46th University of Pennsylvania Tournament
2021
—
Philadelphia / Online,
PA/US
Speech Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
Michaela Ablon
Convent of the Sacred Heart, NYC
None
Jishi Aerath
West Windsor Plainsboro South
8 rounds
None
Alex Aloian
Hire
8 rounds
None
Sara Altschuler
Wellington
None
Susan Avarde
Convent of the Sacred Heart, NYC
None
Alexia Ayuk
Our Lady of Good Counsel
None
Tali Balas
Convent of the Sacred Heart, NYC
None
Maggie Blosky
Gwynedd Mercy
None
Ellen Boyer
Shikellamy High School
None
Abby Brachio
The Bronx High School Of Science
Last changed on
Fri February 3, 2023 at 8:47 AM EDT
I am currently the Head Speech Coach for The Bronx High School of Science. Formerly, I competed in info, extemp, congress, and PF for Apple Valley High School in Apple Valley, Minnesota.
Speech: To get my 1, you will need to do a few things. First, you should be memorized. Being on script often makes speakers less conversational and less able to do convincing tech. Second, your speech should be around 10:00 minutes. You should be using the full time that you are given to tell your story. I will not give the 1 to speeches over 10:30 if tournament rules specify that, but I will not drop you for going slightly over time. Third, if I find your speech to be offensive, I will drop you. This community should be one that is open to diversity and celebrating it, not turning people's identities into caricatures. I will write on your ballot what specific joke or character I found to be too offensive so you can hopefully change it. Next, I will be judging you on both your performance and the other things you do while in the room. I believe that good speakers have good ethos, and it will be difficult to give you a high rank if you were a bad or distracting audience member for your fellow speakers. If you are performing with a binder, feel free to use it as a prop. In fact, I love to see creative binder tech. In OO and extemp, I am looking for solid arguments backed up with research. I want to hear your citations. Outside examples and personal stories are welcome. In interp events, I want to see clean and creative blocking and very distinct characters. Basically, I am looking to give my 1 to good people who speak well.
Congress: Like in Speech, I look for good people who speak well. I believe that good debaters have good ethos, and it will be difficult to give you a high rank if you were a bad or distracting audience member for your fellow debaters. On evidence, I am looking for solid arguments backed up with research. I want to hear your sources. Excessive rehash will be penalized. Congress is a debate event, so I like to see clash. Ask good pointed questions and engage in the debate. That said, overly aggressive speakers will not rank highly. As parliamentarian, I will pay attention to the types of arguments and tactics you use throughout the tournament. I like to see logical consistency. For instance, I don't like to see debaters who advocate for isolationism on one bill and open borders on another.
Public Forum: I'll be honest, even though I competed in public forum for three years, I'm still a pretty lay judge. If you are going to speak quickly, then make sure you are very clear because I cannot vote for an argument that I do not hear. My favorite arguments are niche policy arguments that are impacted with regular people saving money or lives not being lost. I will not consider arguments that are not discussed in every speech up to the final focus. I will give arguments the weight that you do. If you say something is important, prove why. Arguments made in crossfire should be reiterated in speeches because I won't flow it. I base my speaker points mainly on how a speaker conducts themselves in cross-examination. I bring a lot of the mindset I have for speech into the debate space and I am looking to support good people who speak well. If you make clear arguments with impacts that link and are not a jerk, you will get high speaker points and will likely win the round. I will drop any team that I feel is being overtly or intentionally offensive. I don't need to see your evidence unless it is highly contested in the round and the deciding factor. Also, in cross, ask questions. You can't go on a rant and end it with "right?" and call that a question. Not gonna lie, I hate off time roadmaps; just signpost!
Good luck to everyone competing and I hope you enjoy your day!
Teo Brugnerotto
Our Lady of Good Counsel
None
Hannah Burmahl
Millburn High School
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 4:44 AM CDT
Hi! I'm an IE/debate judge residing in Chicago and working in finance, and am also an assistant high school speech coach. In high school my focus was persuasive/OO and poetry interp, and in college I expanded my events to include duo, impromptu, POI. You name it, I did it. I lead my college's team as one of the 3 student lead collegiate teams in the country, so I know the hard work it takes to not only put together pieces/write/prep, but to lead a team simultaneously.
FOR SPEECH:
1. Quality over quantity. In written events, sources are great to get your point across, but too many can disrupt your thesis. Delve into your sources more and give me concrete, flowing explanations. Do not put sources in just to "have them" or meet your source quota.
2. Include trigger warnings. I do not have any personal triggers that will affect me judging your piece, but your peers who are watching might. Be respectful of everyone you might encounter.
3. Interp Events - Give Me SUBSTANCE! The emotional range of topics vary greatly. Emotions are valid and should be part of an interp piece. However, too much emotion where it isn't warranted during the performance shows me you may be trying to cover up for not having enough substantial material.
3. Be Yourself. Coming from a speech background myself, I know trying to "butter up" the judges may seem like a good idea, but it does not work with me. I am here for your performance. Show me what you've worked on and the reward follows.
FOR DEBATE:
I also have experience judging Congress and LD. For the purpose of this week's tournament, in LD I look for the following:
1. Let the opponent ask questions in their entirety during cross x. There could be a bit of information in the question that could be very relevant to how you answer, and if you miss that piece of information, that is on you. Make sure everyone has the right to speak and finish their questions.
2. Focus on your opponent's information. Really show me you are listening to what they are saying and add that into your rebuttal and cross x. I know you've been working really hard on your personal research for this topic, but I look for someone who listens to their opponent and use that information to help their argument and cross x. It shows an attentive, experienced speaker in the round.
3. Start out with substance over theory. Starting with theory is a much bigger hurdle to overcome and you may not have enough time in your speeches to enhance, yet alone, prove them.
4. Balance out your recent and past history examples. Too many recent history examples (especially with the November/December topic), leads me to believe you are just searching for the easiest examples, the first ones that come up when researching. Dig deeper, show me you researched the past, say, 70 years or so!
Kate Carolan
Union Catholic
None
Anthony Cerulli
Fontbonne Hall Academy
None
Alexandra Chabanov
Xaverian High School
None
Tiffany Chang
West Point Grey Academy
None
Cedrick Charles
Suncoast Comm High School
None
Anuradha Chattaraj
Ridge High School
None
Felicia Chen
The Bronx High School Of Science
Last changed on
Sat February 13, 2021 at 3:28 AM EDT
Hello all! My name is Felicia Chen and I am a freshman in college. I have been in speech for four years but this is my first time judging. I have performed in DI, OI, and Declamation. I find in a great speech elements of storytelling, good body language, eye contact, a wide range of tone variation, and personal voice. I look forward to working with you!
Massimo Cifelli
Holy Ghost Prep
None
Lily Coilparampil
Fordham Preparatory School
Last changed on
Mon February 5, 2024 at 4:10 PM EDT
please be nice to me, i am but a simple fool
but for realz y'all, this is early early in my debate judging career (aka the first one was princeton '22) so, in the words of adele, go eaaaaaasssssyyyyy on me
you have free will, but i do not know what a counterplan, a k, a disad, or theory are so don't expect me to understand those. i only know these words because my girlfriend know what they are and told me to write them
for everyone's convenience, please give roadmaps and sign posts as you go and speak at an understandable/intelligible speed. don't expect me to read your mind or do your work for you. that kind of defeats the purpose of this whole "debate" thing
if you're sharing cases, my email is lcoilparampil@gmail.com
if i give verbal RFDs, please write them as we go
Colleen Cunniffe
Conestoga High School
8 rounds
None
Erin Daily
Bishop Shanahan High School
None
Dawna Dawson
Timber Creek HS
None
Gerard Deeney
St. Joseph's Prep
8 rounds
None
Milind Dham
Bridgewater Raritan
None
Robert Espiritu
Regis High School
None
Libah Farooqi
Ridge High School
None
Mark Fegley
Newton South High School
None
Jacqueline Fernandes
West Windsor Plainsboro South
None
Stephanie Fletcher
Ridge High School
None
Jocelyn Folk
Stow-Munroe Falls High School
8 rounds
None
Ira Gelman
Perkiomen Valley High School
8 rounds
None
Melissa Gibbons
Convent of the Sacred Heart, NYC
None
Leonard Goodkin
Newton South High School
None
Mary Gormley
Delbarton School
Last changed on
Thu May 2, 2024 at 12:24 PM EDT
I am an experienced judge in both speech and debate, having coached for 30+ years in all categories offered within the spectrum of S&D. I began coaching Lincoln Douglas and Congressional Debate in the 1990’s, have coached PF since its inception, having coached the first PF team that represented NJ at Nationals in Atlanta, GA. I currently coach the NJ World Teams.
I am a flow judge who looks for logical arguments, a valid framework, and substantiation of claims made within your case. As a teacher of rhetoric, I appreciate word economy and precise language. Do not default to speed and redundancy to overwhelm. Persuade concisely; synthesize your thoughts efficiently. Be articulate. Keep your delivery at a conversational rate.
A good debate requires clash. I want to see you find and attack the flaws in your opponents’ arguments, and respond accordingly in rebuttal. Cross examination should not be a waste of time; it is a time to clarify. It is also not a time for claws; be civil, particularly in grand crossfire.
Disclosure is not a discussion or a renewed debate. Personally, I am not a fan, in large part, because of a few unwarranted challenges to my decision. You are here to convince me; if you have not, that will drive my RFD.
Biren Gosalia
Livingston High School
None
Pamela Guarrera
Loyola School
None
Lewis Gurgis
Democracy Prep Harlem
None
Summer Haas
State College Area High School
None
Lilly Hanko
McDowell HS
None
Susan Hayes
Archmere Academy
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 2:30 PM EDT
I am tabula rasa; did policy debate in HS and college. Fine with speed and K.
Andrea Herb
Bishop Shanahan High School
None
John Herron
Fontbonne Hall Academy
None
George Hollyer
Strath Haven
Last changed on
Fri May 21, 2021 at 8:42 PM EDT
Updated 5/21/21 for NCFL Finals
About Me:
Strath Haven HS '18 - 1 year policy, 2 years Extemp
University of Pennsylvania '22 - I don't do debate here
I did policy for one year in '15-'16 and then extemp my junior and senior years of HS.
On this topic:
Just to be clear, I have not judged this years topic at all. Whatever arguments you employ are new to me in a debate context. I know how to flow but consistent signposting would be a big help.
On Specific Arguments:
Case, DA's, Counterplan's - Just make it clear how what you are doing furthers your side in the debate and counters the other. CP's need to have good justification as to why they are distinct from the plan.
Topicality - With good grounds and compelling reason. However, you need to show why the violation is actually a violation in addition to why the voting reason is relevant and important to activity.
Kritiks - I never utilized these as a debater so my understanding of them in a debate is limited at best. If you do go for them, make sure to explain them clearly.
Theory, Critical Affirmatives - Basically no experience. I likely cannot follow you if you go for this. Read at your own risk.
Jim Honeyman
Newton South High School
None
Jeffrey Houser
Gettysburg Area High School
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 8:42 AM EDT
Certified PA Social Studies teacher for 8 years now. 4 of which I have taught Government and Economics. 2020 is my first year participating in Speech and Debate and I'm eager to continue to learn more. I do prefer a moderate pace when speaking rather than a speedy rate since I would rather hear your argument than judge based on how many words you can get in within the timeframe. Follow the three guides below for a sense of what I look for!
1. Engage arguments with discernment. Disagreement is always welcome, however, engage with the specific argument and not your prewritten counters.
2. Be consistent in your debate. Beginning, End, and throughout your counters/rebuttals. Build your story/argument and do not deviate, Instead, defend a cohesive worldview throughout the round – and pull that story through extending both warrants and impacts.
3. Be respectful: Exercise good judgment. If you do something that a majority of reasonable people would find unkind, offensive or rude I will stop to give a violation.
Tara Hughes
Solebury School
None
Joe Iuni
Xaverian High School
None
Luv Iyer
Downingtown STEM Academy
Last changed on
Thu February 4, 2021 at 4:51 PM EDT
Please don't talk too fast - I'd like to hear and process everything you're saying. To win the debate in my eyes, you have to convince me why your side saves more lives, provides better economic opportunities, better ensures the safety of citizens, etc. If your weighing mechanism is different than your opponents' (you argue that your side provides better economic opportunity, while your opponents argue that their side saves more lifes) argue to me why your weighing mechanism matters more (or even better, how your side satisfies your opponents' weighing mechanism more than their own argument e.g. wider economic opportunities will save more lives in the long run). Just because you say your point negates one of your opponents' contentions doesn't mean I will believe you. You've got to convince me.
Vinayak Jayaprakash
CR North High School
Last changed on
Fri December 4, 2020 at 7:02 AM EDT
For PFD
I am a traditional judge, believing PFD is not Policy or LD, please stick the tenants that established what PFD was and still should be. Speed is deterred, if you speak too quickly those contentions and cards are dropped , slower pace and stronger arguments win out. Please be respectful and, when asking for cards or evidence please have readily available, if not, the time will be taken from your prep time, especially if the inability to locate and send is abusive.
Thank you and looking forward to a great debate
For LD
I am a traditional judge, believing LD is not Policy, please stick the tenants that established what LD was and still should be. Speed is okay, I can flow, but if it sounds like you are choking when speaking, you are speaking too quickly and those contentions and cards are dropped , slower pace and stronger arguments win out. Please be respectful and, when asking for cards or evidence please have readily available, if not, the time will be taken from your prep time, especially if the inability to locate and send is abusive.
Thank you and looking forward to a great debate
Bin Jiang
Sunset High School
None
Brian Johnson
Henderson
None
Vanaja Karumuru
Sunset High School
None
Aakhil Kassim
CR North High School
Last changed on
Tue January 26, 2021 at 9:19 AM EDT
My specialty is in dramatic and humorous speeches. I was an experienced competitor for those categories so I've seen a lot and am familiar with many of the skills that are required to make an impactful presentation. While not my main task, I also occasionally judge debate-style formats and have picked up what to look for in those as well.
As a judge for speech, I want to see students utilize and control the core speaking techniques of their format with consistency. On top of that, I also want students to innovate in finding ways to get the point across. Put simply, a speech should be coherent but not be conformist! That doesn't mean break the rules, just try new things and blow people's minds! A lot of that comes down to energy, effort, and preparedness which helps me as a judge tell if you really care about what you are doing. These fundamentals also translate to debates as well, when you are passionate about your position, your drive to make a solid argument amplifies! I want to see all of that!
My overall philosophy is that a competitor should be courteous and respectful to everyone. In speeches, I dislike excessive and unnecessary cussing and monotony. In debates, I dislike spreading and derailing the discussion to a completely unrelated subject. In any case, I appreciate positivity and profundity. Thanks!
Megan Keim
Germantown Friends School
None
David Kennedy
Regis High School
None
Sonya Kim
The Bronx High School Of Science
None
Adam King
Metropolitan Expeditionary Learning School
None
Lee Klausner
Convent of the Sacred Heart, NYC
None
Daniel Klein
West Windsor Plainsboro South
None
Dominique Kopko
Xaverian High School
Last changed on
Wed May 26, 2021 at 3:52 PM EDT
Hi, my name is Dominique and I am an assistant coach at my HS alma mater, where I competed in congress, extemp, and OO.
That said, I have experience judging some debate at the local level, but I am more often judging speech. I am a flow judge to the best of my ability, but spreading is not in your best interest. It is likely better that you don’t run any high level theory in front of me: straightforward, well-warranted arguments with clear impacts, good clash in rebuttals, and ample weighing are your best path to victory, not convoluted theory and technicalities. Tech over truth won’t win me over. In PF, write my ballot for me in summary and final focus, clear voting issues and framing of the round are a must. In LD, clear brightlines in the value criterion are a must, and clear weighing in the rebuttals and delineating the lines of clash will be helpful in writing my ballot. If you go over your allotted time, I will stop writing and raise my hands. If I didn't write it down, It wont be judged.
Good luck to everyone! You guys are awesome for choosing such a difficult categories and I have nothing but the utmost respect for all of you for it. I look foreword to hearing some great debates! :)
Judy Kurland
St. Joseph's Prep
None
Leah Lagalo
Wellington
None
Tracey Lee
West Point Grey Academy
None
Belinda Li
Bridgewater Raritan
None
Monica Lin
Ridge High School
None
Alexandra Lounsbury
Pennsbury High School
None
Macie Mackey
Sunset High School
None
Alison Manaker
Strath Haven
8 rounds
Last changed on
Tue November 17, 2020 at 5:25 PM EDT
Alison Manaker
Strath Haven
I am a parent judge who pays close attention to the quality of arguments and responses. No spreading, no tricks, no Ks, no theory, nothing circuit. Please speak at a conversational pace (be clear -- I'll call clear once before dropping your speaks). I want to hear logically constructed arguments with good quality evidence. No contrived extinction scenarios. I take detailed notes of arguments and responses, but I do not flow. No jargon. Truth>tech
Please have evidence! Please have good evidence. Please do explicit evidence comparison --- I, and you, will be much happier if you point out powertagged evidence, unqualified authors, and clearly explain why your studies and warrants are better than your opponents'.
Shikha Manchanda
Bridgewater Raritan
None
Joe Masco
Metropolitan Expeditionary Learning School
None
Kevin Math
Regis High School
None
Sahana Mathiarasan
Strath Haven
None
Laura Murray-Tjan
Milton Academy
None
Dhanasekar Muthusamy
Bridgewater Raritan
Last changed on
Thu January 19, 2023 at 5:01 PM EDT
I am a parent judge with few public forum judging experience. The use of jargon during rebuttals should be kept to a minimum. My vote goes to the team who persuaded more with key arguments. I prefer medium-slow speed during debate to observe the flow. And I prefer arguments with facts, evidence and logical reasoning. Keep track of your own and opponents time.
Ram Naidu
Newton South High School
None
Jeremy Norris
Xavier High School
8 rounds
Last changed on
Wed February 28, 2024 at 6:06 PM EDT
* Congress *
Just a couple notes on places where I may differ from certain other judges.
First: I see Congress as a true speech AND debate event. Rhetoric, passion, body language, facial expression, changes in pace & tone, the use of pathos & humor (where appropriate) -- these things matter! If your speech is three straight minutes of speed-reading through a list of arguments and cites, you'll absolutely get credit for the evidence & argumentation, but you'll also get dinged for treating it as a CX round, which it is not.
And, second: I find I'm much more impressed by discernible consequences than by abstract notions of fairness or inequity. That doesn't mean you shouldn't talk about big ideas, about right & wrong -- that's great, by all means you should include it. But if, for example, your Neg speech boils down to, 'Alright, the bill is better than the status quo and, sure, no one in particular is really harmed by it. But the legislation doesn't go far enough, and the benefits of the bill are distributed in an unequal way, therefore the bill is unjust and we must negate' ... then to my thinking you've accidentally given an Aff speech. Oops.
History has shown that not all judges see this issue the same way I do, and that's fine. But if you're trying to game my ballot, show me tangible harms or tangible benefits.
Oluwadamilare Odukomaiya
Newark Central High School
None
Chidera Okeke
Newark Central High School
None
Precious Olajobi
North Star Academy High School
None
Victoria Ono
The Bronx High School Of Science
None
Ashley Pinnell
Loyola School
None
Sarah Pita
Strath Haven
None
Amy Qin
Bridgewater Raritan
None
sarah ramberran
North Star Academy High School
None
Priyanka Sharma
Mission San Jose High School
None
Cory Shay
Gwynedd Mercy
None
Sanjath Shringeri
Mission San Jose High School
None
Michelle Sibel
Perkiomen Valley High School
None
Daniel Siegel
Summit HS
None
Brent Smith
Our Lady of Good Counsel
None
Dominic Smith
Milton Academy
None
Xavier Smith
Perry High School
None
John Spezio
Regis High School
None
Sheila Spiezio
Regis High School
None
Carrie Spina
Tuscarwaras Valley HS
None
Drake Spina
Tuscarwaras Valley HS
None
Kavya Sreeram
Pennsbury High School
None
Dominique Sullivan
Xaverian High School
None
Mei-Belle Sun
Strath Haven
None
Heidi Swinford
Tuscarwaras Valley HS
8 rounds
None
Kathryn Tereshko
Gwynedd Mercy
None
Meghan Terry
Summit HS
None
Tom Thorpe
Ridge High School
Last changed on
Fri February 23, 2024 at 2:33 PM EDT
I have over a quarter-century of experience in the dynamics of corporate environments, navigating the nuanced terrains of high-stakes boardroom discussions, strategic planning sessions, and vigorous debates with both peers and executives at the highest levels. These experiences have not only underscored the profound influence of adept speech and debate in shaping outcomes but have also instilled a deep appreciation for the art of persuasion, critical thinking, and collaborative problem-solving. Additionally, I’ve been a proud member of SAG-AFTRA for three decades which has enriched this perspective, reinforcing the indispensable value of performance, passion, and precision in communication. This unique mixture of corporate strategy and theatrical expression has profoundly informed my understanding of the transformative power of effective communication—whether it's captivating an audience on stage or influencing decision-making in business.
The model I adopt as a judge in these debates is deeply rooted in the conviction that quality, not quantity, of argumentation reigns supreme. It is a philosophy born out of real-world applications where the power of a well-articulated, passionately delivered argument can pivot the course of discussions, sway opinions, and forge consensus. It is a testament to the belief that the essence of impactful communication lies not in the volume of information conveyed but in the ability to craft arguments that resonate on a deeper, more meaningful level with one's audience.
While it may be tempting to speak rapidly and provide copious amounts of information, I'd like to encourage you to consider the following points that I feel are important:
The Power of Persuasion: In the world of Parliamentary Debate/PF, your ultimate goal is not just to present information but to persuade your audience. Whether you're addressing policy makers, executives, or peers, your ability to convince them of your viewpoint is paramount. Quality arguments, backed by sound reasoning and passion, have a far greater impact with me than a sheer volume of facts and figures.
Effective Communication: Imagine you are addressing a boardroom full of executives or a panel of policy experts. In these real-world scenarios, they are not looking for information overload but for a clear and concise articulation of your ideas. For me, there is only so much information I can consume, digest, and absorb in a given period of time. If you race through arguments you run the risk of diminishing the impact and persuasiveness of your case.
Memorability and Impact: Quality arguments are memorable. They linger in the minds of your audience long after the debate is over. Quantity may overwhelm momentarily, but it often fails to leave a lasting impression. In the real world, your ability to make a lasting impact is a valuable skill.
Real-World Application: Consider that the skills you are developing in Parliamentary Debate/PF are not just for competition; they are for life. In professional settings, you will encounter situations where you need to influence decisions, present ideas, and lead discussions. The ability to make a compelling case while maintaining clarity and coherence is a prized skill.
I want to emphasize that, as a judge, I place a greater emphasis on the qualities that make an argument compelling and persuasive rather than solely focusing on technical details. Craft your speeches with precision, emphasizing persuasive language, tone, and clarity. Remember that your power lies not in overwhelming your audience but in persuading them effectively.
Rani Thumma
Bridgewater Raritan
None
Bill Tsai
Unionville
None
Mel Turnage
Suncoast Comm High School
None
Jasmine Ukegbu
North Star Academy High School
None
Jeremy Valle
Xaverian High School
Last changed on
Fri January 5, 2024 at 11:14 AM EDT
Hi! My name is Jeremy Valle and I am an assistant coach at my HS alma mater, where I competed in Congressional Debate, Public Forum Debate, Lincoln Douglas Debate, Extemporaneous Speaking, Declamation, and Oral Interpretation.
That said, I have experience judging some debate at the local level, but I am more often judging speech or Congress. I am a flow judge to the best of my ability, but spreading is not in your best interest. It is likely better that you don’t run any high level theory in front of me: straightforward, well-warranted arguments with clear impacts, good clash in rebuttals, and ample weighing are your best path to victory, not convoluted theory and technicalities. Tech over truth won’t win me over. In PF, write my ballot for me in summary and final focus, clear voting issues and framing of the round are a must. In LD, clear bright-lines in the value criterion are a must, and clear weighing in the rebuttals and delineating the lines of clash will be helpful in writing my ballot. If you go over time, I will stop taking notes and will not consider anything you've said after your given time has elapsed. Anything not on the flow will not be considered.
Wendy Vaulton
Newton South High School
None
Joseph Veliakath
Union Catholic
Last changed on
Sun January 17, 2021 at 4:20 AM EDT
Be respectful of one another as I will be respectful of you. Please slow down the pacing of your speeches so I can hear what each of you have to say. Also, please give each other a chance to speak, particularly during crossfire. Lastly, per request of my fellow coaches/judges at my high school, I will not be disclosing who won the round at the end of a debate.
Last changed on
Fri December 11, 2020 at 4:49 AM EDT
I'm a parent judge with experience judging LD and extemp. Please be clear and signpost your arguments well. No spreading because I won't vote off what I can't flow. I like to see a strong link chain with good warrants for all of your arguments, and I won't buy arguments that I can't understand. Most of all, don't be rude in round, and have fun debating :)
Rebecca Wendover
Pennsbury High School
None
Lawrence White
William Tennent High School
None
Christina Woolard
Ridge High School
None
David Yastremski
Ridge High School
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:25 PM EDT
David Yastremski
Director - Ridge High School
30+ years experience coaching and judging
LD/PF/PARLI
I'm considered a very traditional flow judge within the various competitive debate arenas. I appreciate slightly-higher than conversational rates as a maximum. I will afford you a 'clear' if necessary.
I do expect and reward debate with a clear framework of understanding. I also like direct application of your argument to clear and defined system(s). I don’t believe we exist in a vacuum – there must be context for me to consider and weigh an argument, and I recognize the resolution is created and should be interpreted within a particular context. Therefore, hypothetical worlds must be warranted as reasonable within a pragmatic context developed within the resolution. I appreciate creative, though plausible and non-abusive, House interpretations in Parliamentary rounds.
In LD and PF, all evidence must be clearly tagged and clearly linked to the grounds within your claims. In Parliamentary, examples should be true, contextually-defined, when appropriate, and directly linked to your claims. You can create hypothetical examples or indicate your personal beliefs on an issue; however, if you are unsure what a particular constitutional amendment or Supreme Court decision states, please avoid introducing it. Also, where tag-teaming is permitted, proceed with caution. One or two interjections is fine. More than that diminishes your partner's voice/skill and will be considered in speaker points and, if excessive, the RFD.
Crystallization is key to winning the round. Be sure you allow yourself ample time to establish clear grounds and warrants on all voters. I don’t consider arguments just because they are uttered; you must explain the ‘why’ and the ‘so what’ in order for me to weigh them in my decision, in other words, directly impact them to the framework/standards. I do appreciate clear signposting throughout the round in order to make the necessary links and applications to other arguments, and I will give you more speaker points if you do this effectively. Speaker points are also rewarded for competence, clarity, and camaraderie during the round. In LD and PF, I will not give below a 26 unless you're rude and/or abusive.
Overall, please remember, I may not be as well-read on the resolution as you are. I do not teach at camps; I don’t teach debate in any structured class, nor do I judge as regularly or frequently as others. I will work hard to reach the fairest decision in my capacity. I really enjoy judging rounds where the contestants make a concerted effort to connect with me and my paradigm. I don't enjoy rounds where I or my paradigm is ignored. Thanks for reading this far!! Best of luck in your round.
CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE:
I have 25+ years experience in Congressional 'Debate' and REALLY enjoy judging/parli'ing great rounds! I evaluate 'student congress' as a debate event; hence, if you are early in the cycle, I am looking for clear affirmative and negative grounds to establish clash and foundation for the remainder of the debate. If you speak later in the cycle, I expect extensions and refutations of what has already been established as significant issues in the debate (beyond just name dropping). I see each contribution on the affirmative and negative sides as extensions of the previous speeches presented; consequently, if there is a significant argument that has not been addressed to by opponents, I expect later speakers to build and expand on it to strengthen it. Likewise, if speakers on the other side do not respond to a significant issue, I will consider it a 'dropped argument' which will only increase the ranking of the student who initially made it, and lower the rankings of students who failed to recognize, respond or refute it; however, it is the duty of questioners to challenge opposing speakers thus reminding the room (including the judges) on significant arguments or issues that have gone unrefuted. In other words, students should flow the entire round and incorporate that information into their speeches and questions. I also highly encourage using the amendment process to make legislation better. Competitors who attempt it, with germane and purposeful language, will be rewarded on my ballot.
Most importantly, enjoy the unique experience of Congressional Debate. There are so many nuances in this event that the speech and debate other events cannot provide. Own and appreciate your opportunity by demonstrating your best effort in respectful dialogue and debate and be your best 'self' in the round. If you do, the rewards will far outweigh the effort.
EVIDENCE: All claims should be sufficiently warranted via credible evidence which ideally include both theoretical and empirical sources. I reward those who consider constitutional, democratic, economic, diplomatic frameworks, including a range of conservative to liberal ideologies, to justify their position which are further substantiated with empirical examples and data. All evidence should be verbally-cited with appropriate source and date. Students should always consider biases and special interests when choosing sources to cite in their speeches. I also encourage students to challenge evidence during refutations or questioning, as time and warrant allows.
PARTICIPATION: I reward participation in all forms: presiding, amending, questioning, flipping, and other forms of engagement that serve a clear purpose to the debate and fluent engagement within the round. One-sided debate indicates we should most likely move on to the next piece of legislation since we are ready to vote; therefore, I encourage students to stand for additional speeches if your competitors are not willing to flip, yet do not wish to move to previous question (as a matter of fact I will highly reward you for 'debating' provided that you are contributing to a meaningful debate of the issues). I expect congressional debaters to remain engaged in the round, no matter what your speaking order, therefore leaving the chamber for extended periods of time is highly discouraged and will be reflected in my final ranking. Arriving late or ending early is disrespectful to the chamber and event. Competitors who appear to bulldoze or disenfranchise others regarding matters of agenda-setting, agenda-amendments, speaking position/sides can also be penalized in ranking. I am not fond of splits before the round as I've seen many students, typically younger folks, coerced into flipping; hence, students should just be ready to debate with what they've prepared. If you are concerned with being dropped, I recommend exploring arguments on both sides of the bill/resolution.
PRESIDING OFFICER: Thank you for being willing to serve the chamber. I look highly upon students who run for PO. If elected, be sure you demonstrate equity and fairness in providing the optimum opportunity for every competitor to demonstrate their skills as a debater and participant in the chamber. I value POs who assert a respectful command and control of the room. Do not allow other competitors to take over without your guidance and appropriate permissions (even during breaks while others may be out of the room). Your procedures of recognizing speakers (including questioning) should be clearly communicated at the top of the round to promote transparency and a respect for all members of the chamber. Mistakes in recency or counting votes happen -- no big deal (just don't make it repetitive). Public spreadsheets are appreciated.
DELIVERY, STYLE and RHETORIC: Good delivery takes the form of an argument and audience-focused presentation style. Authorship/ Sponsorship/ first-negative speeches can be primarily read provided the competitor communicates a well-developed, constructed, and composed foundation of argument. These speeches should be framework and data rich -- and written with a rhetorical prowess that conveys a strong concern and commitment for their advocacy.
After the first speeches, I expect students to extend or refute what has been previously stated - even if offering new arguments. These speeches should be delivered extemporaneously with a nice balance of preparation and spontaneity, demonstrating an ability to adapt your advocacy and reasoning to what has been previously presented. Trivial or generic introductions/closings typically do not get rewarded in my rankings. I would much prefer a short, direct statement of position in the opening and a short, direct final appeal in the closing. Good rhetorical technique and composition in any speech is rewarded.
DECORUM & SUSPENSION OF THE RULES: I highly respect all forms of decorum within the round. I value your demonstration of respect for your colleagues referring to competitors by their titles (senator, representative) and indicated gender identifiers. Avoid deliberate gender-specific language "you guys, ladies and gentlemen" etc. I encourage any suspension of the rules, that are permitted by the tournament, which contribute to more meaningful dialogue, debate, and participation. Motions for a suspension of the rules which reflect a lack of decorum or limit opportunity are discouraged. I also find "I'm sure you can tell me" quite evasive and flippant as an answer.
Christian Yung
Newton South High School
None
Last changed on
Tue January 9, 2024 at 3:19 PM EDT
Hi!
I am a lay parent judge who is very new to debate, I was a speech judge for several years so make so to talk clearly.
Couple of key things
1. Don't be rude or mean to opponents, debate is an educational safe space.
2. No spreading!! I understand the need to go fast but make sure you can be understood or else it's simply counterproductive.
3. Make sure to CRYSTALLIZE and WEIGH and produce a few key voters, really TELL ME why I should be voting on your side!
4. Have fun!
Zhaoqing Zhang
Unionville
None
Zeina Zuaiter
Convent of the Sacred Heart, NYC
None
Samantha Zubler
CR North High School
Last changed on
Sat March 2, 2024 at 4:36 AM EDT
Hello, my name is Sam Zubler! I was part of the speech and debate team for four years (three in mock congress, one in speech), and this is my sixth year helping to judge tournaments. I have the most experience with Speech, but I got a bit of experience with Debate last year.
Still, please try to limit spreading in debate. Clarity is key. Since spreading can be a bit subjective, I created three basic determinations to make my views very transparent. 1) If you are skipping syllables, you are going too fast. 2) If you are tripping over your words and its not obviously nerves, you are going too fast. 3) If you are gasping/panting for breath between sentences, you are going too fast. Otherwise, as long as you don't get Too technical with your arguments, everything should be fine.
I am a fairly lenient judge, but I do focus a lot on presentation skills due to my speech/congress background. This can include fluidity, but it also covers posture, use of movements, facial expressions, appropriate theatrical accents, and some pronunciation skills. If you are well informed and well rehearsed, you should be fine.
As a heads up, I may get super nitpicky if you are really good. This is for the purpose of being able to rank you, because sometimes the tiniest of mistakes or hesitations can decide your ranking. I want you all to be able to know exactly why you got the rank that you did, because I know that I hated unhelpful comments when I used to compete.
Accommodations: if you need any, tell me. Verbal stutter or slurred voice? Tell me. I will not count such things against you IF you tell me. I can't do anything if I don't know.
Feel free to ask me any questions, ideally before the round starts. I look forward to seeing all the creative arguments and speeches!