Prosper Rock Hill Swing
2022 — Frisco- Rock Hill High School, TX/US
Friday/Congress Speech Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I say my paradigm before round its pretty basic. I'll accept most arguments if they're presented well and link. The only exclusion is that I will NEVER vote on non disclosure, its not a real argument and is counter to debate and seeks to prep out cases and place the burden of pre round prep on your opponent
I have competed in high school speech events, Congress, LD and PF experience, as well as some coaching and judging experience. I am currently an active Toastmaster where I achieved my Distinguished Toastmaster educational award.
Things about my style:
- I need to be able to follow your case (i.e. Roadmaps are important, signposting with spreading)
- Don’t just pick a case for the sake of confusing your opponent, it needs to be pretty much topical
- Speed is fine, but I need to be able to understand you
- Viewing your opponent’s case doesn’t substitute for flowing
- Don’t take your cards out of context, if the idea behind the card doesn’t support your case, then it’s probably not a good idea to use it, even if you can make a sentence work for you (while I won’t necessarily pick this out myself, if your opponent points it out, I will know and remember)
- Extending arguments require you to give a reason with evidence/warrants (i.e. "non-unique" by itself isn't good enough)
- Be polite (i.e. if you know that you are winning don't destroy your opponent, offensive language should add value if used)
- I weigh arguments against each other, so keep track of important points that your opponent has presented a valid argument that counters it
- I don't take CX into account (other than to give you pointers for next time) unless you bring it up in your speeches
- I would rather see a few well-covered points than a bunch of poorly covered points
- I'm big picture (key points matter more than defending and defeating every point/contention)
- I like voters, they weigh heavily on my decision, and they should be your major arguments (you should pick your still standing, strong points)
- I’m not a big fan of theoretical debates, I prefer debates with substantiated arguments.
I like a good debate and am generally very nice with speaker points to both sides when I see one.
- Ask questions during questioning.
- At least look like you're paying attention.
- Be prepared to give a speech. (In some states, you only count for numbers if you give a speech and it's beneficial for you. After all, you're in the event for a reason.)
- The longer the breaks are that you take the less time you have to speak. (5 minutes is enough time for the judges to do what they need to do, and you can always ask for a "point of personal privilege" to use the restroom or come back late.)
Speech Events (IEs & Extemp):
- The grace period (available in some states) is there for a reason, so that you don't automatically get last place for going over. You really shouldn't be using the majority of it.
- You should know your prepared speech's time and not need time signals. (Non-prepared events, such as Extemp and Impromptu, are exempt. I will give up to a 5 down with a 30 second warning to time, not including grace.)
- I'd rather see 1 or 2 well covered points than 3 points that lack coverage.
I believe that students should effectively communicate any event competing in. I am a traditional debate judge/coach. However, I am opened to progressive debate if the student communicates it effectively.
LD: I prefer traditional debate for LD, because the entire point of this debate is to be values oriented and philosophical. That being said, I prefer and enjoy hearing nuanced and different types of argument. Stock debate gets boring, and those who are able to string together new ideas and successful tie them to the value and criterion are the most successful. I prefer you stay away from spreading. Speaking quality matters in LD. Speaking rate can be fast, but not the extent that the event has evolved to.
CX: Tabula Rasa. I am an open book. Tell me how to vote. I enjoyed varied arguments and will let your plans and their subsequent defense stand on there own merit. Spreading is acceptable, but shouldn't get out of control to where we are (quite literally) talking at one another.
Speech: I appreciate different approaches, but enjoy those who are able organize themselves and follow the typical conventions of quality speaking.
Congress/PF: Argument is 60% and Speaking is 40%. Your ability to draw in the audience is important in this event and speaking ability should play especially important.
My name is Amanda, and I am a new parent judge.
I've watched video.
I value your originality.
Good luck with your round.
Affiliation: Plano HS '18
Experience: Competed at Plano Senior HS 17-18. Judging since 2019.
A little about me:
She/He. I identify as a queer POC and Transphobia, Homophobia, and Racism are not well received unless deemed narratively 'necessary.' I do not take these things lightly.
I recently graduated from UNT with a BA in Media Arts. I am a performer, and most of my experience is from years of theatre, films, and the IE sides of speech. I am, however, in no way a seasoned debater. That does not mean I will not judge debate, I will simply evaluate the manner in which the information was presented to me... but please do leave me out of congress and LD I will be lost.
I do not tolerate inappropriate room etiquette. Behavior such as being on your phone or laptop during a round (unless clarified to take notes of the performances), talking to other people in between performances or immediately after (where the judge is still present), eating or chewing gum, or just being disrespectful can greatly affect the performer as well as the judge. Failure to be a kind and respectful audience member will likely turn up on the ballot though I will never let it hinder the rank/score in the room unless there is a very specific circumstance. Treat other competitors the way you would like to be treated, please.
Pronouns: She/they. I don't tolerate transphobia, homophobia, xenophobia, and racism. If you have an issue with this, strike me.
Affiliation: Plano Senior High 19'
Currently attending Arizona State University Online
Contact: email@example.com (please put me on the email chain)
I have judged speech events for 2 years and have no previous speech/debate experience. I am looking for clean delivery and clear arguments. If one team can successfully argue against their opponent with no rebuttals, I would give them the win. I am looking for those who will take their time to explain any points presented to further their argument without inadvertently or intentionally repeating their/other student's previous statements. I try not to read evidence. However, I will if I feel it is absolutely necessary to resolve the round. I will default to the speaker's interpretation of the evidence unless otherwise contested.
Background & Coaching Information:
*2 Diamond Coach with over 25 years of experience coaching both public and private programs in Florida, Alabama and Texas.
*Experience coaching and judging all events
*Have had TFA finalists in multiple events, NSDA Nationals Semi and Finalists and have coached numerous Alabama State Champions in multiple of events
- *I have a true passion for the overall educational and life changing skills of speech and debate. I expect competitors to be respectful of all events and each other.
INFORMATIVE & ORATORY
Content & Visual aids
*A NEW perspective on a NEW topic or a refreshing and inspiring topic that is not overdone.
*Informative should not be persuasive in nature; your job is to inform not persuade
*The best oratories provide stories and a genuine moments within the speech. I should feel and see your heart in your speech.
*Research should enhance and advance information presented. Research should be relevant, current, and reliable
* For informative, Visual aids should not be a distraction but add to the quality of what is being said. The focus should be on the words spoken and not the visual aids. Just because you have strong visual aids is not the winning point for me; a well written memorable speech and performance weighs more heavily.
*Speech should be well organized, easy to follow, and engage the audience
*Professional and engaging. Performance should enhance natural strengths. Don't force cheesy humor.
*Natural movement and gestures; blocked and robotic movements sometimes can distract from the overall presentation
*Apply all the needed vocal variation that makes speeches engaging
*I want you to be genuine and real. I am not interested in fake and robotic performances. I cannot stress this enough. I don't care how polished you are if you are not real.
*I should be able to tell why this topic is important; passion is imperative. This should be obvious in every aspect of your performance.
IE ( HI, DI, PROSE, POETRY, POI, DUO)
*Creative, engaging, relevant, entertaining.
*Maturity and age appropriate.
*Follow the event rules
*Easy to follow; don't make me work to understand what is happening.
*Take me on a journey of emotions
*Characterization should be genuine and real.
*Blocking should enhance and add to the performance; not be used in place of good performance.
*When working with a partner, strengths should complement one another
*Sometimes simple moments in a performance are the most memorable. A certain look or gesture can be gut wrenching and draw an audience in. Those moments are more impressive than overblocked and overacting attempts of winning my vote.
*Same as speaking events, I value genuine and real performances. I'm not interested in polished robotic performances that have not heart.
*I am a flow judge BUT presentation also matters a great deal. If I can't understand what you are saying, it is difficult for me to flow your arguments.
*Respect in the round is essential. I don't care how good you are if you are disrespectful to your opponents or to the judges you will not get my vote. Be professional and respectful at all times.
*I am good with any kind of speed, but keep it clear and articulate.
*If you do not extend properly, I will not buy any of your arguments.
*Proper extension should include tag, short summary of evidence, and impact calc.
*I expect FF and even Sums to have impact calculus (magnitude, propensity, reversibility, etc.)
*Impacts are essential. I don't care if you don't tell me why I should
* I prefer you being true to what public forum was designed for, however if you happen to run theory and Kritik debate I will be ok with it.
* The second speaking rebuttal should respond to turns placed in the first speaking rebuttal.
*Offense wins rounds, so make sure your voters are offensive.
*Please collapse or the debate will end up being a mess. If you are going for Theory make sure to delineate what you want me to do with it (drop the debater, drop the argument, etc.), stance on RVI, clear voters.
*I consider it the burden of the Kritik to provide an alt and prove its uniqueness, so I will default buy the perm even if your opponent doesn’t argue it unless uniqueness is proved.
*AGAIN, I prefer traditional PF debate, butI will and can adjust judging according to different styles of debate.
*Organization is key; make it easy for me to follow
*Words matter; word economy is essential. Don't waste time with insignificant words and filler language that takes away from overall presentation points
-Be strategic about your question; play to your strength and knowledge, but avoid easy questions that don't require much analysis
-It is imperative you answer the question clearly and concisely
-Clearly link evidence with rhetoric and impact
-Using variety of sources is important; I am not impressed with multiple sources if those sources don't directly link with what you are saying. Just spouting off sources is not impressive. The information actually has to say something of importance and connect.
-The more current the information, the better.
-Organization and structure is important; but add some personality and flair to make it interesting and engaging.
-Knowledge of the topic is essential; more rhetoric and logic used in your speech is more impressive than anything
-Professional presentation is incredibly important.
-Don't add humor if it is not your strength.
-Tone should fit the topic.
-DO NOT BE POLITICALLY POLARIZING. Bashing any ideology or person is not impressive and will immediately give me reason to not consider a high ranking. Be respectful always.
- I NEED CLASH.This is congressional debate, unless you are 1st AFF Speech, you should have clash in your speech. Bring up NEW points and please do not keep bringing up same points as other representatives.
- When you clash be sure you mention representative's names when referring to their specific arguments.
- Your speeches need evidence, MINIMUM, one piece of evidence per point. More is appreciated.
- When using evidence, it should clearly link or I will not consider it. Include dates; the more current and relevant the better.
- DO NOT read your speech; engage your audience and do this in a original, creative and respectful way.
- I do listen to your speeches and questions, so if you give clearly falsified evidence or logic I will know. Be involved and know parliamentary procedure as well.
- You are judged on the WHOLE round, not just speeches, so if you are rude or aren’t involved don't expect a good score from me.
Put me on the Email Chain- firstname.lastname@example.org
Currently Debate at the University of North Texas in NFA LD, similar to a one person policy debate.
About me: I competed in Policy debate for 4 years at Princeton high school, primarily on the TFA circuit. Better with policy debates because that is what I did in high school, but please do what you are most comfortable with. Tech>Truth.
Speed: Slow down on tags and authors, I am generally okay with speed, since every judge is different I will say clear twice before I stop flowing.
Evidence: I might be reading evidence during the round, but I believe it is up to the debater to be doing comparative evidence analysis during the round. That being said my reading of the evidence will have not have any weight on my decision unless both teams make it a point of contention. It is not my job as a judge to vote against a team for reading bad evidence it is your job to tell me their evidence is bad and why that's important.
AFF: Plan less affs are fine. I enjoy ones that relate to the topic in some way but if they don't that is cool too. Fairness could be an impact but I am usually persuaded by the impact turns.
Disadvantages: The more specific to the aff the better. I am good with politics disadvantages, fiat does not resolve the link ever. Saying "Uniqueness overwhelms the link because of how many cards the neg read on it" is not an argument by itself you need to explain this. I am okay with hearing rider/horse trading disadvantage. You should always be doing specific impact comparison with the aff, disad turns the case arguments are convincing.
Counter-plans: Any counter-plan is fine, but if you read a delay, consult or any other counter-plan that may be seen as cheating by some, be prepared to defend the theoretical objections against it. Of course you need a net-benefit to the counter-plan in order to win it whether it is internal, a disad, or a case turn there must be some net benefit. Judge kick- 2NR Needs to tell me other wise I default to no judge kick.
Topicality: Topicality is fine. I do not have a bias on reasonability vs. competing interps, it just depends on the debate. Obviously the most important thing in these debates are the interpretations. Topicality always needs to have impacts.
Theory: Fine go for it if you want. Only theory I have a bias for is, conditionality, it's good in most cases. You should have an interpretation for your theory objections, absent that there is no violation.
Kritiks: Kritiks are fine, but I am less familiar with the literature than you. In these debates the more specific the link the better, but no matter the specificity of the link please contextualize it to the aff, examples are good for me. The better the link the easier this is, but if you read a generic link it is going to take more contextualization. Your links should be to the plan and not the status sqou and aff teams should be quick to call out neg teams whose links are to the sqou. I believe that long overviews that explain the kritik are okay, and for me important. Kicking the alternative is fine. I have gone for cap a lot.
LD:I do not know what tricks are.
Hi! I go by sorin! Senior at Coppell High School.
add me to the email chain :)
Email format: ( “aff name” vs “neg name” - “tournament name” - rd #) - or something that has all of that
- I'm okay with speed
- I flow
- off time roadmaps please
- I like impact calc and judge instruction
- don't be disrespectful
- have fun :)
things to keep in mind:
*Please do impact calc! if i'm judging you you're probably a novice so all that means is tell me why ur impact matters more (under ur fw) or using things like magnitude, probability, timeframe, scope
*argumentation is great but weighing makes my job so much easier and i'm way more likely to vote for you
*please signpost! as novices yall can get really messy so it would mean alot to tell me what you're answering and what flow you're on!!
*wont flow new arguments in 2nr/2ar
*keep your own time, incase i forget
*send me a email or tell me if you ever feel unsafe during/after round, and lmk if theres anything i can do :)
*will disclose (if both teams want it) unless tournament rules say otherwise
Policy args: yes please! I understand this, go for it!, make sure to weigh
DAs: I understand this, go for it!
CPs: I understand this go for it! make sure to explain net benefits, and net benefits of perm if you're aff
Theory: within reason pls
theory for in round abuse and high chance ill vote on it
please make sure the shell is understandable, and clear warranted voters, if i dont get it or don’t know what to do with it, I cant evaluate it properly :(
Default to competing interps, drop the debater, fairness is an i/l to education, etc.
friv theory: if its frivolous ill be highly persuaded by reasonability + low threshold for response , there’s also a time to be “funny” and not funny like don’t read some wild debaters must play Fortnite shell on a identity position
IVIs:something like misgendering or like a jargon ivi i’d prob vote on if won, but for things like author indicts— sure this old white guy is problematic, and I most likely agree with you, but it needs to have like a impact, tell me what reading this author really does yk (and in relation to your position if applicable).
Ks: at your own risk
I am a k debater but that doesn’t mean I know every lit base. (especially if high theory, err on over explanation, talk to me like I’m 5 i don’t mind getting lectured for a bit) Just tell and explain to me what your scholarship says: I wont do the work for u but don’t expect a lot either, just make it so it’s understandable and please tell a story!
If you’re a novice only run if you actually understand the literature and all, butchered ks are painful
I'm not well versed with every literature but doesn’t mean I wont evaluate it
on another note— I find it very weird to run positions that you have no subjectivity towards against folks that do
Framework:most important, tell me clearly why I should evaluate the round w your framing, and induct your opponents
chances are high that im not familiar unless maybe like Kant or Rawls as purely framing mech, so you would have to do alot of work "dumbing it down" for me
again if its basic value criterion sure but dense phil fws i am probably not the best for it, i have trouble understanding it but if u go for it, pls crystalize it in the 1ar and 2nr
I'm not a phil debater, so wont be the best for like specific feedback
Trad: same thing as policy :), just weigh fw for sure
trix/spikes: no bruh, i won’t vote of extrapolations of a non warranted 1 line blip in the 1ac
PF and WSD
Treat me like a lay parent judge that knows how to flow basically
see LD for what i like if it’s applicable
* go at a reasonable speed, signpost, write the ballot for me
- for worlds just literally treat me like you would a parent
27 and below: you did something bad (check things that lower)
28-28.9: good job
29-30: good job x2
put a cute dog pic or a funny meme on the doc and ill give you a L 29.8 or W 29.9
Things that lower speaks:
* Any isms (racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, etc) will be a L w low speaks
* Being disrespectful to your opponent (be nice)
* Misgendering, respect peoples pronouns, if not listed, default to "my opponent" and they/them
speed: idc, just slow-er on tags, send me the docs, spread analytics at your own risk because i might not catch them
(wont effect speaks, unless I like absolutely cannot understand you)
have fun and good luck!
note for middle school NATS:
congrats on being here!!
- ill keep track of all arguments:) If I'm typing on my phone I promise I'm paying attention my computer probably just died and I need to type feedback somewhere lol
- if you forget speech times don’t be afraid to ask me I got you
- I can time for y’all :) (my alarm is like a duck quacking though so let me know if that bothers you)
don’t stress if you’re a few mins late this place is confusing to navigate
- if your event is flighted- flt 1 means you start at the time listed, flt 2 means you’re right after the flt1 round but the time should be listed as well
- it’s always good to try to use all your speaking time in speeches, but don’t stress too much about it — it won’t evaluate my judging :)
don’t worry about the stuff below unless you understand it, most of it’s not applicable
- ask questions if you need anything at all or if you’re confused!
- relax, you did the hard work to get here already, enjoy yourself:)
School Affiliation: Coach at The Episcopal School of Dallas
Coaching & Judging Experience: I have been coaching teams and judging tournaments since 2006. This includes LD, PF, Congress, CX and IEs at different schools in Virginia and Texas. I have had debaters qualify for NCFL and NSDA on multiple occasions which are both considered traditional tournaments.
Speed: Although I am personally not a fan of it, please make sure your spreading is clear and coherent. If I can't understand you, I probably will not flow it. If you see me stop flowing for an extended period of time then it would be in your best interest to slow down. I also heavily prefer if you go slow on your taglines, analytics and any theory arguments, especially during your rebuttals.
Types of Arguments: Although I prefer framework heavy debates, a lot of clash in the round, and good crystallization and overviews in your final rebuttal, I will still vote on topicality, counterplans, some theory arguments at times and kritiks if they are explained well by the debater. I am not a fan of non-topical Affs as I tend to favor whole resolution ACs. Make sure when you run T, that you are linking your violation to your standards/voting issues and that when you run a CP, you explain your net benefits and how it's competitive.
Theory Argument: If you run any disclosure theory or new affs bad arguments, make sure you thoroughly break down the reasons to prefer. Although I have never really been a fan of these types of arguments, I am willing to consider them if you can show the impacts of the abuse committed by your opponent and how this outweighs. Please make sure that whatever theory shells you plan on running are presented at a slower rate of speed.
Kritiks: Run at your own risk because I'm not really a fan of complicated philosophical arguments that have nothing to do with the actual resolution that should be debated upon. I'm not saying you can't win if you run them, but I might look at you funny and simply not flow the argument depending on the complexity of the K.
Speaks: Clarity over speed is prefered. If your spreading is incomprehensible, this will reflect on your speaker points. Any acts of rudeness or displays of an unprofessional demeanor towards your opponent will also be taken into account. If you go against an inexperienced debater or a traditional style opponent, it would be in your best interest to accommodate their format and invest some time clashing with or turning their value, criterion and contentions. Also, please do not ask me if I disclose speaker points. It's not going to happen. In addition, please do not use profanity at all during the round. It will impact your speaks and could also impact my decision so don't do it. Lastly, please refrain from attacking the character of any political figures or political parties as a whole. It's okay to discuss policies of the USFG but please avoid bashing politicians or parties that you may dislike as I consider that type of tactic in a debate to be very unprofessional and offensive. Debaters have lost my ballot over this in the past.
Tricks: Please don't.
Overview: Debate the resolution, clash with your opponent's arguments, provide framework, slow down during tags and analytics, throw in some voters at the end.
Email Chain: If and only if both debaters are sharing files, please include my email as well: email@example.com
About me: I debated (policy), did extemp, and dabbled in interp in high school--in the 1980s in Iowa. I became a lawyer, and practiced as a trial attorney for 27 years, until starting a teaching career in 2017. I have spent my life persuading REAL PEOPLE of REAL THINGS, so my orientation is always going to favor traditional, persuasive argumentation and sound rhetoric. Because that's real life.
I promise you all are 8 times smarter than me, and certainly 20 times better versed in the topic. So please don't forget I need things explained to me.
All forms of debate: what matters is what YOU have to say, not what I want to hear. I am open to most anything.
For PF, I am mindful that the activity is designed to be judged non-technically, often by smart laypersons. If you are spreading or arguing theory, you are generally not communicating in a way that would persuade a non-specialist or citizen judge, so it's gonna be hard to get my ballot.
For L-D, I am a pretty traditional judge. It is a "value oriented" debate. I recognize that most everyone provides a "value" and a "criterion" but it's not a magical incantation. If you are quoting philosophers (Rawls, Bentham, etc.) make sure you really understand them--and in any case, I haven't read them since college, so I need a bit of a sketched refresher.
For Policy, I am inclined to stock issues. Topicality, counter-plans fine. Want to be more exotic? EXPLAIN.
Congress--remember judges haven't read the bills, probably. An early speaker on a bill who explains what a bill does (or doesn't do) usually goes to the top of the room for me. I treat PO's fairly, and especially admire ones who step up to do it when no one else wants to.
World Schools--I am new to it, admittedly, but intrigued.
Remember: a tagline is not an argument, and English is always better than debate jargon. I probably understand your debate jargon, but do you want to risk it? I will reward debaters whom I can follow.
I also do NOT permit things like "flex prep" and "open cross" that are not specifically provided for in the NSDA and/or TFA rules. I don't care what "everyone does" where you are from. Sorry.
Finally, be nice. Feisty is good, being a jerk is not. Gentlemen, if you talk over non-male debaters or otherwise denigrate or treat them dismissively, I won't hesitate one second in dropping you. Be better.
For interp, I value literary quality highly. I can sniff out a Speech Geek piece. All things being pretty equal, I am going to rank a cutting of a piece from actual literature more highly, because it's more difficult, more meaningful, and more interesting that something that's schematic.
For extemp, I will admit I have become cynical of citations like "The New York Times finds that..." You could say that for any piece of information, and I fear some extempers do. Real people with credibility write for The New York Times. Much more impressive to me would be, "Ross Douthout, a conservative, anti-Trump New York Times columnist, explained in a piece in July 2022 that..."
In Public Forum and Extemp: I value delivery & analysis supported by evidence from credible sources. I want to know the significance of your topic and what are the impacts of your arguments, tell me why it matters. I can't vote for points and impacts I can't hear or understand, so slow up for key points and explain them clearly. Understand that you are Debating not Arguing, this is an important distinction that must be known by each debater!
In Congressional Debate: I value the natural delivery of points and impacts and reasonable positions. I look for acknowledgment of prior speakers' points and clash leading to good argumentation and refutation, and for purposeful questioning leading to clarity, understanding, or insight. A lack of clash is frowned upon. Knowledge of and adherence to Parliamentary Procedure is expected in the chamber. Skillful Presiding Officers make sessions a positive experience for all and will be ranked accordingly.
In Oratory, Info, and Impromptu: I value your originality, creativity, and persuasive presentation of ideas of personal importance. Cite your sources, explain their importance, and tell me why it matters.
In DI, HI, DUO, Poetry, and Prose: It is crucial that you tell a story in a meaningful and impactful manner. Characterization, gestures and facial expressions, and, vocal variation will all add to the overall decision. Along, with the dramatic structure of the piece and mindful storytelling!
Overall speaking skills or/and argumentation are critical to winning! But remember the most important thing is that you learn!
Spoken Word: It is crucial that you tell a story in a meaningful and impactful manner. Characterization, gestures and facial expressions, and, vocal variation will all add to the overall decision. Along, with the dramatic structure, organization, clear theme, and mindful storytelling!
You have worked hard. Now is your time to shine.
Interp: I have been teaching speech for 8 years; and teaching, directing, and performing theatre for over 40 years. I know an engaging, well-rehearsed performance when I see it. I will give you the kind of quality feedback I give to my own Interp students.
I am looking for clear characterization(s) both physically and vocally. Establish setting with blocking and business. Pantomime should be realistic and establish object permanence.(ex: a glass of water must be picked up and put down while maintaining a consistent shape and size. Refrigerators don't move unless the character moves them as part of the performance.)
Every performance must tell a story. You must convey the who, what, when, where, and why. Emotion is borne out of action.
Drama is is not all screaming and crying. Pauses and soft spoken words can often covey far more than NOISE.
Great acting may boost your rank, but I must understand what is happening and why. The performance must tell a story to receive a high rank in the round. Show that you have chosen material that is meaningful to you and with which you have a connection.
Humor arises from a character's total commitment to and belief in what they are doing and what is happening. Never TRY to be funny. It doesn't come off as humorous or believable. The absurdity of a situation should be evident to the audience, not the character. That's true comedy.
Most importantly, I want to be moved and entertained. Nothing is more thrilling than witnessing a great performance.
Please, let me know what time signals you prefer.
I truly appreciate all of the time and effort you put into preparing for these tournaments. Break a leg!
Debate: Please, make it clear to me what is happening. My audio processing issue makes it difficult to comprehend 350 wpm spreading. If I cannot understand you, I cannot flow the round. I can't tell if you are making a good case or argument. I have judged too many debaters who have ignored this part of my paradigm, and I am left HOPING that I have chosen the winning side.
I am a 4th year coach who knows enough about LD, PF, and Congress to judge, but I am not a seasoned veteran. I teach speech and interp as well, so I KNOW about speaker points.
Simply because "everyone" in the debate world knows a term's meaning, doesn't mean your judge knows it. Ex: Flow that through to the neg/aff, structural violence, disad, block, kritik, voters, etc. (I know what these mean, but most lay judges do not).
I prefer to judge a debate that is won on your skills as a debater rather than running a theory shell. Show me what you know about DEBATE. I'm not a big fan of kritiks.
If you want to ensure a fair decision, you must give VOTERS. That helps me make sense of my flow.
Hi everyone reading this! I am really excited to be judging your rounds, remember that just by being at a tournament you are already learning and improving so good job!
A little about me: I competed in Domestic/Foreign Extemp, Congressional Debate, Informative Speaking, and Policy in high school and my main event was Extemp. I qualified for NSDA Nationals in 2022, TFA state in 2020 and 2022, and the Kentucky Tournament of champions in 2020 all in extemp. I qualified for UIL State in informative speaking in 2021 and 2022. I always loved doing public speaking and extemp really was something I cared a lot about in high school and is something I pride myself on being knowledgable about.
Extemporaneous Speaking: I really like to see speeches with fluency, and not vocal fluency but grammatical fluency. What I mean is that It's nice if you keep talking but if you keep talking and it doesn't make much grammatical sense then I will have to take that into consideration when ranking you. Hand gestures are also a very important thing in a speech and I prefer that they don't seem forced or robotic. It really draws my attention away from you as a speaker and more towards your hands. Confidence is also important! If you aren't confident then it will hinder your speaking ability. Content-wise I really like unique arguments and using sources to back your claims ALWAYS helps. Make sure your arguments make sense and you aren't just spewing out random sources with no real warrants.
Interp/OO/Info: Personally what matters to me in these events is evoking emotion out of me and making me care about your performance or speech. If you can get me hooked then I am hooked, take me on a journey with your interp pieces! I did theatre in high school so I know about basic things like projection/articulation and I expect those to be good. As for OO/Info, I love niche topics, topics that no one picks, or topics that are super unique. I pretty much follow the norms in these events and presentation +confidence are everything!
PF: Your arguments matter and your job is to convince me that your argument is better than the other, I can adapt to most styles of debate although I will be honest and say I am a bit slow sometimes so try not to spread toooooo fast. If I can't understand the content of your argument or I don't even understand it then I won't vote for you. High theory debate if it is done in an appropriate way is fine, but if it is just a mess then I won't vote for you. Don't run racist/sexist/homophobic arguments, I feel like this should be an obvious thing to state but it is nice to clarify. When presenting evidence I prefer if it is specific examples and not just generalities, seriously my brain works a little slow when you just say a general and not a specific thing. I also really like it when things are explained and not just thrown out and hardly ever touched again. It helps a lot for me as a judge to fully understand your argument. If I can understand the argument then great, if I can't then it will make it hard for me to vote for your side. Also Source Wars are something I frown upon ( I really do not want to hear both sides clash back and forth about why their source is better than the other with very little explanation like how the author isn't credible without providing a reason as to why they are are not credible). If you can prove however that a source is genuinely biased and is bogus then I will drop that source from the flow
Congress: What I want most in a round is for it to be dynamic, Congress is meant to be a debate-centric event so I want to see some major clash (especially during the later speeches of a round). I want to be able to leave the round and remember you, preferably in a good way. Be memorable and make me remember you, round presence is super important, especially asking meaningful questions. Please try and get creative if your speeches have generic arguments and we have heard them in that cycle of debate already and change those arguments to shake things up more. It is REALLY helpful to keep that round and cycle of debate alive.
WSD: What I look for in these rounds is for clarity in the argument you are presenting (my opinion towards arguments is similar to PF so look at that part of my paradigm). Use the unique format of WSD and use it to your advantage by finding opportunistic moments to take down your opponent's arguments or prove why your arguments are better. I want to see strategy, be creative in the best way possible and utilize the format of the debate to your advantage.
I am in my third decade of this activity and love the outcomes it affords graduates. I do fear that some of the modern trophy-hunting tricks undercut the educational value / critical thinking / topic discovery aspects of debate. I admire speakers, debaters, and programs who explore a topic's possibilities, implications, unintended consequences, and force a consideration of new issues.
I am energized by creative interpretations of the topic, exploration of hidden causes / unforeseen (but provably viable) outcomes, and the realpolitik / pragmatic examination of the issues presented by the topics. I do not believe that anything other than CX requires a plan in order to be evaluated.
LD is asking the question "why" an action should / n't be done. Debaters are free to offer plans, but should be willing to engage in "why" debate on a philosophical / moral justification level. I prefer a problem-solving approach to rope-a-dope debate. I believe judges should have the right (perhaps obligation) to apply some semblance of critical thinking to the cases presented when considering how to evaluate them. There is a prima facie aspect to debate which requires arguments to be upheld as reasonable in order for the case to stand on "first face." Everyone's definition of "speed" is different, so I will simply say that I appreciate being given the opportunity to consider your argument. I should not have to rely on the e-mail chain to tell me what you said or interpret what you meant. The e-mail chain should probably be for reviewing cards at the end of the round as needed. In short, e-mail chains do not replace the communicative aspect of the event and relying on them to do such can limit the general outcomes of all participants in the round.
I do not resonate with pre-emptive theory ("they didn't put it on the wiki") arguments in lieu of substantive debate. You are free to run them in conjunction, but you need to do a lot of work to convince me the harm that's being done because what you say is "the way things are" is not being done. I'm all for challenging prevailing assumption, but just because you said it's so does not make it such.
WSD teams should ensure some semblance of balance and equity amongst team members. Having a first speaker essentially read case and then get out of the way so second speaker can do the heavy lifting for the next hour doesn't really reflect well on the team. In a points race, it is imperative that all parties on the team are pulling their share of the weight. I love teams who have multiple levels of conceptualizing the same point. Exploring the pragmatic level and/or the moral level and/of the economic level and/or... allows the judge to have multiple "outs" to agree with you and demonstrates a depth of topic mastery that compares favorably to teams who rely on one level throughout. WSD is a wonderful combination of presentation and argumentation / content and I follow the proportional consideration of each provided on the ballot.
Will vote on anything.
Do what you do best.
Feel free to ask specific questions in round.
Nothing special. I judge Congress/PF/LD regularly. Keep arguments germane to the topic. Watch speed.
I am a new parent judge. Please speak clear and not too fast.
As a judge, I look to you to tell me the rules of the round. I try to be as fluid as possible when it comes to framework and arguments. I only ask that you make sure you explain it and how it impacts the round.
In regards to speed, I would say I am comfortable with mid-high, however it would be smart to speak slower on tag lines. Remember, If I am part of the email chain then that makes speed much less of a factor in my decision.
Counter plans & disadvantages great.
I'm up for just about anything when it comes to arguments. Run what you feel comfortable running. I prefer the debaters to tell me what they want the round to look like. If you leave it up to me I will vote almost exclusively on framework but I also like to hear good impact calc. Not a big fan of speed at all. If you are spreading then you aren't trying to win my ballot. If I can't follow you then I won't flow the arguments. If I don't flow it then I won't vote on it. If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Please include me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
I tend to include performance, diction, voice, energy, etc. in my evaluation for events like oratory, info, and extemp, along with the obvious analysis of content, ideas, and supporting material.
I think creativity in blocking and staging should be rewarded in a digital atmosphere as much as they are in a live one.
I am pretty liberal on content - language, sexuality, etc. do not bother or offend me, as long as the performer has a real grasp on the subjects they are talking about and understands them fully. However, I view 'profanity' much differently than slurs, derogatory language, etc. In general I would prefer that they not be used. There are scripts that use them in order to bring home a point about the vileness of such ideas and beliefs, but in my opinion, that must be very earned, and in most cases, it is not.
When it comes to LD I look for framework arguments above contention arguments and I am fine with logical arguments. No spreading please. Higher points for addressing the issue raised by opponents from your initial position. I like good CX. Being aggressive is fine, just make sure you don't say or do anything that is offensive. Not a big fan of shell case.
Background: I attended Athens High School and competed in forensics all four years, graduating in '14. I did two years of policy, two years of LD. I also competed in Parli on the collegiate level.
For my general paradigm, I consider myself a tab judge. I'll listen to any arguments that you want to run as long as you're doing the work and telling me why they matter (I shouldn't have to say this but I also expect a level of civility in your arguments, i.e. no racist, sexist, or any other blatantly offensive arguments will be tolerated). I don't think it's my job to tell you that you can or cannot run certain arguments. At the end of the round, I would like you to make the decision for me; meaning you should be telling me how to vote and why. However, if need be I will default to policymaker. Speed is okay with me as long as you aren't sacrificing clarity. If I can't understand you I will stop flowing. Please keep your own time. As for how I feel about certain arguments:
Kritiks: If you want to run a K, I would like it to be done well. That means you should have framework,a roll of the ballot/judge claim, a link, impact, and an alt. I want to know how the way I vote impacts the world or pertains to the argument that you're making. I will listen to multiple worlds arguments but if it becomes ridiculous I will not be afraid to vote on abuse. To win the kritik, I expect well fleshed out arguments that are extended throughout the round.
Theory/Topicality: I look to theory before evaluating the rest of the round. There are a few things that I want if you're going to run and or win on theory. First, I expect you to go all in on it. If you aren't spending all your time in your last speech on theory, that tells me that it's not worth my time voting on it. Second, I want to know where the in-round abuse is. How is what the other team is doing specifically detrimental to your ability to win (hint: don't just say "that's abusive").
Counterplans/Disads: I prefer counterplans to be mutually exclusive and have a net benefit while solving for at least some of the case. In LD if you're going to run one, you're going to have to do a lot of work to prove to me that you can, considering most of the time, there isn't a plan to begin with. Disads should be structured well.
Framework: I look to fw before evaluating the rest of the round, after theory obviously, specifically in LD. It would probably be beneficial to run arguments on both sides of the framework in case I wind up voting against or in favor of the framework you go for.
If you have any specific questions or concerns about my paradigm or the way in which I evaluate the round, don't be afraid to ask before the round starts.