Pittsburgh Central Catholic Head Speech Coach

If you have any questions about your ballot, my email is pjb82@pitt.edu

((Extemp Paradigm for National Circuit, if you care))

1) Hooks - Connections to pop culture hinder your ability to deliver a good speech. Please do not waste anyone's time by connecting Afghanistan to SpongeBob. I much prefer the first ~45s-1m to be explaining the context of the question: How did we get here? What historical information do I need to know? Any Definitions?

2) Structure - Detail your structure, and stick to it. Make sure you let me know when we are transitioning points, and keep these transitions simple. Keep your points relatively similar in length. 3 points is better than 2. Put your most salient & impactful point last.

3) Warranting - Along with analysis, you need to warrant your claims clearly. This means connecting your analysis back to your claim for the particular point & connecting it to your overall answer to the prompt, in one fell swoop. Strong warranting means you have real skill in argumentation.

Otherwise, be confident, be clear, don't speak too fast, etc. I will also probably count your sources. Diversify them. Don't lie about citations. Arguing directly with a source that disagrees with your conclusion is strong argumentation.

((Paradigms for other speech events are stupid because you can't change your piece midway through a tournament))

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.

About me:

I'm probably your prelims parliamentarian this weekend. The only reason my paradigm is so detailed is specifically to reward the students who know to read paradigms.

My rankings tend to be pretty spot-on for the top four 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.

Boxes to check off in order to move from Congressional Debate prelims to elimination rounds:

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

☐ 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)

A note on presiding:

If you're going to be a presiding officer while competing in Congressional Debate, be a great one. I am pretty strict as a parliamentarian when it comes to judging POs because I understand the harmful effect a sloppy or disengaged PO can have on the way a round runs.

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 don't, be honest about your mistakes at least.

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 not be too strict.

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.

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.

General Philosophy

I have competed in debate for two years in Parliamentary and IPDA debate, and coached LD/PF debate for 4 years. I am very much a flow judge - don't make me do work for you. Be sure to explain what your points are, show me how you got to your point, and tell me the impacts clearly. If I do not get the relation to real-world, big picture events, I will not weigh it out for you if the other team does. I do my best to be tab, but if I don't get what I need from either team, I'll intervene to make my decision. I can follow speed, but if it's abusive to the other team and it's brought up and not addressed I will drop you - this is an educational event, treat it as such. Impact hard in final speeches, and try to not bring up new arguments (this is the only place I'll protect flow).

Do's:

Show me your critical thinking skills. Use the game of debate to your advantage if need be: kritiks, framework, whatever. I can follow it if you do it well. Cite warrants. Give roadmaps, structure.

Don't's:

Don't be offensive. If it happens once and it's called out, I'll heavily dock it in speaks. If it happens twice or more, even if it isn't called, I will weigh it heavily on team and probably have a chat with you afterwards. Don't be abusive - if a team is unable to keep up with whatever is happening and you play an advantage off of that even if asked to cool it, I'll dock speaks. Don't run debate heavy stuff if it isn't understood - know your theory, framework, arguments. If you do it wrong and are called on it that'll be an easy decision for me.

Disclaimer that these are just guidelines, not requirements - do what you want to do, it is your round. I encourage fun, learning, and active discourse. If you have questions in round or afterwards I'll always be glad to help out.

Matt DeLateur

Update 1/14/2023: I find the trend of cards (especially in CX) not being cut into full sentences extremely confusing, both theoretically and practically. I continue to reemphasize -- strategic vision and crystallization are drastically underrated. I don't understand why most CX debates only have substantial clash happening in the 1nr and beyond. Most advantage scenarios and disads I hear these days are mostly based on equivocations of language "we help some program that marginally involves AI" --> "runaway AI mech robots on the battlefield goes nuclear" --> "we solve nuke war". A trained leopard seal being offered a meagre amount of sardines could probably articulate why this is terrible logic. I fail to understand why the response I frequently see in situations like this not to point out fundamental leaps in logic, but to read equally badly warranted and tagged cards in a giant block, doing no line-by-line comparison of warrants. Anyway, I'm an old man, who will radically reward you for debating in a way that shows you are listening to your opponent, asking whether they have warrants and whether those warrants make sense.

CHSSA STATE UPDATE 4/24/2021: Please debate at maximum a medium speed, or run the risk of me not following anything you're saying. I think the state tournament should not be a circuit tournament -- you can still go fast, but if I stop understanding what you're saying, due to lack of clarity or explanation, I stop flowing. Strategic tips: if an opponent's link chain is bad, I will give you a lot of credit for pointing that out -- terminal defense on crappy link chains is a thing imo.

UPDATE 10/14/2017: In terms of circuit debate, I am a broken man. LD has left all sense of reason behind and now exists in an abject of state of meaningless noise. I started competing and coaching LD debate because normative ethical philosophy deserves rigorous intellectual engagement. But, though I understand there are other ways to debate, their execution in LD debate makes me want to do anything else but listen. Please, for the future, strike me if you want to read policy back-files and stupid link-chain disads or if you think debating the k without reading a framework is somehow responsive. Also, theory-hacks, please strike me. If you know how to spell philosophy and can articulate why LD is different than policy, I'm your judge. Otherwise, I reluctantly will be physically present in your round but may be more than a little emotionally and spiritually disturbed. Your humble servant, Matt DeLateur.

I debated LD for 4 years in high school and currently coach LD for Bellarmine College Preparatory. I'm open to all argumentation; speed is not an issue. The ultimate guideline behind my decision-making is that I will minimize intervention on the flow as much as possible.

Style Preferences:

Delivery: Speed is not a problem. Clarity is underrated--pauses before and after author names and during theory or analytics are good.

Speaks: Technical skill, strategy, delivery, clarity, and creativity all contribute to speaker points. My speaker points are probably higher than average.

In my view, speaker points are my way to act as an educator without being coercive with the ballot. That means if you run a topic specific plan, counter-plan, cogent D/As, innovative arguments, debate stock arguments in a positional and interesting way (or even-uninterestingly), topic specific or non-topic specific Ks, etc., you need not worry about your argumentative choices influencing your speaker points. If you choose to run any of the following things: hidden a-prioris, generic potential abuse theory shells (this is an arbitrary bright-line--use your gut--if you're running the shell simply to be strategic rather than because there is abuse, you and I probably know it), new 1AR advocacies, or anything else which I feel comfortable saying would significantly diminish the educational potential of the debate round, I reserve the right to influence the shape of the debate community using speaks.

If this seems unfair/mean to you or if any of the things I listed above that I don't like compose crucial parts of your strategy, please strike me. Otherwise, I like to think that if we agree on the above discussion of what creates an educational activity, we'll get along just fine.

LD Argumentative Preferences:

Framework: Most LD rounds and every LD resolution breaks down to competing value frameworks. As such, the easiest way to access my ballot is to either a) be very interactive and clash directly with the internal warrants of your opponent's differing system for evaluating what is important in the round, then establish yourself as the sole person with offense to the standard or b) concede the framework but uphold your burden to be comparative through really good weighing. Weighing and offense are key. I will evaluate truth-testing if it is argued for, but I default comparative worlds.
Edit 11/5/13: Recent framework debates are narrowing towards two frameworks that are meant to preclude "all other standards" for a bunch of varying reasons. Those reasons may be completely sound and valid. However, a poor debater will simply extend the number 3 or number 4 reason the standard comes first. A skilled debater will rather extend the number 3 or number 4 reason the standard comes first, but also compare the competing claims to priority that the other debater has made for their preclusive standard. I find debaters making this analysis is very productive insofar as it minimizes my intervention. Choosing between two standards that claim to "come first" without any comparison proves relatively difficult for a judge to remain neutral.

A-prioris: I don't necessarily find these arguments inherently bad in themselves. For me to vote on them, you need to 1) Win Truth-testing, or impact the implication of the a-priori to a comparative world 2) Win the a-priori. However, for me not to tank your speaks, you need to 1) clearly impact any a-prioris in your constructive speech, meaning that argument must be labeled as an independent reason to vote for you 2) Be absolutely clear and cogent if questioned about the implication/function of these arguments in cross-examination. Failure to do either of the above conditions will not cause me to vote against you, but I will exercise my subjective control over speaks as I see fit. If you meet the above two, I have absolutely no problem voting on these arguments.

Kritiks: I'm well versed in critical literature and by the end of my time in high school I was primarily a critical debater. Feel free to run anything you want. Be sure to understand your case though--nothing is worse than someone completely bastardizing an argument because they a) didn't cut it b) didn't understand it

Theory: I find theory uninteresting. That being said, it isn't my role to tell you how you spend your weekends. I will listen to any theory argument. I default competing interpretations. My thinking on RVIs has changed a touch, I tend to think that if the debater who initiates theory chooses to make theory drop the debater, theory should be an RVI. If theory is drop the argument, theory is not an RVI. If you make this argument, I will be very receptive to it.

Being blatantly offensive (rape good, racism good, patriarchy good) will earn 0 speaker points and a loss. Debate should be an inclusive and safe environment.

Debated LD for three years at Apple Valley and I've been out of the debate world for about four years now.

I'd love it if you gave me a good traditional round. Clashing, weighing, impacting, extending, and comparing evidence are fantastic ways to get my ballot. Resolve framework so I know how to evaluate the round. Break it down for me like I'm 5 (i.e. err on the side of overexplaining—it's really been a while since I've done this). Also, I don't want to be doing the work for y'all at the end of the round.

Policy args (plans, CPs, DAs, etc.) are fine. I probably won't be able to evaluate anything more complicated than that (Ks, theory, T, etc.).

Also! Have fun in the round! And be nice to each other!

Updated November 7, 2020.

I've been a Speech and Debate coach for the past 6 years, but primarily on the Speech side.

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

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 prefer clearly articulated, rational argument over speed word vomit. A stronger presentation involves clear discussion of two or three main points, rather than a word gush of several points, within a short period of time.  To me, the latter signifies that the speaker has done merely superficial research into the issue up for debate and is just throwing out verbage without much thought or substance. 

Also, please don't waste precious time telling me "that's why I win" or "that's why my opponent loses." I know this is a competition and someone is going to win or lose.  I don't need you to tell me. Phrases like this are just filler that carry zero weight for me. Focus on the substance of the issue. Your substantive discussion of the issue is what will determine who wins the round. 

When I judge Congress, not only am I looking for arguments, I am looking at the quality of your presentation. Speech still applies to Debate. I look for a confident, passionate persuasive speech that asks us to affirm or negate. As a session progresses, I look to see follow up speeches that draw in other supporting Senators/Representatives, as well as refuting the opposition - including being presented more extemporaneously. If the topic makes you angry or frustrated, I want to see and hear that. If it makes you happy or satisfied, I want to see that, too. For Q&A blocks, I expect to see the level of prep that anticipates what others will ask after your speech. I look for confident, crisp answers. Thank you.

I coach a full team, but I have more experience in Parli and IEs. I do not care about the economy unless it is inherently relevant to the resolution. Please call me "judge" or "ma'am" or "Ms. Garcia." Do not attempt to call me by my first name.

I will permit post-round questions but if folks are being disrespectful, I reserve the right to leave.

Public Forum: I am a speech coach and this should be important to you. Rhetoric > Evidence Dumping, but I will be flowing and taking notes. However, it would be impossible for me to vote for you, even if you win every argument on the "flow," if you are an incoherent speaker, so make sure to speak slow and clearly. I'm cool with paraphrasing; in fact, I encourage it. You should probably treat me like how you would treat a standard flay, or even a lay judge taking decent flows. No cussing please. I care about morality; your best bet to winning me over is on framework.

Policy: I am looking for debaters who don't talk down to me while still clearly hashing out their arguments and plans.

-Basic Paradigm: speaking skills > policymaker >stock issues

-Highly value: cx, poise, don't interrupt people, eloquent delivery

-Less Experienced with: Theory, conditional neg positions, Kritiks

Parliamentary: I honestly don't care as much about your evidence. The important thing is that your contentions be centered around common knowledge and that they are cleverly argued. Logic > evidence dumping.

LD: be creative but not everything leads to nuclear war. I value rhetoric over evidence-dumping.

Interpretation: storytelling is most important to me, clearly defined characters are also important, please no screaming, "don't walk through your refrigerator"

Platform: puns are encouraged. Visual aids should complement your performance, not distract from it.

Spontaneous: make sure to clearly name the chosen topic multiple times

Congress: proper parliamentary procedure is encouraged, don't disagree with the PO, I will notice if a particular school/team is prioritizing their own or ignoring recency

I am old. I have been coaching and judging for over 35 years. This means that much/most of my experience predates the existence of Public Forum. I competed primarily in Policy, Lincoln Douglas (in its first year of existence), and Extemp. I have coached Policy (in the Dark Ages), Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Congress, and assorted speech events.

Speed does not offend me. That said, I am OLD and have carpal tunnel syndrome, so my flow is sloooooow. I will not punish you with points if you are fast and clear, but there is a risk I may not get everything you want on my flow.

I do not like surprises, not even good surprises. I always peeked at my presents as a child. Arguments should be extended in the summary speech if you want to win on them in the final focus. I favor line by line until the final focus, which should crystalize the debate and provide clear impact calc.

I think topic wording is important and that it determines burdens. I like it when teams are explicit about what the topic wording demands. A kritik is just an argument. If you can explain how it affirms or negates the res, it's all good.

Plans and counterplans are not allowed. Don't blame me. I didn't make the rules. You chose this event, despite the rules. That said, I think it is fair (and even a good idea) to talk about how the resolution would be implemented (assuming it calls for action and is not simply a question of fact/value). One can do this by looking at real world, typical proposals for resolutional action. I also don't think that the affirmative should be stuck advocating the worst possible way to implement the resolutional policy.

Evidence is important. Cheating is bad. Read author and date cites. I will grudgingly allow paraphrased evidence, but the full text must be available and easily evaluable. By this I mean that it is not okay to paraphrase evidence and then, when asked to provide it, hand over a ten page document with no highlighting/underlining of the bits that you claim to be paraphrasing. If you cannot say, "this paraphrases these three lines of text in the original document," or something like that, I'm going to disregard this "evidence." Neither I nor your opponents should have to read through the entire document to assess whether your paraphrasing is accurate.

I hate crossfire, especially the Grand Cluster F*!k. Please don't yell or speak over each other. I recognize that this aspect of PF is conducive to chaos, and that you are not responsible for this design flaw. That said, I will punish you with speaker points if you make the crossfire worse than it has to be.

Argument > Style. This is debate. Style is reflected in speaker points.

This is my 38th year teaching and most of that I have also coached speech and debate. As far as debate goes, I coached LD starting in the mid 80's running on and off through 2017. I coached policy on and off from 1990-2000. I have coached PF on and off since its inception. I have coached congressional debate since the early 80's. I don't have a paradigm for Speech events, but I have coached and judged all speech events since the early 80's as well.

As a Congress Judge:

Delivery: I embrace the role play. You are all legislators from across the country and should behave with the decorum that role suggests. That being said, we have legislators from across the country with various styles and habits -- that makes congress debate AWESOME! There is no single, perfect way to deliver!

Evidence Usage: CD is, at its core, a debate event. Arguments should have sound, sourced evidence that follows NSDA rules. Empirical claims require empirical evidence.

Analysis - If I am judging Congressional Debate, chances are the tournament is a national caliber tournament (otherwise I would be working in some capacity in tab). I expect high level analysis at a high level tournament. If you are the 4th speaker and beyond - I expect unique arguments and I expect analysis and refutation of earlier speakers. Crystallization speeches do not merely mention every speaker that spoke earlier on a piece of legislation. It literally crystallizes the two sides, weighs the impacts of the two sides, and persuades me of their chosen position.

On the topic of cost benefit analysis and weighing... Be careful of playing the numbers game. A large number of persons harmed may not necessarily outweigh a single person harmed, if the single person's harm is total and complete and the larger number still enjoy existence.

Decorum: Behavior in and out of chambers is important. Respectful, educational, kind, and full of fun... these should be in balance! (I don't like boring debate)

I don't have a calculator on the above. Very seldom is there a debater who is awesome at them all... But all need to be part of the mix.

PF Paradigm - I embrace the notion that the event is intended to be judged by an informed public forum. That does not mean dumbing down arguments because you think the judge is dumber than you because they didn't go to camp (adults don't go to camp). I think most judges want to hear good arguments that pertain to the resolution and want to hear clash between positions. That being said, here is my more specific paradigm:

Speed - I love an energetic debate, but save the spreading for policy (and sadly LD). You should have written a prima facie case that either affirms or negates. It should be written so that the AC can energetically deliver it. Most PF spread isn't really spread, it is spewing and incoherent choking due largely to the student's failure to adequately cut their case. I am fine with clean, clear, speed. Can I hear arguments delivered at 385 wpm? yes. Will I flow them? probably not.

Frameworks - Sure, if you really are running a framework. If it is legit (and stays up in the round throughout), both sides will be weighing impacts within that framework.

Observations - Sure, if they are observations. Observations are not arguments. They are observations. "It is raining - observation: things are wet." "If Trump wins re-election it will trigger nuclear war" is an argument, not an observation.

Warrants and Impacts are your friends!! Numbers are just numbers - how do they happen? why do they happen? who is affected and why them? is there possible counter causality? Really good logic if well explained will beat blippy numbers. Well explained statistics that are connected and clear will beat poor logic.

Flowing - Yes, I flow. I expect you to do so as well. I don't flow card names and dates - so make sure when you refer to a piece of evidence you reference what it says, not a name.

Jargon - I am not a fan. Don't say de-link. It is often unwarranted. Explain how and why. Unique is a noun, not a verb. You cannot 'non-unique' something. I love turns, but don't just spout 'turn.' Explain why their argument works against them. Or show how their impacts actually are good, not bad.

Kritiks - They are arguments. I was okay with them in policy when they were a 'thing,' largely because policy is more game than debate. I was not okay with them in LD when used as a gimmick. I am the LD judge that still clings to the notion that we should have value debate. In PF, I might be okay if a team ran a kritik that they truly believed in, and they clearly had the ethos and pathos to convince me it wasn't just a gimmick, I MIGHT vote on the K if it is argued well. OR, if their opponents clearly understood the K but just didn't want to deal with it. A K is still an argument, and the premise of the K needs to be responded to as an argument. If not, chances are I am going to vote for the K.

I am not a fan of: rude behavior, gender put-downs, dog whistle language, or individuals being mean/cocky just for the heck of it. =26s-27s. I would go lower, but most tournaments won't let me.

I love intense and lively debate. I love true arguments that are well researched, argued, and impacted. I love smart. Smart gets 29s and 29.7s. It has been a very long time since I gave 30's but I do give them!

Leslie Harden Greer Judging Disclosure:

I take the responsibility of judging seriously and believe in rendering fair decisions based on a neutral perspective. I share this commitment with most experienced judges. I approach each round with an open mind, eliminating bias and holding no preconceived ideas about the outcome. I can lean affirmative or negative with equal propensity, and teams should strive to persuade me with their arguments.

I bring 23 years of experience as an English, drama, debate, and communication teacher, and have also coached speech and forensics, directed theatre, and coached mock trial and student congress. My approach to judging is influenced by these years of involvement in the education and forensics community.

Here are some key aspects of my judging paradigm:

1. Communication is Key: I prioritize clear communication over rapid delivery. (It’s as if I can hear the quiet sobbing of the policy debaters reading this.) Effective communication is vital for conveying arguments successfully. I prefer a clear and eloquent presentation of issues in the round. Effective communication is crucial in persuading me of the merits of your arguments.

2. Play Professional: I place a high value on sportsmanship and decorum in debate. Respectful conduct is essential for a productive debate.

3. Affirmative Burden: The affirmative plan should fulfill all of their burdens. If the negative demonstrates that the affirmative is lacking in any one of the issues, it is grounds for the plan to be rejected.

4. Quality Evidence: I appreciate well-articulated arguments supported by high-quality evidence. Well-researched and substantiated arguments are more persuasive in my evaluation.

5. Focus on Disadvantages and Counter-Plans: I often give weight to disadvantages and counter-plans. While I may not vote on kritiks or topicality arguments, I assess the affirmative's advantages against the negative's disadvantages.

6. Respect for Judges: I expect debaters to recognize that judges are reasonably intelligent, well-informed members of society. Debaters should present their case comprehensively and avoid assuming that judges lack the ability to evaluate evidence and arguments.

In summary, my judging philosophy centers on fairness, clear communication, and rigorous argument evaluation. I encourage debaters to present their cases effectively and persuasively, regardless of their positions, and I assess each round impartially. Good luck, and I look forward to a productive and engaging debate.

I have been coach Speech and Debate for Archbishop Mitty HS for 3 years now. I have a strong background mostly speech from when I competed for James Logan HS from 2002 - 2006: 3rd Place in Duo at the 2005 National Tournament. 2006 California State Champion in Duo. 

I have a strong grasp on national and international topics. When judging debate, I will be looking for teams that are respectful to one another and make strong points for their cases while also effectively taking apart their opponents cases.

I judge: Truth > Tech.

I value clear and concise arguments that have real life impacts (not impacts with extremely low probability.)

My non-negotiables
1. Be respectful, equitable, and civil.
2. Weigh and compare at every single level of the debate to minimize intervention by me.
3. If an argument is dropped in the following speech, it's dropped, if not extended, it's not there, I won't evaluate if it has not been carried through the entire round. That being said, don't be afraid to collapse.
4. Roadmaps are not considered part of your time.
5. Do not run progressive arguments, just debate the resolution.
6. Keep your rate of speech normal. If you talk faster than I can follow, then I cannot flow.
7. Keep debate jargon to a minimum.

If there's anything I can do to make the round more accessible, please let me know before the round.

Thanks, good luck everyone.

Hey ya'll!

In High school I competed for Apple Valley High in Minnesota. Currently, I am competing on the college circuit for Western Kentucky University.

I am mostly an IE judge but if I am being honest...debate is more fun lol.

First of all, have fun and be respectful - enjoy every performance - these years will go by fast!

Speech Interp - I want to believe you, engage me - show me that your story DEMANDS attention.

Speech PA - How is your speech structured? Is it accessible and easy to follow? deliver your speech like it is the most pressing/important information I as your judge will hear all day.

Debate - Please do not spread to quickly, I don't like scrolling through your cards - I would rather just hear and flow your contentions based off what you are saying. I would consider myself a lay judge in debate - break it down for me - tell me WHY you should win.

If you have any questions about your ballots feel free to email me...

jonahsolomonjohnson@gmail.com

I am a parent/lay judge and heavily value creativity and strong points raised between teams in debate. No kritiks and no spreading. Looking forward to a great debate!

• About Me: I am an attorney by training and business person now. But I was a competitor in debate and speech for 10 years. I was predominantly a policy debater, including 4 years of NDT debate at USC. I also coached and judged NDT debate part-time for a couple of years.

• Judging Philosophy:

• I am a flow judge – and will vote on the arguments presented in the round. I will evaluate the structure of your arguments, the links between the various elements, and the evidence presented. In the end, I will weigh impacts to get to a final decision.

• Strong and persuasive delivery, critical thinking skills, and organization will be rewarded.

• I am very open minded about arguments. But, I also don’t believe it is possible for a judge to be a complete “blank slate”. In evaluating competing arguments, common sense and arguments that have narrative fidelity or “ring true” tend to be more persuasive.

• Rebuttals (summary / final focus) are a great opportunity for you to clean up the flow, use your persuasive skills and help write my ballot. Don’t be afraid to narrow down your focus and kick out arguments that aren’t going to help you win the debate.

• Final Thoughts: Be professional, have fun and always keep learning. Congratulations for being a part of an incredible activity and a wonderful community.

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.

Hey! I competed heavily in Speech while in high school (and one semester in college... that's a long story) and did most events in PA and Interp except for Extemp and Duo. Informative was my main event though, so it holds a special place in my heart <3

General info to know about me is that I will do my best to give you time signals if you ask, but there's only so much I can pay attention to at once and I'm going to pick you over a timer every time if it's a critical part of your speech.

When it comes to PA events, my only preference-or suggestion really-is to justify the credentials of your sources for me. I'm not a stickler with how recent the source is - if it still holds up it still holds up. But I'd like to know more than just name and date. I'm looking for things like what they do, if the research was funded by a university/well known grant, where this was published, etc. to prove their legitimacy for sourcing. Specifically for Informative, I truly do consider visual aids optional, so whether you have them or don't doesn't matter to me. What does matter is that if you do have them, they should be adding to the speech and helping with comprehension.

When it comes to Interp events, what I'm mainly looking for is how well you embody characters. Additionally, what often decides a dealbreaker for me is whether I can understand the motivations of the characters and why they respond to things the way that they do. Cutting your script well is probably what contributes to that the most.

Good luck out there! Feel free to reach out if you have any questions on RFD or want me to explain my comments any more in depth :) <jmeyer240@gmail.com>

Oral Interpretation: In interpretation events (HI, DI, DA, DUO, POI, PR, PO), I am looking for a performance that creates a significant personal or social meaning from the literature chosen. I am also looking for a performance that shows emotional and tonal complexity and a range that is both suitable for the piece and is demonstrative of the skills of the interper.

There should also be intentionality in the decisions made in the interpretation of the piece. For example, all the blocking employed in the piece should have a purpose and should not seem haphazardly included in the performance. This also goes for what is included in the cutting of the piece, for the words spoken, the emotions and tones conveyed should all contribute to the message you are trying to convey in your interpretation.

Public Address: In Public Address events (IX/FX, USX/DX, OO, INFO), I am looking for speeches that are adding novelty and insight to the topic of the speech. Making the topic relevant and understandable to a general audience is necessary for success in these speeches.

Speeches in these categories are more effective and engaging when they employ a variety of pacing and tone that convey to the audience the significance and emotional stakes of the points you make. On top of clear speaking and style, one needs to create the engagement for the audience with their voice through these tools.

Speeches should be well organized and easy to follow for the audience. They should have clear but original sign posting to help audience keep track of where they are in the speech.

Lincoln-Douglas:

I'm a speech coach, and this is not my preferred event. That being said, I am rather traditional when it comes to judging LD with heavy emphasis on the battle of values and achievement of the value criterion through your use of your evidence.

I have some debate experience through high school, but consider me more of a lay/UIL circuit judge.

Speed is okay if you are understandable, but I should not have to read along to understand you, if I can't flow it, it didn't happen. Elements of progressive debate such as theory and K are fine but have to be well justified within the context of the debate.

Speaks are awarded on quality of debate based on speaking and presentation with 28 being the average debate performance, lower being, well, lower, and being among the best I've seen will be awarded a 29-29.5. If you are somewhere in between you will be awarded somewhere in between.

Assistant Coach at Spring Woods High School Speech & Debate for Victoria Beard.

Interp: Source of the majority of my experience in Speech & Debate. I look for multiple levels to a performance; character portrayals by students with an understanding of the emotions and stakes of their piece; a concise plot to the cut, coherent from beginning to end; the greater the attention to minor details (mannerisms, gestures, inflection, etc.), the better.

Public Speaking: I enjoy interp-flair, but it cannot supersede the content, argument, or sources of your speaking. I will call you out on inaccuracies.

Debate: Rank your Spread from 1 (slowest) to 10 (fastest), then keep at 5 maximum -- quantity will never match quality. I appreciate excellent enunciation and clarity, and support debaters providing roadmaps for judges. Dropped contentions are watched for. No disclosures after round end.

I am going back to flowing in a traditional way, I now priviledge organization and technical competency alongside content depth. I am sick of the way that the speech doc is ruining the flow. I don't like reading cards after the debate, please put the important spin and quotations of the card "on the flow." Do what you do best.

My Judging Philosophy for Policy/LD based on the training I received from Advantage Communications:

All types of debate prescribe to agame with rules that are ALWAYS debatable. Having said that, we encourage debaters to establish a role of the ballot and a role for the judge asa way for me to score the round. This is separate from framing the debate through framework arguments. Framework tells me how to evaluate and prioritize certain issues within the debate while giving me net benefits to preferring it over other framings. The roles you give to the ballot or judge are additional arguments that allow me to weigh the round given the interpretations you give to those roles and clarifying the necessity to accept these roles as opposed to upholding my own predisposition.

Thus, I will do my best to keep my predispositions away from the round. We as judges merely evaluate the arguments presented to us given the strategies that are used to explain and spin the issues. I stay true to the flow and not my opinion. A debater’s job is to clearly communicate what your argument is and spin the debate by reverting back to the arguments you should have consistently presented throughout the debate to answer the opponents opposition. Thus, you have to warrant your explanations and create clear impact calculations to narrow down my vote in the last speeches.

I welcome metaframing debates and kritiks. However, kritik debate is hard work. This means that if during cross x you do not have a clear explanation of your alternative, metaframing, or links to clarify to the opposing team why your kritik exists in the debate, you have basically lost the round. You may be able to explain it in later speeches, but the cross x is your time to make sure I know what it means to vote for the k. The best k’s engage the topic or the affirmative to either turn the case or frame out the affirmatives impact. Topicality against these types of arguments are good but are not enough to win the debate. To win the debate against a k, you must set up a good framework and topicality argument and demonstrate why it is that we should preserve the norms of thinking in the direction you want us to go (lay out the harms, impacts, and voters). Net benefits for both k and fw/topicality are necessary.

LD debaters must explain how their criterion is the correct moral choice to make. LD is not about solving an issue per say, it is a morality debate. So please make sure you emphasize how your case supports your criterion and why your criterion is the best moral position to take.

Therefore, specificity is key. This is how I know that no one else knows your argument better than you and I reward specificity with higher speaker points. You don’t need masses amount of evidence to win the debate. Quality over quantity.

Note some other specifications about formalities in debate that I judge on:

Clarity & Speed:

I value clarity over speed. I am fine with any speed. I will give you three warnings for clarity, no exceptions. After that, do not hold me accountable for missing an argument on the flow since I clearly gave you a warning about not being able to understand what you were saying.

Do not spread the following items for your own benefit: Value, Value Criterion, Contentions, Tag Lines, Authors, Date". This avoids me having to call for evidence to make my decision. I want to be as fair as possible. It is your responsibility to to help me make it a fair round.

Road Map & Sign Posts:

This helps me keep up with you on my flow. After the first constructives, I recommend the following structure:

• AFF:Overview, What you are winning on, Dispute Neg. claims by referencing evidence, Why you should win debate(calculation of impacts, magnitude, timeframe, risk of solving, etc.)
• NEG:*BLOCK SHOULD ALWAYS BE SPLIT: I will take off speaker points for teams who fail to do so* Overview, Restate arguments (should be split in block), Why Aff isn't resolving your claims with clear warrants from your evidence, and why you should win the debate (calculation of actualization of impacts, magnitude, timeframe, etc.)

Evidence:

As long as I can follow a clear, reasonable, and logical line of thought, I will always value that as evidence. This means that if you use your experience, poems, performance, or anything that can be seemingly categorized as "unorthodox" evidence, I will still count it as a warranted claim in the debate. I am graduating with majors in American Studies, Chicano Studies, and Philosophy and have had to follow our general requirements at CSU-Fullerton which provide a well-rounded background in many of the disciplines that are categorized as a-g in your curriculm. EVERYTHING IS DEBATABLE BECAUSE THE WORLD IS INTERPRETED THROUGH DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES AND PEDAGOGIES.

Diplomacy:

• SPEECHES: If you need to yell, scream, or perform your speech in any way that is necessary to make emphasis to your claims or give it performative interpretations(say that you are running an identity K or performance K), I will NOT deduct speaker points. Make sure that any claims you are making can be backed up reasonable, logical lines of thoughts. Try to be as respectful to the other team as you can.
• CROSS X: Debate, in essence, should be the diplomatic exchange of ideas. We practice how to exchange ideas in this form so that we avoid yelling at one another. I will deduct speaker points if you are rude or disrespectful to your opponent in cross x, no questions asked. There is an exception to this rule: if I see that another team is yelling, and the opposing team needs to speak up, I will allow the team being yelled at to get louder so that they can carve out space to talk. I will not take off speaker points to teams who merely decided to stand up for themselves.

*My normal range for speaker points is 26-29, but I have given rare 30s to truly deserving debaters. 25's are distributed only in special circumstances.*

I am a parent judge with some experience judging speech and public forum. I will try to take notes, but I am not a flow judge. I look for competitors with a clear and smooth speaking style, solid gestures, but most importantly, logical and well-supported arguments.

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.

Hello! I coached as an assistant 10 years ago under a Double-Diamond Coach and recently returned to coaching again at West High School in Salt Lake City, Utah. You are more than welcome to share your preferred pronouns before round, but only if you are comfortable doing so :)

My main, most important judging philosophy beliefs:

· Please signpost - it makes it much easier to flow.

· I'm not opposed to critical arguments, but keep them accessible to people who aren't terribly familiar with K debate or literature.

· I'll weigh the impact. Make it clear. Traditional mentality but understands progressive.

· I probably won't understand your arguments if you're not consistent with your warranting.

· Offense must be in summary and final focus.

· IN Public Forum or Lincoln Douglas, I PREFER THAT YOU ACTUALLY READ EVIDENCE THAN JUST PARAPHRASING. I guess what I am saying is that it is hard to trust your analysis of the evidence. The rounds have a flavor of Parliamentary Debate. Giving your opponent the entire article and expecting them to extract the authors intent is difficult. Having an actual card is key. If I call for a site, I do not want the article, I want the card. You should only show me the card, or the paragraph that makes your article.

· This is not grounds for teams to think this means run PARAPHRASE Theory as a voter. Proliferation of procedural issues is not what this particular event is designed to do. You can go for it, but probability of me voting for it is low.

· This should go without saying, but ANY racist, homophobic, sexist or hateful comments or arguments will not only hurt your speaker points SEVERELY, you most likely can expect to lose.

· Just because you don’t have a carded response to something your opponent said does not mean you cannot have a decent analytical response. I’ll listen to those analytical responses over any crappy card.

· Please, warrant your responses. Tell me WHY a study concludes something, don’t just give me their results. Good warrants go with good arguments.

How I determine speaker points:

· Not abusing prep time and being ready to debate quickly before round will improve your points.

· Doing weighing, collapsing, and warranting effectively is the best and easiest way to get high speaks with me in the back of the room.

· I won’t be listening to cross ex, so if you are being rude enough to warrant my attention, your speaker points will reflect that.

Other parts of my paradigm that are slightly more technical:

· Theory (for me) in PF is fine. You should only be using this if your opponent does something egregiously unfair and not to fill up time or show me that you did LD/Policy. If you do read theory, you should only be going for that and it’s your burden to prove how your opponent framed you out of the debate.

· Speed is fine. If I can’t understand you, then you should slow down. I am a new hearing aid wearer and ambient noise will make it difficult for me to concentrate on what you are saying if you are speaking too quickly.

· Road maps should be concise, you’re telling me what sheets I should start on, not making arguments.

· Terminal defense does not need to be extended in first summary for it to be in final focus, unless second speaking rebuttal responded to it. I will be more likely to weight defense of it is in both first summary and final focus, but it’s not required.

I.E

The speaker captivates its audience. Is very precise on the approach of persuading or informing. Whether you use your body or not, nonverbal communication represents 93% of my understanding. Speech and debate is a great stage for inclusion and creativity, but use of vulgar words and content should be communicated before hand as to show respect to judges and audience. It is important to protect avenues we use to grow and uphold values of professionalism.

Debate

Purpose of debate at its core is argumentation. Winners in debate events bring not only the passion they have for their side but clear communication that judges and opponents can understand in attempt to create a well exchanged debate. Successful debate research hit the core of the cause at hand, assertions are impactful and are supplemented with recent/reliable evidence. Winners in debate do not always have to prove they are right , just that you are wrong.

I am a fourth year philosophy and American studies major at CSUF. I competed in LD debate in high school for two years and competeted in policy debate at CSUF for two years. Most of my college debate experience has been that of critical/performance argumentation, however I’ve also had experience running traditional CP’s, DA’s, T and framework arguments. Because I am more used to making critical/performance arguments my feedback for those types of arguments will be stronger, however that doesn’t mean that I will prefer those arguments over traditional arguments. I judge based on how well each team executes their particular type of argument, and will hold them to their own standards.

I don’t mind any kind of debating (whether this be spreading, a performance, or some other creative way of presenting your case), as long as whatever is done within the round doesn’t cause either physical or emotional harm to anyone. I understand that at times particular arguments can personally resonate with someone and cause emotional harm, however as long as what is said within the round isn’t said with ill-intent I will be okay with it.

I appreciate clarity and in-depth analysis. The less work I have to do as a judge the better it will be for the teams I am judging. Also, I like to be able to easily flow the debate, so sticking to the organization of the the way in which the arguments are being presented is important. Because of my experience as a critical/performance debater, I think that framework is a very good way to test the practicality of any argument being made, especially that of a critical aff. So when seeing traditional teams against critical teams or even k’s against k’s I like to see how the teams justify their framework for the debate, since in essence it’s justifying a particular way of approaching a certain issue, which is essentially what debate does as a community.  

I coach Extemp and Advocacy at Bellarmine and also have experience with Policy and Congressional debate.

If I am your judge in an Interp round: I'm sorry. I don't know much about the events and honestly, much of the way I judge simply has to do with whether I am interested in the story you are telling. I am not good at evaluating blocking and so forth. It does seem to me that having multiple characters adds a degree of difficulty, so that tends to go a long way with me.

For INFO/Expos: I really want to LEARN something from your speech. You might have kind of a run-of-the-mill topic with lovely VA's and dynamic delivery, but if the content is pretty bland and I am not learning anything, then I will rank you low. I tend not to get too snowed by nice VA's. Some kids come from more money than others and if a student has a really original idea with strong research behind it, I don't want to penalize them for not having the money or access to a program that can help them get great VA's. I will say, though, that you really should not have a speech of nothing but content. That is HARD to sit through for 10 minutes. Aim to inject some humor or levity where you can.

When it comes to things like Oratory and Advocacy, I like to see RESEARCH and EVIDENCE. Your OO or OA should not be like a DI or HI. I am interested in your reasoning and analysis. Please don't try to cover for lack of empirics and analytical rigor by resorting to excessive pathos.

The event with which I have the most experience is Extemp. I love Extemp. However, I deplore the manner in which final rounds of Extemp at Nats have devolved into stand-up comedy routines. I find that more and more students say very little, they just say it in a very entertaining way. Extemp is an event where you should have an argument, you should have evidence, you should rely upon a range of sources. Students should have a sophisticated argument based upon multiple sources (1 per point...um, no) that are accurately cited. Don't say that the Washington Post had an article on something. Tell me WHEN it had the article. In addition, I am quite pleased to see students stretch beyond standard sources like the NYT, WSJ, Economist, etc. When you show me that you are relying upon sources beyond those aggregated for you by Extemp Genie or Prepd or a similar service, I think that reflects well upon you. Bear in mind: the topics you are speaking about are by and large serious. So students who are smarmy and pleased with themselves and their puns really rub me the wrong way.

If I am judging you in Policy debate, you should know that I rarely vote on T. I don't mind a good K, but you need to understand the author. If you are just reading cards that your coach cut for you, the round is not terribly interesting because you don't understand what you are talking about. I can handle medium speed, largely because I find spreading to be really unpleasant to listen to. Plus, if debate is an academic activity, then I am not sure what the value of talking crazy quickly is. Please, please, please: do not make me listen to multiple speeches about whether or not the round is educational. That is my nightmare. You have a resolution, you have a topic. ENGAGE WITH IT. But when you dance around with T too much or go nuts about the round not being educational, I truly feel like my time is being wasted. Also, I get that there is often the incentive to go to extinction and nuclear holocaust, etc. But I encourage you to consider whether that always makes any sense. Sometimes debaters go from zero to extinction so quickly as to be farcical. I don't mind CP, framework or generic DA's, not a big fan of conditionality. If I think of anything else, I'll add to this. Basically, I want to see the students wrestle with ideas and do so in a mature, polite manner.

Debate: Make your contentions obvious, don't spread, and don't be an offensive/abusive idiot. Please send your case to my email: sasha.warbritton@ephsspeech.org

Speech: If you are not memorized, I will always rank you below someone who has done the work of memorization. In PA, I am looking for well-structured speeches with a good balance of analysis and evidence. Performance quality matters with tone, hand gestures and overall confidence, and while jokes are fun, they are not necessary to win my round. In Interp, I am looking for well defined characters, clear blocking, and a speaker who is fully immersed in their performance.