I have judged a number of events including PF, LD, CX, and Speech. I consider myself a more Traditional Judge who values the educational experience of this activity and would rather judge actual clash in a round than having to weigh for you.

LD:

As mentioned above, I am a traditional judge and I need to see clash in a round.

I do not tolerate disrespect and if you can't respect me or your opponents, you are almost certainly guaranteed to lose the round.

Values Debate:

You can run whatever you want in your framework, but I need to see the logic behind what you're running. Even if the VP is as simple as Morality, tell me why you win.

If there is no VP clash, and the VPs are the same, rather than just set the VP as the set premise for the round, tell me why your opponents view of Morality/Justice/etc. is flawed and why you uphold it better. Go ahead with defining it but I would rather see why it is important.

Value Criterion debate is probably the most important section on the flow for me. If the criterions are the same what I mentioned before still applies. Make sure you extend the debate across the flow or else I have no choice to vote for your opponent. Additionally as you establish your framing as the established values for the round, make sure you carry it through with you across the speech.

Argument Debate:

Same thing as the values, I need to see the logic behind your arguments. I couldn't care less how you structure your contentions, make it easy for me to flow. Subpoints are definitely ideal when writing a case, and emphasize your taglines. I value Truth > Tech, I recognize the abstraction in LD so I'll believe what you say as long as the logic you provide justifies your warrant.

Sign posting is extremely important and make sure you number your responses when you begin to break down the case. Impact your arguments out!

Impact Debate:

All your arguments should have an impact to them or else there was no point for me to listen to what you just said, therefore when you go to your final speech you can give proper impact-calc that makes it easy for me as a judge to weigh.

In the era of progressive debate I tend to see impacts either be existential (we're all gonna die) or just we couldn't care less about this problem x, y, and z are happening and therefore who cares about nuclear arsenals and standardized tests.

Impacts for me need to be logical and weighable, and don't make me scratch my head for 15 minutes wondering how I'm supposed to consider this.

I am a senior at Stanford and extemp coach at Palo Alto High school.

PF/LD/Congress: I encourage you to signpost as much as possible and explicitly describe the round's collapse. I appreciate when debaters build up multiple layers of defense and challenge each other's warrants. I won't reward speeches that simply point out the opponent's drops without explaining why certain arguments are actually round-winning. Weigh your impacts and really clearly show me your team's path to the ballot.

Policy*: I don't have any real CX experience, so think about me like a very lay judge that will flow a lot.

Speech: Speak slower and with more pauses than you think you should. I flow extensively and care a lot about internal structure. I'll reward creativity of topic more than most judges; that is, I'll probably vote the speech that takes a risk but maybe isn't as polished over the one that is very technically sound but is something I've heard 100 times.

Extemp*: Extemp warrants its own section since I primarily competed in USX while in high school. Content is much more important than delivery for me, and I'll be paying attention to how your points flow internally. I don't think extempers focus enough on characterization, that is, describing a situation or conflict before getting into the argument. This should be worked in throughout the speech, not just the background section of your introduction. I really don't like canned intros, and it's more obvious than you might think if you're surreptitiously reading off your flow.

Interp: I never competed in interp but have judged it quite a bit. I'll do my best to give blocking/performative advice, but my decision may come down to more holistic, less precise metrics like your energy level and how entertaining I found the piece.

Everyone is welcome to keep their own time, and I encourage you to share your pronouns prior to the round. I will stop any round at any time if anyone is feeling unsafe or unwelcome.

- Your main points should be clear and easy to understand. Make sure your message is straightforward and not convoluted with too many loosely related arguments

- Speaker technique is also something I'll be on the lookout for -- enthusiasm, limited filler words, general flow, etc. will be taken into consideration

- I'm fine with fast speaking but make sure each sentence is still enunciated and understandable

- Humor and out of the box arguments are appreciated

- Relevance and credibility of your sources are extremely important

- Any racist, sexist, homophobic, or discriminatory remarks will not be tolerated, so please be respectful when speaking

Public Forum paradigm

I now coach speech, but I have also coached Congress and have judged PF and LD for the past 15 years in Ohio, Louisiana, and the national circuit. I never competed, but you know what they say about those who can’t (or don't).

I like to hear a well organized case—I value clarity and consistency. I prefer depth of analysis of one or two contentions rather than superficial treatment of a long list. Supporting evidence is important, but not as important as logical argumentation. Be sure that evidence actually supports or refutes and is not just thrown in to provide a source. I tend to vote on the arguments that involve impact and scope.

Clash is essential—nothing more deadly than listening to dueling evidence with no actual interaction. Do as much damage as you can to your opponent’s case and defend you own—sounds really basic, but that’s what I like to hear.

Crossfire is a time to ask questions—please do not use it to advance or restate your case (unless, of course, it pertains to a question you’ve been asked). I like to see teamwork in grand cross—please do not monopolize and let your partner get a word in edgewise.

I enjoy a nice extemporaneous delivery that demonstrates some real (or feigned) enthusiasm for your argument. Please do not spread—it is not impressive, and if I can’t follow you, the quality of your argument suffers.

And finally I value civility, courtesy, and respect—please don’t disappoint.

Lincoln Douglas paradigm

Similar to my PF standards, I am pretty traditional. I like a case that is well organized, clear, and consistent. Supporting evidence and depth of analysis are important, but logical arguments are essential. I really enjoy a good framework debate, and I appreciate hearing voting issues--tell me why I should vote for you. Why are your impacts more important?

I like an extemporaneous and conversational delivery. I am okay with some speed, but no spreading, please--if I can't follow you, I can't vote for you.

Civility, courtesy, and respect--always important.

Congress paradigm

Congress rankings are based on content (structure, evidence, clarity, analysis, clash) and delivery (articulation, fluency, vocal and physical expression, confidence/poise). Most importantly who advanced the debate and contributed the most through the quality (not necessarily the quantity) of his/her/their speeches and questions?

Civility, courtesy, and respect apply here as well.

I am a parent judge.

No spreading please. Just present your arguments clearly and weigh impacts

I'm a Northwestern University graduate, and I competed for four years at Dougherty Valley High School in California. My main events were Congress and Original Advocacy, but I have some experience in World Schools Debate and PF. I prefer traditional styled debates at an average speed. The debate should involve polished presentation skills, a lot of clash with the other team, and an emphasis on evidence. I value a good balance between presentation and content, so make sure you prove your ability to manage both those aspects of a debate in the round. Also, be respectful to your opponents and your partner!

I coach Congress and Speech, so I value argumentation and delivery equally. Listen to the room, avoid rehash, be responsive to arguments. Finally, be respectful—we are here to grow, not to tear each other down.

I am a parent judge. No preferences

I am a lay judge who does not understand jargon (e.g. words such as solvency, counterplan, kritik, disad). Treat the debate like a performance. Do not spread or use progressive arguments. I do flow. I prefer truth over tech. I like when you do impact calculus and make my decision easier for me. I do not care what you wear. Please do not run theory. If you have written a storytelling version of your AC or NC, you should read that instead of reading a traditional LD case with all your cards cut. I listen to cross-ex, but I do not pay much attention. You should set up a big picture that is easy for me to follow in your later speeches.

Hi! I'm an IE/debate judge residing in Chicago and working in finance, and am also an assistant high school speech coach. In high school my focus was persuasive/OO and poetry interp, and in college I expanded my events to include duo, impromptu, POI. You name it, I did it. I lead my college's team as one of the 3 student lead collegiate teams in the country, so I know the hard work it takes to not only put together pieces/write/prep, but to lead a team simultaneously.

FOR SPEECH:

1. Quality over quantity. In written events, sources are great to get your point across, but too many can disrupt your thesis. Delve into your sources more and give me concrete, flowing explanations. Do not put sources in just to "have them" or meet your source quota.

2. Include trigger warnings. I do not have any personal triggers that will affect me judging your piece, but your peers who are watching might. Be respectful of everyone you might encounter.

3. Interp Events - Give Me SUBSTANCE! The emotional range of topics vary greatly. Emotions are valid and should be part of an interp piece. However, too much emotion where it isn't warranted during the performance shows me you may be trying to cover up for not having enough substantial material.

3. Be Yourself. Coming from a speech background myself, I know trying to "butter up" the judges may seem like a good idea, but it does not work with me. I am here for your performance. Show me what you've worked on and the reward follows.

FOR DEBATE:

I also have experience judging Congress and LD. For the purpose of this week's tournament, in LD I look for the following:

1. Let the opponent ask questions in their entirety during cross x. There could be a bit of information in the question that could be very relevant to how you answer, and if you miss that piece of information, that is on you. Make sure everyone has the right to speak and finish their questions.

2. Focus on your opponent's information. Really show me you are listening to what they are saying and add that into your rebuttal and cross x. I know you've been working really hard on your personal research for this topic, but I look for someone who listens to their opponent and use that information to help their argument and cross x. It shows an attentive, experienced speaker in the round.

3. Start out with substance over theory. Starting with theory is a much bigger hurdle to overcome and you may not have enough time in your speeches to enhance, yet alone, prove them.

4. Balance out your recent and past history examples. Too many recent history examples (especially with the November/December topic), leads me to believe you are just searching for the easiest examples, the first ones that come up when researching. Dig deeper, show me you researched the past, say, 70 years or so!

I've been judging various forms of speech and debate events on local, state and national levels since 2013. Head coach of St. John's School since 2020.

I have no event specific expectations on what should happen, I prefer everything to be spelled out in round. I do not like intervening.

Speaker points are a tie-breaker, so I am a bit more conservative with them, but that doesn't mean I'll tank your points unless you're unclear, have frequent speech errors, go over time, or if you're rude. Expect an average 27.5-29.5 range in PF/LD/CX and a range of 68-72 in Worlds and a 3-5 range in Congress. Perfect speaks reserved for those who truly exemplify great public speaking skills. Rudeness can also be a cause for a team losing.

Don't assume I know anything, explain as if you were talking to someone non-specialized in whatever subject matter you're speaking on.

Ask before round any further questions you might have.

-----

For WSD

I will be following the conventions and norms that asks us to:

• think about these things on a more holistic approach;
• nuance our argumentation and engage on the comparative;
• think that the principle level argumentation is key and that the practical should make sense in approaching the principle;
• not engage on tricky arguments or cherry picked examples;
• debate the heart of the motion and not conditionally proposing or opposing (that we are debating the full resolution);
• reward those that lean into their arguments and side;
• preference thinking about the motions on a global scale when applicable.

When it comes to interpretation events, I am drawn to performances that marry the synergy between literature, fully crafted performances, and effective blocking. I'll be looking for a well-crafted and engaging message that not only captivates the audience but also demonstrates a deep appreciation for the literary nuances in your chosen material. Ensure your content is not just spoken but embodied, utilizing effective blocking to enhance the visual dimension of your performance. Your delivery remains pivotal, so articulate your words with confidence, using your voice, body language, and strategic blocking to create a cohesive and immersive presentation. Pay attention to pacing and timing for a seamless and dynamic flow. Tell me a story, take me on a journey, and make me feel something!

1. What is your experience level? Have you been
actively coaching or judging, and how long?
How often have you judged rounds on this
topic?

Former interp competitor, who has been coaching and judging all speech and debate events since 2002. I have served as an event specific coach, assistant coach and head coach of small and large programs. I have judged speech, PF and Congress at all levels of competition, from local tournaments, state finals, national circuit, and national final rounds.

2. Describe your preferences as they relate to
debaters’ rate of delivery and use of jargon or
technical language.

I can handle speed for the most part, but too fast to flow and it would be difficult to win the round.

3. Describe your personal note-taking during
the round. Do you write down key arguments?
Keep a rigorous flow?

I record brief notes on the key arguments and points of the round.

4. What are the specific criteria you consider
when assessing a debate?

I look at who won the most important/critical argument of the round based on the impacts presented.

5. What expectations do you have for debaters’
in-round conduct?

I very open to style choices; however, overtly rude or aggressive behavior is unacceptable. Debaters who are respectful of their opponents and understand the art of debate should be applauded.

I am a lay judge. I don't like fast speaking. I vote for arguments that make sense and are explained to me.

I am a parent that did LD and policy debate in high school and loved it.

For Congressional Debate, my focus is on logic. The better I can understand your arguments, the more it clashes with arguments made by previous debaters, and the better you can explain why those should be the reason to vote for the position you're advocating, the better the score will be. For the question of content vs presentation I try to follow the 70-30 rule -- the focus is mainly on the content, but great presentation is appreciated.

In a round with a lot of great speakers and strong arguments and clash, I will tend to rank higher those that "raise the room" more. All things being equal, the tiebreaker for me will be those that are friendlier to others and have a more civil / respectful tone in their speeches and questioning.

About me:

Hi! I'm a very experienced parliamentarian.

My rankings as a parliamentarian tend to be pretty spot-on for the top three to five students in my prelim chambers before varying a little bit going down from there, as they should.

Try not to overthink where I rank you. I would say to focus on the feedback; I've been a part of the Congressional Debate community as a competitor, judge, and coach for over a decade now, so I certainly have some thoughts on how I think you can improve.

Prelims:

We are all aware that teammates share prep, students are using AI, and some unscrupulous coaches prep their students out. That is why I have found that I actually judge more heavily off of delivery in prelims. I'm always listening to your arguments and taking note of strong and weak ones, but I'm not exactly flowing the round like it's PF; I'm just trying to give each of you a paragraph of feedback for each speech. Here is a non-exhaustive list of things I will try to evaluate over the course of nine or so hours as your parliamentarian:

Content:

☐ Good arguments & avoid rehash

☐ Full (with the date) citations & high-quality sources

☐ Signposting your arguments/clear taglines

☐ Ability to refute

☐ Ability to crystalize

☐ Strong analysis

☐ Strong questioning

☐ Strong introductions

☐ Strong conclusions (that relate to your intro and last for longer than 5 seconds)

☐ Rhetoric & humor

☐ Appeals to pathos

Delivery:

☐ Effective hand gestures

☐ Eye contact (especially during your introduction)

☐ Volume/presence

☐ Passion, not aggression

☐ Vocal variation (tone & volume & speed)

☐ Fluency of speech

☐ Walking on points

☐ Conversational pace

☐ Ends on time/time management (this is a BIG pet peeve of mine; try to end at 3:00 please)

Style:

☐ Leadership/influence in the chamber

☐ In-round strategy (overcoming bad pre-set recency, getting a third speech in without losing the respect of your peers)

☐ Decorum

☐ Use of a legal pad or non-technological equivalent (this is part of the role-play)

☐ Maintaining the role-play (if you are a senator, that means you're pretending to be at least 30 years old)

Elimination rounds:

I'll be honest, I only occasionally judge elimination rounds because I am usually conflicted out of all of them except for at the largest tournaments (think Harvard or NSDA House quarters). However, I do watch them all the time as a spectator.

What I am really looking for in semis (or quarters) are students who have not only mastered the fundamentals, but also find a way to stand out in a room where everyone is pretty decent at speaking.

Specifically, the key things I am really looking for when I judge an elimination round are:

☐ Outstanding intros & conclusions

☐ Clear signposting & structure

☐ Authentic rhetoric & pathos

☐ Advanced argumentation & synthesis

☐ Conversational pace & stellar eye contact

☐ Strong time management throughout a speech (3:00 is the target; if both of your speeches are 3:10, that looks comparatively weak)

A note on presiding:

If you're going to be a presiding officer while competing in Congressional Debate, be a great one. Above all, time your fellow competitors accurately. If you mistime or misgavel your colleagues, I consider that to be a critical failure. Pay attention to your timer and if you make a mistake, be honest about it and come clean. I also don't like it when POs lie about speech times (saying a speech that is 3:13 is 3:10).

POs should demonstrate authority and leadership through problem-solving, managing the chamber when conflict and confusion arises.

I keep a close eye to see if a PO appears to have read the tournament-specific rules.

I highly value word economy. The more you speak as a PO, the more time you are wasting.

Dockets and agendas are not the same thing. The words are not interchangeable.

If no one wants to preside and you are genuinely taking one for the team, I will obviously recognize that and try to help you out if I'm your parli.

Finally:

Remember why we are all here: Speech and Debate is an educational activity. This is about you becoming the best, most capable version of yourself (and using those talents to make the world a better place). Five years from now, the confidence, talent, and knowledge you cultivate through this activity will be useful to you, every single day. The plaques and trophies will either still be on display at your old school or sitting in a box at home somewhere, out of sight and out of mind.

PF:

My background as a debater is in parli, and that tells you a lot about my philosophy: evidence matters, but logic/reasoning/narrative is what I'll remember.

WEIGH. Weigh and meta-weigh. If you only take one thing away from my paradigm, let if be this!

Collapse your arguments in summary/FF. Give me voters that bring out major themes. I love FFs snd summaries that begin with, "Here are the three most important reasons you should return an aff ballot," instead of "I'll do their case and then our case."

I don't love jargon-heavy arguments in PF. I do sincerely believe that PF rounds should be intelligible to an educated lay judge. I *love* a good progressive argument, though, as long as it's explained clearly.*

*(more information if you're curious: my standard for 'clearly' is, your opponents could make a reasonable refutation of your argument by thinking on their feet based on a reasonable HS-level amount of background knowledge about capitalism/racism/whatever, without having spent a ton of time studying theory/Ks in particular. I won't buy the response in rebuttal that progressive arguments are intrinsically unfair to competitors from small programs; I would buy the response that your opponents have not explained their arguments clearly and were tech-y enough that you can't reasonably respond without specialized knowledge.)

Speed is fine if you signpost well and your arguments are clear. (If you're making a complicated or subtle argument, slow down for that argument.) I won't read your speech doc, though. If I didn't hear it, you didn't say it.

If you're consistently interrupting your opponents in cross, I will ignore what you're saying when you interrupt them. Be courteous! Win on the strength of your arguments, not your aggressiveness.

Generally tech-y. Exceptions: I won't count it if you throw out an obviously objectively terrible response to an argument in rebuttal so that the argument's not officially conceded (that counts as "basically conceded" to me). I also can't bring myself to vote for arguments that are intrinsically and obviously offensive ("racism good").

-------------

World Schools:

Don't give me a PF/Policy/LD round! I really sincerely will base 40% of my decision on speaking style. Tech ≤ truth.

CONGRATULATIONS! I am thrilled to have the opportunity to judge!

As a judge, I will always look for a professional presentation. This includes, not only your content and delivery, but also your presentation of YOU. I appreciate CONFIDENCE and POISE in a speaker, unafraid of being seen and heard. Please take pride in how you present yourself.

What am I looking for? In all categories, across the board, I find appropriate structure to be of utmost importance. Each event under the IE heading has a structure that is unique to that event. There must be evidence that you as a speaker understands what that structure is.

Naturally, in extemporaneous speaking events, your evidence is needed. Use and site your sources.

Delivery is going to be what I'm looking for most. Speak clearly, speak confidently and speak accurately and you will have done well.

As an interp judge, I am wanting you to make me feel something. I want to be taken on the journey. That is what I will look at first, and then will be the evaluation of the technique, et al. The same mantra as above is used as well...SPEAK CLEARLY, SPEAK CONFIDENTLY AND SPEAK ACCURATELY.

I want to see you become the character(s) you are portraying and have the most believability in the role. Often times in the speech world, I see so many students caught up in the “statement” of the piece, they are no longer focusing on the acting.

I want to see completely fleshed out characters and actors who have thought about each moment! Breathing, operative words, and event work is crucial.

Blocking should be creative but not steal focus. It should be used to enhance your piece and not done for the sake of doing so.

passion and creativity in OO, INFO, and Extemp is ranked highest! When everyone has the same great analysis, it’s the small things like the intellectual way you created your AGD or vehicle that make you stand out!

I've been a Speech and Debate coach for the past 7 years, but primarily on the Speech side.

When it comes to policy debate, I tend to be more of a stock issues judge and believe that the Aff's burden is to protect and prove the stock issues; I especially look for that. I also want you to clearly articulate your positioning and prove why your arguments outweigh your opponent.

For Congress, be clear and efficient with your speeches. Feel free to lean into the "Congressional" part of it and performance is always key, but if you don't have sufficient evidence and don't explain or otherwise discuss the consequences and implications of that evidence then all the rhetoric in the world won't make up for it.

Overall, please speak clearly and slowly. Do not spread. And above all, analyze your evidence. Don't let it stand for itself - prove why it's important.

I am a certified theatre educator and director with over 15 years of directing experience.

1) Movement - how choreography is incorporated whether it is body language of different characters to make them stronger, or use of a black book creatively.

2) Fluid story - I should know from beginning to end the rising action, climax, falling action, and resolve in your story. If it is a POI, I should see the same thing in the cutting of the pieces.

3) Hidden message - from the teaser to the introduction, all the way to the end of the piece, I want to be able to understand the hidden message of why you picked this piece(s) to support something you are passionate about.

4) Characters - There should be distinguished characters in each of the pieces. If you have multiple characters in one piece, each one should have a different "story", body language and voice to tell them a part.

For LD:

1) Evidence - using evidence sufficiently to support the claims in your argument.

2) Argument - your argument has to make sense, meaning you can't just argue that your opponent is wrong because of everything you already said. In cross I expect a new form of argument that still supports your stance.

3) Claims - I should hear a speech in your debate that clearly states the issues and how you resolve it.

Public Forum

I have been judging Public Forum Debate for over three years and I have been a trial attorney for over 25 years.

I expect respectful and knowledgeable debaters that present CLEAR arguments supported by evidence.

The debaters' job should be to persuade the common person that has no knowledge of the topic.

The debate should not be technical but rather based upon the strength of the arguments and the debaters' ability to persuade.

Speech

I have been judging Speech for over two years, but I have been a trial attorney for over 25 years.

Extemp speakers should answer the question and the answer should be supported by some evidence.
It is beneficial to have a good intro, facts and a conclusions that sums up your answer/position.

With regard to other forms of Speech, please be clear and engaging in your presentation.

ALL SPEAKERS MUST BE RESPECTFUL TO EACH OTHER

Head coach at Plano East Senior High.

I enjoy judging IEs most.
In Extemp: at TFA State I will be randomly source checking 1 source per speech, let’s not be making up our sources plz

In LD, I’ve gotten much more progressive, but I tend to still favor traditional.

-I do not like Kritiks; they are generic and lazy debating - I will not vote for them. If you can run the same K all year on all the topics, that's a problem.

-On case attacks are important!

-Theory & CPs good.

-Do not read at me while giving voters.

-2AR does not necessarily have to be line-by-line.

-I understand spreading, but if you become unclear I will say "clear" once, and after that, if you do not clear your speaking, I will stop flowing, more than likely hurting your chances. 7/10 speed please. Slow down on tags please.

In PF, I’m traditional. I don’t like spreading in PF and there should definitely not be CPs, Theory, Kritiks, or anything like that.

In Policy, pretty much the same as LD above, except I have more tolerance for Ks in Policy because it is a year long topic and you have more time to read lit. I have a lot less experience in Policy than the other debate events, but I have some competitive UIL CX history and can cross apply progressive LD knowledge.

In all debates: I do not tolerate rudeness - especially in cx/crossfire. I love seeing passion in rounds, but being passionate about your topic does not mean you get to be rude. Excessive rudeness/terrible attitude results in lowest speaks possible.

Include me in on email chains: madison.gackenbach@pisd.edu

I look forward to hearing you speak!

I mostly did Extemp is HS, but I have some experience in LD. I don't have a preference how you choose to give your speeches (go fast if you *have* to) as long as I can hear each word you say.

Hello! My name is Nico Gonzalez. My pronouns are he/him. I competed in a wide variety of events during my four years at The Woodlands High School. These include PF, WSD, Info, OO, Prose, IMP, and USX. In college, I competed in Prose, IPDA Debate, and Impromptu before unfortunately transferring to a school that did not have a team :(

Random thoughts (THESE APPLY TO ALL EVENTS)

-Pronouns: In most rounds I've seen or participated in for the last few years, I haven't had an issue with this, as most competitors refer to their opponents as "my opponent" and not by any gendered pronoun, but please do not misgender anyone (ESPECIALLY NOT ON PURPOSE) and if you can, add your pronouns to your tab account under "profile". This is simply to avoid any conflict and make the environment comfortable for everyone.

-Trigger/ Content Warnings

These are CRUCIAL if you're going to discuss any heavily sensitive subjects such as abuse, assault, etc. THIS ALSO APPLIES FOR IEs. I have seen far too many Interp pieces with extremely triggering scenes and no warning. I personally do not have any triggers, but that does NOT mean your competitors don't. Be mindful. Simply saying "as a quick warning, my piece will be discussing _______" or "before I speak, I would like to warn everyone that our case includes discussions of ________" is enough.

Disclosing Results

Please don't pressure judges to disclose results. Ever. Asking is fine to me, but sometimes we need some time to process the round, reflect, and make final decisions. I will never disclose IE rankings but yet again I've never seen a judge do that. As for debate events, if I've made my decision, I'll disclose. I find that being able to discuss in person rather than only in a written ballot can be very productive and yields better feedback. If we have time and the tournament isn't running late, I might ask you to stay one or two minutes if you want me to disclose. Generally, I want to give y'all constructive feedback rather than downing you without properly explaining why.

Conduct

There are certain actions that I will not accept in a round. For example, talking when your opponent is speaking. I don't mean whispering to your partner to strategize, that is perfectly acceptable. What I do not allow is trying to argue while your opponent is speaking. Each team has its own time, respect it.

Another unacceptable action is making remarks toward your opponent instead of their case/arguments. I once had a round where an opponent just went through my case, called it "bad debate", referred to my team as "bad debaters" then proceeded to lose. Why? As judges, we don't want to hear you say your opponent's case is bad. Instead, debate it properly and show us why yours is better. Everyone is at a different point in their speech & debate journey, so be respectful.

Generally, just remember: it costs ZERO dollars to be respectful. Other obvious unacceptable actions such as blatant harassment will likely end with me having a chat with your coach. Let's avoid that.

Statement on Implicit Bias:

I do not tolerate sexism, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc, in any way. When I competed in WSD, my female teammates were often talked over and interrupted a lot more than me and my male teammates. The same was true in PF when I had a female partner. Some competitors do not have sexist or malicious intentions, but do these things subconsciously, so please keep this in mind for EVERY round you compete in. Please respect your competitors and we will not have an issue. Female competitors are too often criticized for exhibiting behavior that is considered "normal" for male debaters and are told to "calm down" or "stop yelling" yet are expected to tolerate being talked over and disrespected by male opponents. I will not perpetuate this sexist culture that plagues the speech and debate community, and I will never expect any competitors to submit to gender roles.

WSD

Models: I absolutely love models in WSD. If you decide to run a model, stick with it during every speech of the round or I won’t consider it when voting. Basically as long as it's not dropped, it's fair game.
Burdens: I usually find that burdens go dropped by both teams in rounds, so I won’t mind if you don’t provide burdens in framework, but I also will not vote off of burdens if they’re simply unfair or abusive.
Weighing: Use the reply speech to weigh. The way I used to do it, for example, was by going over principal/practical arguments and then upholding the framework provided at the beginning of the round.
POIs: I will be giving time signals to signal protected time. Also, please allow the speaker asking a POI to finish their question before cutting them off. As for asking POIs: please wait at least twenty seconds between POIs and try to keep your POIs no longer than 15 seconds.

Speed/Presentation: I prefer a normal speaking pace in WSD. The whole point of WSD is to be persuasive and presentation is a large factor in that. PF and LD have both been slowly adopting spreading as an acceptable strategy, but I refuse to let that happen to WSD. While it has not become an issue yet, please keep in mind that presentation is a voting criteria in the points system of most WSD ballots.

LD/CX

If you have the misfortune of having me as a judge for LD or CX, it probably means the tournament REALLY needed judges, because I am not very well versed with LD/CX terminology or common arguments.

I did compete in CX for UIL which is VERY lay so I'm really only familiar with the basic arguments such as plans, counterplans, disads, topicality, voting issues, etc. My LDer friends tried explaining Kritiks and Theory to me many times, and I understand Kritiks to a certain extent, but please try to keep the round traditional/lay.

Despite my lack of experience, I am actually fine with (but do not love) spreading IF AND ONLY IF I can see the case (email chain, flashing, Google Drive) while you speak to make flowing/ following along easier. Additionally, make sure you slow down for taglines so I can flow those, and generally please SIGNPOST.

PF

I competed in PF for two years. What I want to see most in PF is consistency. Please do not introduce new arguments after the first rebuttal, as I prefer the round to consist of both teams actually attacking and engaging with each other's arguments and not trying to stack as many new arguments on their side as possible. Every PFer knows time is VERY limited, and my biggest complaint when competing in it was how short the speeches were. For this reason, I do not expect every single argument to be extended until the very end. If you drop a minor argument, I will not instantly vote you down. In the summary and final focus, only respond to the arguments you have time for. Do not skim over large arguments or give short, surface level responses for the sake of having enough time for minor arguments.

For speaker points, I usually give decently high speaks. A little bit of humor might earn you a little extra, but my standards for speaks are nothing special.

As for speed, I would rather not hear spreading or attempting to speak rapidly to fit arguments in general. Public Forum has sadly started to see spreading more and more often, although NSDA was kinda asking for that to happen by making the speech times so short...

I look forward to judging for you! Please ask me in round if you have any further questions!

I am an experienced judge in both speech and debate, having coached for 30+ years in all categories offered within the spectrum of S&D. I began coaching Lincoln Douglas and Congressional Debate in the 1990’s, have coached PF since its inception, having coached the first PF team that represented NJ at Nationals in Atlanta, GA. I currently coach the NJ World Teams.

I am a flow judge who looks for logical arguments, a valid framework, and substantiation of claims made within your case. As a teacher of rhetoric, I appreciate word economy and precise language. Do not default to speed and redundancy to overwhelm. Persuade concisely; synthesize your thoughts efficiently. Be articulate. Keep your delivery at a conversational rate.

A good debate requires clash. I want to see you find and attack the flaws in your opponents’ arguments, and respond accordingly in rebuttal. Cross examination should not be a waste of time; it is a time to clarify. It is also not a time for claws; be civil, particularly in grand crossfire.

Disclosure is not a discussion or a renewed debate. Personally, I am not a fan, in large part, because of a few unwarranted challenges to my decision. You are here to convince me; if you have not, that will drive my RFD.

I am a lay judge, so I don't know all the technical aspects of debate, but I am quite capable of following an argument and seeing holes in logic. In a close debate/tossup, I will give the win to the team that demonstrates a deeper understanding of the topic, not to the team that throws in super tangential arguments. It is helpful if you give verbal "signposts" so I know you are countering a point, or offering a new one, etc. I can follow quick speaking, but not insanely quick speaking. I'd prefer you don't spread. I try to give you public speaking feedback in my judging notes, but that doesn't mean I am basing the decision on speaking skills.

What I Prefer to See in a Debate:

1. Please use sources/references for all facts that you are bringing up. This includes percentages, numbers, stats, and any ideas of other authors that you are paraphrasing. This is really, really important to me. I will not believe you if you don't have your facts backed up.

2. Don't eyeroll your opponent or speak in a matter that's rude, i.e., that they don't know what they're talking about. They may have absolutely no idea of what they're talking about, and you should call them out on it, but just don't be rude, dude. This is also insanely important to me.

3. Please don't go too fast. I can follow arguments faster than parents but not super, super fast.

4. Don't give me hypotheticals and try not to use just theory to support your points. Real solutions/real things get across to me much better.

5. I'll only call for cards if you and your opponent are saying opposite things about the same exact thing.

6. You can respond to any rebuttals in any of the time periods allocated for rebuttals. I see a debate as a whole thing, so the entirety of what is said is up for game in rebuttals.

7. Please do not run a topical case. Please speak to the resolution.

I am most interested in hearing your own personal style of speaking that represents you as an individual and not a copy of other speakers.

My use of the word "speechiness"

There is a tendency for speakers to overemphasize certain words at the ending of sentences sometimes unconnected to the inherent concept of the text and more just for performance. Often this comes off as over the top, or even unnatural bc it is unfounded. I hear this A LOT and most often in novice speakers.

Please make an effort to discover your unique presentational qualities!! It takes time and is hard to do, but discovering this will not only do wonders for your speeches, but also follow you in your life forever making you a better communicator in all areas of your life.

Like Oscar Wilde said, "Be yourself. Everyone else it taken".

Opinion on crying: while this is most certainly a valid way to express sadness, anger etc. It is not the only way, and certainly not the most used method by the great actors. So many other ways to express emotions. Sometimes, crying feels like the the easiest. Force yourself to explore other subtleties. Watch Meryl Streep. She'll make us cry as the audience before she does.

Grammar: I hear the same mistake over and over again in speeches.

Woman - wuh-men. Singular.

Women - wih-men. Plural.

This is one of those examples of the English language that makes it virtually impossible for anyone to learn it. How in the world can we explain these pronunciations!!?? Truth is we can't explain them. Just need to memorize them. Very often I hear the singular used, when the speaker means the plural. Yes, I am standing on a soap box like a pedantic parent! hahaha....you're right. Call me out on it. But since this is a SPEECH competition, I feel it is the exact place to be critical of the way we speak. Yes?

About Me

Flower Mound 2020

UT Austin 2024

Debated LD/PF for 4 years

I'd prefer an email chain, nguddati@gmail.com, especially with the random lag issues we have in online debate.

General

Speed: Go for it. However, if you're not clear, and nothing changes after I say clear twice, I'll go play 2048.

LARP: Yes, please. Just don't do it if you're not going to weigh.

Theory: As long as your theory isn't absolutely terrible, unnecessary, or abusive, it's completely fair game. Just slow down a little on theory. I love theory debates when they're good. I default to education, competing interps, drop the debater, no RVIs.

K's: I didn't do a lot of K debate in high school, and don't expect me to know all of the high-level critical literature. If your running K, make sure it's well-explained if it's something outside of the norm. The story has to be clear.

Phil: Basically the same explanation as K's. I dabbled in phil debate toward the end of high school, but I was mainly a util debater. Doesn't mean I won't vote on it.

Topicality: You're starting off with a pissed-off judge if you run a non-topical aff.

Disclosure: Please disclose. Go for disclosure, unless it's obvious that you're using it because someone doesn't know what the wiki is or how to use it.

Tricks: I don't like tricks.

PF Specific

1. No new in the 2

2. Try to start some weighing in rebuttal, and, at the latest, in summary.

3. Don't be mean in cross.

4. I prefer technical and line-by-line debate.

5. All offense that you're going for has to be extended into summary. It's good if defense is extended, but not a requirement.

Speaks

I don't have a scale to make, but I'll usually give higher speaks. I'll average around a 28.

Cheating

1. Don't do it.

2. If your evidence is very obviously miscut, I will not weigh it. I don't really care if your opponent mentions it or not, but if it's a huge violation and I notice, I'll evaluate it myself. However, if you feel like your opponent is miscutting or there are evidence violations, feel free to challenge it if you want to make sure I notice.

3. If you do challenge it and accuse your opponent of cheating or "evidence ethics," I will stop the round and do my best to resolve it. If the accuser if correct, they win. If not, they lose.

I am a parent judge with some past experience of judging debate and speech, but I still consider myself as a lay judge. I generally decide debates on the following criteria:

Understanding of the resolution;

Reliability of the sources used;

Relevance of examples to the argument;

Logic of argument based on the facts/sources;

Overall organization of presentation/speech skill;

You don't need to ask me to vote for you; I will make the call based on what you have presented to me.

I competed on the national circuit in Speech from 2005-2008. I coached nearly all Speech and Debate events at local and national levels from 2009-2021.

TL;DR: I care most about your impact narrative and warranting to support it. Random underdeveloped offense on the flow is pretty meaningless to me if your opponent’s offense makes more sense.

I've done this enough that I can keep up with more than a lay judge can. However, we will all have a better time if you keep the debate as accessible as possible.

---

Important Stuff for PF

- I prefer whichever side is able to give me a clearer impact narrative for the round. If you do better weighing I will always vote for you over a team who tries to cover the entire flow.

- My threshold for blatantly fake arguments is low. Something isn't automatically true just because you said it in the round. You have to warrant it.

- Please signpost. In every speech. I beg of you. "Extend our impact from contention 2, sub-point B" makes it very easy for me to find what you're saying!

- I'm cool with speed, so go fast as long as the words coming out of your mouth make sense. Actual spreading is more difficult for me, so if you do that and I miss something it's your fault not mine.

- I do not flow author names so if you rely on only extending authors without furthering the impact analysis in the later speeches I'll have a harder time voting for you.

- While I did engage with PF regularly while coaching, it is to your benefit to treat me more like a parent in terms of jargon.

Progressive Stuff in PF

- Policy-type arguments (plans/DAs/etc) are fine in all circumstances even with novice opponents or mom judges. Otherwise...

- I will only vote for a progressive arg/K/theory in PF if your opponent and all judges consent to you running it. Lay parents cannot consent to this. People who volunteer their time to debate tournaments should be respected and valued. Wasting 90 minutes of a person's life with debate tech that a normal person can't understand isn't cool.

- If you are going to read theory, you should weigh it as a voting issue. I am unlikely to vote for this unless the violation is clear and egregious. The exception is disclosure theory in PF. If you read disclosure theory in front of me I will stop listening. If you read disclosure theory in front of me and I know you are a circuit team I will drop you. It's not your opponent's fault that you're too lazy to debate something that wasn't on the wiki.

- If we're being real with each other I'm not likely to vote for you if you're reading a K in PF. I will have a harder time understanding it and how it works in a PF round. I would much rather you take the impacts from the K and prove that your side of the resolution achieves them in a more traditional substance debate.

- Anything else is beyond my experience level and you should not do it.

Other Stuff

- If you make arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise blatantly discriminatory (ex: if you tell me poor people just need to stop being lazy and living on government handouts) you can expect me to give you the lowest possible speaks that tab will allow me to and you will lose.

-----------------------

If you have any questions, feel free to ask!

Have fun

I am a parent judge with kids in speech in debate that do extemporaneous speaking. Please be respectful during the round, talk clearly, and provide evidence and reasoning to back up your claims. I value confidence, fluency, humility, stage presence, vocal variety, and logic.

Most important items if you have limited reading time:

PREF CHEAT SHEET (what I am a good judge for)--strategy-focused case debate, legitimated theory/topicality, resolutional/tightly linked Ks > project Ks > rhetoric-focused case debate > friv theory > other Ks not mentioned >>> the policy K shell you found on the wiki and didn't adapt to your event > phil > tricks

IN-PERSON POST-COVID: I live with people who are vulnerable to Covid-19. I do wish people would be respectful of that, but ya know. You do you.

ONLINE DEBATE: My internet quality has trouble with spreading, so if I'm adjudicating you at an online tournament and you plan to spread, please make sure we work out a signal so I can let you know if you're cutting out. NSDA Campus stability is usually slightly better than Zoom stability. You probably won't see me on Zoom because that consistently causes my audio to cut out.

Be good to each other (but you don't need to shake my hand or use speech time to thank me--I'm here because I want to be).

I will never, ever answer any variations on the question, "Do you have any preferences we should know about?" right before round, because I want the tournament to run on time, so be specific with what you want to know if something is missing here.

PREP THEFT: I hate it so much. If it takes you >30 sec to find a piece of evidence, I'm starting your prep timer. Share speech docs before the round. Reading someone's evidence AND any time you take to ask questions about it (not including time they use to answer) counts as prep. If you take more than your allotted prep time, I will decrease your speaks by one point for every 10 seconds until I get to the tournament points floor, after which you will get the L. No LD or PF round should take over 60 minutes.

***

Background

I'm currently DOF for the MVLA school district (2015-present) and Parli Director at Nueva (new this year!). My role at this point is predominantly administrative, and most of my direct coaching interactions are with novice, elementary, and middle school students, so it takes a few months for new metas and terminologies to get to me in non-parli events. PF/LD should assume I have limited contact with the topic even if it's late in the cycle. I have eight years of personal competition experience in CHSSA parliamentary debate and impromptu speaking in high school and NPDA in college, albeit for relatively casual/non-circuit teams. My own high school experience was at a small school, so I tend to be sympathetic to arguments about resource-based exclusion. A current student asked me if I was a progressive or traditional debater in high school, which wasn't vocab on my radar at that time (or, honestly, a split that really existed in HS parli in those years). I did definitively come up in the time when "This House would not go gently into that good night" was a totally normal, one-in-every-four-rounds kind of resolution. Do with that what you will.

Approach to judging

-The framework and how it is leveraged to include/exclude impacts is absolutely the most important part of the round.

-It's impossible to be a true "blank slate" judge. I will never add arguments to the flow for you or throw out arguments that I don’t like, but I do have a low tolerance for buying into blatant falsehoods, and I fully acknowledge that everyone has different, somewhat arbitrary thresholds for "buying" certain arguments. I tend to be skeptical of generic K solvency/insufficiently unique Ks.

-My personal experience with circuit LD, circuit policy, Congress, and interp speech events is minimal.

-I am emphatically NOT a games/tricks/whatever-we're-calling-it-these-days judge. Debate is an educational activity that takes place in a communal context, not a game that can be separated from sociocultural influences. Students who have public speaking abilities have unique responsibilities that constrain how they should and should not argue. I will not hesitate to penalize speaker points for rhetoric that reifies oppressive ideologies.

Speaker point ranges

Sorry, I am the exact opposite of a points fairy. I will do my best to follow point floors and ceilings issued by each tournament. 30s are reserved for a speech that is literally the best one I have seen to date. Anything above a 29 is extremely rare. I will strongly advocate to tab to allow me to go below the tournament point floor in cases of overt cruelty, physical aggression, or extremely disrespectful address toward anyone in the round.

Argument preferences

Evaluation order/methods: These are defaults. If I am presented with a different framework for assessment by either team, I will use that framework instead. In cases of a “tie” or total wash, I vote neg unless there is a textual neg advocacy flowed through, in which case I vote aff. I vote on prefiat before postfiat, with the order being K theory/framework questions, pre-fiat K implications, other theory (T, etc), post-fiat. I default to net benefits both prefiat and postfiat. I generally assume the judge is allowed to evaluate anything that happens in the round as part of the decision, which sometimes includes rhetorical artifacts about out-of-round behavior. Evaluation skews are probably a wash in a round where more than one is presented, and I assume I can evaluate the round better than a coinflip in the majority of cases.

Impacts: Have them. Terminalize them. Weigh them. I assume that death and dehumanization are the only truly terminal impacts unless you tell me otherwise. "Economy goes up" is meaningless to me without elaboration as to how it impacts actual people.

Counterplans: Pretty down for whatever here. If you want to have a solid plan/CP debate in LD or PF, far be it from me to stop you. Plan/CP debate is just a method of framing, and if we all agree to do it that way and understand the implications, it's fine.

Theory/Topicality: You need to format your theory shells in a manner that gives me a way to vote on them (ie, they possess some kind of pre- or post-fiat impact). I will listen to any kind of theory argument, but I genuinely don't enjoy theory as a strategic tool. I err neg on theory (or rather, I err toward voting to maintain my sense of "real-world" fairness/education). I will vote on RVIs in cases of genuine critical turns on theory where the PMR collapses to the turn or cases of clearly demonstrated time skew (not the possibility of skew).

Kritiks/"Progressive" Argumentation: I have a lot of feelings, so here's the rapid-fire/bullet-point version: I don't buy into the idea that Ks are inherently elitist, but I think they can be read/performed in elitist ways. I strongly believe in the K as a tool of resistance and much less so as a purely strategic choice when not tightly linked to the resolution or a specific in-round act by the opposing team. I am open to most Ks as long as they are clearly linked and/or disclosed within the first 2-3 minutes of prep. Affirmatives have a higher burden for linking to the resolution, or clearly disclosing if not. If you're not in policy, you probably shouldn't just be reading policy files. Write Ks that fit the norms of your event. If you want to read them in front of me, you shouldn’t just drop names of cards, as I am not conversant at a high level with most of the lit. Please don’t use your K to troll. Please do signpost your K. On framework, I err toward evaluating prefiat arguments first but am willing to weigh discursive implications of postfiat arguments against them. The framework debate is so underrated. If you are facing a K in front of me, you need to put in a good-faith effort to engage with it. Truly I will give you a ton of credit for a cautious and thorough line-by-line even if you don't know all that much about K structural elements. Ks that weaponize identities of students in the round and ask me to use the ballot to endorse some personal narrative or element of your identity, in my in-round and judging experience, have been 15% liberatory and 85% deeply upsetting for everyone in the round. Please don't feel compelled to out yourself to get my vote. Finally, I am pretty sure it's only possible for me to performatively embrace/reject something once, so if your alt is straight "vote to reject/embrace X," you're going to need some arguments about what repeatedly embracing/rejecting does for me. I have seen VERY few alts that don't boil down to "vote to reject/embrace X."

"New" Arguments: Anything that could count as a block/position/contention, in addition to evidence (examples, analytics, analogies, cites) not previously articulated will be considered "new" if they come out in the last speech for either side UNLESS they are made in response to a clear line of clash that has continued throughout the round. I'll consider shadow extensions from the constructives that were not extended or contended in intervening speeches new as well. The only exception to this rule is for the 2N in LD, which I give substantial leeway to make points that would otherwise be considered "new." I will generally protect against new arguments to the best of my ability, but call the POI if the round is fast/complex. Voters, crystallization, impact calculus and framing are fine.

Presentation preferences

Formatting: I will follow any method of formatting as long as it is signposted, but I am most conversant with advantage/disadvantage uniqueness/link/impact format. Paragraph theory is both confusing to your opponent AND to me. Please include some kind of framing or weighing mechanism in the first speech and impact calculus, comparative weighing, or some kind of crystallization/voters in the final speeches, as that is the cleanest way for me to make a decision on the flow.

Extensions: I do like for you to strategically extend points you want to go for that the opponent has dropped. Especially in partner events, this is a good way to telegraph that you and your partner are strategically and narratively aligned. Restating your original point is not a response to a rebuttal and won't be treated as an answer unless you explain how the extension specifically interacts with the opponent's response. The point will be considered dropped if you don't engage with the substance of the counterargument.

Tag-teaming: It's fine but I won’t flow anything your partner says during your speech--you will need to fully repeat it. If it happens repeatedly, especially in a way that interrupts the flow of the speech, it may impact the speaker points of the current speaker.

Questions/Cross-ex: I will stop flowing, but CX is binding. I stop time for Points of Order (and NPDL - Points of Clarification) in parli, and you must take them unless tournament rules explicitly forbid them. Don't let them take more than 30 seconds total. I really don't enjoy when Parli debaters default to yelling "POI" without trying to get the speaker's attention in a less disruptive way first and will probably dock speaker points about it.

Speed: I tolerate spreading but don't love it. If your opponent has a high level of difficulty with your speed and makes the impacted argument that you are excluding them, I will be open to voting on that. If I cannot follow your speed, I will stop writing and put my pen down (or stop typing) and stare at you really awkwardly. I drop off precipitously in my flowing functionality above the 275 wpm zone (in person--online, you should go slower to account for internet cutouts).

Speech Docs/Card Calling: Conceptually they make me tired, but I generally want to be on chains because I think sharing docs increases the likelihood of debaters trying to leverage extremely specific case references. If you're in the type of round where evidence needs to be shared, I prefer you share all of it prior to the round beginning so we can waste as little time as possible between speeches. If I didn't hear something in the round/it confused me enough that I need to read the card, you probably didn't do a good enough job talking about it or selling it to me to deserve the win, but I'll call for cards if everyone collapses to main points that hinge on me reading them. If someone makes a claim of card misuse/misrepresentation, I'll ask for the card/speech doc as warranted by the situation and then escalate to the tournament officials if needed.

Miscellaneous: If your opponent asks for a written text of your plan/CP/K thesis/theory interp, you are expected to provide it as expeditiously as possible (e.g. in partner formats, your partner should write it down and pass it while you continue talking).

Email - jhong@shcp.edu

In high school, I competed in policy debate, public forum, and original oratory in California's CFL. I also attended CNDI and a few circuit tournaments in policy as a junior and senior. Finally, I competed at the California state tournament in policy debate and at the NSDA national tournament in public forum. Currently, I'm a social studies teacher and a debate coach at Sacred Heart Cathedral in San Francisco.

Notes specific to policy:

-It's been a long time since I competed on the circuit. The most important consequence concerns speed. I can handle some, but will likely have a lower tolerance than most regular circuit judges.

-Tabula rasa, as much as possible. Most familiar with fascist "USFG should" debates, but I'm willing to vote for alternative role of the ballot arguments. Love to see the dying art of stock issues, if that's your thing.

-I'd rather see fewer well-researched, well-constructed, and well-articulated arguments than a lot of dubious ones. I know every paradigm says this, but it's particularly important to me. As a student and teacher in the social sciences, I've noticed that a lot of what we do in policy debate is poor social science. Not all of you will grow up to be political scientists or economists, but I do believe that everyone can benefit from a better understanding of what constitutes good social science. Causal inference ought to require a high burden of proof in policy debate, just as it does in academic social science.

-In terms of performance, I'm old fashioned and against things like tag team cross X. For better or worse, my view of speech and debate remains obstinately stuck in the days of jackets and ties.

-Finally, be kind. I have more experience with the activity than a parent judge, but if you wouldn't do it in front of a parent, then don't do it in front of me.

Pronouns: she/her. I competed in speech and public forum in high school.

Above all else, you must be respectful of your competitors. I will not hesitate to vote against at team who uses any language deemed offensive in the round.

Public Forum:

• Faster speeds in the debate are okay, I will not be able to keep up with spreading. If you do go for speed, be sure you are signposting and your arguments are clear.
• Impact weighing is usually very important in my judging decisions.
• I appreciate a team that can focus on the big picture over small discrepancies.

Email: pmhruskoci@gmail.com

I'm a current sophomore at Northwestern University, and I competed in Extemp on the national circuit for 3 years.

In high school, I did speech for four years on the national circuit. Now, I’m a freshman in college who got dragged to the dark side by my best friend in uni. (He's buying me pie for my birthday [maybe], so we forgive him).

General Preferences

1. Please signpost: I'm going to flow, so help me out by signposting

2. Speed: Don't spread. Again, I'm trying to flow. That being said, you have limited time and an audience with a somewhat limited attention span, so don't speak at the speed of a snail either (no hate to snails)

3. Theory / Ks: No one really knows what these are, so try not to use them. If you're insistent, I'll try my best to follow

4. Cross: Some people think otherwise, but I personally still have faith in cross being effective. I'll tune in here, but if there's something important, either emphasize that or bring it up in future speeches.

5. Please talk about your impacts and weigh

6. Have fun! Your years in debate will go by fast - enjoy it while it lasts (you're gonna feel nostalgic soon D:)

Extra

1. Jokes are always welcome! Let's keep it fun

2. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before or after the round - if your question is quirky enough, I'll even put it in my FAQs section below! If you read through this whole thing, ASK A FUN QUESTION so that I know I'm not talking to a void

FAQs

currently a very sad section because no one has asked me questions :(

cedricbarronhughes@gmail.com Feel free to ask any questions

He/Him/His

I did four years of speech and debate in high school and mainly focused on interp events. My favorite events to judge are duo and extemp but I seeing all performances. I like to see energy and passion in performances.

As far as debate goes, when judging I will flow the round. I dabbled in congressional and policy debate. My paradigm on judging debate: convince me you're right. Whether you do that with a k, traditional arguments, or anything else, just show me why you win. I will vote on anything, but you need to clearly show me why you win the round. I am ok with spreading if you can email me your case before you start.

My Experience: I teach English and have been coaching and judging speech and debate since September of 2014. My PF experience has mostly been confined to the beginning level. I was never a debater so most of what I know comes from coaching. I am definitely a lay judge.

I am a huge fan of specificity. The more detailed you can be in your args and evidence the easier it will be for me to flow and to vote on.

I lean tech over truth so make sure you refute your opponents’ args with the same specificity you construct your own.

I will flow the round but only at a reasonable speed. I believe spreading takes most of the educational value out of debate and, as such, I have a very difficult time judging it. That said, I will judge whatever you run, including Ks, theory, whatever you want. Just know, there is no substitute for a well-warranted, clash-heavy debate done at a reasonable speed.

I do not generally call for evidence and will only do so if my decision depends on it.

Be respectful to your opponents and demonstrate what you know.

The following will be the rules/key principles I will use to judge. Please read them all, but for online tournaments be sure to read number 4.

If the speech calls for it then the following rules may be adjusted if required by the speech. For example, if your speech requires a few moments of yelling or mumbling, I will know that it is to add effect to speech. Do not talk too fast, or too slow. I will recognize it if you are stalling for time.

1. Modulation. If you speak quietly or without confidence do not expect to get a good rank. At the same time, if you yell or talk too loud it is equally unacceptable. Do not talk too fast, or too slow. I will recognize it if you are stalling for time.

2. Enunciation. Make sure to enunciate all of your words. If I do not understand what you say it is likely you will be given a lower rank and speaker points will be deducted.

3. Emphasis. The right amount of emphasis in the right places can make your speech stand out. This goes hand in hand with modulation and good emphasis will always increase your speaker points. Do not overdo the emphasis. Stressing every word will only serve to make me annoyed rather than convincing me to give you a better rank. Just like all the other rules - moderation.

4. Online Tournament Specifics. I understand if you have tech issues. Being late because of tech will not affect your rank or speaker points in any way. Try your best to get a space to present with a good amount of room and good lighting, but if you are unable to I will understand, and will only take off points in the most extreme circumstances. For example, if you have very little room but still make an effort with hand gestures and doing what space allows, then do not worry about it. But if you stand perfectly still without any motion and it is clear that there is little effort being put, then I will still mark you down. Make sure your camera works before coming to the tournament. I can't judge you if your video is off. If your video/audio lags or freezes for a couple of moments then don't worry about it. Don't worry if there is unavoidable background noise. Only if it becomes extremely hard to judge will I take points off. All in all, just try your best to get optimal presenting conditions, and if you can't, then don't sweat it and try your best anyway.

5. Please no excessive gratitude or the like. If you keep saying thank you or things like that it will serve no purpose except getting me annoyed and wasting time. That being said, please be polite, just make sure not to overdo it.

6. I will not take off too many points for time. NSDA rules say that if you miss the time limit by more than 30 seconds you cannot get first. That being said, if you hit all the other points missing the grace period will not hurt your speaker points that much. Please try to adhere to the time limit because if there are others who spoke just as well as you, they will be ranked above you, whereas if you had stuck to the time limit it would have been much closer and may have gone in other ways. Also, note that other judges may not appreciate shorter/longer speeches and they may rank you below anyone else who had a speech of the correct time.

7. Be confident and have fun with it!

Experienced judge; I have judged at local and national tournaments in the past.

Speed.

I prefer an average speed so that your arguments are easier to understand and evaluate. Clarity > speed. Make sure I can understand you. I can’t score you appropriately if I can’t understand what you are saying.

Prep time

Use your prep time. Use it wisely, but use it.

Arguments

Make sure you address every issue raised by your opponent. I prefer evidence over pragmatics. Be sure to provide strong links between the different pieces of your argument and I will notice if you do not respond to an argument put forth by your opponent. I’m comfortable with jargon. Remember to signpost - I am not going to vote for good positions, I am going to vote for good arguments. Remember to be respectful while attacking your opponents position. Show the same courtesy you wish to receive.

I will not intervene unless asked OR in the event of outlandish statements, lies or any types of hate speech.

Treat me as a lay judge. Don't spread, don't read theory, have evidence.

Things I look for in Congress:

1. Clear, confident speaking with few fluency breaks.

2. Consistent presence in the round through asking questions and staying engaged.

3. Strong use of evidence from scholarly sources.

4. Simple, easy-to-understand arguments.

5. Clash and interaction with other arguments.

6. Humor is always appreciated, although I may not understand your pop culture references.

In a presiding officer:

Speed is your utmost priority. Go fast and don't make errors.

Hello All!

This is my first time judging Congressional Debate! I hope I do a good job!

I usually judge speech events.

Strong preferences:

Simplify your arguments for everyday people. Make it make sense outside of the debate.

Spontaneity is important. Please engage with others.

Humor is always good. Confidence is key.

If you are having fun, then it's a whole vibe!

I am a black male so please do not say anything racist or potentially offensive. 2020 was a long year!

-I will flow. I appreciate a clear narrative across arguments! It's okay to collapse.

-Significant impacts are awesome, especially quantifiable ones! Explain the gravity of the situation!

-Signposting is always really helpful.

-Spreading is okay, but make sure we can actually understand you. Don't speak super fast against an obviously less experienced team (this helps no one!)

-Don't be rude in cross-ex, especially don't be patronizing or condescending toward female debaters

-If evidence is requested, please pull it up quickly for the other team

-If you're running complex theory, please break it down and explain it.

I am a lay debate judge that primarily works as a speech coach. Please don’t spread.

I prefer debaters not to run Ks, theory, etc. unless it’s super easy to follow for someone that doesn’t have a lot of experience in circuit. Make your arguments clear and concise in your constructives and make the winner of the debate clear in your rebuttals (voters, crystallization, weighing). I consider myself a rational person that values truth over tech in most cases.

I will not be favorable to anyone who makes any bigoted, harmful arguments (homophobic, racist, sexist, etc.).

Experience:

As a high school student, I competed in what is now called Policy Debate on the national circuit. I also competed in speech, with Extemp as my main event. While in college, I coached LD. Since 2019, when I again became active in coaching after a long absence, I mostly coach speech and help out with PF. In my career, I have judged Speech and Policy Debate at the local and national levels, as well as LD, PF, and Big Questions at tournaments in New England and online.

Policy Debate:

In the absence of arguments that persuade me otherwise, I default to a Policy Maker paradigm. However, I am open to any arguments debaters choose to make in a given round.

Analysis and evidence are more important to me than delivery, but debaters should understand their own limits. While speed is not an issue for me per se, if a speaker is unintelligible (for example, due to speaking more quickly than they personally are able to do clearly), then they have not communicated any coherent argument or content to the judge. I rarely look at evidence after the round, as I believe that pertinent details should be communicated by the debaters during their speeches. However, I will make exceptions when necessary for fair adjudication of the round.

Lincoln Douglas Debate:

I consider myself a flow judge, open to any arguments, who will default to a traditional framework unless persuaded otherwise during the round.

Content is more important than delivery, but please see the Policy Debate section above regarding intelligibility.

Public Forum Debate:

While I am also open to many types of arguments in Public Forum, quality of argumentation and clarity of communication are supposed to be of primary importance in this event.

If you need to speak quickly to provide in-depth analysis and/or evidence, and can do so while clearly presenting your case, go ahead. However, if you are only speaking quickly to put numerous shallow arguments on the flow, you may want to consider the point above about quality of argumentation and clarity of communication.

Big Questions Debate:

Like PF, quality of argumentation and clarity of communication are of primary importance in BQ.

I have judged several years for speech events and believe speech and debate is a great platform for students of all level to participate and benefit from it. Since our competitors have worked hard to share their performance with us, I try to also share something useful for them to takeaway with them when I write my ballot.

Did policy for 4 years in HS but never circuit. If you're reading my paradigm you probably want to know if I'm okay with Ks/Theory/Framework and my best answer is I don't want to discourage any arguments but I am three years removed from any speed/jargon so it's best to underestimate how well I'll be able to comprehend and take the time to explain.

Do your best to write my ballot for me obviously, I'm very new to the topic and you all know which arguments are most relevant infinitely better than I do so extend those well. Also really love when debaters really analyze arguments and evidence instead of lobbing evidence at each other without examining how they interact with each other.

In general, debate should be a fun activity and I'll do my best to help achieve that and will be willing to vote on anything. Your job is to make sure to articulate what that argument means and why I should.

Any other specific questions I'd be happy to answer before round, and good luck! :D

I am a high school teacher. I have a degree in theater, psychology and English. I took debate all four years in high school and have been head coach for state champion speech and LD teams for years. I competed equally in policy and in Interp events.

I can follow most spreading, but I would rather not.

I am not a fan pf progressive debate - no performance or outrageous K's.

I appreciate the ability of a debater to think logically for themselves and not regurgitate cases written solely through purchased evidence files or a college coach. With that said however, you better have more than analytics to back up your arguments.

I typically won't vote for lack of fair education - unless the other team is very egregious is their abuse.

In partner debates I expect each partner to debate strong enough on their own that tag-teaming is not necessary.

I expect debaters to frame their arguments with a weighing mechanism with which you want me to view the round. Tell me why your argument is better - don't expect me to to just get it. If you want me to judge based on your defined values, you better explicitly state them.

You could win ten arguments to their six, but if their six have more weight, you will still lose.

edited for toc

Overview:

I do not have a preference for any style of debate, but I no longer consider myself a "circuit" judge. When in doubt, assume I'm a traditional judge (as in: I like good case debate and I'm most familiar with it). I am not tabula rasa but I will evaluate any/all arguments as objectively as possible (exception: hate speech/exclusionary rhetoric). Ultimately,you should read what you think will win you the round. My original paradigm is included below for you to peruse.

If a team has made the round unsafe for you or has excluded you from the round then please call them out to the best of your ability. I have a commitment to the flow but debate equity is much more important. I also understand that there will be instances in which calling out your opponent is not feasible; if you feel comfortable doing so you can PM or email me and I'll contact tab/ombuds for further instructions (and will be mindful of confidentiality). No matter what happens, I'll try to be reasonable. I align w/David‘s paradigm the strongest on this front, which I've also linked for reference.

Details:

- Faster speeds are fine, assuming both teams are okay with it. I will call clear and slow if needed. However, I will not be happy if you spread out your opponent at a non-bid tournament in prelims - I may intervene if it is clearly impacting the quality of the debate. See the in-round equity stuff above.

- I will be annoyed if you "kick the lay judge" in elims (what if I was the lay judge??) but I won't intervene.

- For the purpose of the round you should assume I don’t know anything about the lit base of your kritik. I am not super comfortable with evaluating performances but I understand why they may be necessary.Please clearly define alternate FWs because otherwise I will not know how to evaluate!

- My default layering is t>fw>k>case. I am a bad theory judge when it comes to tricky stuffbut I am not anti theory as a whole. You will lose me with frivolous theory that isn't explained/warranted well. I'm not familiar with tricks, NIBs, IVIs, and the like. I have a low threshold for RVIs but an even lower threshold for responses to them. Pref a different judge if you love in depth theory debates because I won't be much help in terms of feedback.

- No stance on conditionality or any type of counterplan.

- I will not call for cards unless they're heavily contested, and also will not flow cross. Keep evidence disputes short - I'll interrupt if the disagreement is getting out of hand.

- I'm very generous with speaker points (29+). Obvious exceptions if you say something blatantly racist/homophobic/xenophobic/violently ad hominem to your opponents.

- I will disclose in prelims if all teams ask/agree. Oral RFDs will be short because I'm more coherent in writing.

- Ask me for my email before the round if there is an email chain.

- I don’t have the best poker face, but I will try not to be distracting.

- Referring to me as "Judge" is fine. From my earliest paradigm: "don't shake my hand, a bow will suffice."

Try to have fun because I know how stressful this activity can be. Good luck and happy debating :-)

I’m super excited to be here, and just want everyone to be the best version of themselves!

Most of my forensics experience was in LD debate, but I had a year in interp and a year in pa.

Tim Lynch is currently serving his sixth year as the Assistant Speech Coach of the Summit High School Forensics Team in New Jersey. As a competitor, Tim was a three-time National Qualifier as well as an Award of Excellence and Rising Star Award Winner. As an educator and professional actor, Tim has established a proven track record of coaching students to the national final stage.

Alison Manaker

Strath Haven

I am a parent judge who pays close attention to the quality of arguments and responses. No spreading, no tricks, no Ks, no theory, nothing circuit. Please speak at a conversational pace (be clear -- I'll call clear once before dropping your speaks). I want to hear logically constructed arguments with good quality evidence. No contrived extinction scenarios. I take detailed notes of arguments and responses, but I do not flow. No jargon. Truth>tech

Please have evidence! Please have good evidence. Please do explicit evidence comparison --- I, and you, will be much happier if you point out powertagged evidence, unqualified authors, and clearly explain why your studies and warrants are better than your opponents'.

Updated for 2020-21

Pronouns: she/her/hers

If you have questions about anything here, just ask!

Congress:

-I don't have a preference between early/mid/late round speeches - just give the best speech. I evaluate each speech for the role it needs to serve in the round. So, if you're sitting on a neg and we go to a 2-minute recess because you're insistent on doing a crystallization speech and no one else has a neg, I'll be annoyed. If you're able to show me multiple types of speeches throughout the session (especially if I'm the parli), that's great.

-I hate one-sided debate - it isn't debate. I don't have a set rule "if you speak on the same side as the previous person I'll mark you down x # of ranks," but it definitely has a negative impact on the final ranks. If you speak on the same side as the previous person, it is very, very unlikely (albeit not impossible) I will rank you in the top 3. This is even more true for a crystallization speech.

-Expectations for authorship/sponsorship/1st aff: problem/solution; identify a framework/burden/scope to evaluate debate; have a central narrative

-Expectations for mid-round speech: Refute; have a central narrative

-Expectations for late speech: Refute & boil the debate down to a main issue or 2; have a central narrative

-Have a clear, specific, and offensive thesis coming out of the introduction.

-Have clear warrants; if they stem from the legislation directly, even better. Particularly in mid/late speeches, weighing/clash is super important.

-Clear, humanized impacts are key.

-I'm not going to open the legislation packet - it's your job to bring it to life for me. If I know a detail of the leg from coaching my own students but you don't mention it, it won't help you - I'll be as tabula rasa as possible with the docket.

-No rehash. It's possible to extend something from your own side with new warrants/impacts, but new data is just rehash.

-Neg speeches can't say the leg is bad because it doesn't do something unless that thing is mutually exclusive with the action of the legislation; if the leg is that we should all eat more bananas and your neg is no we should eat more apples, unless you can prove that we can't eat apples AND bananas the point doesn't work. I also don't love points about complacency - they generally feel stock to me (unless you're talking about a social issue when the issue attention cycle is a legitimate concern). Both of these types of points (do x not y; complacency) feel like avoidance of engaging with the actual legislation - neg speeches must demonstrate the inherent harm(s) of passing.

-No stock intros/conclusions - if it could work for any piece of legislation, it's too vague. I like an attention-grabbing intro of some kind and when the conclusion ties a bow with the opening.

-I don't have a preference for being in the simulation or avoiding it. If you start talking about your constituents and your office in D.C., I will likely roll my eyes. On the other hand, talking about your current high school Bio class doesn't work either.

-Stay involved throughout the entire session. If you give an A+ speech but ask zero questions, you'll get ranked below an A- speech and strong, well-spaced questions.

-I will rank you as the PO if you're a strong PO (fast & efficient, knowledgeable about RR, clear command of chamber). Being the PO is neither a guarantee of a rank nor of a drop for me - if you do an A job as the PO, it'll be ranked the same as if you did an A job as a speaker.

PF:

-I don't flow cross; if you want me to evaluate something out of cross, you need to mention it in a later speech.

-If you want me to evaluate something from FF, it also needs to appear in the summary.

-Make sure to identify moments of clash. Don't let the two ships just pass in the night; tell me where the boats crash and why yours stays afloat.

-Make sure to weigh arguments. Tell me what the key points of the debate are so that I don't have to determine them myself.

-I won't make a decision based on politeness, but being excessively rude/abrasive in cross annoys me and will negatively impact your speaker points.

-Unless there's true abuse in the round, I won't vote on theory.

-I haven't judged circuit PF since Stanford 2019, so you're better off avoiding "progressive" PF stuff. Treat me as more flay.

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

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

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

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

General Stuff -

She/Her

I competed on the national circuit for 4 years in the interpretation events. I am also familiar with the speech events, Public Forum, World Schools Debate, and Congress.

I competed for Trinity Preparatory School (Winter Park, FL) all 4 years of high school.

For debate events, I vote primarily off argumentation, not delivery.

I'm an International Studies and Political Science double major at the University of North Florida so I will most likely be familiar with whatever current events you may mention, so don't lie or I'll know lol.

Be respectful to your competitors. If you are disrespectful to any group or individual for their race, ethnicity, sexuality, gender identity, class, sex, nationality, ability, or religion you will automatically lose the round/be dropped. Just be nice and we will all have fun.

Email me if you have any questions - ashleynmason20@gmail.com

Public Forum -

I’ve competed in Public Forum a couple times and have watched quite a bit but I’m still definitely a lay judge.

Do’s:

- WEIGH. Otherwise I’ll do it for you, which you probs don’t want

- Extend whatever you say in crossfire. I don’t flow crossfire so if you want me to evaluate it, extend it.

- Collapsing - don’t be afraid to drop a point. Focus on the most important stuff. It’ll make all our lives easier.

- I'd prefer you to go line by line down your competitors case in rebuttal

- Feel free to frontline in second rebuttal

- If your competitors want to see a card, please pull it up fast. You should have it readily available. (This obvs excludes tech issues due to the current format of debating over Zoom).

Don’ts:

- Spread. Talking semi-fast is fine.

- Don’t bring up new stuff in final focus. I won’t consider it.

- Please don't refer to your cards only by name when extending. I will probs miss the name of your card so tell me what you are talking about please.

- I'm not going to say absolutely NO theory, but if you run theory, you better explain it really really well because I'm not well-versed on it at all.

How I evaluate the round:

- I’ll flow. Whoever wins the flow will win the round. So make sure to extend your points and respond to your competitors

- I won’t consider stuff said in cross fire unless it’s extended.

Other stuff:

- I probs won’t call for a card unless it seems sus.

- Please just be honest about how much prep time you’ve used because I can’t keep up with how much you’ve used.

World Schools Debate -

I competed in Worlds Schools one year at nationals so I have some experience and understanding.

Do's:

1. Talk about countries other than the US. This is WORLD Schools Debate.

2. Bring up a 3rd substantive argument in your 2nd speech. OPP, feel free to respond to the PROP's 3rd substantive argument in your 2nd speech.

3. WEIGH your arguments. Otherwise, I'll have to do that for you, which you might not like.

4. Collapsing. Don't be afraid to drop a point. It'll make all our lives easier. Quality over quantity.

Don'ts:

1. Don't spread (talking fast is fine)

2. Don't bring up new stuff in final reply. I won't consider it.

3. Don't only talk about the US. This is WORLD Schools.

4. Please don't refer to your cards only by name when extending. I will probs miss the name of your card so tell me what you are talking about please.

How I'll Vote:

I'm going to vote off who wins the flow. So extend your arguments and respond to your competitors.

If the opposing team presents a model/mechanism and you don't want it to be the framework for the round - counter the model/mechanism. Otherwise, I'm voting off it.

I'm not going to consider POIs in my decision unless they are extended.

I probably won't call for cards unless it seems sus.

Congress -

I've watched quite a bit of Congress and I competed once at a local. I have some experience judging Congress. Still, I'm definitely a lay judge.

Be professional, but don't be afraid to make a joke or two. I like dynamic speakers and speeches.

I like unique arguments. I don't want to keep hearing the same stuff over and over.

Abide by congressional debate rules and procedures.

I like clash but still be respectful.

I don't prioritize delivery, but I still want to see the proper formatting for a speech: roadmap, transitions, etc.

For a PO, I want to see someone who can keep a chamber under control, properly follow the speaking order, and appear unbiased and fair to all in the round. I don't understand judges who refuse to rank the PO. If you do your job well, I will rank you. :)

Speech and Interp -

I'm not going to write a paradigm for speech or interp. It's not like you can read it and change your speech before walking into the round. But, I'll try to make it very clear why I gave you the rank I did on your ballot. If you are confused or have any questions, feel free to reach out!

Argumentation:

In all honesty, I'm a pretty traditional judge. I love to hear evidence that is empirical and quantifiable. I also like to see competitors who are genuinely debating, not just being an advocate for some author and reading evidence the whole round. I want to know why you're making the world a better place. I mainly vote on impacts.

Presentation:

I understand you have to speak faster than normal to get through your case, but please, don't spread. I also love to see competitors who are impassioned and genuinely look like they care about what they're debating. Also, remember that presentation is something that includes body language, facial expressions, gestures, etc.

A note on PF:

The way that I was taught, PF at its core is in its name, public forum. Which means it's an event that is accessible to everyone. This is not LD & CX so any plans won't be flowed.

tl;dr: I coach speech primarily and when needed, I judge debate; I don't mind speed and tech, but I should be able to follow the argument without reading along. Evidence should relate clearly to your argument and resolution. Most importantly, HAVE FUN!

You can share cases with me, please go ahead. I may not read the case along with you as you present it, but will use it as a reference.

I am also inviting you and your coach (please, obtain their permission first) to email me for anything you need. I would be happy to clarify my RFD, to answer any questions about my paradigm, or even if you feel unsafe in a round, I will do everything in my power to help you.

On to the good stuff:

________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Clash is LIFE: Don't avoid clashing. Get in there and don't be afraid of responding to your opponent's argument. It is what makes this DEBATE, otherwise, it's dueling Oratories.

2. What is a good piece of evidence? One that is clear. "I have a card" is not clear, nor is it persuasive. Your evidence should connect your arguments to a clear purpose in the round. "Why are you telling me this info" should never be a thought I have. Just saying there is a link does not mean there is one. Prove it with your evidence!

3. Speed: I NEED TO HEAR THE WORDS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF YOUR MOUTH! I am not anti-speed, but speed for speed's sake is as if the UPS guy drives by my house at 90 mph and throws the package at my head. I'm mad, the package is broken, and UPS just lost a fan. Speed for argument depth is great, but I recommend signaling or slowing down to make the tags and theories clear so I can write them down. I am not a silent judge. I will say something in between speeches if I cannot understand you, but if I cannot write down your argument in the flow, then guess what? The other person wins because I could hear them. I would hate to see a good argument die on the lips of a speed demon.

4. Traditional or Progressive? I'll be honest, I have leaned towards more traditional when it comes to LD in the past, but the past few years I have become more inclined to some fun progressive debates. I do believe that LD at its core is a value debate. If you are going to run a progressive case, be sure it still fits the idea of a value debate on THIS resolution, not the one you wish NSDA voted for, but THIS resolution.

5. To K or Not to K? Why not? Challenge the system, make the debate interesting and captivating, BUT also remember what I said in number 4. This is a value debate and should ultimately be about the resolution at hand. If you want to run a K about how your opponent's shoes are unlaced; therefore, they are unprofessional, I really think you could do better.

6. Finally, be kind. The worse thing in a round is when a bully decides their opponent is inferior. I am immediately turned off and while it will not affect what I vote on, it will affect how much attention I can give you.

Congressional Debate Paradigm:

While congressional debate is most certainly an argument, this debate event takes the form of one long and continuous coversation that is more akin to a socratic seminar than to a structured debate. Entering the conversation where it is is the most important skill for any congressional debater. It is from that point that I expect each speaker to begin and then to advance the argument. Referencing the speakers who came before and their contributions to the conversation is integral to fully placing new points or extensions of points already made. While summary and crystalization has its place later in the debate, rehash has no place in a well presented congressional speech. I also look for gracious behavior at all times focusing on the strengthes and weaknesses of other arguments but no the speakers themselves. I have no patience for speakers who try to elevate themselves by putting down others.

Individual Events Paradigm:

I have coached speech and debate since 2010, but in recent years my coaching is focused on speech. I see every speech event as an argument, so I am in search of an important message, explicit or implicit, in every performance or speech I judge. Beyond message, I look for a coherent argument whether you have crafted this with your own words with original oratory, responding to a question in extemporaneous speaking, or making your argument in a program or performance in interpretation. In Informational speaking, I am looking to be exposed to relevant informaition around a topic of importance in society but without a position, an advocacy, or solutions. In all of these forms, I expect to be engaged and compelled to listen to what you are saying. This is speech where how you say it matters just as much as what you say. And, while I love creative and edgy pieces that take me from my comfort zone, every single word should work to convey and elevate your message and do so at no one's expense. I will not reward hurtful, harmful or thoughtless words or actions.

Yes, Email Chain: mclelland0@icloud.com

Debated Congress, Extemp, PF, Policy and World Schools in high school. I am a well-rounded debater that understands the flow and structure of every event.

Public Forum:

My goal is to be as close to a tabula rosa judge as possible in PF. I am a flow judge and feel speed is okay in PF - let the natural course of the debate determine the speed. I live for solid clash. I will not hesitate to call for evidence at the end of a round if a card doesn't make sense or your opponent effectively convinces me your source/analytic is not credible.

While voters are important, I will vote on the entirety of the round. Don't mention something in your voters that didn't occur throughout the round. Make sure you weigh in your latter speeches - failure to weigh leaves it in entirely in my opinion of what occurred during the round.

Lincoln Douglas:

I am holistically a tabula rosa judge in LD. While I will accept any argument introduced in the round, I do not prefer K's, . This style of debate is value-focused - make sure that you provide me a solid weighing mechanism that aligns with your value criterion. Speed does not bother me - just ensure your opponent is at the same level as you.

While I typically won't decide a round based on theory, I will take it into consideration if abusive arguments or tactics are highlighted, not through a block and jargon, but a logical explanation of the theory and why it matters. Please... do not give me an off-time roadmap. The only time this is needed is for Policy/CX debate where I might have 8 million flows... in LD there's two flows - we can follow along.

Congressional Debate:

Reference my PF/LD paradigms to see what I look for from general terms on argument structure. I highly value clash in congressional debate. I do not like the congressional debate role play - use that time to make substantive and logical arguments. I pay close attention to evidence used in speeches - academic journals and case studies in addition to publications in the last two years will rank you higher. Congress speeches are short, so make you evidence use short, impactful and highly analytical to show your understanding - don't just read other people's work to me during your speech.

I fairly consider PO performance in my ranks. I will give the 1 to a PO that has zero issues with precedence/recency (speeches and questions), actually runs an efficient chamber (I should hear you talk as little as possible), understands Robert's Rules of Order (know the difference between majority and super-majority votes) and expertly manages the chamber (if there's no prefacing, rule down prefacing; stop speakers or questioners that go over time; enforce the rules that are set). Not everyone is GUARANTEED an opportunity to speak on every bill in this event. I expect a strong PO to strike down one-sided debate and use discretion to move to previous question without chamber approval for the sake of active debate.

Your ability or lack thereof to rebutt as a questioner and answerer in questioning will be considered in my rankings. Questioning is an exceptional opportunity to convince me of your ability to ask well-intentioned questions. As mentioned in the beginning of my congress paradigm... clash is vital to doing well on my ballot.

!! Note on Inclusion !!

Speech and Debate is SUCH a fun activity - which makes it even more important it's inclusive and accessible. Do not utilize CX time to assert dominance and/or privilege. Condescension, consistent interruptions of opponent, xenophobia, racism and classism are all behaviors that absolutely have no place in this activity. Your crossing of the above-mentioned lines will decimate your speaks and potentially get you dropped in that round whether it's round 1 or finals. There is absolutely no reason in this activity to make people feel unsafe or uncomfortable.

My background is Extemporaneous Speaking as well as Parliamentary Debate with experience competing in and judging LD, PF, and some limited amounts of various other events.

LD -

As per my preferences, if you throw out philosophy, cite a source. I am generally familiar with most philosophers cited in LD so please do not inaccurately portray the views of a philosopher. Furthermore, in LD, the debator with the greatest grasp of philosophy will not necessarily win. For my purposes as a judge, it's all about how you use it. Fundamentally it is a debate, not a competition to use more philosophical references than your opponent.

PF -

I like sources, and I like calling out biased sources. If someone uses the Heritage Foundation or Slate, these places have agendas that they look to fulfill. Try to cite non-biased sources, or address this biases of your sources in your speeches. That being said, do not get bogged down in a debate on a singular source. I don’t enjoy that, you don’t enjoy that, it isn't debate.

Parli -

Cite sources and feel free to look up the sources your opponents cite in the round. Sometimes people misrepresent sources, and if you can see that and call it out you definitely will look good. Ask Points of Information, have every team member ask POIs if possible. Speak well, that’s one aspect of Parli that makes it such a unique.

Debate overall -

I do flow, and you will be judged on the flow. If you drop an argument without accurately rebutting it, you will lose that point. I wholeheartedly believe in lumping together points and cross-applying arguments, so generalizing arguments on many minute points is not only allowed, its recommended

Finally, have fun. Get points of clash. I don’t care what speech kids say, a good debate is as fun as any interp event that has you repeat the same maybe kinda a little bit funny HI every single week four times a tournament. Have fun, be respectful, and crack a smile every now and then.

You don't have to read everything.

Try to stay calm and have fun. In addition to fun being a good thing generally, an attitude of enjoyment will also lend itself to confidence and clear thinking.
Try hard not to get overly aggressive and resort to character attacks on anyone, whether they be opponents or political figures, except when it may be considered a direct piece of evidence to an end (for example, X does immoral things, voters don't like immoral things, so X won't get elected to Y).

Courtesy, especially professional courtesy between one another, is expected of competitors.

No personal attacks to anyone, whether they're in the room or not. At most, criticize individual arguments.

The more organized you are, the more likely I am to vote the way you expect.

If you speak so fast that I start missing things, I will not expect your opponent to have caught the small things.

I'm generally a traditional judge.

I can follow whatever philosophy you throw out there, but if it doesn't matter who wins the framework debate, just say so and feel free to ignore it.

I competed in speech in high school and have been judging speech events for 8 years. I am an assistant speech coach, and therefore I am not a flow judge.

I am a parent judge. Please explain arguments thoroughly and clearly at a reasonable pace.

No harmful or exclusionary language/actions are permitted

email/questions: lilybnelson@gmail.com

competed in PF and Parliamentary.

Pronouns: she/her

Now, time to kick some AFF and break a NEG

General

-be respectful (PEOPLE ARE NOT A MEANS TO YOUR ENDS)

-have sides ready if a coin toss

-don’t talk over one another in cx/be hostile (different from assertive)

-I disclose unless told otherwise

Specifics

-Extend into Summary/FF, this is the offense I will vote off of

-weigh + impact calc is crucial for getting my ballot

-collapse

-signpost

-I won't flow cx, if a concession or something important takes place, bring it up in speech so I can flow it

-Cite the authors/sources/dates

-I don’t love paraphrasing but you won't lose my ballot if you do... Just don't be abusive.

-I won't call for cards unless you tell me

If EVER I am to judge you in policy: go to tab and request a new judge (You will see me in tab as well crying and flailing G2's across the room because I don’t want this either). I respect it, but not my cup of tea.

I've assistant coached for 13 years mainly as an IE coach.

Debate:

In terms of debate the school I have judged many rounds of Public Forum, Parli, and LD.

I know how to flow, but depending on the round I may not vote solely on flow. As in: An opponent dropping an argument that makes no sense... is still an argument that makes no sense.

I understand most debate jargon, but if you are going to run something really off the wall you may want to take some extra time to explain it.

If you aren't saying anything important I won't flow. If I am lost, I won't flow. If you aren't clear in speaking, I won't flow. I hate spreading with the passion of 1000 burning fiery suns.

I did IEs in high school, so to me the essential part of speech and debate is learning the ability to communicate. So make sure you explain things clearly and concisely. I feel that louder/faster doesn't always equal smarter.

I really like strong (but respectful) clash in crossfire and cross-ex. Really dig into the arguments and show me you know what is going on!

Voters and voting issues in your final speech are key to me inside of whatever framework you have set up. For LD this includes your value and criterion as well as your opponent's.

IEs:

These events are my jam. :)

Background:
I competed in LD debate, Extemp, and Congress from fall 1998 - spring 2002 (plus some other speech events). I then competed in Parliamentary debate for all 4 years of college. I find speech and debate to be highly valuable to the participants and wish to give back to the community. That is why I started coaching in 2014 when I returned to the US after my army service.
Current Affiliation: Needham High School Assistant Coach (speech and debate)
Last Update: February, 2023

LD Paradigm:

QUICK: I am old school / traditional. I expect LD to be like it was when I did the activity. If someone has a value and criterion, links their arguments back to their criterion and impacts how those arguments achieve their value, I am extremely happy and give high speaker points. I also really like it when people have strong crystallizations (voters). Clearly weighing and explaining why I should value your arguments more than your opponents make my job easier, which give you more speaker points.
I dislike theory / policy debates in LD. Policy debate exists, do whatever you want in a policy round. Don't do it in a LD round.

Additional Details: I love LD debate because of the standard debate inherent to the activity. The ability to explain why I should use a certain moral standard and then explain how your arguments lead to the achievement of your standard are critical in my mind. That is the only thing I want to vote on. I expect the debate to be centered around the resolution provided.
Any other argument, ie, policy debate, theory, fairness, etc, no matter how well done, or how much time is devoted to it, misses the point of the activity in my mind, so it will be treated as such in my RFD.

Also, as a speech and debate coach, I value both the delivery and the analysis. Both are part of the speaker scale. For speech aspects, speed, clarity, sign posting, eye contact are things I look at. For analysis, the more in depth, the better. I want to hear the student, not the card. Telling me to extend a card without telling me why the card is important in the round in not analysis.

In addition, since I do believe in the educational merit of this activity, I will gladly talk with anyone after the round. I usually don't disclose, but am fully willing to explain how I saw the round, what can be improved, and what was done well.

DO NOT BULLY! I will punish anyone that is abusive / racist / sexist with low speaks and a loss rather quickly. Making fun of an argument can be acceptable, though not necessary or helpful. If it is a bad argument, then just beat it, don't waste time mocking it. Mocking someone is never acceptable! Abusive arguments are also never acceptable.

Finally, I object to the concept of a low point win. Points represent the entirety of the round so it is impossible to have a low point win.

Policy Paradigm:

Everything I hate in LD is kosher in Policy, so knock yourself out. That being said, I enjoy rounds on substance and the speaker points I give reflect that. I will repeat from before: DO NOT BULLY! I will punish anyone that is abusive / racist / sexist with low speaks and a loss rather quickly. Making fun of an argument can be acceptable, though not necessary or helpful. If it is a bad argument, then just beat it, don't waste time mocking it. Mocking someone is never acceptable! Abusive arguments are also never acceptable.

Finally, I object to the concept of a low point win. Points represent the entirety of the round so it is impossible to have a low point win.

PF Paradigm:

I enjoy judging PF. Due to my LD background, having some sort of framework / framing the round helps me as a judge and helps you win the round and get higher speaker points. Due to the short speech times, I really want you to explain why one or two arguments that you are winning are more important than the one or two arguments your opponents are winning. Weighing is really important!

Something a bit more specific - being the second team to speak in a round means your rebuttal can deal with the first 3 speeches, and while I don't require you to do so, it really helps your side when you deal with both the pro and con cases. Use that advantage!

I will repeat from before: DO NOT BULLY! I will punish anyone that is abusive / racist / sexist with low speaks and a loss rather quickly. Making fun of an argument can be acceptable, though not necessary or helpful. If it is a bad argument, then just beat it, don't waste time mocking it. Mocking someone is never acceptable! Abusive arguments are also never acceptable.

Finally, I object to the concept of a low point win. Points represent the entirety of the round so it is impossible to have a low point win.

Cheers,
Adam Nir

I am the Director of Forensics and head LD coach at Cary Academy. I would describe myself as a neo-traditionalist. I follow a traditional approach to LD with some notable exceptions. I am a typical traditionalist in that I prefer a debate centered on a common sense, reasonable, good faith interpretation of the resolution; and I believe speakers should emphasize effective communication and practice the habits of fine public speaking during the debate. I differ from many traditionalists in that I am not a fan of the value premise and criterion, and that I do not believe that LD arguments have to be based on broad philosophical concepts, but rather should be as specific to the particular resolution as possible. If you want to win my ballot you should focus on developing a clear position and showing how it is superior to the position put forth by your opponent. You should not attempt to make more arguments than your opponent can respond to so that you can extend them in rebuttal. In my opinion most rounds are not resolved by appeals to authority. The original analysis and synthesis of the debater is vastly more important to me than cards. For further insight on my views please consult these following articles I have written for the Rostrum:

http://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/ld%20Pellicciotta0202.pdf,

https://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/Luong%20RJ%20PresumptionNov'00.pdf

Hello y'all! I am currently a senior at UC Berkeley. I was a competitor for 3 years and my events were Duo, Drama, Info, Prose, ADS/STE, and I did Parliamentary debate for a semester. I am a national champion in speech/interp and I had the honor of being part of one the best forensics programs in the nation.

I have experience judging middle school and high school tournaments. I am familiar with all the events/rules but more than likely I will be be judging speech rounds.

PARADIGM FOR EVERYONE: Don't be rude to others. Be respectful. Mute your mics. Don't cheat.

Speech/Interp Paradigm:

Be clear.

Be memorized (to the best you can).

HAVE FUN!

Please ask me about my paradigm before the round if you have more questions.

Debate/Public Forum/Congress/LD:

Please don't spread. I can't flow if I can't keep up. Medium to light spreading is okay.

Be clear. Make the implicit explicit!

Don't drop arguments.

I would prefer if y'all don't run a bunch of K's for no reason.

Sources. Sources. Sources. Cite them please.

HAVE FUN!

Please ask me about my paradigm before the round if you have more questions.

Speech:

Extensive experience competing in HI and DI, and judging in all forms of IE.

Extemp/IMP: Please have a thesis statement. Don't simply answer your question "Yes/No", and then jump to your points. I need to hear WHY you are answering Yes/No in a well-crafted thesis statement.

Oratory/Advocacy/INFO: You're here to teach! Teach me!

Interp: There is a difference between true interpretation and simply making somebody laugh (HI) or cry (DI). Good "Interpers" know the difference.

Debate:

***** PROFESSIONALISM AND COURTESY ARE OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE TO ME *****

***** IF YOU TREAT YOUR OPPONENTS WITH DISRESPECT, SPEAKER POINTS (AND PERHAPS RFD) WILL BE IMPACTED SEVERELY *****

***** YOU ARE HERE TO ATTACK ARGUMENTS, NOT PEOPLE *****

I am experienced as a competitor in Policy and Lincoln-Douglas. I am experienced as a judge in Policy, Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, and Parliamentary. See below for more info.

General: Debate is about your ability to understand, analyze, weigh, educate, and persuade in a contest of oral communication. Show me that you have developed these skills and abilities. I want to hear well-constructed arguments & reasoning, supported by relevant evidence and analysis. Depth means much more to me than breadth. During refutations, I want to hear true clash and expansion, not simple repetition of previously stated arguments. During final rebuttals, I want to hear a thoughtful bottom line -- the ability to sum up an entire debate is a very important skill. I can still make a decision without any of that, but good debaters will always demonstrate that they have learned the above skills.

PF/Policy/Parli: IF YOU SPREAD, I WILL PUT MY PEN DOWN, AND I WILL NOT RECORD YOUR ARGUMENTS OR EVIDENCE. Your speaker points will also reflect poorly. "Spread debate" teaches you (and me) nothing more than how fast you can speak and how fast I can write. The "spread" dynamic exists nowhere in the real world, except at debate tournaments. As such, I find spreading to be artificial and unproductive. If you never spoke at all, and simply pasted your cards onto a communal flow sheet with a series of arrows, you would reach the same endpoint as spread debate. So, please don't spread. Give me an outstanding LAY debate.

Lincoln-Douglas: I understand that these are values debates. But I see no utility in "stating your values" at the top of the speech (i.e. "My values for this debate are quality of life and egalitarianism.... now on to my arguments"). These opening statements mean very little, and I never write them down. I want to hear your case first. I want to hear solid background, arguments, and evidence, all of which SHOULD organically convince me of the values you support. You wouldn't make such empty opening statements about values in the real world, so I don't need to hear them in your speech. Show me how your arguments support your values, not the other way around.

i did oo and info and extempish at plano west

i am a lay judge!

I am a former competitor in Minnesota and national circuit Extemp, OO, and Congress.

SPEECH

Extemp: Your task is to answer the question asked of you. To that effect, please have a clear, unambiguous thesis that is the answer to your question. Then, tell me the reasons why that answer is correct, or at least ought to be persuasive. I do not need soliloquies or sonnets buffering your argumentative substance. Be sure that all evidence and analysis leads back to proving your answer-thesis. Enunciate well, and be direct in your language. I might check sources, so do not make them up or snub their attributions. I will happily provide time signals and tell you your time if you request.

OO/Info: Please have a central claim in your speech. See advice from Extemp.

CONGRESS

I operate under the paradigm that Congressional Debate is about adopting a Congress's role: take the theatrics seriously, but only as they are helpful. Call each other Representative/Senator. Respect the rules of Parli Pro. Do not say 'contention' or read me a K/case from a PF round on the same topic. However, the theatrics of Congress is not an excuse to dilute or ignore the rules of argumentation. Use credible sources, articulate your thoughts and arguments in opposition/negation of the legislation, and provide reasonable impacts (see impact statement in PF/LD section).

PF / LD

I don't have a lot of explicit rules or preferences when I judge PF/LD. Do not yell at each other or me. Please do not make blanket statements or impacts unless they are absolutely true. Refrain from dramatic impacts that are only designed for theatre (WWIII, nuclear holocaust, the destruction of life as we know it, etc.). I will not give hand signs or signals for the time but know that if you abuse your time--by going over or telling me you have more than you actually do--it will reflect in your speaker points. Tell me when you are taking prep, so I am not aimlessly guessing your intentions. You do not need to sign-post your summaries/FFs/or rebuts; just start talking. I can handle speed, as long as you are clear in your enunciation. Please do not talk while a debater is presenting; use notes or telepathy.

Feel free to ask me questions about my judging preferences at appropriate times (before/after rounds, when you see me in the hallway).

I have been involved in competitive speech and debate since 2005 as a competitor and a coach. While more of my time has been spent on the speech side of things, my primary events were Extemp and Impromptu. I have served as a debate coach for University High School in Normal, IL since the fall of 2015. I teach high school Oral Communication, Argumentation and Debate, Contemporary Rhetoric, and AP Language and Composition.

In terms of Public Forum Debate, I am looking for a combination of appeals to the average person as well as to a more nuanced audience. Progressive Debate strategies are OK, but the link to the resolution better be solid. I also am OK with some speed, but not full on spreading. If I can't hear/understand something, it doesn't make it on my flow. DO NOT BE AFRAID OF COMPLICATED ARGUMENTS, but you have to be able to explain them to a diverse audience. At the end of the day, links are everything! I need to see how your evidence actually links together and to your argument as a whole. I also want impact analysis. Explain to your judge(s) how and why your side will impact more lives, I won't do the work for you. If you are the second team to speak in a debate, I expect your Rebuttal to respond to the first team's Rebuttal as well as their case. Second summary is too late to bring in something new as your opponents will not have adequate time to respond. Please consider everyone impacted by a debate resolution. I do care if we are saving lives in the US or in another country. I am only a flow judge in the sense that if you do not mention something in your summary speech, I will not weigh it in my final decision, even if it is brought up in final focus. At the end of the day, I also want a professional debate. It is OK to get heated in the moment, but please refrain from crossing the line into completely unprofessional! Finally, in PF, please be ready to exchange evidence in a timely manner. (Oh, and I don't flow cross, so if something good is happening there, make sure you mention it in the next speech if you want me to weigh it).

In Speech, I am looking for the best combination of speaker and content. In Extemp, I am going to vote up students that answer the question and provide compelling evidence as to why that answer is true. I will vote those students up over the cleanest speakers every time if the cleanest speakers do not answer the question. In Oratory and Info, I am looking for an easy to follow structure and compelling delivery. I am OK with older sources as long as they are justified by the topic. In interp, I want to feel something. I typically vote up students that have a clear connection to their piece that connect with the audience in the room.

I am a parent judge with some training and experience.

Please do not speak too fast, as I may not be able to keep up with your arguments.

If you are making technical arguments, please make them at a level that an intelligent, but unfamiliar person may require.

tldr: I am a traditional judge. It is probably in your best interest to run a traditional case. But if you feel the need to run something non-traditional I will do my best to keep up (especially if I'm the only judge on your panel who prefers traditional).

-----

I was the assistant speech and debate coach at Pennsbury HS in Pennsylvania from 2018-2020, and I am currently a freelance judge when needed. I'm also on the Board of Directors for the Bulgarian English Speech and Debate Tournament (BEST) Foundation. I competed primarily in Congressional Debate and Extemporaneous Speaking. I was a 3x NSDA qualifier in the Congressional Debate.

First and foremost, know that I am not usually a debate judge. I've judged my share of PF and LD, and I have a general understanding of how to judge both events (so I'm not a lay judge insofar as I do have an idea of what I'm doing). For that reason, I prefer traditional arguments, but I can deal with progressive cases if you have an interesting perspective (but I would definitely lean on the side of traditional). I'm also okay with counterplans (in LD), but I will caution that I am almost always on the lookout for a mutual exclusivity argument from Aff when I hear counterplanning from the Neg. So if you're going to run one on Neg, be absolutely certain that what you're proposing cannot exist in an Aff world. If it can, and Aff points it out, my ballot is almost always decided then and there.

I can deal with K's, theory, phil etc. But please explain some of terms you're using if you can - I don't know all of the acronyms and me being confused is probably not good for you. Err on the side of traditional if you can, as that's what I'm best equipped to judge. But if I'm the only judge on your panel with these preferences, run your progressive case - I'll try and keep up.

-----

Because I enjoy a good debate, here are my preferences:

- Come prepared with all of your cards organized. I don't want to sit there and waste time while you fish around to find a specific card.

- Speed: Spreading will make it so that I can't include as much info on the flow - my typing is not super fast. In terms of speed, I suggest that you speak quickly but don't spread.

- Please signpost and lay out a roadmap, ESPECIALLY in your rebuttal speeches. I'm cool with off-time roadmaps (in fact, I encourage it).

- I will time you, but I expect you to time yourself and your opponents - I will stop flowing if you go over time.

- I appreciate a good clash over a good point. It makes filling out my ballot much easier when I can link arguments together.

- PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE weigh the round. I cannot stress how important it is for you to lay this out in your rebuttal speeches.

My email is morgan.elizabeth.rowe@gmail.com if you have any more questions.

CX

1. no excessive speed.

2. K's must apply to aff, have impact, must provide a weighing mechanism. I don't vote for a K that simply reflects a wrong in SQ.

3.Ultimately weighing adv , disads is critical

LD

1. Value/ crit can be critical, but often depends on the topic.

2. When topics are policy oriented, I can vote on policy.

3. I find standards to be important.

Extemp

1. Make sure your address the topic.

2. While number of sources cited isn't terribly critical, I do expect facts, etc. to be supported with sources. One two sources is not enough.

3. I prefer a natural delivery.

Oratory

1. Good unique topics appreciated. Substance, significance of topic takes a slight edge over delivery, but only slight. A little humor along the way is always good.

POI

1. I prefer a POI that recognizes a manuscript is being used. At least a little, please. A variety of emotional appeals works best.

2. I want to "see" in source in the program. They must be distinct and woven to enhance message of program.

HI, DI

1. HI should make me laugh or smile really hard. I look for development of characters, if possible.

2. DI should build to climax, both in selection and performance.

Congress

1. Be an active member of the session.

2. The least effective position to take is one that has already been given by a previous speaker. No re-hash.

3.Congressional debate requires debate. Rebuttal points/naming specific speakers, gets the most positive judging response.

4. Don't be afraid to be PO. I appreciate a good PO, and will take that into account when ranking.

Hello!

Below, you will find my paradigms for debate events. I will do speech paradigms in round, if necessary.

Best of luck to all :)

CONGRESS

1. Do not give empty claims. That is, do not say a point and no evidence! If you do, I cannot say it was a good speech or point if I have 0 cards or sources to back up what you're saying. Moreover, I really like quantitative data. Numbers in relation to your argument is really helpful to see real-life impacts of what you're arguing.

2. Be respectful in debate, questioning, etc. Don't be rude to your fellow debaters and do not address people in the chamber by last name. It is Rep. or Senator whatever. If you say Mr. or Ms. or address by last name, I will drop you immediately!

3. Don't give a speech for the sake of speaking. Always try to give lesser participants chances to speak. For me, I prefer quality over quantity. Thus, just because you give 3 or 4 speeches doesn't mean I will rank you top 8. Additionally, don't spend an hour and a half on a bill if you're just going in circles.

LD/PF

These paradigms apply to both LD and PF:

1. Provide evidence for all your contentions/arguments. I need to hear you clearly state your card sources as well as dates. This is extremely important when I review my flow at the end. Moreover, I really like numerical data when speakers are presenting because it gives real-time evidence on how the issues are affecting us.

2. I ran traditional debate because I preferred the clean and organized layout, however, I'm okay with you running K, theory, counter-plans, etc., as long as your case ties into the resolution.

3. NO SPREADING!!! First, if I can't understand what you are saying, I will not vote for your side. Moreover, if you spread, I will put my pen down and your arguments mean nothing. That is a visual indication to slow down. Please don't abuse the rule or I will immediately end the round!

4. Please be respectful to your fellow competitors. Don't interrupt or insult your opponents. You will lose speaker points and could cost you the round.

I care about argumentation and analysis more than most all else. I emphasize the flow, and care about the credibility of evidence. I'm not the biggest fan of theory debate for the sake of theory debate. I prefer topic centric debate.

I have about 10 years of experience in the speech and debate world. I primarily exist in speech land, but I have judged a lot of debate and love a strong argument and good links. That being said, I enjoy when a speaker can clearly articulate their arguments, and use delivery based methods of persuasion to help sway the ballot.

I am always hopeful for a debate where there is a lot of clash, and a clear path to the ballot.

I love when debaters give me voters and a clear articulation of why they believe that they have won the ballot.

Spreading is welcomed. Copy MUST be provided before starting your speech.

Judge heavily on substance and real world arguments.

Keep your tone friendly and civil.

I did Congress all 4 years of high school with some Worlds towards the end of my senior year. Here's the stuff to keep in mind if I'm judging you:

1. Avoid prog arguments
I'm not automatically handing Ls to the teams that run them, but keep in mind that I'm more experienced with traditional debate (if you'd call Congress that). Regardless, I *can* follow a prog debate and this is more so a fair warning to anyone that really wants to engage in one: I probably won't care that much about your argument

2. Be careful with wonky arguments
I'll always keep an open mind and I'm not gonna knock your args off the flow if they aren't refuted
BUT
If you run something that is really out there or really abstract, it will not take much for the other team to convince me that your argument doesn't carry weight on the flow. Still, whether or not I buy it, any arg with appropriate warranting/evidence is gonna be on my flow until it gets refuted
I'm not interested in fairness args unless your opponent is being genuinely abusive

3. Don't spread
Please, just don't

4. Be clear
This is kind of an extension of the spreading note; structure your args in a way that makes them easy to flow and always extend stuff that you think you're winning
Use clear tags and don't just identify arguments by authors
Also, if something cool happens in cross, I'll be listening but I won't be flowing. Bring it up in your next speech
Last note on clarity, I appreciate frameworks (not necessary and not as appreciated if in summary, but preferred nonetheless). If only one side explicitly gives me one, that's probably how I'm going to weigh

5. Time yourself
I'll time but I won't stop you if you go over (I'll just stop listening)

6. Don't do anything racist, sexist, or otherwise stupid
You will lose

Do not qualify, justify, or explain before or after you speak. This is the performance. I am the judge. Impress me.

All movements (Feet, hands, body, eyes) should have a purpose.

Interps should have arcs and PAs should have thesis statements.

1. I'm not too familiar with debate slang, so I'd appreciate it if their use wasn't integral to understanding any talking points.

2. Please speak at a conversational pace and ENUNCIATE your words. I know that sometimes you have more words on the page than time to say them all slowly, but if I can't understand you, I'm unable to fairly and effectively judge you.

3. BE NICE. any hostility or personal attacks towards an opponent will be an automatic lose.

4. relax and have fun! you're gonna do great!

Did Policy Debate in the late 90s & coached Policy and then later LD in the 00s. In the past 12 years, I've almost exclusively coached Speech events at Lakeville North High School. I taught at Gustavus speech and PF camps when those were still around and have been teaching Extemp Speaking at ISD the past six summers.

If I'm judging you in a Debate round, please know that the time I've spent away from Debate means I'm not necessarily familiar with how practices for each of the events have evolved. If fast and technical are your preferred style, I'll try to keep up but no promises that I can entirely. Podcasts at 2.5x aren't quite the same so you may need to watch and adjust. Chances are I'm unfamiliar with topic-specific lit or whatever critical lit is currently in style so you may need to do more connecting of the dots in order to keep me on the same page as you. For familiarity and thresholds for types of arguments, ask before the round.

Hello all! My name is Trissha Sivalingam, and I’ve loved speech and debate (but mostly speech) for as long as I can remember. I’m so excited to judge you all, and hope to see you at your best!

I don’t have specific rules when it comes to rounds, other than maintaining respect for all competitors and giving it your all. Remain muted and attentive when others are performing, and stay off your phones!

As for the tournament being virtual, don’t worry too much about camera quality and such, as long as I can hear you, see you, and feel your energy, you’ll be fine.

Good luck to everyone, and remember to have fun! In times like these, we must perform each round like it could be our last, to make sure we have no regrets and can look back on our rounds with fond memories.

See you soon!

Disclaimer: I am not the most tech-savvy so please just bear with me and hopefully we'll all make it out of this tournament in one piece.

DEBATE:

• I am ok with speed, but do think a more conversational speed is better for most debate formats to get your arguments across thoroughly and effectively. Speed also does not allow for more inflection and style to your speaking.

•Respect your competitor(s), if they are being disrespectful to you it will mean a lot more if you remain civil.

• 15 second grace period unless stated otherwise by the tournament director.

• For Worlds- same as above including the following: American Worlds differs from how it is done internationally debate how you are comfortable but remember your opponents may have been taught slightly different how to structure a case. I will listen to Reply’s but please don’t bring up any new points as they will not be considered in the decision. I am moderately tough when it comes to speaker points (don’t expect a perfect 80 unless you’re just an absolute god).

• I had a lot of debate experience in high school competing at state tournaments in PF and LD as well as qualifying for nationals in Worlds and Congress. Placed each time I competed at nationals in Worlds (9th and 17th) as well as competed on an international World Schools debate team.

SPEECH:

• 15 second grade period unless instructed otherwise

• Most familiar with Extemp and Informative events from my past experiences, but still understand the premise of other events.

• Please don’t be monotone unless there is meaning to it for a speech

- Make sure your message is straightforward and not convoluted with too many loosely related arguments

- Any racist, sexist, homophobic, or discriminatory remarks will not be tolerated, so please be respectful when speaking

- Speaker technique is also something I'll be on the lookout for -- enthusiasm, limited filler words, general flow, etc. will be taken into consideration

- I'm fine with fast speaking but make sure each sentence is still enunciated and understandable

- Humor and out of the box arguments are appreciated

- Relevance and credibility of your sources are extremely important

Hi all- my name is Natalie Steinbrink and I am an assistant coach at Phoenix Country Day School, where I've been since 2015. I graduated from Arizona State University in 2018 with a degree in English Literature. I am primarily a speech coach, but I do enjoy coaching and watching Congress when I can. Here is what's important to me in a Congressional Debate round:

-Clear argumentation. Don't make me work to understand your argument. Your structure, evidence, links, and impacts should be clear and easy to understand. I can appreciate a complex argument, but if I'm still wondering what your point was by the time we've moved on to the next speech, you haven't done the job.

-Be INVOLVED in the session. Be an active listener and don't get wrapped up in your own speeches (i.e. please don't practice your speech while others are talking). Ask good, varied questions. Be a congressperson who's going to foster good debate in the round (the most fun part of congress!).

-Give me some genuine emotion! This may be the speech coach in me jumping out, but the bills you're debating impact real people in the world, and you should treat them as such. How is anyone going to believe in your argument if you don't act like you believe in it yourself?

-Good delivery is a must. Try to get away from your legal pad as much as possible.

-Be respectful. If you're rude or aggressive to other debaters, you'll be dropped. Plain and simple.

I'm excited to listen to you all, and I hope you're excited as well!

In dramatic events, I am looking for clear characterization, strong emotional connections, and understanding of the piece. I want you to draw me in and let me feel with your characters.

In humorous events, I am looking for clear and concise characterizations that are easy to differentiate and follow, and a good sense of comic timing with the piece.

Duo and Duet, I am looking at the same things, but also strong interactions between the different characters.

In Informative, Oratory, and the Extemps, I am looking for a good conversational style with good use of gesture and confidence in your speeches. Know your stuff, or at least look like you know your stuff.

I am overall going to also look at technique and seek for it to be clean and clear.

I'm an assistant speech coach at the Potomac School. This is my 15th year in Speech and Debate. I graduated from George Mason University where I competed on the collegiate speech team. Before that, I went to Rosemount High School where I did LD and speech for four years. If you have any questions, email me at alekhyatallapaka@gmail.com

Speech:

Extemp and PAs, I am focused more on your content than delivery, especially in the beginning of the season. I will be flowing your speeches.

Interp Events, less focus on argumentation and more on how you interpret the author's original text/your performance choices. I will let you know if I think your performance is too triggering but I will not punish the student (I will leave a strongly worded ballot for coaches though)

Debate:

I'm a flow judge that wants to be told how to feel. Ultimately, debate is supposed to be persuasive--a 'winning' flow is not inherently persuasive. My speaker points are generally reflective of how easy I think you make my decisions.

Things to Remember…

0. The Debate Space: R E L A X. Have some fun. Breathe a little. Sit where you want, talk in the direction you want, live your BEST lives in my rounds. I'm not here to tell you what that looks like!

1. Framework: Cost/benefit unless otherwise determined.

2. Extensions: Links and impacts NEED to be in summary to be evaluated in final focus. Please don't just extend through ink--make an attempt to tell me why your arguments are comparatively more important than whatever they're saying.

3. Evidence: If you're bad at paraphrasing and do it anyway, that's a reasonable voter. See section on theory. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. I also prefer authors AND dates. I will not call for evidence unless suggested to in round.

4. Cross: If it's not in a speech it's not on my flow. HOWEVER: I want to pay attention to cross. Give me something to pay attention to. Just because I'm not flowing cross doesn't make it irrelevant--it's up to you to do something with the time.

5. Narrative: Narrow the 2nd half of the round down with how your case presents a cohesive story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. I like comparative analysis.

6. Theory: If an abuse happens, theory shells are an effective check. I think my role as an educator is to listen to the arguments as presented and make an evaluation based on what is argued.

Disclosure is good for debate. I think paraphrasing is good for public forum, but my opinion doesn't determine how I evaluate the paraphrasing shell. This is just to suggest that no one should feel intimidated by a paraphrasing shell in a round I am judging--make substantive responses in the line-by-line and it's ultimately just another argument I evaluate tabula rasa.

7. Critical positions: I'll evaluate Ks, but if you are speaking for someone else I need a good reason not to cap your speaks at 28.5.

8. Tech >< Truth: Make the arguments you want to make. If they aren't supported with SOME evidence my threshold for evaluating answers to them is, however, low.

9. Sign Post/Road Maps: Please.

**Do NOT give me blippy/underdeveloped extensions/arguments. I don’t know authors of evidence so go beyond that when talking about your evidence/arguments in round. I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that with some humor and panache.**

I have over a quarter-century of experience in the dynamics of corporate environments, navigating the nuanced terrains of high-stakes boardroom discussions, strategic planning sessions, and vigorous debates with both peers and executives at the highest levels. These experiences have not only underscored the profound influence of adept speech and debate in shaping outcomes but have also instilled a deep appreciation for the art of persuasion, critical thinking, and collaborative problem-solving. Additionally, I’ve been a proud member of SAG-AFTRA for three decades which has enriched this perspective, reinforcing the indispensable value of performance, passion, and precision in communication. This unique mixture of corporate strategy and theatrical expression has profoundly informed my understanding of the transformative power of effective communication—whether it's captivating an audience on stage or influencing decision-making in business.

The model I adopt as a judge in these debates is deeply rooted in the conviction that quality, not quantity, of argumentation reigns supreme. It is a philosophy born out of real-world applications where the power of a well-articulated, passionately delivered argument can pivot the course of discussions, sway opinions, and forge consensus. It is a testament to the belief that the essence of impactful communication lies not in the volume of information conveyed but in the ability to craft arguments that resonate on a deeper, more meaningful level with one's audience.

While it may be tempting to speak rapidly and provide copious amounts of information, I'd like to encourage you to consider the following points that I feel are important:

The Power of Persuasion: In the world of Parliamentary Debate/PF, your ultimate goal is not just to present information but to persuade your audience. Whether you're addressing policy makers, executives, or peers, your ability to convince them of your viewpoint is paramount. Quality arguments, backed by sound reasoning and passion, have a far greater impact with me than a sheer volume of facts and figures.

Effective Communication: Imagine you are addressing a boardroom full of executives or a panel of policy experts. In these real-world scenarios, they are not looking for information overload but for a clear and concise articulation of your ideas. For me, there is only so much information I can consume, digest, and absorb in a given period of time. If you race through arguments you run the risk of diminishing the impact and persuasiveness of your case.

Memorability and Impact: Quality arguments are memorable. They linger in the minds of your audience long after the debate is over. Quantity may overwhelm momentarily, but it often fails to leave a lasting impression. In the real world, your ability to make a lasting impact is a valuable skill.

Real-World Application: Consider that the skills you are developing in Parliamentary Debate/PF are not just for competition; they are for life. In professional settings, you will encounter situations where you need to influence decisions, present ideas, and lead discussions. The ability to make a compelling case while maintaining clarity and coherence is a prized skill.

I want to emphasize that, as a judge, I place a greater emphasis on the qualities that make an argument compelling and persuasive rather than solely focusing on technical details. Craft your speeches with precision, emphasizing persuasive language, tone, and clarity. Remember that your power lies not in overwhelming your audience but in persuading them effectively.

A parent judge with a few years of experience judging various tournaments and events. I care about presentation and the real-world impacts of your arguments.

This is my fourth year as a parent judge(speech mainly). I have judged in some national speech and debate events: NSDA national, TOC, NIETOC, etc. I emphasize on clarity and confidence in delivery. Do not spread. I need to understand you to rank you high.

I am a high school English teacher and consider myself strictly a lay judge for Public Form. I never participated in speech or debate as a student.

If you speak too fast, I will not be able to adequately follow your argument, and this will not be to your benefit.

I appreciate a clear and deliberate style of speaking.

My paradigm is long, but I will break it down by category to hopefully save you some time. TLDR version is: I love forensics. It is intended to change, not stay the same. So show me something that makes me believe in the future of the activity just a little more, and I will do what I can to ensure it gets the recognition it deserves.

My Background

My background ranges across debate, speech, and congress. I completed for 8 years, with four years in High School mostly focused on debate and interp, and then four years in college mainly focused on limited prep, interp, and public address. I've won two state championships in Arizona (Public Forum Debate in 2013 and Duo in 2014) and I'm a three time AFA-NIET finalist on the college circuit (Informative in 2016, with Informative and Persuasion in 2018). I coached for UT Austin's speech team after finishing out my competition years, and I'm currently the head coach at Brophy College Preparatory in Phoenix where I've been serving since the fall of 2019. At this point in my career, I have either coached or done every event but Policy. Nothing against Policy, just haven't gotten around to it yet.

Individual Events Paradigms

Drama

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Clarity of subtextual meaning conveyed through your performance

2. Presentation of a consistent and grounded environment

3. Control of movement to blocking in your environment

4. Organization of the narrative to create a clear story

5. Energy and animation behind the storytelling

Duo

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Articulation of a clear relationship which develops across the performance

2. Clarity of subtextual meaning

3. Showcase of coordinated blocking that helps suspend disbelief

4. Organization of the narrative to create a clear story

5. Energy and animation behind the storytelling

Extemp

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Provided a definitive answer to the question

2. Used structure and substructure that put forth unified analysis

3. Provided supporting arguments that consistently linked back to and proved your answer

4. Showcased strength in poised, confident delivery

5. Gave unique impacts that challenged our understanding of the subject

Humor, Prose, & Storytelling

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Clarity of subtextual meaning conveyed through your performance

2. Articulation of differentiation between characters through voice, gestures, and facial expressions

3. Control of movement to articulate the images of the story

4. Organization of the narrative to create a clear story

5. Energy and animation behind the storytelling

Impromptu

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Provided a definitive thesis to the prompt

2. Used structure and substructure that put forth unified analysis

3. Provided supporting arguments that consistently linked back to and proved your thesis

4. Showcased strength in poised, confident delivery

5. Gave unique impacts that challenged our understanding of the subject

Informative

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Presence of structure couched in significance and relevance of the topic

2. Clearly defined topic scope

3. Analysis that continually punctuates the urgency of the argument

4. Engaging visuals to showcase significant details within the speech

5. Conversational, poised, and confident delivery

Original Oratory

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Clarity of urgency behind the solutions presented

2. Quality of consistent structure

3. Uniqueness of the topic

4. Tangibility of solutions

5. Showcase of controlled, poised, confident delivery

Poetry & POI

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Clarity of subtextual meaning conveyed through your performance

2. Articulation of a clear build and climax within the performance

3. Control of movement to articulate the images of the text

4. Clear differentiation of characters (Poetry specific: if multi-voice program)

5. Organization of the narrative to create a dramatic arc

Pro/Con Challenge

In this round, I ranked you according to the following qualities in rank order of significance:

1. Adherence to the Resolution in Argumentation

2. Balance between Affirmative and Negative Sides (i.e. not Straw-manning yourself)

3. Organizational Structure of Cases

4. Sophistication of Rhetoric

5. Showcase of Confident, Conversational Delivery

Debate Paradigms

Debate General

Biggest items for me in debate are that I'm a flow judge who will make very few value judgements without you asking me to within the scope of the round, and I have a few admittedly petty grievances around time. So...

• Be sure to signpost
• Weigh and identify clearly your weighing mechanisms
• I'll say "clear" twice, and then I'm dropping my pen if I still can't tell what you're saying.
• Good debate requires good diction. Do a pen drill. Take prep and do it in the middle of the round if you have to. But please speak with the intention to be understood.
• I control the clock, so: 1) The time starts when you start talking and 2) When that time is up, I'm putting down my pen.
• I think off-time roadmaps are kinda a waste of time. I get why they happen and that I'm on the losing side of this argument. But if you're reading this and would like me to appreciate your style of debate slightly more, don't do off-time roadmaps.
• If you call for many cards in a debate, I do expect that you are going to use that for something in the round. Please do not call for cards frivolously, as I would like to keep the schedule running on time.

Auto-drops for me are pretty limited, but mostly pertain to saying or doing anything particularly derogatory towards your opponent. Forensics in general should be a space where everyone feels comfortable, and is not limited from feeling so because of their identity. It therefore really doesn't much matter to me if you just clearly won the round. If you are rude to your opponent, I will drop you.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Specific

• Tech. Though I come predominantly from a PF background, I'm perfectly fine with you running more technical arguments. You just need to give me 1) The educational purpose of the ballot backed by a warrant and 2) The ability to take large portions of the debate outside the scope of the round without ignoring your opponents arguments or straw manning them. A K isn't a cop-out to repeat the same argument over and over again. You need to prove to us why your Kritik of the resolution is worth more than the resolution itself.
• Framework. If you concede framework, you need to own it and carry it to the end of the debate. I would advise against switching gears midway through and deciding you'd like the round to value a new framework right when you start weighing.

Public Forum Debate Specific

• Impacts. Vital in this event is your ability to properly link (and that does mean really warranting them, don't just read off 8 cards and call it a day) your impacts and terminalize them as early as possible within the round. It's very difficult to be on the winning side of a PF round with any ambiguity around your impacts and how you access them.
• Weighing. Actually do this. Summary and FF to me are not best used for additional front lining. Summary should be no more than 50% front lining, and FF shouldn't include much at all. 2 Worlds is probably my favorite to listen to in order to best crystalize the round, but feel free to show me something cooler and I will probably like it.

Congressional Debate Specific

• Repetitive Debate. My favorite part of this event is actually watching a debate advance over the course of the session. So rather than repeating after each other, do summaries, respond directly to others, and build on prior arguments, especially if you're the one keeping us on this piece of legislation by asking others to vote against moving the previous question.

Yes to the email chain: hannah.wilson@harker.org

It's important to me that judges act like educators (and by that I mean that I understand it's about the debaters and not me + professional boundaries are important). Debate is hard and we're all learning. My goal is to help make the experience as educationally valuable and fun as possible.

My debate experience: I did one year of PF in high school, one year of policy in high school, and three years of policy in college (2 at Weber and 1 at Concordia). I was an assistant coach at Copper Hills High School for 2 years, and a speech/congress coach at The Harker School for 4 years. I am now the head of the middle school program at The Harker School, coaching all the speech and debate events.

Policy & LD:

-I'm a competent person, but don't assume I have deep topic knowledge (especially with LD topics changing so often!). Don't assume I know what an acronym means. Don't assume I already know the link chain for the generic topic args. Don't assume I know about your aff. Even if I already do know about all of the things already, I think good debate requires painting the picture every time instead of just jumping to the end.

-Speed: Slow down and be clear on your analytics!!!!!! It seems like judges are just flowing off of docs, which is incentivizing people to spread theory/t/framework to get through more, but I am not that judge. I haven't judged a debate yet where I felt someone went too fast in the cards for me to keep up and follow. It's the keeping that same speed throughout all your analytics + lack of clarity and emphasis on the things you think are important that becomes the problem.

-I think signposting is so important! I'd much prefer a speech that says things like "on the circumvention debate" "on the link debate" "they say x we say y" than speeches that read as one big essay/overview. I'll still flow it, but the chances I miss a little thing that you decide to blow up later go up when your signposting is poor.

-While I've coached and judged LD, I never did it so some of the quirks are still foreign. I've heard the word tricks, but don't know what that is. The brief explanations I've received have me skeptical, but I'll listen to any arg with warrants and an impact.

-Theory: I have a high threshold for theory. I'm fine with debates about debate, but I don't know if I've ever seen a theory speech that goes in depth enough to do that well. If your theory shell was a full and cohesive argument in the constructive (i.e. the violation was specific and clear + the impact was specific and clear) and it's conceded entirely I'll vote for it. If it's like a one sentence just incase thing in the constructive, I probably don't think it was a full argument so even if they conceded it I might not buy it. Condo will be hard to win. If they are really reading *that* many off case, those arguments are probably very underdeveloped and some could even be answered by a few reasonable analytics. Do not read disclosure theory in front of me if it's the first debate on a new topic. The theory I'm most likely to be persuaded by is perf con.

-Framework: I'll happily vote for framework. Be specific about what ground you've lost and why it matters. Education > Fairness impacts. Affs need to prove their reps are desirable before weighing extinction against Ks.

-Ks: Make sure your link is specific to the aff. Be specific about how and what your alt solves. If it's an epistemology alt that's fine, but I need you to do thorough explanation of why that's the preferable way to debate and a sufficient enough reason to get my ballot. Don't assume I have a background in your specific K.

-Disads: Got a soft spot for a good politics disad. I'd prefer to watch a debate with core topic disads and a strong link than a new disad that might have a weaker link. Will still vote on it if they don't have answers, but I prefer watching a debate with clash. Don't assume I have background on your disads. Explain the story clearly.

Public Forum:

-Y'all should just start sending all of your evidence. It's a waste of my time and yours to wait for evidence to be called to slowly send over things card by card. It will also hold everyone to higher evidence standards if the community starts evidence sharing and debates will get better.

-I know there is some division on this, but I do think the first rebuttal speech should still talk about their case. It's good to start filtering the debate through your impacts right away.

Congress:

Honestly, y'all don't need paradigms. This is a speech event and if you're thinking of it as a debate event you should reorient your strategy. That said, I know people want to read paradigms anyways so... I really value rebuttals. Constructives can do well in front of me, but if you give more than one speech in a round and both are constructives I'll feel like that's because you don't know how to be off script. Remember you are in a room with a bunch of other students... it's hard for your judges to remember all of you. Be an active participant in questioning and the house to help yourself stand out. Cheesy, but I think of the round in terms of who I would want to be my representative. Not necessarily because they agree with all the things I already think, but because they are actively engaged in questioning, are good at responding to opposing arguments, and have a nice balance between pathos and logos. Greatest speeches might not get my 1 if they are disengaged from every other part of the round.

I am a parent judge and this is my 3rd year judging IE. I award speaker points based on how well I can understand you. So please speak with clarity and deliver in a pace that a lay judge can comprehend.

Good luck and have fun!

David Yastremski
Director - Ridge High School
30+ years experience coaching and judging

LD/PF/PARLI
I'm considered a very traditional flow judge within the various competitive debate arenas. I appreciate slightly-higher than conversational rates as a maximum. I will afford you a 'clear' if necessary.

I do expect and reward debate with a clear framework of understanding. I also like direct application of your argument to clear and defined system(s). I don’t believe we exist in a vacuum – there must be context for me to consider and weigh an argument, and I recognize the resolution is created and should be interpreted within a particular context. Therefore, hypothetical worlds must be warranted as reasonable within a pragmatic context developed within the resolution. I appreciate creative, though plausible and non-abusive, House interpretations in Parliamentary rounds.

In LD and PF, all evidence must be clearly tagged and clearly linked to the grounds within your claims. In Parliamentary, examples should be true, contextually-defined, when appropriate, and directly linked to your claims. You can create hypothetical examples or indicate your personal beliefs on an issue; however, if you are unsure what a particular constitutional amendment or Supreme Court decision states, please avoid introducing it. Also, where tag-teaming is permitted, proceed with caution. One or two interjections is fine. More than that diminishes your partner's voice/skill and will be considered in speaker points and, if excessive, the RFD.

Crystallization is key to winning the round. Be sure you allow yourself ample time to establish clear grounds and warrants on all voters. I don’t consider arguments just because they are uttered; you must explain the ‘why’ and the ‘so what’ in order for me to weigh them in my decision, in other words, directly impact them to the framework/standards. I do appreciate clear signposting throughout the round in order to make the necessary links and applications to other arguments, and I will give you more speaker points if you do this effectively. Speaker points are also rewarded for competence, clarity, and camaraderie during the round. In LD and PF, I will not give below a 26 unless you're rude and/or abusive.

Overall, please remember, I may not be as well-read on the resolution as you are. I do not teach at camps; I don’t teach debate in any structured class, nor do I judge as regularly or frequently as others. I will work hard to reach the fairest decision in my capacity. I really enjoy judging rounds where the contestants make a concerted effort to connect with me and my paradigm. I don't enjoy rounds where I or my paradigm is ignored. Thanks for reading this far!! Best of luck in your round.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE:

I have 25+ years experience in Congressional 'Debate' and REALLY enjoy judging/parli'ing great rounds! I evaluate 'student congress' as a debate event; hence, if you are early in the cycle, I am looking for clear affirmative and negative grounds to establish clash and foundation for the remainder of the debate. If you speak later in the cycle, I expect extensions and refutations of what has already been established as significant issues in the debate (beyond just name dropping). I see each contribution on the affirmative and negative sides as extensions of the previous speeches presented; consequently, if there is a significant argument that has not been addressed to by opponents, I expect later speakers to build and expand on it to strengthen it. Likewise, if speakers on the other side do not respond to a significant issue, I will consider it a 'dropped argument' which will only increase the ranking of the student who initially made it, and lower the rankings of students who failed to recognize, respond or refute it; however, it is the duty of questioners to challenge opposing speakers thus reminding the room (including the judges) on significant arguments or issues that have gone unrefuted. In other words, students should flow the entire round and incorporate that information into their speeches and questions. I also highly encourage using the amendment process to make legislation better. Competitors who attempt it, with germane and purposeful language, will be rewarded on my ballot.

Most importantly, enjoy the unique experience of Congressional Debate. There are so many nuances in this event that the speech and debate other events cannot provide. Own and appreciate your opportunity by demonstrating your best effort in respectful dialogue and debate and be your best 'self' in the round. If you do, the rewards will far outweigh the effort.

EVIDENCE: All claims should be sufficiently warranted via credible evidence which ideally include both theoretical and empirical sources. I reward those who consider constitutional, democratic, economic, diplomatic frameworks, including a range of conservative to liberal ideologies, to justify their position which are further substantiated with empirical examples and data. All evidence should be verbally-cited with appropriate source and date. Students should always consider biases and special interests when choosing sources to cite in their speeches. I also encourage students to challenge evidence during refutations or questioning, as time and warrant allows.

PARTICIPATION: I reward participation in all forms: presiding, amending, questioning, flipping, and other forms of engagement that serve a clear purpose to the debate and fluent engagement within the round. One-sided debate indicates we should most likely move on to the next piece of legislation since we are ready to vote; therefore, I encourage students to stand for additional speeches if your competitors are not willing to flip, yet do not wish to move to previous question (as a matter of fact I will highly reward you for 'debating' provided that you are contributing to a meaningful debate of the issues). I expect congressional debaters to remain engaged in the round, no matter what your speaking order, therefore leaving the chamber for extended periods of time is highly discouraged and will be reflected in my final ranking. Arriving late or ending early is disrespectful to the chamber and event. Competitors who appear to bulldoze or disenfranchise others regarding matters of agenda-setting, agenda-amendments, speaking position/sides can also be penalized in ranking. I am not fond of splits before the round as I've seen many students, typically younger folks, coerced into flipping; hence, students should just be ready to debate with what they've prepared. If you are concerned with being dropped, I recommend exploring arguments on both sides of the bill/resolution.

PRESIDING OFFICER: Thank you for being willing to serve the chamber. I look highly upon students who run for PO. If elected, be sure you demonstrate equity and fairness in providing the optimum opportunity for every competitor to demonstrate their skills as a debater and participant in the chamber. I value POs who assert a respectful command and control of the room. Do not allow other competitors to take over without your guidance and appropriate permissions (even during breaks while others may be out of the room). Your procedures of recognizing speakers (including questioning) should be clearly communicated at the top of the round to promote transparency and a respect for all members of the chamber. Mistakes in recency or counting votes happen -- no big deal (just don't make it repetitive). Public spreadsheets are appreciated.

DELIVERY, STYLE and RHETORIC: Good delivery takes the form of an argument and audience-focused presentation style. Authorship/ Sponsorship/ first-negative speeches can be primarily read provided the competitor communicates a well-developed, constructed, and composed foundation of argument. These speeches should be framework and data rich -- and written with a rhetorical prowess that conveys a strong concern and commitment for their advocacy.

After the first speeches, I expect students to extend or refute what has been previously stated - even if offering new arguments. These speeches should be delivered extemporaneously with a nice balance of preparation and spontaneity, demonstrating an ability to adapt your advocacy and reasoning to what has been previously presented. Trivial or generic introductions/closings typically do not get rewarded in my rankings. I would much prefer a short, direct statement of position in the opening and a short, direct final appeal in the closing. Good rhetorical technique and composition in any speech is rewarded.

DECORUM & SUSPENSION OF THE RULES: I highly respect all forms of decorum within the round. I value your demonstration of respect for your colleagues referring to competitors by their titles (senator, representative) and indicated gender identifiers. Avoid deliberate gender-specific language "you guys, ladies and gentlemen" etc. I encourage any suspension of the rules, that are permitted by the tournament, which contribute to more meaningful dialogue, debate, and participation. Motions for a suspension of the rules which reflect a lack of decorum or limit opportunity are discouraged. I also find "I'm sure you can tell me" quite evasive and flippant as an answer.

I'm a new judge. In speech, I look for clarity and confidence in delivery. Content-wise, I want good, clean and powerful arguments.

I graduated from Plano West in 2019.

Preflow before the round please!

Speed is fine insofar as you are articulate and clear

I also don't like teams that speak quickly to card dump - card dumping doesn't make you a better debater, and I will drop every card you read without a warrant

Important things:

1. Second rebuttal does not need to respond to first rebuttal, but I highly advise for you to do so strategy-wise

2. No independent unrelated contentions in rebuttal - DAs that are related to your opponent's contentions are fine

3. First summary does not need to extend defense if it not responded to by second rebuttal

4. Hierarchy of arguments: carded warrants > uncarded warrant > carded but unwarranted empirics/statistics. If there's no warrant (carded or not), I won't vote for it

5. Always extend warrants. Saying the name of the card's author does not count as extending the warrant. I'd prefer you repeat the warrant and leave out the card name (I'll extend the card on the flow for you) than you saying "extend [card name]" and moving on

6. WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. Please use the extra minute in summary to do weighing/in-depth analysis. Weighing mechanisms should be set up in summary at the latest (feel free to start weighing in rebuttal!). If it's not in summary, I won't evaluate it in final focus. I also won't vote on new weighing mechanisms introduced in final focus unless I absolutely need to. If you don't weigh I'll just weigh on whatever I feel like

7. Collapse in summary. Frontlining =/= extending a contention. You must frontline AND extend the claim, warrant, impacts of your contention. "This argument is unwarranted" is an acceptable frontline

8. Terminalize your impacts - tell me why your impacts matter to me and to the round

9. Misconstrued evidence is my worst pet peeve. I'd prefer for case cards to not be paraphrased. Paraphrasing is fine in rebuttals, etc, but don't misconstrue. If you have statistics for your impact and they end up 100x larger or the scope suddenly changes by the time it's final focus, I won't evaluate it and I'll dock speaks

10. I won't evaluate new arguments in 2nd final focus. If your delink suddenly becomes a turn, or your impact suddenly becomes a million times bigger, or your link suddenly has a new "nuance" in 2nd final focus, I will drop the entire argument, so you might as well just keep the original argument

11. I won't vote for disclosure theory

12. Speaks: 28-30 unless you're condescending, sexist, racist, rude, misconstrue evidence etc. Please don't extend rounds by 20 mins by pulling up cards; if it takes unnecessarily long to pull up cards you will see docks in speaks

Evidence: I will call for evidence if it’s important in the round and either 1) anyone tells me to call for it or 2) I think it might be misconstrued based on previous knowledge. I know that as the round progresses sometimes cards get power tagged accidentally, and that’s fine, but if you straight up clip your cards or misconstrue them heavily I’ll dock your speaks and also possibly drop you

Theory: Don’t really know the tech side of theory and also really REALLY hate the trend of some teams running theory to confuse opponents instead of actually checking back abuse. If you want to check back abuse just explain the abuse and why I should drop the arg/debater intuitively.

If you have any questions, ask before round.

If judging extemp:

-I judge off of the flow; whoever makes the best argument in the round will get the one (unless delivery is worlds, worlds apart)

If judging PA:

-I put emphasis on writing, but delivery will play a bigger role in OO/INFO than in extemp for me

If judging interp:

-Am not as experienced at judging interp, so I will be looking for the basics: can I differentiate your characters/pops/voices? Is your story clear and easy to follow? Does it make me feel what the script is supposed to make me feel?

-For POI, I'm looking for a cohesive narrative (cutting is important) as well as the above