and relatively new to judging LD.

I prefer normal taking speed and clear arguments or opinions.

Sarah Lyngholm

Affiliation: Plano Senior High 2019

Experience: Competed at haggard middle school, Judged middle school events in high school, and I have been judging High school tournaments since 2021.

Contact: selyngholm@gmail.com

A little about me:

She/Her.

Transphobia, Homophobia, and Racism are not received well unless necessary to the piece.

I will always appreciate a warning about any sensitive content in a piece.

I will not stand for inappropriate etiquette within the tournaments. I encourage students to stay off of their phones (unless taking notes), stay quiet between speakers, and refrain from eating/chewing gum during rounds. Being disrespectful during rounds will end up on ballots, but will not affect the competitor's rank (unless absolutely necessary).

I am typically an I/E judge, so keep that in mind if putting me in a debate pool. I do not favor spreading during debate rounds, and I will judge based on how you present your piece or argument.

TREAT PEOPLE WITH KINDNESS AND RESPECT.

Add me to your email chain - colleyvilledebatedocs@gmail.comOR add me on your speech drop.

My name is William Mathison. I'm the coach at Colleyville Heritage High School. It's my second year coaching at Colleyville. I have no debate experience as a competitor. Because of this fact; the less jargon you use, the better. I understand the basics but don't be surprised if I ask you what ____ means because I am still getting used to the debate jargon. Point is, just because I don't understand it right away doesn't mean it's bad. I try to be open minded, even if I don't understand the wording of something right away,

If you spread make sure to add me to your SpeechDrop or email chain. I can flow the 1AC or 1NC off of the doc but if I can't understand you during any rebuttal speech and don't slow down at 'Clear', you'll definitely lose speaker points and there's a good chance I'll miss it on my flow.

I'm the most familiar with PF and LD since that's what I've judged the most of. I've judged IE's before as well.

Preferences for LD (in this order)

FW Debates -I do enjoy a good FW debate. At the very least you need to weigh yours against your opponent's, but if you want my vote oftentimes you'll need to tell me why yours is to be preferred or it's a prereq, etc.

CP/DA/Advantages - I'll definitely evaluate these as long as there's some strategic net benefit to the CP.

T, Theory - If you can explain it for a middle schooler, then I'll be just fine. Otherwise, there's a chance I will not evaluate it either from a lack of understanding or because it's abusive.

Non-T Affs - It's my opinion that the resolution is as stated for good reason and there's a lot of benefits to gain from remaining topical, such as the educational value of the topic. If you decide to run a non-topical affirmative, I believe it does need to have some semblance of relevancy to the topic. That might seem like a backwards way of thinking but I think there's more value to gain from having some sort of link to the topic. This does not mean I'm going to vote them down immediately, it just means I'm less likely to vote on them if I don't see any shred of relevancy.

Kritiks -This is pref'd lower simply because I have not read the literature on the most common K's and don't feel entirely comfortable evaluating these. I'm open to hearing the argument but if I have to vote on it that could be tricky for both of us. I certainly doubt my ability to provide feedback on them as well. Definitely simplify K FW. Point is; if you’re wanting to run a K, I’m likely the wrong person to pref or ask for in depth feedback.

Friv Theory, Spikes, Tricks - I simply have not heard enough of these, I don't understand them well enough, and have not been apart of enough discussions to feel confident enough to vote on these, so run them at your own risk. I try to be open minded in general, but if I simply don't understand something I don't feel as though I can vote for it. Don't be afraid to ask me about something specific, but also don't be totally shocked if you run these and lose. I will not vote on Eval.

Speaker Points for LD and PF

30: Perfection

29-29.9: Great with a couple notes

28-28.9: Good but needs some work

27-27.9: Needs significant work

26.9 or less: offensive comments or other in-round abuse took place

LD Debate

Aff has the convince me to support the resolution. Neg has an obligation to provide clash, and if either fail in their respective roles, then the win falls to the one that does it correctly.

Presenting arguments/speeches should be in an easy, digestible way.

Congress

-The main thing I'm looking for as a judge is how much of an overall impact you're making throughout the round--actively listening is key. Are you bringing up new arguments/evidence or are you just repeating things that have already been said? Are you asking questions that continue to develop the debate through the different rhetorical appeals?

-Quality > Quantity

-The more you embrace the nature of the debate + the event overall, the better you'll do in my eyes.

Simply put, speak so that I may understand you clearly.

I competed in Speech & Debate from 2010-2013. I was a DI State Champion in 2013. I was a NSDA Poetry Finalist in 2013. I was also a UIL State Poetry Finalist in 2012 and 2013. I am also a OO Semifinalist at the Harvard National Speech & Debate Tournament.

I am a parent judge, and this may be my first time judging this event. Please be patient.

Speech:

· Overall engaging presentation

· Clear, enunciated delivery with matching non-verbal gestures

· Easy to follow storyline / Logical progression of content

· Well-developed characters and transitions

· Topic selection

· Appropriate source citations

Debate:

TLDR; Fewer arguments with better evidence and explanation is better than many arguments without substance)

· Clear, enunciated delivery (I can't judge what I can't understand)

·Delivery style and persuasive speech (Impacts speaker points more than outcome)

·Include any information you want to be used for judging in your speeches. DO NOT assume I will read the documents.

· Logical, reasoned arguments and effective rebuttals (Please make your logic chain very clear; if I don't understand, I will disregard)

·Truth > Technique (If you are going to use something counter to common knowledge, don't assume I will accept it without evidence)

· Researched content and source citations

· A civil debate - aggression is OK, but offensive or insulting is unacceptable

Good luck to all competitors!

Welcome, debaters! As your judge, I want to share my approach to ensure a fair and constructive round for everyone.

For debaters: I recognize that Public Forum debates require you to pack a lot of content into limited time, but clarity and pacing are crucial. Please prioritize clear communication over speed so I can fully understand and assess each of your arguments. I’m looking for solid logic, strong evidence, and structured contentions to support your stance.

For those participating in speech categories: I’ll be looking closely at confidence, volume, and whether the question is fully answered. Make sure you’re using credible sources to support your points, as these strengthen the impact of your argument. Overall delivery will be key—I want to see engaging performances that showcase both your knowledge and communication skills.

After the round, I’ll work to input rankings or speaker points or both quickly and provide meaningful feedback to help you improve in future debates.

I’m excited to hear everyone’s ideas and witness the results of your hard work. Let’s make it a great round!

Attn: All debaters, please avoid jargon due to the fact I have only judged one Congress competition and no Debate rounds. Please avoid speaking too quickly and I will do my best to take thorough and clear notes on your speeches and points given. Thank you.

Hi,

I am a novice parent judge who works in IT and I follow the news every day and try to be updated on world events. Try to stay abreast of events around me to the best of my capabilities

I have a background in acting and usually coach/judge interp & public speaking. I am looking for those hallmarks that make a story complete. In extemp, even as a person who has no knowledge base of the topic should at the end of your speech have a firm grasp of its background and you argument in the matter. Informative speeches should be clear and should include creative visuals, interesting takeaways, and a concise train of thought. Oration should be a place to share experiences either personal or researched. The personal experience should be authentic and tied to the topic. Oratory should be a place to advocate for the things you believe to be important. Hi, Di, Duo, Duet, Poi, etc, should have a story that through the acting/blocking is easy to follow and enjoy. Contestants should always be courteous in the round and respectful of competitors and judges. Final interp ranks are factored between story, technical blocking, acting, and overall effect.