What I'm looking for is a clear, concise argument. Humor is appreciated, but all jokes should be in good taste. I want to see good preparation from competitors as well asadaptability- if you don't have something written, and the splits are bad, switching sides shows dedication. Questioning is an essential part of debate, so you should do that. Zoning out and only speaking when necessary will not do you any favors. Decorum is also an essential part of debate. You should be not just courteous but kind to your competitors. PO's should not just be charismatic but quick as well. The most consistent issue I see across tournaments is PO's taking too long to find the next speaker, whether it be during questioning or actual speeches. Other than that, do your best and pay attention.

NSDA endorsed speech coach.

For speech: I view judging speech events the same way that I view casting a play or musical. I have a problem: determining who is the best competitor in the event. The competitors have the solution. Be confident. Make a choice - even if it's not a great one. Present the best of yourself and your skills in that moment. Much like theatre, I want to see a well rehearsed piece with the "illusion of the first time."

I will strive to provide you with positives and areas for improvement.

For debate, I am looking for a clear, logical argument and line of reasoning, well supported with unquestionable sources. Deliver with the skills and confidence of a speech competitor. Solid counterarguments and a good defense/response to questioning moves you ahead in the rankings.

Rachel Mauchline

Durham Academy, Assistant Director of Speech and Debate

Previously the Director of Forensics and Debate for Cabot

she/her pronouns

TL;DR

Put me on the email chain @ rachelmauchline@gmail.com

speed is fine (but online lag is a thing)

tech over truth

Policy

I typically get preferred for more policy-oriented debate. I gravitated to more plan focused affirmatives and t/cp/da debate. I would consider myself overall to be a more technically driven and line by line organized debater. My ideal round would be a policy affirmative with a plan text and three-seven off. Take that as you wish though.

Lincoln Douglas

I've judged a variety of traditional and progressive debates. I prefer more progressive debate. But you do you... I am happy to judge anything as long as you defend the position well. Refer to my specific preferences below about progressive arguments. In regards to traditional debates, it's important to clearly articulate framework.

Public Forum

weighing.... weighing.... weighing.

I like rebuttals to have clear line by line with numbered responses. 2nd rebuttal should frontline responses in rebuttal. Summary should extend terminal defense and offense OR really anything that you want in final focus. Final focus should have substantial weighing and a clear way for me to write my ballot. It's important to have legitimate evidence... don't completely skew the evidence.

Here are my specific preferences on specific arguments if you have more than 5 mins to read this paradigm...

Topicality

I enjoy a well-articulated t debate. In fact, a good t debate is my favorite type of debate to judge. Both sides need to have a clear interpretation. Make sure it’s clearly impacted out. Be clear to how you want me to evaluate and consider arguments like the tva, switch side debate, procedural fairness, limits, etc.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

This was my fav strat in high school. I’m a big fan of case-specific disadvantages but also absolutely love judging politics debates- be sure to have up to date uniqueness evidence in these debates though. It’s critical that the disad have some form of weighing by either the affirmative or negative in the context of the affirmative. Counterplans need to be functionally or textually competitive and also should have a net benefit. Slow down for CP texts and permutations- y’all be racing thru six technical perms in 10 seconds. Affirmative teams need to utilize the permutation more in order to test the competition of the counterplan. I don’t have any bias against any specific type of counterplans like consult or delay, but also I’m just waiting for that theory debate to happen.

Case

I believe that case debate is under-covered in many debates by both teams. I love watching a case debate with turns and defense instead of the aff being untouched for the entire debate until last ditch move by the 2AR. The affirmative needs to continue to weigh the aff against the negative strat. Don't assume the 1AC will be carried across for you throughout the round. You need to be doing that work on the o/v and the line by line. It confuses me when the negative strat is a CP and then there are no arguments on the case; that guarantees aff 100% chance of solvency which makes the negative take the path of most resistance to prove the CP solves best.

Kritiks

I’ll vote for the k. From my observations, I think teams end up just reading their prewritten blocks instead of directly engaging with the k specific to the affirmative. Be sure you understand what you are reading and not just read a backfile or an argument that you don’t understand. The negative needs to be sure to explain what the alt actually is and more importantly how the alt engages with the affirmative. I judge more K rounds than I expect to, but if you are reading a specific author that isn’t super well known in the community, but sure to do a little more work on the analysis

Theory

I’ll vote for whatever theory; I don’t usually intervene much in theory debates but I do think it’s important to flesh out clear impacts instead of reading short blips in order to get a ballot. Saying “pics bad” and then moving on without any articulation of in round/post fiat impacts isn’t going to give you much leverage on the impact level. You can c/a a lot of the analysis above on T to this section. It’s important that you have a clear interp/counter interp- that you meet- on a theory debate.

Hello, My name is Malcolm Meyn, if you're reading this I'm probably judging you in novice or JV congress!

A little bit about me: I am a senior at East Chapel Hill High School and I have been debating congress almost exclusively for four years. I am a strong believer that debate should be a fun activity first and foremost. I really want everyone to feel comfortable in round and have an enjoyable time. I know this can be challenging in congress where most of the time is spent listening and flowing, but if there is anything that I can ever do to make a round better, please do not hesitate to let me know.

In round, especially in novice rounds, I really like to see spirited, passionate, and skilled clash. This is congressional debate, and I put a high priority on debate. My biggest emphasis on style is speaking in a way where I can hear you and clearly understand your arguments. Style is always good but it should not come at the expense of substance.

In novice rounds, I give big props to anyone who wants to PO. POing is a difficult task, especially the first time, and so a skilled PO who moves through the chamber efficiently will be ranked highly. POing is a very different skill and a hard one to rank against speakers, so rankings may vary depending on the quality of the rest of the chamber. However, any PO is better than no PO.

Be prepared. A lot of congress is just the ability to get up and give a well rehearsed, well prepped, and well researched speech that contributes effectively to the debate round and clashes well. This means that we set a docket and we have a balanced debate without multiple speakers in a row or taking frequent recesses to prep. Congress is a lot of work, but being well prepared goes a long way. Rehash will quickly lose you points and a speech that does not interact with the rest of the round, even if it introduces new topics, is not much better. This doesn't quite hold up for authorship/sponsorship speeches but you still need to make sure you are looking at counterarguments and really proving why the bill should be passed. I also appreciate quality evidence and complete citation, which generally is the author, publisher, and year. "Out of the box" evidence is great but you need to make sure you are saying what the source is saying. Also please make it clear what is and isn't a direct quote.

In my time in congress, I have noticed that rounds almost always go better when debaters are allowed to make their own decisions about how to run the chamber. We have to work within tournament rules but if you all reach a consensus on ending early, going late, dropping or moving bills, or changing the docket, I will not stand in your way as the parli. Please keep in mind the other judges however, and be respectful of everyone's time.

Finally, be kind. Everyone comes from different backgrounds and viewpoints, and it is important to me that nobody feels like their identity or character is being personally targeted. Keep in mind that some topics may be more sensitive to others, and write your speeches accordingly. My general rule of thumb is that if your speech needs a trigger warning you should probably think about if there is any way to write it so that the warning is unnecessary. If you absolutely must have a trigger warning, please state your trigger warning before you start your speech. I am open to a variety of viewpoints but outright racism/sexism/homophobia will of course not fly. Please talk to me if you have any concerns about the speech material of yourself or someone else. You are all kind, smart, and respectful people, just do the right thing.

If you've made it this far, thanks for taking the time to read! If you have any questions before or after the round please feel free to ask. See you in the chamber!

Hi I'm Agustin (He/Him). I did Congressional, Lincoln-Douglas, and Public-Forum Debate at Northwest Guilford High for 3 years. I did a year of Parliamentary and Social Justice Debate at Appalachian State University. I am now at UNC Chapel Hill studying Psychology and Data Science.

Speed:

Spreading is heavily discouraged. If I am not able to understand your argument then it does not matter. Make sure you clearly articulate what you are saying.

Important Things:

1. Don't be a jerk or a racist/sexist etc. In order to build an inclusive space I have zero-tolerance for arguments and rhetoric that are exclusionary, harmful, or hateful.
2. You can be passionate and aggressive in the debate without being mean, some people are going to be more passionate about topics than others, let's make sure that we have fun and get to discuss the topic civilly.
3. Signposting is important and will help not only me but everyone in the room better understand what you are saying.

Congressional Debate:

In Congress, remember what matters is not the quantity of the information that you present but rather the quality of the information and your synthesis of it. Being active in chamber is important! The competitors that give great speeches and ask great questions will stand out to me. When speaking to and referring to your opponents, treat them with the respect and decorum expected in this event.

- Please do not spread

- Please do not use any discriminatory terms or else you will be immediately removed

- Pretend as if I am a tabula rasa

- I did speech and debate in high school in India, it is very different now

- Please do not cut each other off during cross examination, that will not look good

- Thanks!

Hi!

I am a junior and third year speech and debater at East Chapel Hill High School. I have experience in mainly PF and Congress but have also done impromptu. I also have a bit of judging experience with PF!

General Rules:

• BE NICE! We're all here to have fun and enjoy ourselves so please don't be aggressive towards others. Additionally, please do not use any derogatory or discriminatory language. I WILL take off speaker points if any sort of harassment is shown.
• I will be timing but please also time yourselves. Ultimately, my timer will account for the real time but it's always good to have a general idea of how much time you have left! I will be giving a ten second overtime grace period. Beyond this, I will not count your further arguments on my flow.

For PF:

• Please DO NOT spread. I will be flowing so if I cannot understand what your arguments are, it will be harder for me to make a decision and ultimately result in the other team having the upper hand.
• If the second team uses prep time immediately after the first team gives their constructive speech, I will be taking off speaker points. This would be extremely unfair to the first team and is bad sportsmanship.
• WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH! Please weigh your impacts in your final focus and tell me WHY your argument wins. This is where I usually make my decision as to who wins the debate.