Last changed on
Fri April 1, 2022 at 9:50 AM EDT
History
I competed at Sherwood HS for all 4 years I was there, specializing in Parli debate and Impromptu speaking. I've dabbled in many other speaking events, however, so I can empathize with the struggles and successes of them. Additionally, I competed for a term on the Whitworth University Forensics team, and it has done a number on coloring my perception on what a good, clean round looks like, particularly in debate.
General
1. Depth Over Breadth - I would much rather hear a few choice contentions with a few solid subcontentions rather than hear many spread out contentions, especially if some of them might easily fit under one roof. The former feels like a bulldozer and the latter feels like you're throwing stuff at a wall and seeing what sticks.
2. Speak Slowly - I'd much rather listen to words spoken with conviction, purpose, and emotion than quickly firing off. Deferring speaking about an opponent's contention or a brief cross-apply is much preferred to speaking a rushed 10 second refutation of it. Take your time to properly address your opponent's contentions and let me know why it contains flawed logic, falls out of the scope of the debate, or is countered by a contention you've made.
3a. Flow - Please flow. If there's one thing that is critical to debate, it's flow. I will usually always be doing it alongside you. Doing it well keeps you organized, which keeps your speeches concise, which makes me happy. With this comes the responsibility of showing me contentions that have flowed through and presenting a strong impact calculus. Your entire case leads up to your impact calculus, from the contentions and refutations you produce all the way to the definitions and the criterion/WM, so failing to accurately and efficiently present it hurts your case a LOT.
3b. Clash - Part of flow is keeping track of clash. Give me some good clash! Explain your cross-apply (if time allows)! If there is little clash and you seem to speak past your opponent's points (and vise versa), I have a really tough time making my decision and end up spitballing because I don't have much of a frame of reference to make my decision by. This puts a lot up in the air, which is no good for me or you.
4. Humor - I highly value humor and taking a slightly (not too much!) colloquial approach to argument. Debate can sometimes get stiff and tense, and when debaters can joke a bit during the round, they put everybody at ease and make the round so much more fun. This paradigm has a much smaller impact on a round than the others (more than anything, good humor means a debater is comfortable, and that can bump up speakers for them), but allows me to have a better time judging the round.
Speaker Points
Anything below a 25 means there's an issue that impacts my ability to comprehend the debate. Speaking way too fast, being disrespectful to your opponents or myself, or being disorganized (to the point that it seriously distracts me) are potential issues that affect my comprehension. 27 is the spot that all debaters 'start in' conceptually before the round starts, and being clear, organized, and concise will keep you here. 28-30 is reserved for speakers who operate at a high clip, speaking in a way that noticeably benefits my ability to comprehend the debate. I love when a debater is willing to go through a muddled case and accurately pull out the key points of both cases and address them, for instance.
Logistics
When I debated, the 2nd Neg Constructive speech in Parli was an oddly contentious one. On multiple occasions, I've heard the argument from Aff that for whatever reason, the Neg is not allowed to bring up new points during this speech. The 2nd Neg Constructive is a 'constructive' for a reason, the Neg is indeed allowed to bring in new points in order to refute points brought up in 2nd Aff Constructive. Perhaps a weird thing to bring up, but I've heard about it a lot and will not accept an argument that 2nd Neg Con can't include new points in it.
Tl;dr - Speaking to your opponents and not at them makes me like you. Using strong logic, proper refutations, and clear evidence makes me like you. Being clear and showing me exactly why you won makes me like you. Making my job easier and being nice makes me like you.
