Competed in Congress, DX, FX, and PFD.

Currently a student at UT Austin and Policy Director for the Senate of College Councils.

Email: sding@utexas.edu

PFD:

PFD was meant to be more accesible to "lay people" so I expect that in the round. I'll flow but not really seeing if you hit all their cards because I'm judging more big picture. I'm not a big fan of counters and progressive theories. Ok on spreading but not really a huge fan of it.

Speaker Points: <25: speech all over the place/you said something offensive 25-27: good effort but needed some work 27-29: pretty good speaking style 30: WOW you should be the president's press secretary.

At the end of the day I'm judging big picture and not that you hit all their cards. I'm judging the round more on impacts and why your impacts are more important than the other team.

Congress:

Please Please for the Love of God have some clash if you're past the 3rd speaker. Mostly give 4-6 rankings for speeches. I'll normally rank the PO 4-8 if they didn't screw up big time. Also remember that you a US Representative/Senator.... ACT LIKE IT!!

I've been around for some time now and have seen how many things have changed. If I were to sum up my overall philopshy, I'm very much a traditionalist but reward originality and creativity. I competed in policy debate in hight school and Individual Events/CEDA in college. I am also a rules generated judge. If I feel you are on the wire or have leaped over it, I make mention of it.

On the IE side:

Interp - I belive in maintaining the authors intent. Of all the events, interp has changed the most over the years and in my opion in a good way. Today's interpers are unique, creative, and original. I have one steadfast rule in interp; I want to be drawn into the world the interper is giving me. If they can grab me from the beginning and keep in in that world throughout ther performance then they have succeeded. Anything that distracts or pulls me out of their world minimizes thier overall performance (crying, etc.).

Limited Prep: I judge on a 50/50 ratio. The first 50 is organization, content, and delivery. Firm beliver in the "walk-n-talk" philopshy that you walk only on transitions. The other 50 is content. If you make a statement, be able to support it. Make sure the question / topic is answered correctly.

Prep: Much like the limited prep but I reward originality on topics and their develoment.

On the Debate side:

Again, very much a traditionalist and don't particualy care for some "anitics" I have seen over the years. The affirmative must maintain burden of proof, counterplans are non-topical. negative wins one stock, they win the round. Rapid fire is okay as long as I can flow. If I can't flow it, I can't judge it. Depending upon the type of debate is how I judge it. Polcy debate must be fully supported with evidence. Public Forum is more on the philosphical (What the student knows and how they are able to communicate it), with LD being a combination of both support and philospical. Additionally, over the years some new "terms" have been develped. Basically, I don't care what you call it, all I want you to do is support it. If called for, I will give orals at the end but will not disclose my decision. The reason, I am not opening the the opportunity for the loosing team to debate me, that has happened a couple of times, I don't like the atmosphere when that happens so I have made it a rule never to disclose. I am also a firm believer in speakers roles and duties (don't accept open cross-x, etc.) . Each speaker has been give a role with duties and they are accountable for them.

I have a more detailed paradigm and once I locate it, I will attach.

LD Debate: I am a judge that leans toward the classic style. I don't mind K-debate, but you'd better make it apply to the resolution! I am not a fan Topicality arguments. If you run more than one off, I'm not going to apply the rest. Don't be a whiny debater. Debate the round! Speed is fine as long as you are articulate. Don't be rude to your opponent, and if you are a male debater...DON'T BE SEXIST OR CONDESCENDING to a female opponent. I want to hear framework, value, criterion, impacts, and links. Give me that and I will be happy.

PF Debate: Framework and Impacts! I don't like rudeness in Cross Examination. I like a mix of claims, warrants, and narrative. Tell me a story. I am not looking for solvency. I'm not sure why people think they have to solve in PF. I just want to understand why you support or oppose the status quo, how that fits into the framework provided, and where/how it impacts. Don't make it too difficult.

Speech and Interp: I enjoy being in speech and interp rounds, where I get to see student's personalities take flight! I love stories, and I feel like the journey's students choose to take us on are important ones!

In interp, I look for HONESTY and connection in each performance. Don't force emotion. We see that! It takes us out of the context of the piece! Also, please don't stare directly at me. I can't get lost in your piece if you are including me in the scene. I want to be a fly on the wall. And I'm a big believer in the FOURTH WALL. Also, I'm not a fan of those who exploit special needs characters, or make fun of them. If you use the "R" word in my round, or show disrespect to special needs characters, you will hear about it on my ballot. Please reconsider doing this in any piece you choose. It is exclusive and disturbing...don't resort to such things for the purpose of a trophy. This community encourages you to find growth in your humanity as well as your talents!

In speech, I like it when I learn something I didn't already know. Teach me! I love coming out of rounds and telling people, "I was in this OO/Informative/Extemp round and I just learned that..." And I don't mind controversial subjects either! As long as you aren't excluding anyone, or being offensive to a particular group of people (race, ability, religion, sexual preference...etc), then I'm okay with controversy. And whatever your topic...have conviction!

In both speech AND interp, I like it when students make CHOICES and take CHANCES. I'm a tough judge, but only because I want you to improve and have the best critique you can get to do that! I love the community that speech and debate provides for students. I also know that the experience I get from every single performer is invaluable! So thank you!

For TFA State:

Interp: I am a pretty open minded judge when it comes to judging interp overall but there are a few things I look for in performances. Creativity and honesty will always be the most rewarded in my book because it is why we do what we do at the end of the day. Showcasing your own interpretation, but staying true to the core of the story is important to me. Character development and emotional shifts are super important especially over a digital platform to keeping us engaged with the story and showing us the meaning behind the words. Have fun with the choices you make as long as they are PURPOSEFUL, doing something that distracts rather than enhances makes us lose connection between what is happening in the story.

Speaking/Extemp: Big thing is show your own unique style and approach to speaking because this is what separates you from other. I am a big fan of humor, but PLEASE, I BEG do not make it feel forced or this is just awkward for both of us. In terms of depth of the speech, I like more than just surface level arguments and I want to see you get to the higher end issues and core problems effectively. Structure is important obviously to make sure we can connect all of the ideas and know how you are getting to what you are wanting to. Finally, have variation in your delivery, it is important to showcase the different levels and power of your arguments and statements and so we should feel very engaged with how you are saying and what you are saying.

Worlds School Debate:

School affiliation/s : Northwest High School

Hired (yes/no) : Hired for WSD

High School Affiliation if graduated within last five years (required): Northwest High School

Currently enrolled in college? (required) If yes, affiliation? No

Years Judging/Coaching (required) I have been judging for 5- 6 years.

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event (required)

I pretty much started off my first year judging in interp and PF and then slowly incorporated all other forms of debate the following year.

Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year (required): Since August I have judged about 40 world school rounds around Texas.

Check all that apply

__x___I judge WS regularly on the local level

_____I judge WS at national level tournaments

_____I occasionally judge WS Debate

_____I have not judged WS Debate this year but have before

_____I have never judged WS Debate

Rounds judged in other events this year : 75 rounds including PF, LD, Interp, Speaking, and Congress.

Check all that apply

__x__ Congress

_x___ PF

__x__ LD

____ Policy

_x___ Extemp/OO/Info

__x__ DI/HI/Duo/POI

____ I have not judged this year

____ I have not judged before

Have you chaired a WS round before?

I have chaired multiple WS rounds before locally.

What does chairing a round involve?

Chairing a round basically is keeping the round in order and ensuring a productive and efficient debate. The chair is in charge of calling up the speakers, leading the RFD for the panel, making sure people do not ask questions during protected time (which I discuss students should keep their own timer at the beginning so we do not have this issue), and making sure a fair debate is occurring.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else?

I would describe WSD as a form of debate in which you are arguing ideas and issues to show which side of the motion is the most logical. This is way different than Americanized debate where theory and jargon is utilized more, so it is focusing on the core issues of the debate. Worlds is suppose to make sense to anyone who is listening to the debate and therefore the arguments should make rationale sense to anybody.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate?

I am fortunate enough to have a full setup for my computer. I have two monitors and on the main monitor I watch the debate, and the second monitor has my tabroom ballot where I am writing notes over each speech and speaker. I also in front of me use a notebook to flow the debate to make sure I keep up with what is being said in the round.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

This just simply depends on the topic itself. I am pretty open minded when it comes to arguments and do not have a personal preference as long as it is discussed why you chose what to advocate for. This clarity is needed to really emphasize why that approached is needed and it's on the debaters to tell me why it is preferable.

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy?

I think strategy usually is overlooked in terms of how you want structure arguments. A speaker's strategy is how do you connect the claims you present and how you word things in order to be effective in elaborating on arguments presented by the other side. Picking the right way to argue things and how you say it are definitely things to be aware of for your strategy.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast?

First, I am glad to have not judged a WSD where someone was spreading, so let's keep it that way hopefully. If someone is just not effective with their speed and tone I usually deduct points from their style.

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

As silly as it may sound, I usually vote on simply what makes sense. Since we do not have to have the 20 minutes of calling for cards (thankfully), I simply view whos reasoning and rationale makes the most sense towards the topic and arguments presented in the round. Show me your thought process through your speech and it usually comes down to who can prove their claims in a clear manner, rather than the throw everything at the wall and see what sticks strategy.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

I look at how effective and clear some model is to make sure it sets the foundation for your ideas. Make sure you think through your model to answer any potential questions individuals may have about it. I do not think all motions need a model or countermodel, so just make sure if you use one there is a purpose to it.

General Debate: I follow clear line-by-line arguments, I should not have to work hard to follow your arguments or understand what you are trying to prove. Clear extensions with solid analysis will win the round, but being rude won’t. If your plan to win is to interrupt your opponents you are going to have a tough time. I'm good with speed, just slow down in tags, dates, and authors. Just because it’s on your doc doesn’t mean you read it. If you set up an email chain my email is alyson.spencer@kellerisd.net. I have experience competing and judging in LD, CX, and PF so I know how the game is played. Let me know if you have any questions.

Case: Clear arguments that are well laid out are the way to go. I prefer the quality over quantity. Your goal should be to win because you have a better case not smother your opponent in arguments.
T: This is important. I don’t care how much of a positive impact comes from your case, if it doesn’t link in it will not win. Proving this sooner rather than later is key.
DAs and CPs: Do it, I’m game.
Ks and KAff: Prove that it is true and relevant and you got it.
Theory: I don’t buy theories that waste my time. If you are going to run a theory make it worth my time and energy.

Hello!

If you're viewing this page, I'm most likely going to be your judge for a Speech/Interp Round, and my paradigm is located below!

Firstly, I'm a national qualifier in this event, and a 2018 National Qualifier. I have major respect for this event and have few things to mention before you go off into round

I'm going to be incredible honest with you I.E. events are my favorite events and have little to no paradigm. You've already made your pieces and there's no way you can adapt to what I like 5 minutes before the round. I'll judge your piece like it is. These paradigms are for after

- If I happen to judge you and leave comments, use them to your advantage!! One thing I HATE seeing is someone who I'm judging for a second time only to see the exact same performance. USE WHAT THE JUDGES SUGGEST FOR YOU AND ADAPT!!

- Last thing: Speech and Interp is a forum and a platform to all types of voices. Any discriminatory/sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic (etc.) types of language and rhetoric will result in me, simply, not listening, and this may (and probably will) result in a ranking of dead last, accompanied with a talking-to with me about correcting such behavior. Just avoid it. Don't try to exploit the matters to seem edgy or explosive especially if you have not specifically researched the topic thoroughly and care about the topic and those affected by it.

- Speech/interp is amazing!! Have fun!!

PF/LD

- really simple here: DON'T TURN THE ROUND INTO A SCREAMING MATCH. i understand that in debate you have to attack your opponent and advocate for your side but still be respectful to your opponent and to my ears.

- I consider myself more "tabula rosa" and will flow and evaluate what is presented to me; this means: offer some framework for me, carefully quantify your impacts, and etc.; tell me how i ought to judge this round !!

- comments about being respectful of the debate space apply here from what i mentioned from speech/interp above

- Any form of argumentation is fine as long as it is warranted and you can clearly explain it. This includes T, plans, and counterplans. However, I am not familiar with critical arguments, so run Ks at your demise. (also, if i don't understand your DA, CP, etc, and its obvious, that's on you)

- I would strongly encourage you to disclose arguments before round and even add me to an email chain. How much or how little you disclose is up to you and your opponent. You can ask for my email in round. If you choose not to, I may request full access to any pieces of evidence at any time

- For speaking speed, still go a little slower. If you're fast and I don't understand and I can't flow, it's your loss

- Have fun !!

Congress

- not many things to mention, but watch "when" you place your speeches

- I expect the first quarter of the debate to have contention args and speeches that sound like a sponsorship, after that, please focus on a more rebuttal speech!

- Disrespectful PO's are NOT the move

- Super new in Congress so if i ask questions don't be rude about it.

Exempt: FX and DX

- Make sure your hand motions are not super distracting. Some motions are okay and if they make sense but if they are all over the place then I definitely will use it against you when i think about your rank. Same with leg movement when standing in place don't sway or move around unless it's to move to your next point.

- On my ballots i usually write down your argument so i can keep up with your reasoning and write any disputes i have. So if i just write what you said either i didn't get much from it or it didn't need any work.

-Clearly state and cite you're sources so your argument has merit also provide framework/ road map to your speeches

- I'm sort of new in exempt so for the most part my comments will be more speech based since that's what I'm used to. But that doesn't mean i can't tell when you're not doing your best or doing something wrong

- Don't stand there and yell your argument at me

- Do people spread in exempt? Don't in mine please!!!

- Make it interesting ad in a saying or a joke or two to keep your judged invested and interested.

Overall in a pretty fair judge in general and if you have problems I encourage you to talk to me about it

Hello!

CX -

I am a policymaker judge.

Spreading: Do NOT spread. If you spread, you will immediately lose the round, even if you were originally winning on the flow. I am here to listen to you speak and convince me of your side, not to hyperventilate. Clarity is key for my vote. Therefore, I prefer quality over quantity. I need to be able to flow the arguments.

Kritiks: I prefer not to listen to these UNLESS you really understand it. I want to hear real-world arguments, not obscure alternatives that would never really impact-out. That being said, on the aff, make sure if the alternative has no real impact that outweighs your case you address this first and foremost.

Disadvantages: The negative would do best running these alongside case arguments. Make sure on these that the negative addresses the link and explains how this outweighs the aff advantages. On the Aff, make sure you address arguments like non-unique, no link, no impact.

Topicality: I will vote on this, although I don't prefer to listen to it unless it is a clear violation of the resolution.

Stock Issues: I will most definitely vote on this as I am a stock issues judge. Convince me on this and you won the round.

What I Vote On: I will vote on anything at the end of the round. I am here to listen to you, and it is your job to convince me of your case.

Case: Neg - always run case. I love clash, so make sure, if you can, that you include this. Aff - never drop case cards.

New in the 2: I would prefer if you did not do this, but I will not vote you down unless the other team calls abuse.

Flashing: I do not count flashing as prep unless it becomes excessive / is being abused.

Good luck to both teams! I look forward to your round!

IE Events:

I went to Nationals in high school for Extemporaneous speaking, so I have had prior experience with speaking events. To do well, just make sure you maintain eye contact, speak clearly, and most importantly, be persuasive. The key to any speaking event and garnering your judge's attention is to make sure that your judge does not get bored. Inflection, variation, and unique points within your speech are all key. That being said, I love to judge this form of event, and I look forward to your speech!

I am a volunteer. The Richardson Eagle event is my first time judging.

I tend to include performance, diction, voice, energy, etc. in my evaluation for events like oratory, info, and extemp, along with the obvious analysis of content, ideas, and supporting material.

I think creativity in blocking and staging should be rewarded in a digital atmosphere as much as they are in a live one.

I am pretty liberal on content - language, sexuality, etc. do not bother or offend me, as long as the performer has a real grasp on the subjects they are talking about and understands them fully. However, I view 'profanity' much differently than slurs, derogatory language, etc. In general I would prefer that they not be used. There are scripts that use them in order to bring home a point about the vileness of such ideas and beliefs, but in my opinion, that must be very earned, and in most cases, it is not.

I'm fine with anything. extensions and analysis of arguments/cards are essential.

specific paradigm questions can be asked prior to the round.

I expect debaters to keep their own time.

My email is timmytom019@gmail.com, I would like to be part of email chains.

I tend to be a more traditional judge, but that does not mean I oppose different styles of LD Debate. While I am not fully accustomed to CX-style debate in LD, I am comfortable with CX arguments. If you feel more comfortable running policy arguments, go for it. It won’t impact your ballot simply because it is policy.

Spreading: I’m pretty comfortable with spreading, but if I can’t understand you, I will put my pen down and stop flowing your arguments.

Impacts/voters: Please weigh your impacts in your final rebuttal! Give voters! If you don’t tell me why I should vote for you based on the arguments in the round, I will default to your opponent's voters.

Overall, keep it classy. I will dock major speaker points if I feel a competitor is deliberately attacking their opponent.

OO/INFO/Extemp:

As long as the speech is organized and easy to follow, how you organize it is up to you. I know there are different standards everywhere. Make sure you back up your points and arguments with sufficient evidence!

INTERP:

I have no preference for how you put together your piece as long as it helps the plot structure overall. I love good character work! While pops and tricks are nice, what really wins me over is getting lost in the character's story when it is genuine.

Furtuna Yemane

Affiliations: Richardson High School

Experience: Two years of varsity LD and extemp, graduated in 18' and haven't judged since 19' so I'm rusty with circuit level debate

Long story short: Rounds should be educational and inclusive. I generally aim to be tabula rasa so do whatever style you prefer, but please ask before running particularly convoluted. I keep judge intervention to the absolute minimum unless I see something blatantly unethical.

In Round etiquette: If you're disrespectful towards the opponent you'll get bad speaks and if it happens often I'll be more likely to vote you down.

Speaker Points: My normal range is 27 to 30. I keep this range relative to other speakers at the tournament.

Spreading: I'll say clear whenever I need to, but if bad spreading impedes my ability to listen to arguments then that's going to affect my flowing. Same for me saying louder or slower.

I will vote for the best argument.