** side notes from judge

DEBATE:

Speed

I do not like speed I do prefer a pace where all judges and contestants can understand as well, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you did not make it to the ballot, however I will still try to keep up. Therefore, keep in mind mumbling the word is NOT saying the word so if I say CLEAR -> it means that make sure that each word is being pronounced correctly. The word LOUD means speech a bit louder to hear you.

Build the value that is not overly complicated and should be relatable, and criterion should not be over technical. Critical argument should provide substantial evidence for their support. Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples, no paraphrasing. Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches and extend arguments individually. As for speed, I do not mind (pretty open minded) as long as each word is understandable and clear for hearing. Please remember that mumbling words can be hard for your judge to evaluate you. However, it is safe to ask the judge at the beginning of the round just to be on the safe side. The focus should be winning the debate (more like convincing your judge), not just attacking a person's style or flaws of method. Remember that in order to win a round, respect towards your opponent is paramount. It is hard to find in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent in or out of round. Graceful winners are as important as the one that did not win.

Speaker Points

25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.

27 is average. Speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.

28 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices well.

29-30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies. 30 usually goes to the contestant that kept it professional from the beginning to the end of the round

**Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally un-responded to but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.

Good luck Contestants.

Email Chain: alejojaz000@gmail.com

As a judge I have a responsibility to the process. To remain open minded, treat the debaters with respect (in words and deed), encourage them, and remember this is an educational opportunity. Debating is a great way to learn to think outside the box, to learn from other student's experiences and exposures and evaluate what is said. These are life skills that will carry them far.

I am a retired administrator and Fine Arts Coordinator but, I do judge regularly and serve as the UIL One Act Play trainer for adjudicators. As a former speech and debate coach I enjoy seeing students share what they have learned while researching, analyzing and preparing to create, present and defend their case. Applying the basics of debate and some creative strategies, they are able to challenge the most savvy opponent and work to PERSUADE me to see things their way. I must admit that I have learned a lot from students, and I love it. Whether they are working individually or as a team they can employ critical thinking, logic, reasoning and argumentation. They learn to take a stand and defend it and, by all means remain TOPICAL and present what they have worked on.

Presentation and delivery are key. Rate does not bother me however, I expect you to speak as clearly as possible to be heard and understood. I take detailed notes. Oftentimes, any information requiring clarification will be resolved. Argument and style are equally important to me. They work to compliment each other. Specific words and phrases drive delivery and require amplification when used.

I pride myself in being a life long learner so I listen critically and focus on key points to see if it makes sense. Please keep me engaged. Back up your claims with solid references?

Each round is new and stands on it's own no matter how many times I have heard the topic debated. There is no comparing or contrasting.

Debate coach specializing primarily in Public Forum debate.

Things that generally make a debate round enjoyable for me are the interactions between debaters through clash, cross examination, rebuttals, POIs, etc.

I don’t like judging rounds where I am just being read at.

When it comes to speed, I prefer slower deliveries. I value speeches that are understandable, stylized, and with inflections that highlight the most important aspects of your case. A rapid delivery dumping card after card does not impress me.

I value manners and sportsmanship EXTREMELY heavily. Debate is supposed to be fun and engaging. If I feel like a debater/team is being overly aggressive, demeaning, or rude, the speaker points and possibly the ballot will reflect that. You should ultimately welcome a lively discourse with your opponents. Even if you are facing a team that is inexperienced or unprepared you should try to promote a discourse and avoid intimidating or shutting them out of the round.

Ultimately, thank you for the time and effort you put into debate. It’s a pleasure to be involved in the debate community and to work with debate students. I hope you get something valuable out of the debate experience and make some lasting memories.

PF Specific Items:

I prefer the "old PF" style where speeches were more persuasive and accessible to the general public and less about dumping cards.

Truth > tech

I do not like Ks or Theory arguments in PF. I do not want to be on any email chains.

Please do not cite NSDA, TFA, or the Public Forum "rule books" to me at any point in the round. Yes I know PF shouldn't have counterplans, bring up new evidence in the final focus, etc. and I can decide what I won't consider in a decision. I'm also not going to decide a round on minor technicalities.

The easiest PF rounds for me to judge are the ones where debaters use their final focus speeches effectively. I don't need to hear the line by line recap of the round for potentially the third time. I want to hear why your team won and it should be more than just how the other team dropped all their arguments or how all your arguments went conceded. Highlight the most important argument in the round and key areas of clash and how (through weighing/calculus) your side wins the clash. If done correctly, I should be able to recite parts of your final focus in my Reason For Decision.

I am a parent judge. I will be judging you based on your confidence level, strength of your argument, and clarity in speech. I will also be looking for logical reasoning in your arguments.

Interp Events:

My rankings are usually based on who is able to create the most believable characters and moments. There should be multiple levels within your piece and in the portrayal of your characters ~ not everything should be intense, or fast/slow, or super loud or quiet.

Everything you do in your performance should have a purpose. If you give a character an accent, be consistent with that accent. Make sure that each movement, mannerism, or gesture makes sense within the scope of the story you are telling. Additionally, I should be able to easily differentiate between multiple characters. Facial expressions, moments, and character development are very important for the overall performance.

Speaking Events

A clear structure is important: your delivery should be cohesive, and flow logically from point to point. A natural delivery style that allows for your personality to shine is preferable to the “Platform Speaker”. Put simply: avoid speech patterns.

Extemp: The most important thing is that you answer the question! A polished speaking style is important, but I will often default to a speaker that has stronger analysis and evidence over a pretty speech with fluffy content. Do not rely on canned introductions - creativity is important when trying to engage me.

Oratory/Informative: Your attention getter, vehicle, and conclusion should be creative, but they also need to fit well with the topic. Again, I will default to stronger analysis/evidence over fluffy content.

I have been judging since 2009.

i prefer conversational rate of delivery. I know of no profession that spreads or talks really fast other than an auctioneer. Your delivery of information is to help the person hearing you and convince them you have the best argument so you can win the decision rendered.

i enjoy judging: LD, Impromptu, Informative, Original Oratory.

What I am looking for in speech rounds is technique. Clean pops and transition.

Looking for consistency and that you have a clear understanding of the material.

CONSISTENCY!

In debate, specifically LD, I'm a big case based judge. Looking for dropped arguments and cards to support your stance. Up to date cards! I am ok with speed just make sure you are clear!

I was a competitor in speech and debate and have served as a contract coach for several highschools for going on 4 years now.

Speech - Organized arguments, credible sources, practical solutions, relatability is probably the biggest thing for me. I love speeches where personalities show through and I can see how you are as a person.Interp - Relatable pieces with big, distinguishable characters.

WSD - I want a conversational round with a crystallization of points at the end. Clear voters are always the way to go. POIs should be addressed consistently however not everyone needs to be taken.

I am a parent judge. I encourage clear articulation and arguments. Therefore, please speak slowly and loudly. I weigh logical arguments over evidence, though having more evidence is always good.

Andrew Gibson
Director of Forensics at The Woodlands College Park High School
Speech Drop Preffered




Before the round/ During the round logistics
A big thing for me is staying on time at any tournament therefore I will be starting the round when both teams are present. Please pre-flow before the round starts. I should not be waiting long periods of time to actually start the round. I am the same way with prep time during a round I believe this has becomes extremely abused in todays circuits. Do not tell me "I will take 1.5 minutes of prep and then the timer goes off and you take another 5 minutes to get to the podium. It is always running prep When a speech ends and you are taking prep simply say starting prep now and keep a running clock. Once you are at the podium ready to speak say cease prep and start your roadmap. Sharing Speeches is INCLUDED in speech time


Policy (UPDATED FOR TFA STATE)

I am a more Traditional Style of Judge. Speed doesnt bother me too much as long as you are clear and dont spread tags/analytics.

T - I love Topicality debates if they are ran correctly make sure there is clash on standards and abuse is shown. Paint the story as to why this skewed the round in any capacity.

Theory -My theory threshold is High I have to see clear abuse

DA/CP/Case Debate - This is probably the easiest way to my ballot. Impact calculus is very important for me paint a picture as to what the affirmative plan looks like and what the world looks like either in SQ or Counterplan world.

Kritik -I am not a K judge this will be a tough way to my ballot. if you are going to run it I prefer case specfic not generic K's just to the topic not the case.

Role of ballot is big for me tell me what my ballot does and why I should use my power as judge to pull the trigger.

Any questions please feel free to ask!

In any debate event, try not to spread too much. Some speed is fine, but I can't vote based on arguments I can't understand.

If I'm judging you in congress, you have a few things to keep in mind. First, pay attention to what the other speakers are saying about the bill at hand. If you're considering giving a speech, make sure you are adding something new to the debate. If you're not, the speech will do more to hurt your rank in the room than help it. When it comes to questions, don't just ask to ask. If you don't use the information you gained in a speech, what was the point of asking? POs - if debate on a bill has gone on for more than 5 cycles, and you aren't encouraging the room to move on, I will have a less favorable view of your performance. I know that you can't control what the room wants to do, but you have to at least try to get them to move on. For my sake.

For interp events, I pay close attention to the flow of the cut, unique characterizations (including voice and body language), and transitions. Make sure those pantomimes are clean!

For speaking events, fluency is important. Make sure your ideas flow well from one point to the next. Make it very clear when you are transitioning from one point to the next - I should never be confused as to where you are in a speech.

In extemp, be sure to actually answer the question, and try to connect each point back your answer as a whole. Bonus points for smooth transitions, and an intro that connects back to the conclusion.

I am a stickler for good presentation and civil debate. Respect and clear argumentation are important for me in all events. I will be very focused on the flow of argumentation and will judge off of what was presented and how.

Congress: Good use of sources, creative speech writing, persuasive delivery, clash, and adherence to Parliamentary procedure are essential. It is also important that the chamber act respectfully and cooperatively, where civil debate occurs and the conversation is not dominated by any individual or group of competitors.

CX: Affirmative teams will need to address stock issues convincingly. Clash and Extension in later rounds are more important than new arguments. Avoid spreading.

LD: I prefer traditional LD. No spreading, civil clash, and a strong emphasis on philosophy over policy. I will tolerate progressive debate/Kritiks and policy, however, be careful and make sure your case is well crafted.

IEs: Do not overcomplicate your performance. I am looking for effective delivery and compelling storytelling!

PF: I prefer to hear good arguments and sources. Spreading is not encouraged. Good summaries and crystallization are key.

WSD: Clash is key. Crystallize the differences and present mechanisms effectively. Spreading is not encouraged.

Background

I am a debate coach and familiar with all formats of debate. Primary focus is now World Schools Debate. I have coached teams and competed on the international level with those teams so I am well versed in WSD. Embrace the format of this special debate. I don't enjoy seeing a PF attempt in this format-make the adjustment and be true to the form as intended for it to be.

Judging Paradigm

I'm a policy-maker at heart. Decisions will be flow-based focusing on impact calculus stemming from the question of the resolution.

If I'm not flowing, I'm either not buying your current argument or not appreciating your speaking style.

Play offense and defense; I should have a reason to vote FOR you, not just a reason to vote AGAINST your opponents.

WSD-Show me what the world looks like on your side of the motion-stay true to the heart of the motion

Style:

Manners

Yes, manners. Good debate is not rude or snarky. Do not let your primal need to savagely destroy your opponent cost you the round. Win with style and grace or find yourself on the wrong side of the ballot. You've been warned.

WSD- I love the passion and big picture

Speed

Speed is not a problem with me, it's probably more of a problem with you. Public Forum is not "Policy-lite" and should not be treated as such as far as speaking style goes. The beauty of PF should not get lost in trying to cram in arguments. Many times spreading in PF just tells me you need work in word economy and style. Feel free to speak at an elevated conversational rate displaying a rapid clarity that enhances the argument.

WSD-Don't even think about speed!

Organization

Speeches should follow the predetermined road map and should be signposted along the way. If you want an argument on the flow, you should tell me exactly where to flow it. If I have to make that decision for you, I may not flow it at all. I prefer your arguments and your refutation clearly enumerated; "We have 3 answers to this..."

Framework and Definitions

The framework (and definitions debate) should be an umbrella of fairness to both sides. The framework debate is important but should not be over-limiting to your opponents. I will not say "impossible" here, but winning the round without winning your framework is highly improbable. I am open to interpretation of the resolution, but if that interpretation is overtly abusive by design, I will not vote for your framework. That said, I caution your use of abuse stories. Most abuse arguments come off like whining, and nobody likes that. If a framework and accompanying definition is harmful to the debate, clearly spell out the impacts in those terms. Otherwise, provide the necessary (and much welcomed) clash. Most definition debates are extremely boring and a waste of time.

Final Focus

Your FF should effectively write the RFD for me. Anything less is leaving it up to my interpretation.

Good luck, and thank you for being a debater.

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Alief Elsik High School in Houston, TX. As such, I currently coach and/or oversee students competing in a wide variety of events including all speech/interp events as well as Congress and World Schools debate. My debate paradigm is better explained if you know my history in competitive debate. I was an LD debater in high school in the early 90's. I then competed in CEDA/policy debate just before the CEDA/NDT merger. I started coaching speech and debate in 2004. In terms of debate, I have coached more LD than anything else but have also had a good deal of experience with Public Forum debate. Now that I am at Elsik, we really only have WSD and Congressional Debate in terms of debate events.

When adjudicating rounds, I do my very best to intervene as little as possible. I try to base decisions solely off of the flow and want to do as little work as possible for debaters. I hate when LD debaters, in particular, attempt to run policy positions in a round and don't have a clue about how the positions function. If you run policy stuff, then you should know policy stuff. I am open to the use of policy type arguments/positions in an LD round but I want debaters to do so knowing that I expect them to know how to debate such positions. I am also open to critical arguments as long as there is a clear story being told which offers the rationale for running such arguments and how the argument is to be evaluated in round. I am not a huge fan of a microdebate on theory and I strongly encourage you to only run theoretical arguments if there is clearly some in round abuse taking place. I will obviously listen to it and even vote there if the flow dictates it but know that I will not be happy about it. In terms of speed/jargon/etc, I do have a mixed debate background and I can flow speed when it's clear. I don't judge a ton of rounds any more as I find myself usually trapped in tab rooms at tournaments so I cannot keep up the way I used to. With that said, my body language is a clear indicator of whether or not I am flowing and keeping up. I do see debate as a game in many ways, however I also take language very seriously and will never vote in favor of a position I find to be morally repugnant. Please understand that to run genocide good type arguments in front of me will almost certainly cost you the round. Other than those things, I feel that I am pretty open to allowing debaters to determine the path the rounds take. Be clear, know your stuff and justify your arguments.

The last thing I think debaters should know about me is that I deplore rude debate. There is just no room in debate for nasty, condescending behavior. I loathe snarky cross ex. There is a way to disagree, get your point across and win debate rounds without being a jerk so figure that out before you get in front of me. Perceptual dominance does not mean you have to be completely obnoxious. I will seriously dock speaker points for behavior I find rude. As a former coach of an all women's debate team, I find sexist, misogynist behavior both unacceptable and reason enough to drop a team/debater.

I feel compelled to add a section for speech/interp since I am judging way more of these events lately. I HATE HATE HATE the use of gratuitous, vulgar language in high school speech/debate rounds. In speech events in particular, I find that it is almost NEVER NECESSARY to use foul language. I am also not a huge fan of silly tech and sound fx in interp events. Not every door needs WD40...lose the squeaky doors please. I think the intro is the space where you should be in your authentic voice telling us about your piece and/or your argument - STOP OVER-INTERPING intro's. Sometimes folks think loud volume = more drama. It doesn't. Learn to play to your space. Also recognize that sometimes silence and subtlety can be your best friends. With regard to OO and INFO...I think these are public speaking events. Interpatories generally don't sit well with me. I don't mind personality and some energy but I am finding that there are some folks out here doing full on DI's in these events and that doesn't work for me very often. I am not one that requires content/trigger warnings but do understand the value of them for some folks. I am really VERY DISTURBED by able-bodied interpers playing differently-abled characters in ways that only serve as caricatures of these human beings and it's just offensive to me so be careful if you choose to do this kind of piece in front of me. Also know that although I have very strong feelings about things, I understand that there are always exceptions to the rule. Brilliant performances can certainly overcome any shortcomings I see in piece selection or interpretation choices. So best of luck.

Hi :) If you have any questions about my paradigms don't hesitate to ask!

Debate:

- Big fan of weighing, framing, and structure!

- Please do NOT spread ( if you are taking that fast loud deep breath you're probably spreading )

- Truth > Tech

- I value cx and poi's focus on strategic questions rather than evidence clash

- I do flow the round mostly on my paper so I'm sorry if my flow is not included in the comments

- (worlds aka the best event!) Make sure to have international examples and extra content points for being funny!

Speech:

- Be confident and comfortable with your speech

- A big fan of structure!

Interp:

- Be comfortable and confident with your speech

- make sure to properly distinguish characters and have a cohesively cut piece

- Big fan of blocking and dynamics!

I believe that everyone has a voice which needs a platform to embrace self-expression, unique personalities, and the social construct of expressive speech in a safe, nurturing environment. As long as we follow the words of Benjamin Franklin, "Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment," for ignorance shall not prevail!

It is imperative to be polite, purposeful. and punctual.

With Lincoln Douglas (LD), I prefer traditional value and criterion debate, impact calculus, solvency, and line-by-line. Speech should have obvious organization which allows me to make a well-informed decision, focusing on presentation, logic, argumentation, and conclusion with a summary to wrap up the topic presented.

With Public Forum (PF), I prefer line-by-line, impact calculus, solid evidence from valid sources, be polite, and time yourselves. There should be a pre-determined resolution based on current events and trends. I should hear valuable insights. If you are providing a "filler", this will guarantee a low score, especially if it is personally offensive to the opponent or other marginalized groups.

With World Schools, I prefer obvious teamwork, focused on the issue presented with in-depth, quality argumentation creating solves with real-world examples while challenging the opposing team on a principled level.

With Congress, I look for proper parliamentary procedures and clarity of delivery through rigor, focused on democracy and clarity of ideas, seriousness in demeanor, and effective empowerment in speaking extemporaneously about the topic. Authenticity with clear speaking points such as sentence structure, eye contact, transitions, and word choice. The standard of decorum must be met.

In terms of speaking events, be purposeful when presenting the piece(s) to the extent that I feel as if you wrote it and expressed it with rigor, intensity, and passion.

You've got this!

Sonya Smith

As a judge, I prioritize critical thinking, effective communication, and strategic argumentation. My approach is rooted in a commitment to fairness, clarity, and intellectual rigor, with a focus on evaluating the substance and delivery of each performance. I expect competitors to demonstrate sound reasoning, well-organized arguments, and an understanding of their topic's complexity. I value logical coherence and the ability to engage with opposing perspectives. For speeches, I look for originality, persuasive power, and the ability to connect with an audience. In my evaluations, I consider both the technical aspects of debate—such as evidence and structure—and the rhetorical components, including tone, delivery, and the persuasive use of language. My judging philosophy emphasizes constructive engagement and educational growth, encouraging competitors to push their limits while maintaining respect for their peers and the competitive process. I am committed to providing feedback that supports skill development and fosters an environment of respectful intellectual exchange. My decisions are made with the utmost integrity, ensuring that all participants are judged based on their merits and the strength of their arguments.

Hello I am Austin Thibodeaux (he/him), my background is in world schools and other poetry events but I have judge multiple different types of debates such as LD and PF. The important principles I look for are 3 main things. TL;DR at the bottom

1. The links between your argument should be clear and easy to follow so I can understand the real world effect of your argument. Signposting is a big help when trying to follow an argument
2. Speak calmly and do not go too fast. I can listen to fast speaking but I prefer clarity over speed and I want the information you are giving me to be easily digestible and not so convoluted that the meaning is lost.
3. POI abuse is unacceptable and you should be kind to your opponents and respectful in the competition. Do not yell over each other and try to keep the peace in the round! :)

TL;DR: Talk slow and calm, be kind, and most importantly have fun.

LD Debate:

I believe debate is a communication event, so clarity and persuasion matter. I’m okay with both progressive and traditional debate, but I dislike frivolous theory—theory should only be run if there’s actual in-round abuse. I evaluate rounds based on framework first, then contention-level weighing. Kritiks are fine if they are well-explained and clearly linked to the topic. I’m comfortable with both big-picture and line-by-line analysis. Speed is fine at a 6/10–7/10 level, but if I can’t understand you, I won’t flow it. Weighing and crystallization in the final speeches are key to winning my ballot.

PF Debate:

I judge PF traditionally—I won’t evaluate progressive arguments like Ks, tricks, or friv theory. Debate should be clear, structured, and persuasive. I prioritize logical warranting, real-world impacts, and good comparative weighing. I prefer a big-picture approach but expect some structured refutation. Second rebuttal should frontline key responses, summary should extend and weigh arguments, and Final Focus should clearly tell me why you win. I won’t evaluate new arguments after rebuttal, and I’ll only call for evidence if necessary. Be persuasive, clear, and respectful.

Extemp:

I value analysis over an information dump. Having well-researched evidence is important, but what really sets speakers apart is their ability to connect ideas, explain relevance, and present a compelling perspective. Structure is key—strong introductions, well-organized main points, and clear conclusions will make your speech more effective. Delivery should be confident, well-paced, and engaging. A professional tone works best.

Oratory & Informative:

I prioritize engagement, clarity, and originality. Your speech should feel natural, passionate, and impactful. A well-crafted argument, backed by strong rhetoric and storytelling, is more persuasive than a generic take on a common issue. In Informative, visual aids should complement the speech rather than distract from it. If I remember your message after the round, that’s a good sign.

Interp Events (DI, HI, POI, Duo):

Interp is all about emotional connection, authenticity, and strong characterization. I look for performances that feel genuine rather than exaggerated. Blocking and movement should feel natural and purposeful, not excessive. In Duo, chemistry between partners is crucial—overacting or forced reactions can weaken the performance. POI should have clear thematic cohesion and strong transitions between pieces.

Congress Debate:

I judge Congress as a communication event, where persuasion, engagement, and well-developed argumentation are key. Speeches should be structured, responsive, and impactful. I reward debaters who engage with the flow of debate rather than delivering pre-written, generic speeches. Clash and direct refutation of previous arguments are essential—if your speech doesn’t add anything new to the discussion, it won’t stand out.

Speech & Argumentation:

A strong speech should have a clear introduction, well-warranted arguments, and a compelling conclusion. Simply restating evidence or repeating previous points won’t persuade me. Direct comparisons and weighing impacts make the difference. I prioritize logical reasoning, real-world application, and engagement with previous speakers. Strong speakers adapt to the round rather than relying solely on prepared content.

Questioning & Engagement:

Questioning matters. I value concise, pointed questions that challenge arguments and advance the discussion. If you dodge questions or give vague responses, it weakens your credibility. Debate isn’t just about your speech—it’s about your engagement with the chamber. If you actively contribute throughout the session, I will take that into account.

Presiding Officers & Chamber Conduct:

If you are presiding, I expect fairness, efficiency, and strong control over the chamber. A good PO ensures equitable participation and keeps the round running smoothly. Professionalism is important. The best debaters balance assertiveness with respect, making the round more productive for everyone.

I like clean, clear, concise, warranted arguments and responses. Speed is not an issue as long as you are organized and coherent.Slow down if speed interferes with the flow of ideas.I think conditional arguments are abusive and cause me to intervene. Theory can be a voter if arguments are developed and applied. Generic theory arguments are a waste of time. I appreciate debaters making logical arguments that are specific to the round instead of reading prepared responses. A sense of humor is appreciated. Crystallize issues in rebuttals. Tell me how you want me to weigh arguments in the round and which arguments are voters. Use CX time to clarify issues and to establish your strategy. Exchanging cases and arguments should not slow down the round. I think you look more impressive if you stand during CX and when you speak.

Performance events should be polished. Characters should be engaging and have definite vocal and physical characteristics. The piece should have different emotional levels. Movement should make sense and should be motivated by the script. . Dramatic characters are more impressive when they are real and vulnerable rather than melodramatic. Material should challenge the performer, but not be offensive. Intro needs to give context to the story and explain the importance of the literature. Take risks that are grounded in reality.

All students should be respectful of the other performers or debaters. You should not be on your phone during rounds except to keep time.

I love this activity. I appreciate your work and efforts. I will try to include a variety of comments to let you know how I viewed and evaluated the round.