As a Speech & Debate judge, my foremost commitment is to foster an environment that encourages constructive discourse, critical thinking, and respect for all participants. To achieve this goal, I hold the following principles at the core of my judging paradigm while also considering the specifics of each event:

1. Fairness and Impartiality: I will evaluate all participants' performances objectively, without favoritism or bias. My decisions will be based solely on the merits of the arguments presented and the effectiveness of the communication.
2. Respect and Civility: I believe that speech and debate should be a platform for diverse voices and perspectives. I expect all participants to engage in respectful and civil discourse. Discrimination, bigotry, or any form of hate speech targeting Debaters should address their opponents' arguments, not their character.
3. Adherence to event rules and expectations:

4. Policy Debate: I will evaluate teams based on their ability to present and defend a coherent, well-researched, and strategic argument. The quality of evidence, cross-examination skills, and teamwork will be crucial.

5. Lincoln-Douglas Debate: I will assess debaters' ability to construct clear and logically sound arguments while maintaining a respectful and ethical tone. Values and ethical principles should be well-articulated and supported.

6. Public Forum Debate: Debaters should provide well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence. Clarity, persuasion, and the ability to engage with opponents' points are key criteria.

7. Extemporaneous Speaking: I will evaluate participants on their ability to deliver well-structured, informative, and persuasive speeches on current events. Coherence, evidence, and articulation of a clear viewpoint are essential.

8. Original Oratory: Speakers should present well-researched, persuasive, and engaging speeches on a chosen topic. Effective use of rhetoric, emotional appeal, and clear organization will be considered.

9. Dramatic Interpretation and Humorous Interpretation: I will assess the interpretation of literature, character portrayal, and the ability to engage the audience emotionally. Clarity, memorization, and the use of voice and body should enhance the performance.

10. Duo Interpretation: Duos should demonstrate strong chemistry, character differentiation, and a compelling narrative in their performance. Timing, pacing, and emotional connection are key factors.

11. Congressional Debate: Participants should exhibit knowledge of parliamentary procedure, articulate speaking skills, and the ability to engage in meaningful debate on legislation.

12. Feedback: I will provide constructive feedback to help participants improve their skills. Feedback will be specific, highlighting both strengths and areas for improvement. My goal is to contribute to the growth of all participants.
13. Adaptability: Different events may have varying expectations and criteria. I will adapt my judging to fit the specific event, always maintaining a commitment to fairness and inclusivity.
14. Professionalism: I expect all participants to conduct themselves in a professional manner, respect the venue, the time constraints, and their fellow competitors.
15. Continuous Learning: Just as participants strive for improvement, I also commit to ongoing learning and self-improvement as a judge. I will stay informed about current debate practices and strive to provide the best judging experience for all involved

For performance based events, I tend to judge based on the believability of either the character the performer is portraying, or the connection to the message they are delivering. I enjoy more natural acting styles as I believe subtle emotion is much more powerful than over the top, unrealistic emotion. With humorous I am pretty simple; did I laugh? Was it clean? Was the script appropriately cut/ did the plot make sense? If every performer in a round hits all of these, it becomes all about which ones made me laugh the most.

When it comes to PA I find it necessary that the topic be something most people aren't familiar with OR a topic we frequently talk about with nuance brought to it. Additionally, the structure of the speech and conversational tone of the delivery is important to me. I also look for confidence, preparation, and accessibility of the information being presented, especially if it is a complex topic.

I am a relatively new parent judge. I enjoy listening to and judging debates.

I have interest in politics, investing, philosophy, psychology and sociology. I had my MBA education many years ago and worked in Banking for 20+ years.

For LD debates, I evaluate the combination of the following aspects -

1) Solid case build - proof, the value framework.

2) Clash and rebuttal - I value effective rebuttal and responses using logic and proofs. Please be respectful of your opponent.

3) Delivery - clear, audible and comprehensible, and to speak persuasively to the listeners. I am ok with spreading and will try to follow your flow.

SPEECH: I look for confident, clear speakers who know how to sound and appear like they belong in the room. I love to see competitors that remind me how much I miss doing speech! Wow me with your content and keep my attention with your presentation.

INTERP: In addition to the above, I prefer performances that actually feel like performances, not just speeches. All interp events should create a cohesive story that slowly builds up to a memorable climax. Preference will also be given to pieces that have an important message, but I really dislike trauma porn and will rank you lower if I think you're abusing someone else's trauma.

DEBATE: I'm largely a speech judge, but I did do debate and am familiar with PF and WS. Treat me as a lay (and traditional) judge but know that I'll know if you're being abusive. The best way to win my ballot is through a clear comparative and even clearer speaking.

Please give trigger warnings when necessary—it's better to be safe than sorry.

Good luck! :)

*email: aud.fife@gmail.com

Yes, add me to the email chain. My email is Bixba@eanesisd.net.

CX - I'm a Policy Maker, so I want to vote for something rather than against something. I like a NON-TOPICAL Counter Plans or a Kritik with a good Alternative. I will vote on Topicality if the Aff is proven not to be Topical. I do not vote for Disclosure Theory, Contact Theory, Dress Code Theory, etc. Please debate the topic; that is where I will vote. Clash is key, so be sure to directly attack and answer arguments. If you spread, you must be intelligible; if I cannot understand you, I cannot vote for you. I will give one verbal request for you to be "clear", and if you are still incomprehensible I will close my laptop or drop my pen to nonverbally indicate to you that I have stopped flowing. Have all evidence you plan to read up on your computer. If you take your time sharing evidence when requested, that is free prep time for your opponent, and I do not expect them to stop prepping while you find the card(s) to send. While I prefer closed CX, I will entertain open CX, but be careful not to dominate your partner as that could cost them speaker points. Of course remember to be a good competitor and treat your opponents with respect. Disrespect toward your opponent will cost you speaker points.

LD - I guess I'm an old school LD judge. I expect to be able to identify your Value and Criterion and that is the lens by which I weigh the round. I do not vote for Disclosure Theory, Contact Theory, Dress Code Theory, etc. Please debate the topic; that is where I will vote. Therefore, I will vote on Topicality if the Aff is proven not to be Topical. Clash is key, so be sure to directly attack and answer arguments. If you spread, you must be intelligible; if I cannot understand you, I cannot vote for you. I will give one verbal request for you to be "clear", and if you are still incomprehensible I will close my laptop or drop my pen to nonverbally indicate to you that I have stopped flowing. Evidence sharing is not "off the clock" and will count toward prep and/or speaking time. Of course remember to be a good competitor and treat your opponents with respect. Disrespect toward your opponent will cost you speaker points.

PF - I see PF as a watered down CX debate minus the Plan Text, if I'm being honest. So, see the paradigm for CX above please.

Congress - Clash is key, so be sure to directly attack and answer arguments. Remember to be a good competitor and treat your opponents with respect. Disrespect toward your opponent may cost you the ballot. Depth of analysis is most important to me although I expect a solid speech structure with scholarly sources. As far as delivery, I want to feel that you are talking TO me not AT me. As such, be conversational yet persuasive.

World Schools - Clash is key, so be sure to directly attack and answer arguments. Remember to be a good competitor and treat your opponents with respect. Disrespect toward your opponent may cost you the ballot. Depth of analysis is most important to me although I expect a solid speech structure with scholarly sources. As far as delivery, I want to feel that you are talking TO me not AT me. As such, be conversational yet persuasive.

Interp - The most important thing to me in an Interp performance is to portray genuine emotion. If you really feel it, the audience will too. Be a good audience member by avoiding distractions and giving your complete attention to the competitor performing at the moment. Being a good audience member also means staying the entire time unless you are cross entered as well as providing appropriate nonverbal feedback to the performance. Please don't "mean mug" or attempt to nonverbally intimidate another competitor. I appreciate a good binder trick and a creative approach while maintaining author's intent. In the Intro, I would ideally like a conversational tone that allows me to meet you, displays your understanding and connection to the subject matter, and sets up the performance well. Literature that contains profanity does not bother me as long as the profanity adds something to the message and is not superfluous.

Extemp - Depth of analysis is most important to me although I expect a solid speech structure with an introduction, 2-3 main points, and a conclusion. I encourage 7-10 scholarly source citations throughout and would like to see that the sources add substance to the speech. Using a variety of types of sources such as state, national, and international as well as think tanks, periodicals, and books adds to the overall credibility of the presentation. As far as delivery, I want to feel that you are talking TO me not AT me. As such, be conversational yet informative or persuasive.

parkert@ltisdschools.org

Background: I'm a first year debate coach at Lake Travis (Austin, TX). I'm also a lawyer and teacher. I debated mostly LD but graduated HS in 2004.

ALL Debate: I'm a mostly tech judge, with some exceptions below. I will generally not vote on frivolous theory. If you want to make an argument about abuse or norm violations, I am open to it, just make sure you're telling a clear story here.

I will usually drop speaks for repeatedly telling me that your opponent dropped or conceded an argument that was clearly addressed. Point out drops, but don't lie to me. (this is not about a mistake or accidental statement, this is for the people who compulsively say that every argument was "clean conceded" when they weren't)

For docs, please use speechdrop if at all possible. My stupid school email has a ridiculous filter and it will often take a few hours for your email chain to get to me.

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

CX: I'm not generally a policy judge so I am not going to be fluent in the deeper jargon (if you're abbreviating everything in particular). Explain your arguments if you want me to vote on them, don't just blip through them.

Speed is fine, so long as you're clear. If you're planning on really spreading, I find it very helpful to have the doc.

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

LD: My LD experience is a bit outdated from the current circuit standard. I am very open to new innovations and outgrowths since I debated, but my fluency in modern off-case argumentation is a bit limited. I'm open to voting on those, but you'll need to explain them well and be clear with your voters. I don't have any strong feelings on policy vs philosophical approaches. Tricks suck. If I don't understand the argument, I won't be voting on it.

Speed is fine, so long as you're clear. If you're planning on really spreading, I find it very helpful to have the doc.

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

PF: The above information applies to PF rounds as well, with the added provision that I will reduce speaks for being cruel/disrespectful of opponents (and I don't like that I have to put that here for PF)

Speed is fine, so long as you're clear. If you're planning on really spreading, I find it very helpful to have the doc.

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

Congress: I am looking for both strong content and speaking for my Congress ranks. One without the other is not a recipe for a good score. Speakers that use the bulk of their speech rehashing earlier points usually get scored down. Clash is good, just make sure you're not mischaracterizing the opposition's argument when you do so.

Particularly incisive points (especially as clash points) are likely to draw my attention. I do pay attention during questioning - strong lines of questioning (or defenses to your own position) are likely to result in a higher rank.

You should be cognizant of the speech you're giving in a round. For example, if you're giving a sponsorship, you should be explaining how this bill solves the problem you're trying to address.

For POs: Generally the best POs are the POs where I barely notice them as the round runs smoothly. I typically rank good POs well, but rarely will they get the 1 unless it's a particularly weak round.

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

Extemp: Similar to Congress, I'm looking for both Strong content and strong speaking skill. One without the other will rarely receive top ranks on my ballot. I'm not looking for a specific number of sources, but good/varied sourcing is important.

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

Interp: Interp events are where I definitely have the least experience. Generally, though, I'm pretty standard as an interp judge - i'm looking mostly for strong characterization and (in the relevant events) narrative structure.

Background: Competed in New Mexico from 1998 - 2001. LD, US Extemp, and nearly all Interp events. Competed at NMAA District and State competition. Former coach at Tom Glenn High School and Danielson Middle School in Leander, Texas. Began both programs when both campuses opened in 2016 and 2020.

Current: Independent coach (OO in Maryland), judging predominantly online.

Debate Paradigm: I'm a tab judge who prefers to be treated as a lay judge. I don’t love spreading but won't ticket you for speeding. Always provide a road map, with special attention to how well you’ve researched and read on your value/plan. My decision hangs on clash, solid sparring in cross, proper use of prep (pre-round and during), and voters - literally tell me how you want me to vote down ballot. Literally change my life with your compelling case.

Interp Paradigm: As long as you're convincingly conveying your interpretation and are deliberate with every movement, you're on the right track. Unless Duet Acting, interpretation requires you to interpret the authors’ work. Take proper care of the author's work.

Extemp Paradigm: Extemp is the first event I was successful in as a competitor and helped me decide that I wanted to coach. I like a traditional set up and will take notes down ballot on: Teaser/AGD, Intro, Question/Answer, Points/Subpoints, Loads of Mixed Evidence, Closing/AGD. I expect tight signposts with an approachable delivery.