Dear Debating Community,

With over a decade of experience as a debater, judge, and coach, I'm excited to share insights aimed at improving the quality of debates and fostering analytical skills. My expertise spans various debate formats, including Parliamentary, World Schools Debating Championship (WSDC), Lincoln-Douglas (LD), Public Forum (PF), and policy debates.

Effective Debating Strategies:

Kritiks: Enhancing Persuasion

- Ensure kritiks align with the debate context.

- Clearly explain links, impacts, and alternatives.

- Connect the kritik to the broader debate narrative.

- Maintain clarity in delivery pace.

- Use real-world examples for accessibility.

- Anticipate and address counterarguments.

- Adhere to format rules.

- Engage in dialogue during cross-examination.

**Policy: Strategic Approaches**

- Conduct thorough research.

- Utilize evidence effectively.

- Organize arguments logically.

- Adapt strategies based on opponents' responses.

• Master cross-examination techniques.

Strategic Relevance: Stay Focused

- Prioritize arguments of strategic importance.

- Emphasize clarity over speed.

- Focus on quality over quantity.

- Aim for substantive contributions.

- Use evidence judiciously.

- Employ re-highlighting strategically.

Judge's Perspective: Valued Qualities

- Practice active listening.

- Evaluate arguments objectively.

- Strive for excellence while enjoying the process.

- Maintain an inquisitive mindset.

- Apply open-mindedness and critical thinking.

- Exhibit confidence in arguments and delivery.

Impact Weighing: Guiding Evaluation

- Explain why your impacts outweigh your opponent's.

- Master impact weighing for persuasive arguments.

In conclusion, regular practice, feedback-seeking, and a commitment to improvement are essential for success in debating. Best wishes in your debating endeavors!

Warm regards

Email: temini532@gmail.com

Conflicts: None

PF: Most of my debate background is in policy. High school and college. PF debate should adhere to evidence standards. Full source citations and quotes in context. Challenges for full PDFs should be limited to serious questions regarding the source or quotes without sufficient context.

I am open to all types of argumentation provided work is devoted to development in round.

CD: I expect the same quality of evidence as any debate event. Arguments should be adequately supported with quality topic literature. As debate progresses on individual bills/resolutions, I expect participants to adapt to the evolving content. Developing arguments in nuanced and novel ways or refuting the opposition with sound analysis is necessary late in the debate.

stanbanks@gmail.com

I graduated from the University of Florida with a BS in Advertising. I have worked in high-tech sales, marketing and advertising. I am looking for strong speakers, clear arguments, good evidence and professionalism in tone and body language. Please do not spread. If I cannot understand you, I cannot follow your contentions.

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 17 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 9 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). **I don't vote on defense. It's important but you won't win on a defensive answer.**

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.

*Note: Because PF has such limited time, I am not huge on theory in PF especially if both speakers are not especially used to them. Please only run theory if it is especially egregious, even though I like theory debate. There is a big difference between when a debate has 7-8 minutes of speaking time vs 3-4*

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. PLEASE I DONT WANT TO HEAR DISCLOSURE LITERALLY READ ANYTHING ELSE IM BEGGING YOU. IN PF IT IS AN AUTO LOSS TO READ DISCLOSURE THEORY I AM VERY SERIOUS. I WILL JUST NOT FLOW. PLEASE READ THIS.

Most other theory I evaluate in round. I don't tend to go for blippy theory arguments though! Reasonability is a good answer. Prefer competing interp.

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.

PF: I get you want to be cool, but please make sure you know your opponent would be okay with it. Email or contact them ahead of time. As I said above with theory, it makes me really uncomfortable to judge rounds where only one side is familiar with this type of debate. I am happy to run k rounds so long as everyone is cool with it.

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 for LD:

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.

PF:

Policy/LARP

Traditional

K

Theory

NO TRICKS WHATSOEVER ITS AN AUTO LOSS

I know this makes me sound kind of intense, I promise I'm not. I really love debate, but I also don't like messy debate that feels super one sided and could be avoided if we check in and make sure everyone is cool with the kind of debate we are having. In PF, if you can't get ahold of your opponent I prefer if you stick to lay and presume they are a lay team. In LD go to town

As a lay judge with a background as a history teacher, I prioritize credible sources, thorough research, and a well-structured debate. Make sure to use clear introductory statements, smooth transitions, and frequently connect your arguments to the resolution. If your argument is not clear to me, I won't be able to support it. Assess the significance of your impacts, explain why your evidence is superior, and justify why your argument should prevail. Avoid spreading your arguments too thin, and please refrain from wasting time during evidence calls—it leaves a negative impression. Be respectful towards your opponents, enjoy the process, and present your best work.

I competed in PF for five years, so I am not too picky when it comes to what tactics you decide to use throughout the round, or a specific method of formatting your case. I don’t mind spreading at all, as long as you enunciate and speak with a clear tone. If you feel as though your case is strongest with more information in it, try it out, and if I cannot understand you, I will make that known. I will weigh impacts and evidence equally to how you decide to compose yourself throughout the round. My only real pet peeve is going over time and speaking over your opponents, you should be able to make an impact without either of those things. Good luck and have fun!!

About me:

I have only ever debated on the collegiate level. I started debating for UCF's team in 2022. I do a lot of IPDA debate (more of a "people's" debate similar to PF), and I have also done TIPDA, Parli, and BP. I have experience with policy debate, value-rounds, and fact rounds.

General Notes:

I treat each round tabula rosa

I won't do much work for you. If you think I should know something, then mention it in the round. For example, if your opponent drops something, mention that in your speech!

Arguments should stand on their own. If you use debatey terms, I want to see that explained in laymens terms, and an explanation of what that means and why it's important. Ex. Don't just say "topicality," you need to explain how your opponent doesn't address the topic.

I should be able to follow what you are saying

I like a good, clean debate :)

Also, pretty please treat your opponents with respect. We're trying to have fun and learn, as well as win!

Evidence:

I like evidence to be relevant, digestable, and reputable! I will not treat a source from joemama'sblog.com the same as a source from PEW Research.

Please refer to the actual evidence in the round, not just refer to it by name :) Explain why your evidence is important!

Your cards should be easily accessible - if you spend a long time looking for your evidence I will ask you to drop a card (if it takes you like 5 minutes I'm probably gonna assume you're making it up)

If I think a source sounds fishy, I will reel it in (I will call your card - yes that was an attempt at a joke). Please don't make stuff up. If you don't have the evidence fall back on logic.

"common knowledge" should actually be common knowledge.

Speaking:

I like clear, concise speech. I am perfectly fine with, and would actually encourage, a conversational speech style.

I am fine with speaking quickly, but there is a fine line between speaking fast and spreading. Please don't spread :) If I can't flow it then it can't be in my decision.

Have Fun!

First, let me say that I'm truly impressed by the caliber of person who invites this kind of challenge in their lives. Already, you win in my book. I appreciate the opportunity to witness your talent. I am generally new to judging, but if I had to categorize myself, I would say I'm a "flay" judge. I have a background in law and philosophy. I value logical arguments that are supported with evidence. I will not judge based on my prior knowledge, but on the arguments and evidence that you provide. I expect civility as a baseline. Present a strong enough case that you win on merits, not bravado. I appreciate if you can be specific when weighing instead of only talking in generalities. Also, I cannot give you credit for that which I cannot understand, so do not forsake communication for content. In other words, be careful when spreading. If your opponent(s) and I can't understand your arguments because you don't articulate, then you don't get credit for them. Lastly, because I will be flowing, I will know whether you provide an honest representation during summary arguments. Good luck!

I am thrilled to be the head Speech & Debate coach for Olympia High School. I also teach Debate intro, intermediate and advanced classes every day.

In a speech or debate, I look for clear, crisp diction and organized thought. I also work closely with my local Toastmasters club and value good speech mechanics. Also in the spirit of Toastmasters, I strive to point out strengths that the competitor should make sure to continue as well as areas for development in my evaluations.

I have judged both Speech & Debate events on the national and local circuit for several years. I am not a fan of spreading, progressive debate or K cases. I prefer a traditional debate style. I value solid links and impacts and debaters that can take a complicated subjects and distill them down to solid clear points. Off-time road maps are preferred.

As a debate judge, I focus on evaluating argument quality, logic, and delivery. I believe in the importance of collaboration among judges and participants to create a supportive environment. Clear communication is essential, ensuring competitors understand their strengths and areas for improvement. I foster trust to encourage respectful dialogue and openness. By being adaptable in my evaluations, I consider the unique contexts of each debate.

I am a lay judge but a former English teacher and librarian, and as teachers go, I'm pretty old school.

-I insist on credible sources, quality research, and a well-organized debate.

-Please use introductory statements, transitions, and make frequent connections between the resolution and your contentions. If I cannot follow your argument, I cannot vote for it.

-I find that nine out of ten times a PF debate is just an evidence clash. So don't just spew your evidence; tell me why it matters and why I should vote for you.

-Avoid spreading. I need to understand you.

-PLEASE do not waste time when calling for evidence. It really leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

-Be respectful of your opponents, have fun, and present your best self.

I am a parent judge. I have judged speech mostly, and have done some LD rounds. I like to hear novel ideas presented with clear, identifiable facts. I like debaters that speak slower rather than fast. I appreciate when you make eye contact, speak loud and clear and are engaging. I will keep time for myself, but let me know if I have to do it for you as well. Try to use and mention your sources, as this is something that I consider when grading a good debate. I don’t have any bias in regards of affirmative or negative positions, you only need to be convincing with your speech!