I am looking for competitors who speak clearly and present their material so that it can be uderstood easily. Those that speak too fast so that I can't follow will lose points in my book. Clever and original materials and presentations are my favorite. Have fun and be respectful.

Hi! I am an experienced judge that loves speech and debate. I have a background in theater, so please speak up and enunciate. I like traditional debate, I like to flow your rounds and I want you to debate your points & your opponents case. Please be respectful and enjoy your round. After all, this should be fun. 

I am a coach and a traditional type of judge.

Generally, while I don't mind a debater talking fast, I loathe spreading or spewing. I do not think there is any skill in just talking fast. If i cannot keep with your arguments in my flow, you risk losing the round.

In LD, because it is a value debate, I tend to focus on Value and value criterion in judging rounds. Your contentions should be connected to your value and criterion. I don't see a problem with counter-plans but they should be presented in the context to prove your value and value criterion.

In PF the winning team will have a well researched, well organized case. A strong framework is important, and the team that can show, through their evidence and their arguments, impacts will likely win.

I have taught Speech & Debate for four years and I am currently and assistant coach, focusing on IE events. Additionally, I participated in debate in college and have real-world experience in government and policy as a policy analyst. I am, to the best of my ability, tabla rasa as a judge. 

For judging debate:

A. What is your preferred rate of delivery?

      - conversational speed

Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision?

-       No

Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed?

       - No

 

B. How important is the criterion in making your decision?

- It will be a factor depending on its use in the round.

Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case?

- Yes

 

C. Rebuttals and Crystallization

1. Final rebuttals should include both voting and line by line.

2. Voting issues should be given either during or at the end of the speech.

3. Voting issues are necessary.

4. The use of jargon or technical language ("extend," "cross-apply," "turn," etc.) during rebuttals is:

 - should be kept to a minimum.

D. How do you decide the winner of the round? (check the best answer)

- I decide who is the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall.

E. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round?

- Almost always necessary

 

F. Please describe your personal note-taking during the round.

 

- I write down the key arguments throughout the round.

 

For Judging IE

 

A. What is your preferred rate of delivery?

      - conversational speed

Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision?

-    Yes

Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed?

       - No

 

 

Debate:

Four years HS PF experience including Nationals, 5A State Championship, +/ Former PF coach at Bigham/ Judge at many local tournaments as well as several national comps.

Paradigm-type items:

Speed, jargon, etc. are all chill with me.

Please give me a roadmap at the beginning of your speeches!

Clear and straightforward warrants, links, and impacts for your arguments so I can give you credit for them on the flow.

Please cite sources in a way that allows me to verify the veracity of your arguments and information.

Always remember that debate is an activity about learning and growing, not just competition!

I will time and give time signals if you want me to, but I prefer to let you all do it.

Education:

I am graduating from the U of U in May with a B.S in Political Science as well as a B.S in International Studies, attending graduate school in the Fall. My primary areas of interest within my field are comparative politics, sub-state actors, MENA terrorism, democracy, American institutions, +.

Professional:

Utah Democratic Party - S.L.C, Utah

Creative Learning – Washington, D.C

Hinckley Institute of Politics - S.L.C, Utah

Utah Independent News - Saint George, Utah

Good luck and have fun!

I judged many years of debate and IE events except policy. I can handle any speed but do not like the speed of progressive policy. Every event has its rules and structures, I like road map and framework, they help a lot to see whether the person or the team is sticking with their flow.

LD, l look for things that whether the value and value criterion line up with their contentions. Evidence credible or not. Speaker has the fire along their speech or argments but not sound yelling?

PF, team needs to know their topic well. Time management on speech whether things are well organized by FW or flow, evidence always important in PF. Wrong information under my knowledge, definitely out some points from me. Plan should not be spending time during in PF, it is not policy event. Speaker point should be high with high convincing tone and voice but not yelling.

Please do not spend time in rule argument, I want hear your opinions on the topic!

I look for well-supported impact & Pathos - I want you to convince me by making me care about the topic. However, I also want you to convince me by backing up your claims with actual evidence.

I research, analyze and write policy for a living. Therefore, I can sense when your argument is BS and your sources are lacking.

I am anti-speed (both the the drug and the debate style) and anti-jargon. I want to be able to give you decent feedback, but I start to lose interest when you're jabbering away at 90 miles an hour. If you are worried about fitting in your argument in the time allotted, don't stress. I would rather hear one very clear and strong argument, rather than a bunch of semi-good arguments spoken too fast for me to understand what point you are trying to make.

*If I raise my hand, you are speaking too fast. I will give you one warning. The second time, you will lose points*

DO:

-Be specific and provide context when you present your evidence, blanket claims and "'cause I said so" are not specific.

-Clearly link your evidence to your argument.

-Clearly identify and state your contention, or your opposition to the other team's contention. Don't make me wonder what you're talking about and don't assume I will remember something from earlier in the round. I am old. I am tired. My memory is not what it used to be. Most likely, it has been a very long week for me and chances are I am also starving.

-Make sure your sources are credible and recent. I can usually tell who has done their research and who hasn't. An article you pulled up on CNN or Fox 20 minutes ago is an example of the latter. As a general rule, sources should be less than 5 years old - unless they are well-accepted in theory or study (This doesn't mean you will lose points for citing an older article, however).

-Speak loud enough for me to hear you! If I grab my ear. You're too quiet.

- I DO pay attention to cross X.

As a Public Forum judge, what I look for and vote on in each round is that your team has effectively shown or told me why you should win. You need to prove to me that the contentions or impacts that are presented by you are superior to your opponents’. When it comes to beginning your speeches, please provide a brief, off-time roadmap that includes the order and name of your contentions, as well as any framework that will be presented. Please do this before every speech.

As a Lincoln-Douglas judge, I want to be shown how you win the round. You should show me this by effectively upholding your own value/criterion AND either by upholding your opponent’s value/criterion through your own contentions/case OR disproving the effectiveness of your opponent’s value/criterion. And most importantly, I want you to tell me HOW or WHY your argument is more important that your opponent’s; do not just simply state that it is more important. Prove it to me. And as per above, please provide a brief, off-time roadmap that includes the order and name of your contentions, as well as any value/criterion that will be presented. please do this before every speech.

Kristy Oblad Paradigm

I participated in Speech and Drama in High School. I have a Bachelor's Degree in Socio-Cultural Anthropology. My brother was a state champion in debate and placed in Nationals. My oldest son debated all through HS and I currently have a son in his third year in debate. I enjoy judging all types of speech and debate. I am the most inexperienced with Policy and Congress. Speaking skills/communications is my predominate style of judging. You must be consistent from start to finish with your hypothesis to conclusion. Contradiction will hurt you. I do not mind if you go fast but if you do you must still be articulate. Speed as a tactic does not impress me. Filler words such as "like" and "um"--I tend to dislike these.

I feel tournaments are a place to practice and get better. That is an important part of participating in debate. If you are well-prepared and I can see your effort and desire for improvement, yet you aren't a top-notch speaker--yet...Your preparation and participation combined with a well researched, reasoned argument will sway me. Make sure you are civil. I can see through tricks/tactics to confuse. I do not appreciate condescension. I do appreciate explanations with the premise that I am intelligent and will be able to follow your argument/presentation if you are well prepared and have a good flow of reason.

I've been a debate coach for many years and have a good understanding of how each event should be done.

I believe that a good debate is one that focuses on the intention of the resolution. I'm not a big fan of definition-based debates that try to win based on how one team interprets the resolution over another.

Evidence is also key. All evidence should be properly cited and relevant. It should also be presented in a way that maintains the original positions of the author(s).

Respect is key. Debate is a civil event. There is never a need to shout or use foul language. You should treat your opponent with respect and remember that we can only hold debates if there are individuals willing to do the activity. Speaking poorly about someone, either in round or outside of a round is uncalled for.

In speech events, I respect originality. I'm not too much of a fan of speaking given solely to create shock and discomfort. I believe that serious issues can be discussed without having to focus on how negative everything is.

As a former congressional debater, debate is the most important aspect of the event for me. Students who are able to set themselves apart by using clash, on the spot analysis, and credible, high powered sources are the most likely to be picked up in a round. For presiding officers, I expect them to know parliamentary procedure and run a fast, mistake free chamber. Also, students who are active in round and show enthusiasm in the event are likely to be picked up as well.

I have judged Policy yearly for the past 15 years. I prefer LD and PF, but I am familiar with the ins and outs, but I don't know them intuitively as I have never competed in Policy. I am willing to try and follow whatever you present. However, I expect you to communicate with me. I am the judge, not your opponent. What that means is this, you need to tell me what you are doing and why. Slow down and communicate with me. When I say slow down, what I mean is this:

1. I don't follow speed. I try, but I won't get most of what you say if you are going a million miles an hour. However, I understand the strategy and need. If you spread, you need to slow down and tell why I should care about what you just said. Give me a quick, slowed down summary of what you said, and why I should care.

2. Make taglines very clear! Don't assume I heard your 'next DA' when you're going a million miles an hour. If you want it on my flow, make it clear what it is and where to put it. Spread the rest, but slow down for taglines and summarize what you just said! This is especially important for the 1AC and 1NC.

3. Email chains are helpful, but not. It is nice to have an email chain, but if I have to read the email to understand what you are saying, why give speeches? Also, trying to follow evidence because I can't understand you makes it difficult for me as a judge. I will refer to reference, but will not pour over it after a round to determine a winner. Doing that means I don't need to hear from you. I could sit at home and read your evidence to determine a winner. Don't rely on chains.

Lincoln Douglas

I prefer traditional LD Debate with a Value/Criterion. I have voted for flex-negs, and other more progressive type arguments, but I prefer debates that use Value/Criterion. Don't spread! If you spread in LD, I won't flow. You can go at a crisp pace. In fact, I prefer a crisp paces, but...spread and you will most likely lose.

Experience:

Speech and Debate Coach, 8 years

Teacher: History, Language Arts, Civics, and Constitution

Judged PF, LD, Policy, Congress, BQ, and most IE events.

Style:

Cases based solely on theory are often very flimsy but are not altogether invalid. If an opponent is running theory alone, that does not promise a win. You should adequately address their arguments as well as supporting your own topicality.

Spreading anywhere outside of policy debate seems inappropriate most of the time. In policy rounds it should be tempered. If it is in your case but not in your speech, you might not be able to use it and it may be difficult for your opponent to use it against you, but they won't have to.

Novel arguments that are well tied to topicality are always enjoyed, but don't promise a win.

Flow:

Most of my flow is primary contentions and how well they are supported vs attacked. Not significant detail but I can follow cards just fine. Contradictory cards from opponents are just as valid unless you can prove otherwise.

Presentation skill:

Unless something stands out as amazing: Logos>Ethos>Pathos>eye contact

Debate events aren't memorized speeches. If you want me to look up and make eye contact so you can guess what I am thinking, you will get less notes in the process and neither of us will enjoy the round nor the results.

Speech events of any kind maintain the opposite expectation. They should be memorized and make connections. Interps don't require eye contact but you get to decide the value of the 4th wall.

Flagrant violations will always negate your efforts.

Ad Hominem attacks against an opponent will be disciplined in your scores. If they are minimal, you might be warned. If they are excessive or major, they will be addressed through your coach, the tournament director, and possibly your admin or the NSDA.

Calling your opponent stupid in round or after the round in ear shot of the judge is a great way to forfeit a well won round.

I respect your coach and the tournament director but I am not afraid to debate with them either.