Experience-This will be my sixth year as the head coach at Northview High School. Before moving to Georgia, I coached for 7 years at Marquette High in Milwaukee, WI.

Yes, add me to the email chain. My email is mcekanordebate@gmail.com

*As I have gained more coaching and judging experience, I find that I highly value teams who respect their opponents who might not have the same experience as them. This includes watching how you come across in CX, prep time, and your general comportment towards your opponent. In some local circuits, circuit-style policy debate is dwindling and we all have a responsibility to be respectful of the experience of everyone trying to be involved in policy debate.*

I recommend that you go to the bathroom and fill your water bottles before the debate rather than before a speech.

LD Folks please read the addendum at the end of my paradigm.

Meta-Level Strike Sheet Concerns

1. Debates are rarely won or lost on technical concessions or truth claims alone. In other words, I think the “tech vs. truth” distinction is a little silly. Technical concessions make it more complicated to win a debate, but rarely do they make wins impossible. Keeping your arguments closer to “truer” forms of an argument make it easier to overcome technical concessions because your arguments are easier to identify, and they’re more explicitly supported by your evidence (or at least should be). That being said, using truth alone as a metric of which of y’all to pick up incentivizes intervention and is not how I will evaluate the debate.

2. Evidence quality matters a bunch to me- it’s evidence that you have spent time and effort on your positions, it’s a way to determine the relative truth level of your claims, and it helps overcome some of the time constraints of the activity in a way that allows you to raise the level of complexity of your position in a shorter amount of time. I will read your evidence throughout the debate, especially if it is on a position with which I’m less familiar. I won’t vote on evidence comparison claims unless it becomes a question of the debate raised by either team, but I will think about how your evidence could have been used more effectively by the end of the debate. I enjoy rewarding teams for evidence quality.

3. Every debate could benefit from more comparative work particularly in terms of the relative quality of arguments/the interactions between arguments by the end of the round. Teams should ask "Why?", such as "If I win this argument, WHY is this important?", "If I lose this argument WHY does this matter?". Strategically explaining the implications of winning or losing an argument is the difference between being a middle of the road team and a team advancing to elims.

4. Some expectations for what should be present in arguments that seem to have disappeared in the last few years-

-For me to vote on a single argument, it must have a claim, warrant, impact, and impact comparison.

-A DA is not a full DA until a uniqueness, link, internal link and impact argument is presented.Too many teams are getting away with 2 card DA shells in the 1NC and then reading uniqueness walls in the block. I will generally allow for new 1AR answers.

Similarly, CP's should have a solvency advocate read in the 1NC. I'll be flexible on allowing 1AR arguments in a world where the aff makes an argument about the lack of a solvency advocate.

-Yes, terminal defense exists, however, I do not think that teams take enough advantage of this kind of argument in front of me. I will not always evaluate the round through a lens of offense-defense, but you still need to make arguments as to why I shouldn’t by at least explaining why your argument functions as terminal defense. Again this plays into evidence questions and the relative impacts of arguments claims made above.

Specifics

Case-Debates are won or lost in the case debate. By this, I mean that proving whether or not the aff successfully accesses all, some or none of the case advantages has implications on every flow of the debate and should be a fundamental question of most 2NRs and 2ARs. I think that blocks that are heavy in case defense or impact turns are incredibly advantageous for the neg because they enable you to win any CP (by proving the case defense as a response to the solvency deficit), K (see below) or DA (pretty obvious). I'm also more likely than others to write a presumption ballot or vote neg on inherency arguments. If the status quo solves your aff or you're not a big enough divergence, then you probably need to reconsider your approach to the topic.

Most affs can be divided into two categories: affs with a lot of impacts but poor internal links and affs with very solid internal links but questionable impacts. Acknowledging in which of these two categories the aff you are debating falls should shape how you approach the case debate. I find myself growing increasingly disappointed by negative teams that do not test weak affirmatives. Where's your internal link defense?? I also miss judging impact turn debates, but don't think that spark or wipeout are persuasive arguments. A high level de-dev debate or heg debate, on the other hand, love it.

DA-DAs are questions of probability. Your job as the aff team when debating a DA is to use your defensive arguments to question the probability of the internal links to the DA. Affirmative teams should take more advantage of terminal defense against disads. I'll probably also have a lower threshold for your theory arguments on the disad. Likewise, the neg should use turns case arguments as a reason why your DA calls into question the probability of the aff's internal links. Don't usually find "____ controls the direction of the link" arguments very persuasive. You need to warrant out that claim more if you're going to go for it. Make more rollback-style turns case arguments or more creative turns case arguments to lower the threshold for winning the debate on the disad alone.

CP-CP debates are about the relative weight of a solvency deficit versus the relative weight of the net benefit. The team that is more comparative when discussing the solvency level of these debates usually wins the debate. While, when it is a focus of the debate, I tend to err affirmative on questions of counterplan competiton, I have grown to be more persuaded by a well-executed counterplan strategy even if the counterplan is a process counterplan. The best counterplans have a solvency advocate who is, at least, specific to the topic, and, best, specific to the affirmative. I do not default to judge kicking the counterplan and will be easily persuaded by an affirmative argument about why I should not default to that kind of in-round conditionality. Not a huge fan of the NGA CP and I've voted three out of four times on intrinsic permutations against this counterplan so just be warned. Aff teams should take advantage of presumption arguments against the CP.

K-Used to have a bunch of thoughts spammed here that weren't too easy to navigate pre-round. I've left that section at the bottom of the paradigm for the historical record, but here's the cleaned up version:

What does the ballot do? What is the ballot absolutely incapable of doing? What does the ballot justify? No matter if you are on the aff or the neg, defending the topic or not, these are the kinds of questions that you need to answer by the end of the debate. As so much of K debating has become framework debates on the aff and the neg, I often find myself with a lot of floating pieces of offense that are not attached to a clear explanation of what a vote in either direction can/can't do.

T-Sitting through a bunch of framework debates has made me a better judge for topicality than I used to be. Comparative impact calculus alongside the use of strategic defensive arguments will make it easier for me to vote in a particular direction. Certain interps have a stronger internal link to limits claims and certain affs have better arguments for overlimiting. Being specific about what kind of offense you access, how it comes first, and the relative strength of your internal links in these debates will make it more likely that you win my ballot. I’m not a huge fan of tickytacky topicality claims but, if there’s substantial contestation in the literature, these can be good debates.

Theory- I debated on a team that engaged in a lot of theory debates in high school. There were multiple tournaments where most of our debates boiled down to theory questions, so I would like to think that I am a good judge for theory debates. I think that teams forget that theory debates are structured like a disadvantage. Again, comparative impact calculus is important to win my ballots in these debates. I will say that I tend to err aff on most theory questions. For example, I think that it is probably problematic for there to be more than one conditional advocacy in a round (and that it is equally problematic for your counter interpretation to be dispositionality) and I think that counterplans that compete off of certainty are bad for education and unfair to the aff. The biggest killer in a theory debate is when you just read down your blocks and don’t make specific claims. Debate like your

Notes for the Blue Key RR/Other LD Judging Obligations

Biggest shift for me in judging LD debates is the following: No tricks or intuitively false arguments. I'll vote on dropped arguments, but those arguments need a claim, data, warrant and an impact for me to vote on them. If I can't explain the argument back to you and the implications of that argument on the rest of the debate, I'm not voting for you.

I guess this wasn't clear enough the first time around- I don't flow off the document and your walls of framework and theory analytics are really hard to flow when you don't put any breaks in between them.

Similarly, phil debates are always difficult for me to analyze. I tend to think affirmative's should defend implementation particularly when the resolution specifies an actor. Outside of my general desire to see some debates about implementation, I don't have any kind of background in the phil literature bases and so will have a harder time picturing the implications of you winning specific arguments. If you want me to understand how your argumets interact, you will have to do a lot of explanation.

Theory debates- Yes, I said that I enjoy theory debates in my paradigm above and that is largely still true, but CX theory debates are a lot less technical than LD debates. I also think there are a lot of silly theory arguments in LD and I tend to have a higher threshold for those sorts of arguments. I also don't have much of a reference for norm setting in LD or what the norms actually are. Take that into account if you choose to go for theory and probably don't because I won't award you with high enough speaks for your liking.

K debates- Yes, I enjoy K debates but I tend to think that their LD variant is very shallow. You need to do more specific work in linking to the affirmative and developing the implications of your theory of power claims. While I enjoy good LD debates on the K, I always feel like I have to do a lot of work to justify a ballot in either direction. This is magnified by the limited amount of time that you have to develop your positions.

Old K Paradigm (2020-2022)

After y’all saw the school that I coach, I’m sure this is where you scrolled to first which is fair enough given how long it takes to fill out pref sheets. I will say, if you told me 10 years ago when I began coaching that I’d be coaching a team that primarily reads the K on the aff and on the neg, I probably would have found that absurd because that wasn’t my entry point into the activity so keep that in mind as you work with some of the thoughts below. That being said, I’ve now coached the K at a high level for the past two years which means that I have some semblance of a feeling for a good K debate. If the K is not something that you traditionally go for, you’re better off going for what you’re best at.

The best debates on the K are debates over the explanatory power of the negative’s theory of power relative to the affirmative’s specific example of liberalism, realism, etc. Put another way, the best K debaters are familiar enough with their theory of power AND the affirmative’s specific impact scenarios that they use their theory to explain the dangers of the aff. By the end of the 2NR I should have a very clear idea of what the affirmative does and how your theory explains why doing the affirmative won’t resolve the aff’s impacts or results in a bad thing. This does not necessarily mean that you need to have links to the affirmative’s mechanism (that’s probably a bit high of a research burden), but your link explanations need to be specific to the aff and should be bolstered by specific quotes from 1AC evidence or CX. The specificity of your link explanation should be sufficient to overcome questions of link-uniqueness or I’ll be comfortable voting on “your links only link to the status quo.”

On the flipside, aff teams need to explain why their contingency or specific example of policy action cannot be explained by the negative’s theory of power or that, even if some aspects can be, that the specificity of the aff’s claims justifies voting aff anyway because there’s some offense against the alternative or to the FW ballot. Affirmative teams that use the specificity of the affirmative to generate offense or push back against general link claims will win more debates than those that just default to generic “extinction is irreversible” ballots.

Case Page when going for the K- My biggest pet peeve with the current meta on the K is the role of the case page. Neither the affirmative nor the negative take enough advantage of this page to really stretch out their opponents on this question. For the negative, you need to be challenging the affirmative’s internal links with defense that can bolster some of your thesis level claims. Remember, you are trying to DISPROVE the affirmative’s contingent/specific policy which means that the more specificity you have the better off you will be. This means that just throwing your generic K links onto the case page probably isn’t the move. 9/10 the alternative doesn’t resolve them and you don’t have an explanation of how voting neg resolves the offense. K teams so frequently let policy affs get away with some really poor evidence quality and weak internal links. Please help the community and deter policy teams from reading one bad internal link to their heg aff against your [INSERT THEORY HERE] K. On that note, policy teams, why are you removing your best internal links when debating the K? Your generic framework cards are giving the neg more things to impact turn and your explanation of the internal link level of the aff is lowered when you do that. Read your normal aff against the K and just square up.

Framework debates (with the K on the neg) For better or worse, so much of contemporary K debate is resolved in the framework debate. The contemporary dependence on framework ballots means a couple of things:

1.) Both teams need to do more work here- treat this like a DA and a CP. Compare the relative strength of internal link claims and impact out the terminal impacts. Why does procedural fairness matter? What is the terminal impact to clash? How do we access your skills claims? What does/does not the ballot resolve? To what extent does the ballot resolve those things? The team that usually answers more of these questions usually wins these debates. K teams need to do more to push back against “ballot can solve procedural fairness” claims and aff teams need to do more than just “schools, family, culture, etc.” outweigh subject formation. Many of you all spend more time at debate tournaments or doing debate work than you do at school or doing schoolwork.

2.) I do think it’s possible for the aff to win education claims, but you need to do more comparative impact calculus. What does scenario planning do for subject formation that is more ethical than whatever the impact scenario is to the K? If you can’t explain your education claims at that level, just go for fairness and explain why the ballot can resolve it.

3.) Risk of the link- Explain what winning framework does for how much of a risk of a link that I need to justify a ballot either way. Usually, neg teams will want to say that winning framework means they get a very narrow risk of a link to outweigh. I don’t usually like defaulting to this but affirmative teams very rarely push back on this risk calculus in a world where they lose framework. If you don’t win that you can weigh the aff against the K, aff teams need to think about how they can use their scenarios as offense against the educational claims of the K. This can be done as answers to the link arguments as well, though you’ll probably need to win more pieces of defense elsewhere on the flow to make this viable.

Do I go for the alternative?

I don’t think that you need to go for the alternative if you have a solid enough framework push in the 2NR. However, few things to keep in mind here:

1.) I won’t judge kick the alternative for you unless you explicitly tell me to do it and include a theoretical justification for why that’s possible.

2.) The framework debate should include some arguments about how voting negative resolves the links- i.e. what is the kind of ethical subject position endorsed on the framework page that pushes us towards research projects that avoid the links to the critique? How does this position resolve those links?

3.) Depending on the alternative and the framework interpretation, some of your disads to the alternative will still link to the framework ballot. Smart teams will cross apply these arguments and explain why that complicates voting negative.

K affs (Generic)

Yes, I’m comfortable evaluating debates involving the K on the aff and think that I’ve reached a point where I’m pretty good for either side of this debate. Affirmative teams need to justify an affirmative ballot that beats presumption, especially if you’re defending status quo movements as examples of the aff’s method. Both teams benefit from clarifying early in the round whether or not the affirmative team spills up, whether or not in-round performances specific to this debate resolve any of the affirmative offense, and whatever the accumulation of ballots does or does not do for the aff. Affirmative teams that are not the Louisville project often get away with way too much by just reading a DSRB card and claiming their ballots function the same way. Aff teams should differentiate their ballot claims and negatives should make arguments about the aff’s homogenizing ballot claims. All that being said, like I discussed above, these debates are won and lost on the case page like any other debate. As the K becomes more normalized and standardized to a few specific schools of thought, I have a harder and harder time separating the case and framework pages on generic “we couldn’t truth test your arguments” because I think that shifts a bit too strongly to the negative. That said, I can be persuaded to separate the two if there’s decent time spent in the final rebuttals on this question.

Framework vs. the K Aff

Framework debates are best when both teams spend time comparing the realities of debate in the status quo and the idealized form of debate proposed in model v. model rounds. In that light, both teams need to be thinking about what proposing framework in a status quo where the K is probably going to stick around means for those teams that currently read the K and for those teams that prefer to directly engage the resolution. In a world where the affirmative defends the counter interpretation, the affirmative should have an explanation of what happens when team don’t read an affirmative that meets their model. Most of the counter interpretations are arbitrary or equivalent to “no counter interpretation”, but an interp being arbitrary is just defense that you can still outweigh depending on the offense you’re winning.

In impact turn debates, both teams need to be much clearer about the terminal impacts to their offense while providing an explanation as to why voting in either direction resolves them. After sitting in so many of these debates, I tend to think that the ballot doesn’t do much for either team but that means that teams who have a better explanation of what it means to win the ballot will usually pick up my decision. You can’t just assert that voting negative resolves procedural fairness without warranting that out just like you can’t assert that the aff resolves all forms of violence in debate through a single debate. Both teams need to grapple with how the competitive incentives for debate establish offense for either side. The competitive incentive to read the K is strong and might counteract some of the aff’s access to offense, but the competitive incentives towards framework also have their same issues. Neither sides hands are clean on that question and those that are willing to admit it are usually better off. I have a hard time setting aside clash as an external impact due to the fact that I’m just not sure what the terminal impact is. I like teams that go for clash and think that it usually is an important part of negative strategy vs. the K, but I think this strategy is best when the clash warrants are explained as internal link turns to the aff’s education claims. Some of this has to due with the competitive incentives arguments that I’ve explained above. Both teams need to do more work explaining whether or not fairness or education claims come first. It’s introductory-level impact analysis I find lacking in many of these debates.

Other things to think about-

1.) These debates are at their worst when either team is dependent on blocks. Framework teams should be particularly cautious about this because they’ve had less of these debates over the course of the season, however, K teams are just as bad at just reading their blocks through the 1AR. I will try to draw a clean line between the 1AR and the 2AR and will hold a pretty strict one in debates where the 1AR is just screaming through blocks. Live debating contextualized to this round far outweighs robots with pre-written everything.

2.) I have a hard time pulling the trigger on arguments with “quitting the activity” as a terminal impact. Any evidence on either side of this question is usually anecdotal and that’s not enough to justify a ballot in either direction. There are also a bunch of alternative causes to numbers decline like the lack of coaches, the increased technical rigor of high-level policy debate, budgets, the pandemic, etc. that I think thump most of these impacts for either side. More often than not, the people that are going to stick with debate are already here but that doesn’t mean there aren’t consequences to the kinds of harms to the activity/teams as teams on either side of the clash question learn to coexist.

K vs. K Debates (Overview)

I’ll be perfectly honest, unless this is a K vs. Cap debate, these are the debates that I’m least comfortable evaluating because I feel like they end up being some of the messiest and “gooiest” debates possible. That being said, I think that high level K vs. K debates can be some of the most interesting to evaluate if both teams have a clear understanding of the distinctions between their positions, are able to base their theoretical distinctions in specific, grounded examples that demonstrate potential tradeoffs between each position, and can demonstrate mutual exclusivity outside of the artificial boundary of “no permutations in a method debate.” At their best, these debates require teams to meet a high research burden which is something that I like to reward so if your strat is specific or you can explain it in a nuanced way, go for it. That said, I’m not the greatest for teams whose generic position in these debates are to read “post-truth”/pomo arguments against identity positions and I feel uncomfortable resolving competing ontology claims in debates around identity unless they are specific and grounded. I feel like most debates are too time constrained to meaningfully resolve these positions. Similarly, teams that read framework should be cautious about reading conditional critiques with ontology claims- i.e. conditional pessimism with framework. I’m persuaded by theoretical arguments about conditional ontology claims regarding social death and cross apps to framework in these debates.

I won’t default to “no perms in a methods debate”, though I am sympathetic to the theoretical arguments about why affs not grounded in the resolution are too shifty if they are allowed to defend the permutation. What gets me in these debates is that I think that the affirmative will make the “test of competition”-style permutation arguments anyway like “no link” or the aff is a disad/prereq to the alt regardless of whether or not there’s a permutation. I can’t just magically wave a theory wand here and make those kinds of distinctions go away. It lowers the burden way too much for the negative and creates shallow debates. Let’s have a fleshed out theory argument and you can persuade me otherwise. The aff still needs to win access to the permutation, but if you lose the theory argument still make the same kinds of arguments if you had the permutation. Just do the defensive work to thump the links.

Cap vs. K- I get the strategic utility of these debates, but this debate is becoming pretty stale for me. Teams that go for state-good style capitalism arguments need to explain the process of organization, accountability measures, the kind of party leadership, etc. Aff teams should generate offense off of these questions. Teams that defend Dean should have to defend psychoanalysis answers. Teams that defend Escalante should have specific historical examples of dual power working or not in 1917 or in post-Bolshevik organization elsewhere. Aff teams should force Dean teams to defend psycho and force Escalante teams to defend historical examples of dual power. State crackdown arguments should be specific. I fear that state crackdown arguments will apply to both the alternative and the aff and the team that does a better job describing the comparative risk of crackdown ends up winning my argument. Either team should make more of a push about what it means to shift our research practices towards or away from communist organizing. There are so many debates where we have come to the conclusion that the arguments we make in debate don’t spill out or up and, yet, I find debates where we are talking about politically organizing communist parties are still stuck in some universe where we are doing the actual organizing in a debate round. Tell me what a step towards the party means for our research praxis or provide disads to shifting the resource praxis. All the thoughts on the permutation debate are above. I’m less likely to say no permutation in these debates because there is plenty of clash in the literature between, at least, anti-capitalism and postcapitalism that there can be a robust debate even if you don’t have specifics. That being said, the more you can make ground your theory in specific examples the better off you’ll be.

EDUCATION

University of Southern California - B.A. Social Science / Minor Education

University of Southern California - Master of Arts in Teaching

California State University - Master's in Education Administration

EXPERIENCE

Curriculum Development Director

High School History Teacher

Instructional Coach

Public School Administrator

GENERAL DEBATE JUDGING STYLE

I lean traditional and prefer to see the "art" of debate, demonstrating great speech delivery, confidence, and strong arguments. DO NOT SPREAD. Good debaters should have two cases (one for traditional judges and another for progressive ones). If you must spread, please provide me and your opponent with your case before debating. I value a clear structure that consistently supports your value/criterion.

FALLACIES TO AVOID

https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/logical-fallacies

GENERAL SPEECH JUDGING STYLE

I tend to emphasize structure, guidelines, and a convincing delivery for each category. I highly encourage using Cohesive Mechanisms (connectives, transitions, signposts, etc.) to make speeches easier to follow.

The first place is reserved for speakers who demonstrate the above and can articulate deep, insightful, humorous, and beyond-the-surface ideas with strong support and an authentic voice.

I welcome and prefer speakers to keep their own time. Don't forget to SMILE!

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE (Extended Summary) 45 min

https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Lincoln-Douglas-Debate-Textbook.pdf

https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Competition-Events-Guide-LD.pdf

https://www.speechanddebate.org/learn/lessons/judging-lincoln-douglas-debate-training-video/

Structure

Framework

• Value - highest ideal you seek to achieve, directly connected to the wording of the resolution
• Criterion - explains how to achieve the value, often in verb+noun (i.e. promoting equality, respecting freedom)

Contentions/Key Points

• Claim - summary of the argument
• Warrant - reason why the argument is true (logical explanation, examples, expert quote, research)
• Impact - explanation of why the argument is important
• Link Back to Criterion

Speaker Point Guide

I will judge 25-30 speaker points in .10 increments for assigning speaker points. Points below 28 are reserved for students who do something rude or disrespectful. Please consider the Adam Smiley speaker points guide below.

30- This individual would crush the gods of Mount Olympus in every debate and North Korea would instantly give up its nuclear program if this person was sent to argue our position tomorrow. There is literally nothing that could have been done better.
29.8- This is the best speech that I expect to be made at any similar tournament this year. Based on this round, I expect this individual to win top speaker at national tournaments.
29.5- Based on this round, I expect this individual to win top speaker at this tournament.
29.0- Based on this round, I expect this person to win a speaker award at this tournament
28.6- Based on this round, I expect this person to be in the top half of speakers at the tournament but not win a speaker award.
28.4- Based on this round, I expect this person to be in the bottom half of speakers at the tournament.
28.2- This person made a legitimate effort, but is one of the bottom speakers at the tournament.
28.0- This person showed little to no effort or understanding in the round.
Below a 28- This person did something extremely rude or disrespectful.

NSDA Speaker Points Guide

20-21 Below Average

22-23 Average

24-26 Good

27-28 Excellent

29-30 Outstanding

INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES (10 min)

https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Sample-Ballot-Interp-Blank.pdf

- Characterization

o Well-developed characters

o Relatable

o Responses are believable given the situation

- Blocking

o Clear actions of what the performer is doing

o Clear characterization and who is speaking

o Motivated movements

- Cutting

o Understand what is happening

o Easy-to-follow storyline

o Sequence makes sense

- Delivery

o Convincing verbal and non-verbal actions

EXTEMP GUIDELINES (7 min)

(https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Extemporaneous-Speaking-Textbook.pdf)

- Intro

o Question/Answer to Question

o Thesis

o Preview

- Major Point 1

o Subpoint 1

o Subpoint 2

- Major Point 2

o Subpoint 1

o Subpoint 2

- Major Point 3

o Subpoint 1

o Subpoint 2

- Conclusion

o Restate the question and answer

o Review

o Closing statement

- Argumentation and Analysis – justification, impact, clear understanding

- Sources – credibility, should be citing sources and date, quality and variety of sources

- Delivery – voice, movement, expression, ethos, credibility, pitch, tone, pacing, volume

-

IMPROMPTU GUIDELINES (7 min prep and delivery)

(https://www.speechanddebate.org/how-to-judge-impromptu/)

- Organization (Structure – INTRO, BODY, CONCLUSION)

o Structure

o Transitions

o Makes sense

Analysis (Sound Argument)

o Directly addresses the prompt

o Justification

o Establishes the significance of points

- Delivery (Holds Attention)

o Voice, movement, expression

o Confidence

o Consistent eye contact

o Appropriate volume

INFORMATIVE GUIDELINES (10 min)

https://www.speechanddebate.org/how-to-judge-informative/

https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Informative-Speaking-Creating-a-Solid-Foundation.pdf

- Structure & Organization – Introduction, three main points, conclusion. Third main point should include implications (what the topic means to society as a whole). In-depth content development using credible sources.

- Delivery – effective verbal and non-verbal communication.

- Purpose – explain, define, describe, or illustrate a topic to gain understanding and knowledge.

- Relevance – thesis enables you to understand why this topic should be examined now

- Relatability – how the speaker connects the audience to the topic (inclusive rhetoric, affect, logical evidence, and education)

- Originality – inventive, unique, and exciting new approach to familiar topics

- Visual Aids – may or may not be used. Expedient setup of non-electronic or banned materials. No animals or people are allowed. Contributes to understanding, emphasize information, provide creative outlet that augments the content.

- Quotations – not more than 150 words of the speech may be a direct quotation and must be identified orally and in print.

DECLAMATION GUIDELINES (10 min)

https://www.speechanddebate.org/how-to-judge-declamation/

https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Declamation-Starter-Kit.pdf

- Cutting – a speech or excerpt delivered in public may be cut and moved around to make a 10-minute speech to convey a story the speaker wishes to tell.

a. Do you understand what is happening?

b. Does the speech flow effectively?

c. Does the sequence of ideas make sense?

- Structure

d. Teaser (30-34 seconds) short portion of the speech before the intro)

e. Intro (20-30 seconds) includes title of the speech, author, when it was delivered) gives context and a solid foundation to evaluate the speech that fits within the flow.

f. Main Body of Speech (7-8 minutes) delivery of the main points. Use credible evidence and anecdotes to sound less rigid.

g. Conclusion (30-45 seconds) wraps up the speech

- Delivery

h. Is the speech appropriate for the situation?

i. Does the student use voice, posture, and gestures that enhance the message?

j. Is the speech personalized to convey the speaker’s unique message?

k. Enunciation, pacing, intonation, facial expressions and bodily gestures, eye contact

- Context

l. Does the performer engage the audience?

m. Does the performance appropriately capture the context of the speech?

ORIGINAL ORATORY GUIDELINES (Extended Textbook Summary) 10 min

(https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Original-Oratory-Textbook.pdf)

- Importance

o Significant topic

o Clear thesis

o Delivery assists the importance of the topic

- Relatability

o Audience relatability

o Personable delivery

o Impact

o Inclusive rhetoric

- Originality

o Addresses topic in a unique and creative way

o Supporting examples are new and interesting

- Delivery

o Convincing verbal and non-verbal cues

- Appeal to Your Audience

o Ethos – credibility and moral competency of the speaker

o Logos – logical appeal

o Pathos – use of emotional appeals

o Audience analysis, audience adaptation

- Speech Development

o Establishes immediate emotional NEED for change

o Conceptual social problems, NOT specific issues

o No topic is original – spin it, flip it, wrap it, put it in context

o Topic Quality Standards: Validity, Relevance, Depth, and Digestibility

o Purpose statement and thesis

- Researching Your Topic

o Types of Evidence: statistics, examples, analogy, testimony

§ Examples: factual, hypothetical, case study, narratives

§ Statistics: descriptive, inferential

§ Analogy: literal, figurative

§ Testimony: authoritative, nominal

o 4 R’s of Successful Sourcing

§ Relevant – makes sense and connected

§ Recent – quotations timeless, articles 2 years, studies & stats relevant and uncontested

§ Reliable – double-confirmed

§ Re-usable – doesn’t have to fit exactly but proves argument or sub-point

o Sources of Research

§ Newspapers, periodicals, & magazines

§ Library

§ Online, Google, Google Book Search, Google Scholar, Online Newspapers

- Argumentation

o Toulmin’s Model – when any one is missing, unlikely people will be persuaded

§ Claim – position advocated in an argument

§ Grounds – evidence supporting the claim of an argument

§ Warrant – principle, provision, or chain of reasoning that connects grounds to the claim. Types: causality, sign, generalization, analogy, authority, principle

§ Backing

§ Qualifier

§ Rebuttal

o Logical Fallacies – arguments rely on false or invalid premises or inferences

§ Hasty generalizations

§ Ad-hominem (name-calling)

§ Strawman fallacy

§ Appeal to ignorance

§ Bandwagon fallacy

§ Genetic fallacy

§ Appeal to authority – because they’re an expert, popular but is not an expert

§ Sequential fallacy

§ Begging the question

§ Persuasive definition fallacy

§ Ambiguity fallacy

§ Composition fallacy

- Organization

o A good persuader unifies individuals who lack commonality

o System of persuasion for the greatest number: structure, sub-structure, articulation of the problem, clear organization

o Persuasion is rooted in the identification of the problem

§ 1. What impact is the action having on the greater population

§ 2. Reasons/causes for why the action is taking place

§ 3. Ways that the audience can combat the social problem

o Introductions and Conclusions

§ Primacy effect – what we hear or are introduced to first needs to be accurate, engaging, and clear (higher retention)

§ Recency effect – what we hear last is stored in short-term memory and more likely to be recalled

§ Introductions highlight the problem and give sense of where you are going

§ Conclusions digest and review main points and provide closing statements providing lasting impressions

o Introduction

§ Attention-Getting Device (AGD)

· Personal story

· Illustration

· Short examples

· Startling statement

· Poem

· Lyric

· Humorous hypothetical

· Rhetorical question

· Clever device (foreign language, mime, pretend

· Engaging with the audience

· Indirection (misleading audience with a purpose)

§ Link to Topic

· Link AGD to the action you are arguing is the problem

§ Thesis

· State your argument and what you are trying to persuade the audience to do

§ Statement of Significance

· Why is this topic important? Why should the audience listen? State facts or statistics that prove this is a real problem, and give it immediacy

§ Roadmap

· Sentence that explains where you will take us in your speech

§ Optional Conclusive Statement

· Clever punchline or clincher to finish off the intro

§ Optional Concession

· Predict questions judges might ask. Answer it or concede to it, offering an explanation as to why you’re still correct.

o Conclusion

§ Bring it back full circle, AGD

§ Restate thesis

§ Restate main points

§ Encourage the audience to act, inspire, and end creatively

o Persuasive Organizational Patterns (Structure and Sub-Structure)

§ Problem/Cause/Solution (PCS) – most popular and clear. Used when the problem is not easily definable or identifiable.

· Introduction

o Attention Getting Device (AGD)

o Link to Topic

o Thesis

o Statement of Significance

o Roadmap

· Problem

o Transition

o Internal preview

o Problem 1 (name it, explain it, prove it, conclude it)

o Problem 2 (name it, explain it, prove it, conclude it)

o Conclude point/impact statement

· Cause

o Transition

o Internal preview

o Cause 1 (name it, explain it, prove it, conclude it)

o Cause 2 (name it, explain it, prove it, conclude it)

o Conclude point

· Solution

o Transition

o Internal preview

o Solution 1 (name it, explain it, prove it, conclude it)

o Solution 2 (name it, explain it, prove it, conclude it)

o Conclude point/impact statement

· Conclusion

o Transition

o Review min body points

o Conclusive statements

§ Cause/Effect/Solution (CES) – often used when the problem is easily definable

· Introduction

o Attention Getting Device (AGD)

o Link to Topic

o Thesis

o Statement of Significance

o Roadmap

· Cause

o Transition

o Internal preview

o Cause 1 (name it, explain it, prove it, conclude it)

o Cause 2 (name it, explain it, prove it, conclude it)

o Conclude point/impact statement

· Effect

o Transition

o Internal preview

o Effect 1 (name it, explain it, prove it, conclude it)

o Effect 2 (name it, explain it, prove it, conclude it)

o Conclude point/impact statement

· Solution

o Transition

o Internal Preview

o Solution One (name it, explain it, prove it, conclude it)

o Solution Two (name it, explain it, prove it, conclude it)

o Conclude Point/impact statement

· Conclusion

o Transition

o Review main body points

o Conclusive statements

§ Two Prong – offers ways in which the problem plays out or two causes for a problem

· Introduction

o Attention Getting Device (AGD)

o Link to Topic

o Thesis

o Statement of Significance

o Roadmap

· Prong 1

o Transition

o Main idea or thesis of prong

o Explain it (examples)

o Prove it (statistics)

o Impact it (explain, story)

o Restate main idea and impact connecting it to thesis

· Prong 2

o Transition

o Main idea or thesis of prong

o Explain it (examples)

o Prove it (statistics)

o Impact it (explain, story)

o Restate main idea and impact connecting it to thesis

· Implications

o What are the implications of all this?

o What does it say about society? Impact on us? What does it all mean?

· Solutions

o Transition

o Solution 1

o Solution 2

· Conclusion

o Transition

o Review main body points

o Conclusive statements

- Writing Your Speech

o Language Development

§ Simplicity & clarity

§ Use inviting language, not attacking language

§ 70-30 Rule (70% thoughts, 30% facts)

§ Avoid absolutes

§ Rule of Three – grouping concepts, adj., examples, etc. in 3s is more effective than 2 or 4 or more

§ Be appropriate – slang or profanity

§ Make powerful word choices – don’t repeat the same words

§ Use language strategies

· Alliteration

· Consonance

· Assonance

· Onomatopoeia

· Personification

· Visualization

· Metaphor

o Cohesive Mechanisms

§ Connectives/Transitions – i.e. “Now that I’ve discussed…”

§ Sign-posts – internal signs signaling switching of gear or moving to another point - “First,” “Moreover,” Additionally”

§ Catch-phrases

§ Extended metaphors – non-literal object/action extended throughout the speech

§ Vehicles – AGD, transitions, and conclusion

o Humor

§ Self-deprecation

§ Analogies

§ Puns

§ Indirection

§ Irony

§ Twisted quotations

§ Humorous quotations

§ Jabs at current events

§ Allusions

§ Understatement

§ Cliches

§ Overstatement

§ Portmanteau words

§ Alliteration

- Delivery

o Expression of meaning – synthesis of content and outward expression

o Character perception plays a role in the audience’s likelihood to accept or reject the speaker’s message – what you’re selling is YOU – be trustworthy, competent, natural

o Methos – appeal based on the authenticity or realness of your character. Unlike persona which is a social façade, nor is it a “speech voice.”

o Verbal Delivery

§ Pitch (high or low voice)

§ Tone (quality of voice)

§ Breathe through your diaphragm

§ Adjust head and neck position

§ Pace and pause

§ Volume and breathing

§ Articulation and Enunciation

o Non-Verbal Delivery

§ Facial expressions

§ Eye contact

§ Hand gestures

§ Posture/Stance

§ Movement

Procedural Stuff

Email chain: blako925@gmail.com

Also add: jchsdebatedocs@gmail.com

Title chain: Tournament Rd # Your Team vs. Other Team (EX: Harvard Round 4 Johns Creek XY vs. Northview AM)

Prep ends when you press send. CX starts the second the speech is over. Prep starts the second the CX/rebuttal is over unless you say "speech sent/order is..."

Clipping = L & lowest speaks. Ethics violation claim = round stoppage

I will ignore unread rehighlighting insertions. Only exception is that you already read it for a CX question.

Top Shelf

I am a bad flow. Slow down for analytics, card tags & card marks. Don't care about card body text, I assume you will extend later in an intelligent manner.

I don't vote on conceded arguments unless they are extended and impacted out. Past RFD conversations:

How could you not vote neg, the 2AC didn't answer a single off case?

2NR extended T but no standards, CP but no net benefit, K but no link and the DA but no impact

What did you think about them dropping that antiblackness is ontological?

Nothing. I don't know what that means or how it disproves the K

Doesn't conceding the TVA mean all their framework offense is non-unique?

I don't know why that's true, you didn't explain in your speech

I don't look at ev unless prompted to do so.

Truth and tech. If you make an argument that I 100% know is untrue I won't vote on it. However, I am not omniscient and am a human prone to persuasion. You probably won't convince me I'm in a simulation and that I should endorse global suicide to escape, but you can probably convince me that warming could be good for ag or stopping an ice age.

How To Lose Speaker Points

Not sending the 1AC at round start time or, if I'm late (sorry in advance), as soon as I walk into the room

Going to the bathroom or filling water bottles before your own speech

Whispering or typing when it is not prep time

2AC perm shotgunning

Being rude to the other team

I am an intermediate judge and prefer off-time roadmaps to help follow the flow of the debate. Please avoid spreading; if you do plan to spread, sharing your cases in advance is appreciated. I value clear and straightforward communication, so please avoid using jargon. It's important to be respectful to all participants throughout the round.

Most importantly, remember to have fun and enjoy the debate!

I have no knowledge of debate.

I value confident speaking and logical argumentation.

Do not speak too fast. Do not be rude during crossfire.

If I look annoyed, it's because I'm not a morning person, not that I don't like your argument. Just pretend I am smiling.

Have fun!

Debated 4 years Marquette University HS (2001-2004)

Assistant Coach – Marquette University HS (2005-2010)

Head Coach – Marquette University HS (2011-2012)

Assistant Coach – Johns Creek HS (2012-2014)

Head Coach – Johns Creek HS (2014-Current)

Yes, put me on the chain: bencharlesschultz@gmail.com

No, I don’t want a card doc.

Top Top Shelf:

I cannot foresee any situation arising ever in life where I vote affirmative on "Perm: They do them, we do us"

Top Shelf:

Its been a long time since I updated this – this weekend I was talking to a friend of mine and he mentioned that I have "made it clear I wasn’t interested in voting for the K”. Since I actually love voting for the K, I figured that I had been doing a pretty bad job of getting my truth out there. I’m not sure anyone reads these religiously, or that any paradigm could ever combat word of mouth (good or bad), but when I read through what I had it was clear I needed an update (more so than for the criticism misconception than for the fact that my old paradigm said I thought conditionality was bad – yeesh, not sure what I was thinking when I wrote THAT….)

Four top top shelf things that can effect the entire debate for you, with the most important at the top:

11) Before I’m a debate judge, I’m a teacher and a mandatory reporter. I say this because for years I’ve been more preferred as a critical judge, and I’ve gotten a lot of clash rounds, many of which include personal narratives, some of which contain personal narratives of abuse. If such a narrative is read, I’ll stop the round and bring in the tournament director and they will figure out the way forward.

22) I won’t decide the debate on anything that has happened outside of the round, no matter the quality of evidence entered into the debate space about those events. The round starts when the 1AC begins.

33) If you are going to the bathroom before your speech in the earlier speeches (constructives through 1nr, generally) just make sure the doc is sent before you go. Later speeches where there's no doc if you have prep time I can run that, or I'll take off .4 speaks and allow you to go (probably a weird thing, I know, but I just think its stealing prep even though you don't get to take flows or anything, just that ability to settle yourself and think on the positions is huge)

44) No you definitely cannot use extra cross-ex time as prep, that’s not a thing.

5

55) Finally, some fun. I’m a firm believer in flowing and I don’t see enough people doing it. Since I do think it makes you a better debater, I want to incentivize it. So if you do flow the round, feel free to show me your flows at the end of the debate, and I’ll award up to an extra .3 points for good flows. I reserve the right not to give any points (and if I get shown too many garbage flows maybe I’ll start taking away points for bad ones just so people don’t show me horrible flows, though I’m assuming that won’t happen much), but if you’ve got the round flowed and want to earn extra points, please do! By the way you can’t just show one good flow on, lets say, the argument you were going to take in the 2nc/2nr – I need to see the round mostly taken down to give extra points

Top Shelf:

This is stuff that I think you probably want to know if you’re seeing me in the back

· I am liable probably more than most judges to yell “clear” during speeches – I won’t do it SUPER early in speeches because I think it takes a little while for debaters to settle into their natural speed, and a lot of times I think adrenaline makes people try and go faster and be a little less clear at the start of their speeches than they are later. So I wait a bit, but I will yell it. If it doesn’t get better I’ll yell one more time, then whatever happens is on you in terms of arguments I don’t get and speaker points you don’t get. I’m not going to stop flowing (or at least, I never have before), but I also am not yelling clear frivolously – if I can’t understand you I can’t flow you.

· I don’t flow with the doc open. Generally, I don’t open the doc until later in the round – 2nc prep is pretty generally when I start reading, and I try to only read cards that either are already at the center of the debate, or cards that I can tell based on what happens through the 2ac and the block will become the choke points of the round. The truth of the debate for me is on the flow, and what is said by the debaters, not what is said in their evidence and then not emphasized in the speeches, and I don’t want to let one team reading significantly better evidence than the other on questions that don’t arise in the debate influence the way I see the round in any way, and opening the doc open is more likely than not to predispose me towards one team than another, in addition to, if I’m reading as you go, I’m less likely to dock you points for being comically unclear than if the only way I can get down what I get down is to hear you say it.

Argumentative Stuff

Listen at the end of the day, I will vote for anything. But these are arguments that I have a built in preference against. Please do not change up your entire strategy for me. But if the crux of your strategy is either of these things know that 1 – I probably shouldn’t be at the top of your pref card, and 2 – you can absolutely win, but a tie is more likely to go to the other side. I try and keep an open mind as much as possible (heck I’ve voted for death good multiple times! Though that is an arg that may have more relevance as you approach 15 full years as a public school DoD….) but these args don’t do it for me. I’ll try and give a short explanation of why.

1. I’m not a good judge for theory, most specifically cheap shots, but also stuff seen as more “serious” like conditionality. Its been a long long time since anyone has gone for theory in front of me – the nature of the rounds that I get means there’s not usually a ton of negative positions – which is good because I’m not very sympathetic to it. I generally think that the negative offense, both from the standpoint of fairness and education, is pretty weak in all but the most egregious rounds when it comes to basic stuff like conditionality. Other counterplan theory like no solvency advocate, no international fiat, etc I’m pretty sympathetic to reject the argument not the team. In general, if you’re looking at something like conditionality where the link is linear and each instance increases the possibility of fairness/education impacts, for me you’ve got to be probably very near to, or even within, double digits for me to think the possible harm is insurmountable in round. This has come up before so I want to be really clear here – if its dropped, GO FOR IT, whether alone or (preferably) as an extension in a final rebuttal followed by substance. I for sure will vote for it in a varsity round (in novice rounds, depending on the rest of the round, I may or may not vote on it). Again – this is a bias against an argument that will probably effect the decision in very close rounds.

2. Psychoanalysis based critical literature – I like the criticism, as I mentioned above, just because I think the cards are more fun to read and more likely to make me think about things in a new way than a piece of counterplan solvency or a politics internal link card or whatever. But I have an aversion to psychoanalysis based stuff. The tech vs truth paragraph sums up my feelings on arguments that seem really stupid. Generally when I see critical literature I think there’s at least some truth to it, especially link evidence. But

3. Cheap Shots – same as above – just in general not true, and at variance with what its fun to see in a debate round. There’s nothing better than good smart back and forth with good evidence on both sides. Cheap shots (I’m thinking of truly random stuff like Ontology Spec, Timecube – stuff like that) obviously are none of those things.

4. Finally this one isn’t a hard and fast thing I’m necessarily bad for, but something I’ve noticed over the years that I think teams should know that will effect their argumentative choices in round – I tend to find I’m less good than a lot of judges for fairness as a standalone impact to T-USFG. I feel like even though its never changed that critical teams will contend that they impact turn fairness, or will at least discuss why the specific type of education they provide (or their critique of the type of education debate in the past has provided), it has become more in vogue for judges to kind of set aside that and put sort of a silo around the fairness impact of the topicality debate and look at that in a vacuum. I’ve just never been good at doing that, or understanding why that happens – I’m a pretty good judge still for framework, I think, but youre less likely to win if you go for a fairness impact only on topicality and expect that to carry the day

Specific Round Types:

K Affs vs Framework

Clash rounds are the rounds I’ve gotten by far the most in the last 5-8 years or so, and generally I like them a lot and they consistently keep me interested. For a long time during the first generation of critical affirmatives that critique debate/the resolution I was a pretty reliable vote for the affirmative. Since the negative side of the no plan debate has caught up, I’ve been much more evenly split, and in general I like hearing a good framework press on a critical aff and adjudicating those rounds. I think I like clash rounds because they have what I would consider the perfect balance between amount of evidence (and specificity of evidence) and amount of analysis of said evidence. I think a good clash round is preferable than almost any round because there’s usually good clash on the evidentiary issues and there’s still a decent amount of ev read, but from the block on its usually pure debate with minimal card dumpage. Aside from the preference discussed above for topicality based framework presses to engage the fairness claims of the affirmative more, I do think that I’m more apt than others to vote negative on presumption, or barring that, to conclude that the affirmative just gets no risk of its advantages (shoutout Juliette Salah!). One other warning for affirmatives – one of the advantages that the K affords is that the evidence is usually sufficiently general that cards which are explained one way (or meant to be used one way) earlier in the round can become exactly what the negative doesn’t need/cant have them be in the 2ar. I think in general judges, especially younger judges, are a little biased against holding the line against arguments that are clearly new or cards that are explained in a clearly different way than they were originally explained. Now that I’m old, I have no such hang ups, and so more than a lot of other judges I’ve seen I’m willing to say “this argument that is in the 2ar attached to (X) evidence is not what was in the 1ar, and so it is disallowed”. (As an aside, I think the WORST thing that has happened to, and can happen to, no plan teams is an overreliance on 1ar blocks. I would encourage any teams that have long 1ar blocks to toss them in the trash – if you need to keep some explanations of card warrants close, please do, but ditch the prewritten blocks, commit yourself to the flow, and listen to the flow of the round, and the actual words of the block. The teams that have the most issue with shifting argumentation between the 1ar and the 2ar are the teams that are so obsessed with winning the prep time battle in the final 2 rebuttals that they become over dependent on blocks and aren’t remotely responsive to the nuance of a 13 minute block that is these days more and more frequently 13 minutes of framework in some way shape or form)

K vs K

Seems like its more likely these days to see clash rounds for me, and next up would be policy rounds. I’d actually like to see more K v K rounds (though considering that every K team needs to face framework enough that they know exactly how to debate it, and its probably more likely/easier to win a clash round than a K v K round on the negative, it may be more strategic to just go for framework on the neg if you don’t defend the USFG on the aff), and I’d especially love to see more well-argued race v high theory rounds. Obviously contextualization of very general evidence that likely isn’t going to be totally on point is the name of the game in these rounds, as well as starting storytelling early for both sides – I’d venture to say the team that can start telling the simple, coherent story (using evidence that can generally be a tad prolix so the degree of difficulty for this is high) early will be the team that generally will get the ballot. The same advice about heavy block use, especially being blocked out into the 1ar, given above counts here as well.

Policy v policy Rounds

I love them. A good specific policy round is a thing of beauty. Even a non-specific counterplan/DA round with a good strong block is always great. As the season goes on its comparatively less likely, just based on the rounds I usually get, that I’ll know about specific terminology, especially deeply nuanced counterplan terminology. I honestly believe good debaters, no matter their argumentative preference or what side of the (mostly spurious) right/left divide in debate you’re on, are good CASE debaters. If you are negative and you really want to back up the speaker point Brinks truck, a 5+ minute case press is probably the easiest way to make that happen.

Individual argument preferences

I’ll give two numbers here – THE LEFT ONE about how good I think I am for an argument based on how often I actually have to adjudicate it, and THE RIGHT ONE will be how much I personally enjoy an argument. Again – I’ll vote for anything you say. But more information about a judge is good, and you may as well know exactly what I enjoy hearing before you decide where to rank me. 1 being the highest, 10 being the lowest.

T (classic) --------------------------------------- 5/4

T (USFG/Framework) ------------------------ 1/1

DA ------------------------------------------------ 3/2

CP ------------------------------------------------- 4/2

Criticism ----------------------------------------- 1/2

Policy Aff --------------------------------------- 2/2

K Aff ---------------------------------------------- 1/3

Theory ------------------------------------------- 8/9

Cheap Shots ------------------------------------ 10/10

Post Round:

I feel like I’ve gotten more requests lately to listen to redos people send me. I’m happy to do that and give commentary if folks want – considering I saw the original speech and know the context behind it, it only makes sense that I would know best whether the redo fixes the deficiencies of the original. Shoot me an email and I’m happy to help out!

Any other questions – just ask!

• No spreading please
• Not a fan of techy debate
• Flow judge
• History of WSD & speech events, began with PF
• Debate BP and civc debate in college

Hi Dear Competitors,

I am honored to be a speech judge and I feel very passionate about speech and debate. I have been judging for the past 3 yrs and I have been to almost every tournament offered in NC. I judge predominantly speech events, but I have done LD, PF, and also Presidential Debate.

With speech events I am looking for all the characteristics of a great delivery, but the winner will be the one who can create a natural feel of the delivery. Make me believe that this is your story. Overperforming is not something I reward. Make it feel real, make it feel relatable.

When judging debate I require a conversational style delivery. If I can't hear your point delivered in a clear manner I might not be able to give you credit for it.

I ask that the competitors who courteous to their peers during the debate sessions. I feel that everyone puts a lot of effort in this and every single one of you deserves attention and respect.

Good luck to everyone!

Hello!

I am a lay judge that looks at the team that speaks the most clearly. Speak slower as I value clarity over speed. As long as you explain your arguments in an understandable way, I will be able to take note of it. Teams that present themselves in a more confident and concise way will end up getting my vote.