Advancement of debate

logical progression of ideas

supporting argument with sources

interaction with and connected to other chamber members

proper decorum

proper use of parliamentary procedure

knowledge of laws, and governmental procedures

PF/LD:

E-mail:Hrenj@trinityprep.org

If you are looking for my paradigm in a few words:

I will start by looking at theimpactsas articulated in your final speech.I will thencompare them the way I was told to in your final speech(ex. Prefer on Timeframe. Prioritize probability). If there are competing comparisons, I will choose the one that is best articulated. I will then checkthe link to the impact and see if, in the final speech and previous speech, the other team told me a reason not to give the you access to your impact.If they did, I will make sure that this reason was articulated, at least from the second speech of that team.

My flow can be best described as chaotic, so make sure that you have been really clear and not blippy- if you are blippy, I am liable to miss it.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I have experience judging LD at the College and High School level (but it has been a little bit since I have consistently judged LD) and Public Forum at the High School level (fairly consistently). I would by no means say I am an expert. These are some things to keep in mind with me.

Assume that I know nothing. This includes shorthand, theory, or K literature. Even if I do know something, I will pretend I don't to avoid intervening in the round.

Speed Kills (your ability to win the round).I want to be able to flow everything.To this end, I will say “clear” two times and then I am able to flow what I can flow: if I miss something because you’re speeding then it won’t be considered.I do not want to look at cards unless you or your opponent have a tiff about what they actually say.

Additionally, I think that spreading should be a tool to allow for deeper and more specific arguments as opposed to allowing for more short, blippy responses.If you're speeding through a response and that response was only a sentence or two to begin with, it probably doesn't register as that important to me.

Tech over truth except in extreme cases.Tell me what to vote on, tell me what to care about. Clearly weigh your impacts against your opponents do not assume I prefer one over the other without you giving me a reason to prefer.

I care about dropped arguments- you need to extend and that means more than just saying “extend.”Functionally reiterate your arguments or at least summaries of them.

CX- I often will flow this, but it will not factor into my decisions unless you bring it up in your speech. Don’t shoot yourself in the foot, DO use this time to clarify, NOT make new arguments.

I hate hate hate people being hyperbolic or lying about what their opponent said or did: Ex. “they dropped this point” when they clearly did not. Just know if you do it I will be inclined toward your opponent. If YOU misheard or misunderstood your opponent’s argument, I get that, but pretending they didn’t respond to something they did is as good as dropping the arg. Also- don't tell me what my paradigm said- I was there when it was written.

Congress:

-The most important things to me are delivery and content.

-If two people are very close on both these aspects content will be more important than delivery.

-I pay attention to questioning, but it is more of a tie breaker for me. If you ask a particularly good question I will note it and you will be ranked higher than someone with the same scores on speeches and no notes about questioning.

-Very important to my ranking of speeches is whether you are moving the round forward or introducing new ideas.

-I prefer evidence usage, though in some analytic cases it is not strictly needed.

-I very much like interaction with the other speeches that have gone (rebutting directly or adding more to a previous argument).

-Taking risks with content or delivery in ways which push the boundaries of the norms will certainly earn some bonus points in my head.

-I think that decorum is important- pay attention to what others are saying, don't engage in personal attacks or generally be rude.

Email: shirzadian@marshall.edu

I’m a professor of English at Marshall University, where I also coach the MU debate team. My academic background is in rhetorical and critical theory--with a special emphasis on Disability Studies. I was a parli debater in college (2006-2010) at Cedarville University. Have coached IPDA since beginning at MU last year. I have a moderate amount of college LD experience.

I strive to be a tabula rasa absolutist. I’m a pretty meticulous flow judge. I like smart, meaningful policy debate clash, but I also vote on smart kritics so long as the links stand. I’m open to critical AFFs, though I feel like the bar is a bit higher than NEG K’s. I’m a politics nerd, and so love a smart, specific politics DA (get specific about the congresspeople and bills that will be put in play post-fiat).

I’m okay with a bit of speed, though I’ll also expect you to moderate if I sense your speed has rendered the round inaccessible to your opponent. I'm not keen on supporting the gasping-for-air level of speed. I'd advise you avoid it in our round together.

Link turns most frequently win my ballot. Nothing wrong with impact turns (just don’t double turn!).

Love impact calc args. I'm finding I often weigh probability more heavily that magnitude. The more specific / unique the impact, the better.

On T, Standards and Violation debates determine my ballot.

27.5 feels like the middle for speaks. If you’re a jerk, I’ll weigh that pretty heavily against your speaks.

Oh Hey! I didn't see you there. Your hair looks AMAZING!

My name is Ray smith and I'm an alumni of Knott County Central High School (Class of 2005) located in Hindman, KY. At the very bottom I've included categories I've competed in during my time at Knott Central. Since then, I've had the opportunity to help judge competitions (in the early 2000's with paper ballots ????) and assist as a freelance coach. Additional professional experience includes working as an actor and educator with The Kentucky Shakespeare Festival as well as acting with Savage Rose Classical Theatre and Louisville Repertory Company. I'm currently signed with Heyman Talent Agency located in Louisville, KY where I primarily focus on film, television, and commercial projects. One of my favorite gigs was a lead role on a Spotify shoot.

When it comes to judging, I keep my poker face strong. It's a preference to help ensure no favoritism is being shown so don't be discouraged. When it comes to interpretation events, I look for solid character development and how polish the piece is. For example, in Humorous Interpretation, I really look at how well you pop into characters, focal points, as well as looking to see if characters blend into one another.

One piece of advice I would give We all started somewhere so don't give up. My freshman year in high school, I wasn't following the scripts and I believe I broke into finals once at a local competition. By my senior year, I quadrupled in state finals and even won a category. And my direct experiences in speech and debate have led me to a successful career as an engineer and actor.

Here are categories I've competed in along with some of my titles:

After Dinner Speaking (Humorous Oratory at the Great Smoky Mountain National Invitational) | 2005 Semi-Finalist
Broadcasting
Dramatic Interpretation
Duo Interpretation | 2005 KHSSL State Finalist
Group Interpretation (Non-Sweepstakes points at KESDA State)
Humorous Interpretation | 2005 KHSSL State Champion
Impromptu Speaking
Improv Duo
Poetry
Storytelling | 2005 KHSSL State Finalist (Top 3)