I've been judging pf for 3yrs.

I am a parent judge. I don't like it when people go fast, obviously no spreading. I do not know any debate jargon (ie. warrants, turns, delinks, etc.) so please make the extra effort of explaining what your response is to your opponents case. I don't know anything about case extensions but a simple explanation of your arg will suffice me to understand. I have vast knowledge about the topic (topic knowledge in debater terms) so there's no need for you to re-explain the response multiple times in cross.

I am unbiased in rounds but I do not like when a team will have a response that is either conservative or progressive leaning. I don't like aggressive and combative debaters so be mindful, I'll be reducing points for such behavior.

If you have any questions please ask me before the round starts.

Please time yourselves. I won't be keeping time.

(Specific to Online Debates)

Please make the debates interesting. I'm finding these debates very boring so please at least having some spazz in your voice when you give speech or make cross interesting (obv. don't be mean in cross, I can detect that).

Email chain: lauren.cooney@austinisd.org

I coach Speech & Debate @ Austin High

I prefer to judge PF and traditional LD case-debate and framework. ***See Speech pref's below***

Want perfect speaks? I like an educational demeanor --even better, have fun! be deliberate, not aggressive.

Spreading is OK, but you should be able to slow down and paraphrase your cards every time you make an extension-- don't assume the provision of evidence alone will suffice... "I have a card for that" doesn't equal an automatic win.

I don't usually flow CX and expect you to impact concessions throughout your speeches. For example, just because your opponent dropped an argument doesn't mean I bought it-- you must still impact why its so critical. I love an "even if" critique.

I don't love hearing the same case again and again so if your team is sharing a case you need to personalize it. In fact, I prefer more radical interpretations than canonical arguments.

SIGN POSTING IS IMPORTANT. IF YOU DON'T TELL ME WHERE TO FLOW YOUR ARGUMENTS, OR WHERE TO CROSS-APPLY EVIDENCE, in the time it takes me to find it on the flow, I've probably already missed your point. Tell me where to look on the flow.

You should be able to break arguments down to their smallest components, just because you yell esoteric debate jargon I am not impressed.

I try to keep a poker face during the round so that you're not affected by any reaction, but I am listening and you should always be engaging with me first (respect the invisible wall between you and your opponent).

**** For Speech events:

Intro's are important to me. I think a good intro that creatively INTERPS the piece is what sets our events apart from traditional theater. Your intro should contextualize the piece (this is very important considering we won't have necessarily read or be familiar with your script already, so tell us what we need to know to follow along!), draw any important relevance of the piece into our own lives or your own interest, and explain what we should take away from the piece. Your answer can be anything, it might just be for pleasure, entertainment etc. but even then I expect you to translate your expectations into your intro.

Generally my feedback is to slow-down, so don't be afraid to take a pause.

I do prefer pieces/topics that are lesser explored. There has been a trend in Speech events towards the more dramatic/triggering topic areas, and I have to say that when judging 10+ rounds each with an extremely sensitive topic, it's not so much that it is triggering or offensive but rather that it is a bit emotionally exhausting, and can feel borderline exploitive... as well, often due to the time constraints, performances can oversimplify certain experiences. I don't want students to limit their interests, but rather, explore one specific part of their topic that makes it more distinct and nuanced. You should be thinking "what hasn't been said about this subject, and how can I add to the conversation?".

Blocking/movement should be purposeful

Articulation is key

Characters should be distinct, and I prefer a more subtle character vs. a stereotype being played out (for example, when playing different women, try not to just heighten your pitch! or, when you're angry, it doesn't always mean to just get louder. Try a smoldering anger, try talking through your teeth, etc.)

Sound effects are cool when they're done right

Mostly I just hope to see you enjoying this medium and being yourself. I already think y'all are so brave for performing and especially on-camera, I'm already proud of the work you're doing!!

I competed for three years on the local Illinois circuit as well as the national circuit attending tournaments such as Blake, Dowling, Harvard, etc. I was a public forum debater. I have no problem with either a more technical style or a more lay-oriented style. However, I vote mostly on arguments as opposed to speaking ability, I believe that is what speaker points are for. If an argument is dropped then I will regard as true if a team makes this clear. I will try my best to keep my own personal biases out of the debate round and try to judge based solely on what happens in round. That said, I do have a few things I will not tolerate, namely any argument that is racist, sexist, classist, homophobic, or in any way oppressive. I will vote down a team for making such an argument. Other than those, I don't really have any strong preferences. Please feel free to ask questions!

I am a PF-only judge. I prefer PF debate to be PF debate - in other words, it should be accessible and persuasive to a lay judge. Speed or unexplained jargon that would befuddle a well-educated but inexperienced judge will result in low speaks and possibly won't be flowed at all. That said, I do not attempt to be a pure "tabula rasa." Instead, I will judge from the perspective of a well-informed (i.e. someone who keeps up with national/international news) and well-educated (i.e. someone who remembers what they were taught in their high school and core college classes) layperson.

Beyond that, I expect teams to clearly layout a framework for the round and impact to that framework. I am fine with a "framework debate" if the central point of contention between teams is their framework. I flow, but primarily as a memory aid.

I will call for evidence, but only if one of the teams in round challenges their opponents' use of that evidence. Unnecessary or frivolous evidentiary challenges are not appreciated and will be penalized.

Traditional/Framework oriented. Carry contentions throughout the flow, and make sure to address this in the final speech. Okay with fast speech but make sure its clear to understand what you are saying.

I debated for four years in Texas in PF and briefly in LD. I have a solid knowledge of critical arguments and theory. I currently compete for the Texas Speech Team in Extemp and all the Public Address Events.

My judging philosophy is pretty straightforward.

- Impact calculus is important to me, I want to see a clear weighing of both worlds, especially in the summary. With impacts, I prefer you give me clear material impacts on people, rather than just saying things like nuke war. Contextualize your impacts!

- I like clean, straight down the flow debate with a lot of clash. Sign-post during speeches.

- Not the biggest fan of card-debate. Use that time to make arguments rather than harp over minor things in cards!

- Make extensions that clearly tell me what exactly I'm supposed to extend, not just dropping a card name.

- If you introduce a new argument in the Summary, I won't evaluate it. Stick to extending already established offense/defense.

- I'm good with speed (just enunciate as much as you can) and pretty much all types of critical arguments.

- Be conscious of your positionality and how you treat others in round. Rounds can get intense but at the end of the day, debate should be a space that is safe and empowering for everyone involved.

In extemp, I value unified analysis, a solid demonstration of background/historical knowledge on the question, and confidence in delivery. Using substantial and diverse sourcing (so like in international speeches, don't only cite Western outlets) in each point while weaving in the analysis is a marker of a good speech for me.

For Duet, I don't want to see any unnecessary PDA.

I am an experienced coach and judge. I have competed, coached and judged in all areas of speech & debate.

I am a 'tabula rasa' judge, which for me means that I will listen to any reasonable argument. I am always interested in hearing creative approaches to any resolution. However, I fully support the format, style and philosophy of each debate and speech event.

I am not adverse to rapid speaking, because debate time is limited. BUT I will not condone 'spreading' as a tactic. If you insist you win because the opponent did not address all of your issues, I may or may not accept your premise.

Evidence is primary to any good argument. You should be able to coherently present your evidence with citation in every instance. Referencing 'cards' in a case is ambiguous, since I will not have your case in front of me.

In all Cross Ex portions, LISTEN to your opponent. Address their concerns and their rationale for opposing you. Be civil and understand they have as much a right to be here as you do.

I will not make your case for you. I may be very familiar with the resolution, strategy and line of reasoning you are using, but I will not assume you even know what you are talking about. You have to know your case and be able to defend it.

In Congress, competitors must listen to the line of argument and offer unique and relevant arguments. Repeating points or delivering a prepared speech that does not advance the debate is poor practice and means you do not know the bill. Logic and analysis are fine, but a warrantless argument will not have a very big impact.

I do not rank POs particularly high. A competent PO will score near the middle of a typical Congress round.

In Extemp, I want to learn new things, hear unique ideas and understand my world better.

In LD, I am neither a traditionalist or progressive; I want to hear a values-based argument founded on a good philosophical framework. Values are precursors to behaviors, so there is no solving of problems or plans of action.

Im always happy to answer questions before the round starts.

I do not favor spreading or excessive speed. speaking faster than conversational speaking rate is fine if necessary, but the speaker should still be clear and easy to understand. Be professional and confident at all times. remember you, are here to persuade me.

I prefer that competitors stay away from topicality arguments. If its a must address it and then continue to the topic. Debates that mainly focus on education and argumentation tactics are contradictory and a waste of time.

I prefer that clash remains clean. No eating up time with questions or answers, and please do not interrupt or cut your opponent off unless it is necessary for time purposes. I consider clash to be an important part of the debate because it demonstrates your understanding of the argument and your stance on the debate, and potential holes in your opponent's argument.

Overall, demonstrate to me a solid understanding of the resolution. I prefer structure, clarity and impact over all else. Make sure to emphasize voting issues by stating them slowly, clearly, and in a concise manner.

On the ballots I will try to be through, I will include things I feel each competitor did well and what I feel could use improvement. I will list my thoughts about different topics discussed in round as well as a flow of ideas that I felt held up in the round.

After the round is over I will happily give critiques but most of it will probably be on the ballot, however I typically do not disclose.

Did Public Forum throughout high school, also dabbled in LD and Policy. Currently do Parli debate at Texas State. Fine with all arguments, just don't be squirrely for the sake of being squirrely.