Speech Paradigm

H! My name is Griffin. It is my pleasure to be your judge for speech. I have judged and coached circuits including NSDA, TOC, WSDA, NHSDLC, CHSSA and GGSA. All topics of speeches are acceptable to me and a more or less emotional piece, performance, speech topic or approach will not automatically score you higher in a round.

Foundational speaking skills are taken heavily into consideration when judging a performance.

Volume -Being clearly heard and not too quiet is essential for engagement with the audience.
Gestures -A moderate balance of gestures are important for visual engagement of the speaker or your characters during a performance.
Eye Contact - Eye contact with an audience shows confidence as well as creates further visual engagement with an audience.
Memorization - Memorized pieces are required in order to score at the top of a round. Memorization means fluency and shows the dedication and practice
Stumbling - If you stumble, fumble your words or other spoken errors. Do not worry, just breathe and continue. You want your speech as confidence as possible.
Emotion - Passion, emotion and tone are very important for conveying the mood of your words to an audience
Stage Presence - A strong speaker will captivate the stage and will make for a much higher score over the course of a round.
Content - If your content is too simple, or not depthful, it will most likely hurt my interest in your piece

Remember to have fun, performance is a gift. You are all very talented and should be proud of your performance.

Debate Paradigm

Hi! My name is Griffin. It is my pleasure to be your judge for debate. I have judged and coached circuits including NSDA, TOC, WSDA, NHSDLC, CHSSA and GGSA. I approach debates with an open-mind and no inherent bias towards any argument pro or con. Tech, Circuit, Flow Judge. This means I take notes on everything and prioritize technical arguments and abilities over emotional narratives.

Very Important

I am not a fan of judge interference. This means I do not like to interject or connect the dots for your team. Succinct explanations are essential for me to be willing to favor your arguments. Lines like, "this helps all of the economy, or this helps society be better" without any explanation is going to be a meaningless sentence. Furthermore, saying "we had bigger impacts, or we have more evidence" without explanation will also hold zero weight in my considerations for your team.

Views on Evidence vs Analytics

1. Firstly, analytics are not a substitute for evidence. This means that you cannot say you have proven a point which is solely built on conjecture and expect me to believe it.
   
   
2. Secondly, evidence must be portrayed accurately. I will ask for a card myself if I feel it is not accurate or too perfectly read. Misrepresented evidence will hurt the overall persuasiveness of your argument.
   
   
3. Thirdly, I weigh evidence as having more value than analytics. This means that if you try to outweigh or deny an argument with solely logic, it will most likely not hold in weight or persuasiveness compared to an effective piece of evidence.

General Things

1. I live for the line-by-line debating.
2. A rebuttal that clearly signposts which part of a contention you are responding to will be taken more effectively.
3. Direct responses with warrants are taken at more value over indirect general responses.
4. Line-by-line frontlines with signposts will be taken at more value than indirect general responses.
5. Spreading is fine for me, and I will not count against it you as long as the speaker has clarity.
6. If you insult your opponent during cross-examination with an attack outside the scope of the debate, I will vote against your team.
7. I flow crossfire examination and take heavy consideration on what happens during crossfire. That being said, if you keep cutting your opponent off and then say, "they did not respond to our points," I will not take that comment at any value. Let your opponent answer the question.
8. Clashes which clearly establish the impact weighing mechanisms (probability, magnitude, timeframe, scope, reversibility) are very effective.
9. No new arguments in Final Focus. New arguments will not be flowed or given any weight in the debate.

Expectations:

Clarity: Clear communication is crucial. Speak at a pace that allows for understanding and enunciation of arguments.

Argumentation: Present well-developed arguments supported by evidence and logic. I value quality over quantity.

Clash: Engage with your opponents' arguments and provide meaningful rebuttals. Directly address the key points of contention.

Weighing: Provide comparative analysis and weigh the impacts of competing arguments. Show why your side's impacts outweigh those of your opponents.

Respect: Maintain professionalism and respect for your opponents throughout the round. Adhere to time limits and avoid disrespectful behavior.

Thank you and I look forward to watching and judging.

Hi, I'm Yang, a senior at Leigh High School.

I've been competing in speech and debate for around 7 years now and taught/coached public speaking and debate for around 3 years. I attempt to be a flow judge. When judging, I try my absolute best to not fill in any blanks during the debate. If you do not explain the impacts or significance of your contentions, I will have no reason to vote for them. Please do impact weighing at some point during the round so I know which side to prefer, do not expect me to do impact weighing for you.

I do value evidence and cards a lot during the debate, but I also understand the use of logic and reasoning. Although I do prefer an argument with a card over one without, I will still weigh a contention-based on logic and reasoning as well. I dislike when teams run a card without understanding the logic behind that card as it can lead to logical fallacies and misunderstood arguments. Please always send cards if your opp asks, I will buy T for disclosure.

I am ok with theory with kritiks, I will buy into them if you explain them well. Make sure to explain the significance of your T or K and why I should prefer T or K or else I will not vote for it. I dislike abuse of power when running K or T. If you run K or T against a newer team that does not understand K or T and do not give them an understanding of your T or K, I will still probably vote for you but give you very low speaker points. In the same sense, if you run a T or K shell in your first speech and drop it mid-round, I very much will dislike it but I will not vote against it unless the other team runs T. Again, if you do this, I will drop your speaker points.

Other small points:

I do not flow cross, I will listen but please extend important responses in speeches.

I have no bias for T or K so please explain why I should vote rather than saying "K should be preferred over T" or vice versa.

Overall I do not like speed. I see no benefit in spreading and am inexperienced with very fast spreading. If the other team runs spreading T and uneven grounds, I probably will buy it. If they do not call spreading out, I will not vote on it but I might drop speaker points.

I will try not to buy new arguments in the rebuttal speeches on purpose, but I still expect a POO from OPP.

If you rap or sing a sentence or phrase of your speech I will give you +0.1 speaker points :D

Sun Tzu - “The opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.”

Hello all! I'm a former Oregon LD and Parli debater who has been away for a few years and am now returning to volunteer judge because I believe in the immense educational power of competitive debate. I won a state championship in LD and Impromptu.

I strive to be a pure flow judge, but also personally leveraged lay debate techniques quite a bit in my own life. However, I will be more apt to give you comments on your delivery than to prioritize these in my decision.

Please feel free to ask me any questions after the debate, to bring your most authentic and creative self to every debate, and to stop the round if you have a serious concern about anything happening.

2013-2017: Competed at Peninsula HS (CA)

I earned 21 bids to the TOC and was a finalist at the NDCA.

Yes I want to be on the email chain, add me: jlebarillec@gmail.com

I am willing to judge, listen to, and vote for anything. Just explain it well. I am not a fan of strategies which are heavily reliant on blippy arguments and frequently find myself holding the bar for answers to poor uneveloped arguments extremely low.

Speed should not be an issue, but be clear.

Clash debates:

Aff — Strategies that impact turn the Negative’s offense in combination with solid defense and/or a counter-interp (good)

Neg — Fairness, debate is a game (good)

skills (less good)

Topicality + Theory: More debating should be done over what debates look like under your model of the topic, less blippy debating at the standards level. Caselists are good and underutilized. I think some Condo is good. I think the Aff should be less scared to extend theory arguments against counterplans that are the most cheaty.

Kritiks: I find the link debate to be the most important here. Most times I vote aff it’s because I don’t know why the plan/Aff is inconsistent with your criticism. Strategies that are dependent on multiple non sequitur link arguments are unlikely to work in front of me.

I think that evidence comparison is extremely important and tends to heavily reward teams who do it more/earlier in the debate.

I founded Able2Shine, a public speaking company. And I have only judged a few debates this year but love the activity. And I want a clear communication round with no speed.

Yes chain: onorthcuttwyly@gmail.com

College: University of Southern California

Pronouns: they/them

ALL: Probably don't care what you read. I read Ks in college on the aff and neg. I tend to default to an offense defense paradigm and section off my flow in big picture ideas

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Policy/CX Debate

I ultimately evaluate truth over tech. With that being said if you are substantially ahead in the tech debate I have a significantly lower threshold for your truth claims.

Presumption on these debates is much easier to win and is a smart arg. If the aff wants presumption to flip you need to tell me that - otherwise presumption is always a valid 2NR option separate advocacy or not.

KvK / Method v Method debates - the K needs to be competitive.

Framework - Go for it but debate the impact turns please with that being said I will default to a competitive activity so there has to be some sort of role for the aff and negative in your model of debate.

Theory - Go for it - diversify yours standards for speaker points here. I won more rounds than I should have on ASPEC, so your theory arg is probably fine w/ me.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Forum Debate

Editing this based on what I saw at last weeks tournament - internal link chains MUST be in the final focus. If the final focus is JUST impacts there is ZERO chance you will get my ballot.

Fast is fine and can be strategic given the short amount of time allocated to speeches.

Off time roadmaps should only consist of the words 'pro case' 'con case' and 'framing'. I start the time if the roadmap > 10 seconds.

ONLINE DEBATE: I expect both pro and con teams to have their evidence readily available and share with teams and judge before round. This helps minimize the extend internet speed/connectivity has as well as cuts down/eliminates awkward "I didn't hear you" can you re-state moments.

In general I judge a debate based on the flow. Therefore clash is essential. I am basically a tabula rasa judge with one basic exception that applies across all debate forms. That exception is that I will not accept arguments that are blatantly unethical or inhumane. A good example of this kind of argument is “Nuclear holocaust will aid in population control.” I am not a fan of spreading, though I can work with it. However, that being said, if I cannot hear it, understand it, or flow it, it will not figure in to my final decision. Specific paradigms for individual debate forms are as follows:

CX Policy: I rarely grant a debate on the basis of Topicality. If you argue topicality make sure that it is indeed topicality and not a sub-point of Solvency or Inherency. Both sides need to show me that they have followed and understand the arguments of their opponents and clash with their points.

LD: Value and Criterion must work hand in hand. All contentions need to be made with the value and criterion in mind. I really appreciate the more philosophical approach, but it needs to also be grounded in the real world.

Public Forum: I am not a fan of K's. If you utilize them, they must be something more than a basic attack on the underlying assumptions, and please no slippery slope arguments. If you attack the underlying assumptions, create a very solid rationale and have in depth factual material to back up your argument.

Parli: I look more for the creativity of the cases, and how the sides develop their position within the narrow time frame. The debate will be judged on the flow, but I want to see creativity, clash, and excellent use of questioning.

I am here to be persuaded, and to that end I want to see you communicating with me. Respect for your opponents and ideas is a must. Good luck and I look forward to seeing you debate.