Background

I’ve been a debate coach since 2011, first at the middle school level, then managing debate operations as an assistant principal, and now back doing what I love as the proud coach of Everglades HS forensics from Miramar, FL. I have a B.A. in English / B.S. in Biology and a Masters in Ed. Leadership. I’ve judged everything from locals to NSDA Nationals.

Rule #1 – Play Nice.

If cross gets ugly and rude, I will destroy your speaker points. Debate is about building community and showing others that we don’t have to be as vile and divisive as those holding political office. Seriously, you all are the future. Make it awesome.

Argumentation & Evidence

I will be flowing your arguments and I do not want to be part of an email chain. I will judge off your flow. Having said that, please sign-post and don’t spread. I’m fine with rapid talking, but honestly, it is all about quality of argumentation over quantity.

Having solid warrants is great; but warrants without extension or analytical impact is fail. Just because you can rattle off stat after stat doesn’t show me you are an excellent debater and should win a round.

While it is very doubtful that I will be calling for cards, make sure you have exchanged cards with your opponents prior to the round so we don’t need to waste time with that in session. If you are unable to provide a requested card within 15 seconds, speaker points will drop and I will strike that piece of evidence from your argument.

Lincoln Douglas

I've seen a trend recently where competitors try to spread five or six contentions. If you elect to do this, be prepared for me to either a) review written case (time permitting before decision deadline) or b) not penalize your opponent for "dropping" Cs. Again, quality over quantity for me as a judge.

I am comfortable with counter-plans in most cases; however, I don't coach kritik's or "Ks" specifically; although I do my best to read the literature contained in topical case briefs. While I would never outright fail a position for running a "K", you will more than likely need to be super-awesome to win as I prefer traditional LD rounds.

Judging

I give significant weight to how debaters handle cross, summary, and final focus (PF) or rebuttal in LD. I’m sure you all have meticulously prepared constructives / cases and rebuttals. However, I want to see what you can do when presented with your opponent’s case that is unique and entertaining.

Please make sure to weigh your arguments; but do so with thorough explanation. Please don’t tell me “aff outweighs on magnitude of impact” and leave it at that.

I will not disclose at the end of round, nor will I give feedback outside of the ballot. However, my ballots, like my paradigm, tend to be wordy.

Bonus Points

If you can slide in a reference to any of the following, I’ll give your speaker points a little bump:

- Rick and Morty

- Bad / Silly / Campy Horror Movies

- Why Dune was seriously phenomenal. (Either movie, or better yet, the novel)

I like to be entertained. This is my weekend I’m giving up so you all can participate in a great tournament. Make me laugh and keep me glued to the screen when you speak and the world will be an almost beautiful place.

Sophomore Finance student at UF. I appreciate well researched arguments and passionate presentations. 

I prefer clear, coherent introductions to bills and to arguments. Rhetorical openings are fine, but not at the expense of the bill or the framework of the argument.

Please do not approach the bill or the floor ironically - debaters who argue in favor of things like genocide or dictatorship to be cute will be dropped. Clash honestly and with detailed flow. Be awake and aware of the debate; rehash is the Devil.

I have served as an LD judge over the past ten years (periodically) participating in local and national tournaments (NFL and CFL). I have helped debaters practice, so I understand the preparation needed. Your job is to convince me that what you are defending is true, which requires that you explain arguments in ways that make sense to me. Please use quality evidence (cited) and substantiation for your claims. As you know, the articles you cite should come from reputable news sources, experts in the field, and journals that have articles relating to your topic. I prefer substance over style – that is, if we can’t have both in a round. If I can’t hear you, I can’t judge you. It is helpful for me if you avoid speed, Kritiks, and jargon. Aim for clear, careful definitions. Disadvantages should be run slowly and with detailed explanation. Resolution debate with a focus on values (rather than plan-focused debate) is something I look for – this is LD. Debaters who can summarize the round and clearly crystallize the key voting points have the advantage over those who cannot. I will keep time, but please plan to track your own prep time. I do not disclose at the end of a round; I do provide constructive written feedback on the ballot.

Sarah Botsch-McGuinn

email: sbotschmcguinn@gmail.com

Director of Speech & Debate-Cypress Bay HS (2022-present)

Director of Speech and Debate-Cooper City HS (2018-2022)

Director of Speech and Debate-American Heritage Palm Beach (2017-2018)

Director of Forensics-Notre Dame San Jose (2009-2017)
Head Debate Coach-Notre Dame San Jose (2008-2009)



General:
I’ve been a debate coach for the past 15 years, and Director of Forensics for 9 at NDSJ, one year as Director at American Heritage, 4 years at Cooper City HS and now at Cypress Bay High School. I primarily coached Parliamentary Debate from 2008-2017, including circuit Parli debate. I've been involved in National Circuit LD pretty extensively over the last 5 years, but have judged all forms of debate at all levels from local south Florida and northern CA to national circuit.

First and foremost, I only ever judge what is presented to me in rounds. I do not extend arguments for you and I do not bring in my own bias. I am a flow judge, and I will flow the entire debate, no matter the speed, though I do appreciate being able to clearly understand all your points. I consider myself to be a gamemaker in my general philosophy, so I see debate as game. That doesn't mean that there aren't real world impacts off debate (and I tend to be convinced by 'this will impact outside the round' type of arguments).

While I do appreciate fresh approaches to resolution analysis, I’m not an “anything goes” judge. I believe there should be an element of fair ground in debate-debates without clash, debates with extra topicality, etc will almost certainly see me voting against whoever tries to do so if the other side even makes an attempt at arguing it (that said, if you can’t adequately defend your right to a fair debate, I’m not going to do it for you. Don’t let a team walk all over you!). Basically, I love theoretical arguments, and feel free to run them, just make sure they have a proper shell+. *Note: when I see clear abuse in round I have a very low threshold for voting on theory. Keep that in mind-if you try to skew your opponent out of the round, I WILL vote you down if they bring it up.*

I also want to emphasize that I'm an educator first and foremost. I believe in the educational value of debate and it's ability to create critical thinkers.

+Theory shell should at minimum have: Interpretation, Violation, Standards and Voters.


Speaks:
Since quality of argument wins for me 100% of the time, I’m not afraid of the low point win. I don’t expect this to enter into the rounds much at an elite tournament where everyone is at the highest level of speaking style, but just as an emphasis that I will absolutely not vote for a team just because they SOUND better. I tend to stick to 26-29+ point range on a 30 scale, with average/low speakers getting 26s, decent speakers getting 27s, good 28s, excellent 29s, and 30 being reserved for best I’ve seen all day. I will punish rudeness/lying in speaks though, so if you’re rude or lie a lot, expect to see a 25 or less. Additionally, shouting louder doesn’t make your point any better, I can usually hear just fine.

If I gave you less than 25, you probably really made me angry. If you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, ableist etc I will punish you in speaks. You have been warned. I will kill your speaks if you deliberately misgender or are otherwise harmful in round. I am not going to perpetuate hate culture in debate spaces.

Speed:
I have no problem with speed, but please email me your case if you are spreading. I will call 'clear' once if you are going too fast, and put down my pen/stop typing if I can't follow. It's only happened a couple times, so you must be REALLY fast for me to give up.

PLEASE SIGN POST AND TAG, ESPECIALLY IF I'M FLOWING ON MY LAPTOP. IF I MISS WHERE AN ARGUMENT GOES BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T TAG IT, THAT'S YOUR FAULT NOT MINE.

A prioris:
Please explain why your argument is a-priori before I will consent to consider it as such. Generally I am only willing to entertain framework arguments as a-priori, but who knows, I've been surprised before.


Theory:
Theory is great, as I mentioned above, run theory all day long with me, though I am going to need to see rule violations and make sure you have a well structured shell. I should not see theory arguments after the 1AR in LD or after the MG speech in Parli. I also don't want to see theory arguments given a ten second speed/cursory explanation, when it's clear you're just trying to suck up time. My threshold is high for RVIs, but if you can show how your opponent is just sucking time, I'm open to this. Also open to condo-bad arguments on CPs/Ks, though that doesn't mean you'll automatically win on this.

Small note for LD: Disclosure theory: I'm unlikely to vote on this if your opponent isn't reading something very strange. I think education and disclosure is good but that doesn't mean I think someone should automatically lose for not. Keep this in mind.

Most other theory I evaluate in round. I don't tend to go for blippy theory arguments though!

Critical arguments:
I love the K, give me the K, again, just be structured. I don't need the whole history of the philosopher, but I haven't read everything ever, so please be very clear and give me a decent background to the argument before you start throwing impacts off it. Also, here's where I mention that impacts are VITAL to me, and I want to see terminal impacts.

I prefer to see clash of ROB/ROJ/Frameworks in K rounds. If you are going to run a K aff either make it topical or disclose so we can have a productive round. Please.

Presumption:
In general I default to competing interp. If for some reason we have gotten to the point of terribad debate, I presume Neg (Aff has burden to prove the resolution/affirm. Failure to do so is Neg win. God please don't make me do this :( )

Weighing:
I like very clear weighing in rebuttals. Give me voting issues and compare worlds, tell me why I should prefer or how you outweigh, etc. Please. I go into how I evaluate particular impacts below.


I like clear voting issues! Just because I’m flowing doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate you crystallizing and honing in on your main points of offense.

I prefer voter speeches follow a: Main points of offense-->impact calc--->world comp model. If you just do impact calc I'll be happy with it, but I like looking on my voter sheet for what you feel you're winning on. It helps me more quickly organize my ideas.

Impacts:
I put a lot of emphasis on impacts in my decisions. The team with bigger/more terminal, etc impacts generally walks away with my vote, so go to town. This goes doubly true for framework or critical arguments. Why is this destroying debate as we know it? Why is this ___ and that's horrible? Translation: I tend to weigh magnitude heaviest in round, but if you can prove pretty big probable impacts over very low probability extinction impacts I'll likely go that direction.

You should be able to articulate how your contentions support your position/value/whatever. That should go without saying, but you would be very surprised. I don't vote on blips, even if we all know what you're saying is true. So please warrant your claims and have a clear link story. This goes doubly true for critical positions or theory.

Preferences for arguments:

If you want to know what I like to see in round, here are my preferences in order:

K debate

LARP

Theory

Phil

Traditional

Tricks

This doesn't mean I won't vote for a tricks case but I will be much sadder doing it.

I am a first-year student at the University of Florida , and I am a Cognitive and Behavioral Neuroscience major. I am most excited when I hear well-researched arguments, thorough acknowledgment of opposing viewpoints, confidence in your tone, and clear, passionate articulation of your words.

If it ain't lay, it ain't slay

My name is Sofia Castano and I am a second-year health sciences major at the University of Florida. I would like to see well-researched and thought out arguments being delivered in a professional tone. 

THIS HAS BEEN UPDATED SINCE APRIL 2023 SO READ ME AGAIN THERES SOME NEW STUFF HERE K THX

If you would like to reach out to me for hired judging I am open to do so assuming I do not have a tournament obligated for my program- please send such requests to chmielewskigr@gmail.com. Rates are negotiable.

- yes add me to the email chain: chmielewskigr@gmail.com

I'm putting this at the top so I make sure you read it: If you include jokes about Star Wars/The Office/ Harry Potter/ or something generally funny, I'll bump your speaks a little- we're debating serious topics, and humor is always appreciated when we're pulling 12 hour days.

- Debated 4 years of Public Forum - Lake Highland Prep '16, UCF '20 ( I graduated during COVID, so you get that emoji here for my personality)

- Head Coach @ Dr. Phillips High School

Hey I fell asleep and need to read the prefs in 2 minutes:

(LD)

I will take off a speaker point every time you say "theydon't have a card for that" without justifying whythat matters. At times, analytics as long as they are represented as analytics are fine. It is extremely cheap to do infront of lay judges and makes me think youcouldn't find a better response on the flow so you took the easy way out.

1- LARP/Phil

1- Theory/Trix (Please walk me through the theory fully and I'll vote for it)

1.5- On T violations- if you give me a TVA and your opp drops it and you collapse on the T shell I'll vote on it in half a second (Update from Glenbrooks experience with a super super well done TVA)

3- K (DO NOT ASSUME I KNOW YOUR LIT- if you read me some super dense K stuff and don't explain it and I'm lost you can't get my ballot)

3- Identity stuff (I don't know the lit but will vote on it if explained well enough)

Strike- non topical affs

If the debate becomes a wash I default neg on presumption-> by that same token I assume util until I'm told otherwise

This means please for the love of god do weighing and give me CLASH (i.e. why do I care more about your fw/offense/etc than whatever your opp is giving me-> do the comparative analysis I won't do it for you)

- If you go 70% top speed online then fine. This is ONLINE and not in person so yes wifi cuts out- have a local copy of things recorded- it's not gonna get on my flow if anybody's wifi decides to crap out and I'm not restarting the speech because that's unfair to your opp.

- DO NOT give me an offtime roadmap that is some version of "my case then their case". (Yes I know how the speeches are ordered, I've done this before i.e. it's a pet peeve of mine to just basically say "yeah im gonna go top down")

- Tech> Truth every single time.

- If you're in my district and I'm judging you and we keep this virtual debate thing going and you want more clarity on a round and want coach to reach out to me via email or at a CFL/FCDI, they can either email me or find me at a tournament and I'm more than happy to go over the round.

COME HERE IF YOU WANT SPEC PREFS INSTEAD OF NUMBERS (if you wanna read my essay, come here-> it's my soapbox) (LD) :

LARP/PHIL: Give me clean clash- don't just read me the brief your paid coach put together for you. Reading more evidence does not make you more right. Quality>quantity. If you don't give me clash, you force me to evaluate the evidence based on biases in debate, and nobody wants that.

THEORY/TRIX: I'm pretty much down for whatever. It doesn't mean my threshold for responses aren't gonna be lower if you read me shoes theory, but I'll vote on it if I have to. I dislike disclosure theory, but it has it's place. If you read trix, I'm down to vote for them on the flow. If you read trix against somebody who is way way way not at your level and you win them, I will still vote for it, but I will give you a low point win because it's an exclusionary practice to trix somebody new to nat circuit. Refer to TVA comment in abbreviated prefs for how I feel about theory and the threshold for abuse stories.

T: sure. don't give me friv T violations for the sake of it.

K- I am a PF kid at heart, so this is new to me. I can flow and evaluate it, but do not assume I know your lit. If you want me to evaluate the changes to the rhybyzome (Deleuze kids, I see you), that's fine, but my eyeballs are going to glaze over. Doesn't mean it doesn't make for the occasional amusing round (I had someone read a Deleuze-> Marwan Pablo impact to me, and I voted for somebody with what was essentially an "I rap better" ROB).

Identity Stuff: If you run afropess or [insert identity stuff] and you're not part of that group, auto L 20 and reported to tab. If you are part of the affected group and you chose to run it, that's cool and I'll evaluate it just please warrant things clearly for me so I can understand it all because I am very very new to this particular arg so I want to make sure I can evaluate it properly for you.

Performative Stuff: Nah- pref somebody else this isn't me.

Non-Topical Affs: Nah- the NSDA doesn't make the Rez for you to ignore it. Find somebody else.

Presumption: Voting neg on this, please please don't make me do this, I hate doing this and you will hear my irritation in my rfd. The default= neg, but like.... if you wanna read me presumption affirms fine but this is more here for when I'm in the NLD pool and y'all don't have any fw or offense standing.

[Insert default don't be transphobic/etc here]. Just don't. This is an inclusive activity, don't make this a non-inclusive space for people.

PF Prefs:

A) I refuse to vote for paraphrased evidence. Ever. Yes, really. I'll default to paraphrase theory if it's read and extended because I think paraphrasing has zero place in the activity. Strike me if you have a problem with this- if you don't read my paradigm that's on you.

B) Please signpost. If I have to guess where it is on the flow I'm not flowing and that only hurts you

C) Please weigh. PF doesn't know how to use framework, so just give me a good comparative worlds analysis or something- you should tell me exactly where to look and how to interpret the evidence.

D) If you can't produce the evidence your opponent asks for within about 45 seconds I'm treating it as an analytic, not evidence. Be organized and prepared for debate.

E) Do NOT be that person that asks me to pre-flow before the round. If you ask me, I'm starting your prep time should you chose to ignore me and pre-flow anyways or letting your opponent speak if they're first speaker. It will also hurt your speaks.

F) If you don't mention it in the summary don't mention it in the final focus because I won't evaluate it

H) Defense sticks once applied unless rebutted BUT I think it's helpful to reinforce in summ/ff where the opp fails to garner offense if you think it's a round decider.

I stole the following from Charles Karcher because it's true imo:

• 1] "Fast" PF is actually harder to flow than LD/Policy because of all the cards that PF cases throw at me 2] being able to analyze factual information and draw conclusions is one of the most valuable aspects of debate. "dO yOu hAvE a cArD fOr tHAt" as a response to an argument that scares you makes you lose a lot of credibility to me. 3] Disclosure is probably a good norm in PF, but I don't want to hear disclosure theory in PF rounds. I don't want to hear theory in PF rounds.
• I do not like theory in PF. However, I feel uncomfortable not evaluating arguments because I do believe that debaters should not be ignored in what they say and how they want to debate. Most times when I vote on theory (either the interp or, most often, the RVI) it is because the other team does not understand the technicalities of theory debate even though they may have initially started the theory flow. Don't read theory against teams that obviously don't know what it is. Don't read theory if there is a chance your opponents will out-do you on the theory flow. I am a fan of the RVI, especially in PF.

I am a lay judge.    I typically look for classic argument.  

Some tips for success:

1) Speak clearly.  If I do not understand your argument, I cannot vote positively.

2) Be sure to support your position with facts. I will be looking for facts.

3) Use credible sources.  

3) Be attentive and respectful to your colleagues and judges.

4) Remember to keep your own time.

I am not a lay judge. I participated in speech and debate when I was in high school. I qualified for nationals in both NSDA and CFL for Lincoln Douglas debate. Flow judge. I also participated in extemporaneous speech as a double entry at the national tournament. I have done congress (which were done on Friday nights before main tournaments on Saturday), impromptu, policy, and an abandoned category called Group Discussion.

I am a former participant in speech & debate. I am currently in architecture school and have read up on the current topic for the Varsity State Tournament. These are some of the things you should do if I am judging you.

1. Speak clearly, do not speed. If you are used to speeding then learn to judge adaptation. If I can't get your arguments down and understand what you are saying then you have lost the round.

2. You will not win the round by trying to win an emotional argument - please make clear connections//links

3. I like a well-thought-out/planned case that makes sense logically - I like to be able to connect the dots.

4. I can flow but am not as good at flowing as someone who judges every weekend, it has been a while

5. Do not be rude. I can deal with assertive, but screaming, belittling opponents, eye-rolling, head shaking, and showing general contempt is not acceptable. You may win the round but it will be with 20 speaks.

I am a third-year student at UF majoring in Communication Sciences and Disorders with a minor in Chinese Language. I hope to see clear preparation and controlled passion. I do not want to see any disrespect.

My name is Lane Fontana and I am a junior at the University of Florida studying psychology and Spanish. I am looking for arguments that are well structured and clear. I also would like to see that you are passionate about your stance and understand all aspects of the topic.

Head coach at Plano East Senior High.

I enjoy judging IEs most.

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!

Hello! To keep it brief, I have experience in both LD and Extemp (both international and domestic) during the 2018-2022 season. I don't have too many preferences, feel free to get as technical or as traditional as you want. I aim to keep the field as level and fair as possible. Thanks for reading!

PF/LD:

E-mail: Hrenj@trinityprep.org

I have experience judging LD at the College and High School level and Public Forum at the High School level, but would be no means say I am an expert. These are some things to keep in mind with me.

Assume that I know nothing. This includes shorthand, theory, or K literature. Even if I do know something, I will pretend I don't to avoid intervening in the round.

Speed Kills (your ability to win the round). I want to be able to flow everything. To this end, I will say “clear” two times and then I am able to flow what I can flow: if I miss something because you’re speeding then it won’t be considered. I do not want to look at cards unless you or your opponent have a tiff about what they actually say.

Additionally, I think that spreading should be a tool to allow for deeper and more specific arguments as opposed to allowing for more short, blippy responses. If you're speeding through a response and that response was only a sentence or two to begin with, it probably doesn't register as that important to me.

Tech over truth except in extreme cases. Tell me what to vote on, tell me what to care about. Clearly weigh your impacts against your opponents do not assume I prefer one over the other without you giving me a reason to prefer.

I care about dropped arguments- you need to extend and that means more than just saying “extend.” Functionally reiterate your arguments or at least summaries of them.

CX- I often will flow this, but it will not factor into my decisions unless you bring it up in your speech. Don’t shoot yourself in the foot, DO use this time to clarify, NOT make new arguments.

I hate hate hate people being hyperbolic or lying about what their opponent said or did: Ex. “they dropped this point” when they clearly did not. Just know if you do it I will be inclined toward your opponent. If YOU misheard or misunderstood your opponent’s argument I get that, but pretending they didn’t respond to something they did is as good as dropping the arg.

Congress:

-The most important things to me are delivery and content.

-If two people are very close on both these aspects content will be more important than delivery.

-I pay attention to questioning, but it is more of a tie breaker for me. If you ask a particularly good question I will note it and you will be ranked higher than someone with the same scores on speeches and no notes about questioning.

-Very important to my ranking of speeches is whether you are moving the round forward or introducing new ideas.

-I prefer evidence usage, though in some analytic cases it is not strictly needed.

-I very much like interaction with the other speeches that have gone (rebutting directly or adding more to a previous argument).

-Taking risks with content or delivery in ways which push the boundaries of the norms will certainly earn some bonus points in my head.

-I think that decorum is important- pay attention to what others are saying, don't engage in personal attacks or generally be rude.

Hi! I did Public Forum at my high school (graduated 2022) for about 3 years and have competed at multiple national circuit tournaments.

Notes:

• Time yourselves - I'll also keep a timer just to make sure that you are not going over time but you should be responsible for timing yourself. I'll generally allow up to 10 seconds over, but nothing past that or it will take away from your prep time.
• Keep track of your own prep time - tell me how much you use after each time.
• Have evidence ready to be presented. This includes having the full link and not just the cut card. If you are unable to find a piece of evidence, I will strike it and not take it into consideration on my ballot.
• I typically won't call for cards unless you tell me to or if something sounds really sus
• Be respectful - this includes not interrupting the other speaker or speaking over them. Being disrespectful will dock you speaker points

Things I like:

• Weighing! Please weigh in summary and final. This makes it a lot easier for me to figure out the important points of your argument and how it compares to the other side.
• Warrants - your argument is soo much more convincing when you are actually able to understand the reasoning behind the evidence rather than just reading off a piece of information
• Collapsing - the smarter thing to do in round is to pick a few of your strongest arguments rather than going for everything. You'll have more time to expand on each argument and really flesh out your impacts rather than being in a rush and not explaining anything.
• In order for me to extend an argument in final focus, you MUST mention it in summary. Do NOT make any new arguments in final focus. I won't even consider it.

Things I don't like:

• Theory / K's - I'm not super familiar with these so it will be hard for me to try following. I would just advise not running them in the first place. 
• Spreading - the point of the round is to try convincing me why your side should win. This means that I have to be able to understand what you are saying in a clear way. I should not have to read off of a document or not be able to follow what you're arguing.
• Miscut evidence - the evidence should say exactly what you are arguing. You can paraphrase but do not completely misconstrue what the card says. Even if you win the round, if your evidence is seriously different from what you were saying earlier, I will drop you.

I am a senior at the University of Florida studying computer science.

While judging, I look for passion and genuineness.

Equity and Fairness

• This is my number one priority. Please notify me (if you feel comfortable doing so) if you feel discriminated against, uncomfortable with someone or something, or need help.

Speech/Interp (edited for NSDA Last Chance Qualifier)

- I am okay with you timing yourself and will not penalize you for glancing at your clock from time to time (as long as it does not heavily impede your performance) if you are an online competitor.

- Depending on the event, I would like a cohesive story that compels me to feel a certain way (sad, mad, caring, aware of an issue, happy, etc.)

- Hand gestures and walking appropriatelyare a must (walking between points, appropriate hand gestures during scenes/arguments, etc.)

- Extemp: refer to my congress paradigm for how I like argumentation in this context, I appreciate humorous/informative introductions and conclusions that wrap around to it. Walking from point to point is very important in exempt, same with recent sources.

- Interp/OO: I want to feel motivated after hearing your speech (do so with passion in your tone, dramatic/overemphasized facial expression and gestures, etc.)

- If your speech includes an argument, see my congress paradigm and the constructive portion of my debate paradigm.

- I understand and will work through technical difficulties with you! I am committed to upholding equity in rounds, and if there is a way I can help with that, please let me know!

World Schools, Public Forum, Lincoln Douglass

- I want to see warrant level refutation in the majority of refutation points you have (claim level will be discarded on the flow and data level refutation should clearly explain why their data is flawed/not representative of the analysis they are attaching to it).

- Don't spread :)

- LD and PF: you can use technical jargon with me. I ask that you don't if you know you have a lay judge on a panel with me (again, for accessibility). WSD: this is a more relaxed debate format and tech isn't as important for me when I vote.

- Cross: I judge using cross (and POIs for WSD). I won't ignore this and I want to see really thought-provoking and challenging questions. I will follow your question in terms of noticing when you set traps. Don't use this as an opportunity for extra speaking time though, make sure the questioning gets to the point. Also, be polite!

- Constructive material: Little pre-refutation on the aff, please. Neg is okay to have refutation in the first constructive speech, but I still want the vast majority of the speech to be constructive. Please try and connect your constructive material to your opponents (blend your arguments with refutation of theirs- I LOVE when debaters cross apply).

- I flow everything, so please be organized in every speech and make it clear where you are (roadmap and taglines please). I expect clear voters for the final speech in around for both sides and a clear understanding of what you are doing in a speech. (Ex: "I'm going to do a line-by-line, first addressing my opponent's constructive, then their refutation of my own arguments, followed by the round's voters"; then during the speech, you can say, "moving on to their rebuttals of my first constructive"). Make sure you give a quick summary of your opponents' argument before you refute it though.

- Impacts/Impact Calculus: I'm fair game for all impact jargon. Make sure when you are weighing you bring in quantification (if applicable) for magnitude/severity and you clearly explain based on a weighing mechanism (probability, severity, magnitude, etc.) why your argument wins.

- Argument format: Claim, Warrant, Data, Impact. If you miss any of those, I will likely drop your argument.

- Data: I prefer quantification when they are applicable. Please state at least the month and year of cards (if you can) and the institution they are from. I treat evidence challenges seriously, so don't hesitate to call an opponent out if you can't find their card or think it is faked/unfairly misrepresented. I also can smell when sources are bad (especially if it's a topic I have debated before), so please do not make up or misquote sources for your own sake.

- There is so much more I can say, but the TLDR is that I'm down for advanced debate stuff (speed, jargon) and that I value good and thorough refutation above most things.

Congress

- Most importantly, I VALUE REFUTATION SPEECHES. Judges in congress too easily disregard late-round ref/crystal speeches. For this reason (and because it takes major skill to do this) I emphasize ref/crystal speeches. If you give a good one, you will be rewarded heavily in my rankings.

- I want to see all of your skills, so don't just fill one role during the round(don't only give ref speeches or only constructive).

-Quality is better than quantity for questions(I listen to them)

- POs: I will be keeping recency and precedence for questioning (if it's direct) and speeches. I like good POs. If you are considering POing, make sure you know how to run an amendment properly.

- Organization: Constructive speeches should usually have this format: Introduction, 2 points (claim, warrant, data, analysis, data, impact), and conclusion. Make sure I can understandably follow your arguments.

- Refutation: Same as in my debate paradigm, but if this is ref being added to a constructive speech, make sure you integrate this into your points. If you give a point similar to someone on the other side, I expect you to refute them in order for your point to have validity.

- Half-refutation speeches are great, so is impact calculus

- While I am a much more debate-oriented judge, please have solid and rhetorical introductions and conclusions. Speak at a nice pace (I will understand you if you go fast, but you shouldn't in Congress) and try to mitigate fluency breaks.

- Walking: Walk from your introductions to your points and back for your conclusions. Please don't sway if you can.

- A lot of the same stances for debate and congress, so please read my other paradigm too (the difference with Congress is I also judge based on speaking ability pretty much).

Looking forward to seeing you perform/debate!

she/her

eyliterski22@gmail.com

i did policy debate for 4 years in high school; wisconsin and some nat circuit

1. i will not vote for any ontologically violent args (racism good, sexism good, homophobia good, ableism good, etc.); make these args or be any ist/phobic and you get an L and 0 speaks

2. tech>truth (but u still need to explain why what they dropped matters)

3. spreading is fine (slow down on tags, analytics, theory) being unclear is not - i will say clear x2, after that i’ll attempt to keep flowing but it will prob be bad

4. i’m a tabs judge so run what you want - don’t try to judge adapt too much, it’s my job to adapt to you

5. feel free to ask questions

6. have fun and be nice ! debate is cool so enjoy it

**i've judged very few rounds on this year's topic

SPEAKS:

• a 28.5 = average, above that means good job and below that means practice more or be nicer

• anything below a 27 means you did something VERY wrong (were super rude or left like 3 minutes left in a speech)

I have spent 7 years as a speech & debate coach, and I would say that if you needed to classify me I would likely be considered a "classical style" judge. That being said, this is how I would describe my beliefs for debate...

- Please make certain to link your arguments as I cannot assume your reasoning is valid.

- I will not say no to theory or kritik but will say that I've rarely seen it used well enough to convince me, so I would be careful in using these arguments.

- I am STRONGLY opposed to spreading. I flow fairly well, but I would say QUALITY over QUANTITY, and that if I did not hear you say it, then you didn't say it. As this is a "public speaking event" and as both opponents are supposed to receive equal time and consideration from the judge, I see very little value in flashing cases. Make your arguments during the round please, as I can only judge you on the arguments you make.

- At the end of the day I will be looking at your entire debate and want to feel that you are more "right" in the round. Please make certain to weigh your impacts and provide me with solid voters as to why you have won the debate. I will care much more about your arguments being presented and linked believably, authentically, and logically than being 'ahead" on the offensive flow.

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 important 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 a no ones expense. I will not reward hurtful, harmful or thoughtless words or actions.

I'm a new debate judge. Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I will be making my final decision based upon my notes. So, make sure I can hear and understand you. Signposting would be helpful! I want to be able to easily write down all of your arguments and rebuttals. Tell me why you should win in the final rebuttals.

When judging any style of debate or speech I need the competitors to have strong annunciation and a good pace. If you are speeding through your content I cannot properly judge the round.

In terms of LD, make sure you are properly defining your Value and Value Criterion, you are keeping your framework up throughout the debate, and you are directly refuting your opponent's arguments. 

Although I judge heavily on speaking style, at the end of the day whoever wins on the flow wins on the ballot. 

I was a competitor from 2010 - 2014 in Nova High School Speech and Debate in Original Oratory for all four years, and attended Florida Forensic Institute's summer camp for two summers. As a team member, I would help coach the underclassmen in their presentation and teach them how to edit their speeches.

One tournament, Blue Key 2013, I coached a small amount of my team the night before we competed and every single person advanced out of prelims.

What I look for in any speech or debate event is the speaker's composure, confidence, and if those things get better while speaking, and, if the competitor is able to get their point across in a clear and factual manner. Though I regard presentation highly, if what is being said has little to no structure or becomes difficult to follow or unclear, even if it is presented well, I will not give them the higher scores and points.

I am a former participant in speech & debate. I am currently in architecture school and have read up on the current topic for the Varsity State Tournament. These are some of the things you should do if I am judging you.

1. Speak clearly, do not speed. If you are used to speeding then learn judge adaptation. If I can't get your arguments down and understand what you are saying then you have lost the round.

2. You will not win the round by trying to win an emotional argument - please make clear connections//links

3. I like a well-thought-out/planned case that makes sense logically - I like to be able to connect the dots.

4. I do not flow so please make your arguments clear and organized.

5. Do not be rude. I can deal with assertive, but screaming, belittling opponents, eye-rolling, head shaking, and showing general contempt is not acceptable. You may win the round but it will be with 20 speaks.

Hello my name is Jacob Panitch and I am a sophomore from Atlanta, GA. I am a business major and sport management minor at the University of Florida. I am very involved in the Jewish community in Gainesville and in Georgia. I also am a big fan of sports. 

I am a volunteer judge. I have judges a few forensics tournaments before, but I have only done one debate tournament.

According to the coach I work with, these are the things I need to tell you:

Consider me a "Lay" judge, and I can handle (at most) a fast conversational speech.

I have zero background in debate, so I don't understand the debate-specific vocabulary.

I do have a good understanding of politics and a basic understand of philosophy. When laying out your Value and Value criterion, make sure you are really clear about what you want me to know about the particular philosopher/theory you are working with.

Please... do not run Kritiks, crazy weird cases, or anything wild in front of me. I can guarantee I won't understand what you are trying to do and might have to drop you since I don't know what it means. I STRONGLY encourage you to only run standard lay debate cases in front of me.

My name is Amber, and I am currently the Photography Instructor at The Altamont School. I love working with students and hearing about different perspectives and experiences. I do not have any prior experience with Debate but very excited to learn and witness everyone's hard work!

Hi, my name is Sukanya Reddy and I am a parent judge for Lake Highland Preparatory School! Here are my preferences for all events.

I have been judging IE for the last 4+ years.

OO - The speech should be either to inform or persuade. Showcasing the voice, passion for the topic and confidence in delivery.

OI - Different types of literature into one cohesive performance, clear motivated blocking, living in the character.

Extemporaneous - Looking for 3 good points and sources to back it up.

Declamation - Language elevated, inspirational, elegant. Speaking with confidence and authority.

Interpretation (HI, DI and Duo) - Entertaining, humorous, bringing characters to life, confidence and delivery.

LD - I am not experienced in LD, but I will try my best to understand and critique your arguments.

PF - My son did PF for 4 years in high school and my daughter is in her fourth year! I am familiar with this format of debate. My son has taught me how to flow pretty well. One thing I really would like to see in rounds is clear points and weighing! This is really important for me because it helps me realize why your arguments are better than your opponents.

Hi there, I am a sophomore finance student at the University of Florida. When judging, I am looking for respectful exchanges, pure passion for the topic, and well-researched and clearly articulated arguments.

Flow judge who appreciates, in cross, civility, clear questions, and direct answers to said questions. Experienced in worlds, PF, LD and Congress. Speak clearly, don't play stupid evidence games. I'm not into K's or attempting to win a round on things not topical to the round. Sometimes in PF I won't flow all the way through focusing more on who wins the offense of the round.=

Hi! My name is Morgan Yoder and I am currently an undergraduate student at the University of Florida. I am in my junior year studying Animal Science. The main thing I am looking for is confidence in yourself and what you are talking about. 

Hey everyone!

I competed on the Speech circuit for a little over six years. I focused largely on Extemp and Informative Speaking, but I dabbled in Impromptu and Congress at the national level. 

For speaking events: I want to see clear structure and articulate speaking. Good humor will get you very far for me!! If your event has a structure, I expect to see it (in extemp especially! I want data, warrants, and impacts for all points!!). Be confident and you will do fine. 

For interp events: I want to understand your message and your characters. I have helped construct parts of POIs, DIs, HIs and DUOs so I know what I am looking for. If it should be funny, it better be funny; if it is dramatic, I need to feel the drama. Your intro, while short in comparison, is very important to me since this sets the stage for the entire performance. If I do not understand your story and message, I will not understand the piece and my ranking will reflect as such. 

Congress: I want to see very clear arguments and unique points. If you speak and it is rehash, please know ahead of time I will drop you. You are not helping the round by having non-unique claims. If you are giving a refutation speech, it better have refutation. If you are giving the authorship/sponsorship, introduce the bill and why it is important. If you do not make me care, then I won't. It's simple!

General note for politically-based events: I am very well versed on politics domestically and globally due to (1) religious reading of the news and (2) I am studying it in college. If you are presenting an argument and I find the evidence to seem fake, I will challenge it or make my point known. If you are lying about something political, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and look it up to confirm, but I will ultimately drop you if it is falsified. Also, I am studying political science and international relations - I know what evidence means and when data is misused. If you are using data use it correctly or I will call you out on it in ballots and ranking.