BE RESPECTFUL OF EVERYONE!

Have fun!

You can be aggressive just don't verbally attack the person.

I did debate for 2 years before graduating I have experience in PF, Policy, LD, and multiple speech events. My favorite event is HI. I also placed 5th in state in for HI.

I will not tolerate anyone being homophobic, transphobic, racist, or any other form of discrimination!

Hey! My name is Anika Bennett, I've been in Speech and Debate since my Jr. Year in high school. I've done Policy, Congress, Impromptu, SPAR, and Oratory. I went to nationals for Oratory in 2023, and I only say this to show that I know what I'm doing (at least for speech ;D).

FYI, if you ask for time signals, I will try to give them, but it will be better to ask a peer as I will most likely be too busy taking notes to remember.

My expectations for Speech:

1. The Speech is well put together and makes sense.
2. Effective eye contact with the audience.
3. Gestures that add to your speech and feel natural.
4. If there is a mistake, don't acknowledge it and keep going.
5. You can time yourself.

My expectations for Debate:

1. You can run K's as long as it makes sense with your argument.
2. No ad hominem attacks.
3. You can time yourself.
4. Your sources should be clear.
5. Sell your case to me.

I will be looking for clear, concise points backed with thorough evidence.

Hi! I'm Keri (she/her); put me on the file share: keri.j.brown@gmail.com

Overall in every event, I'm looking for a round where debaters are respectful of each other and clearly outline every argument. If you are rude or I can't understand you, your speaker points will drop dramatically.

Policy: Please, make your speeches clear. This means do not spread. If I can't understand your argument, I won't flow it, and you very likely will lose. You should favor good, fleshed-out arguments over a hundred nitpicky things that your opponent can't respond to in time.

I want a lot of judge instruction - it's not my job to remove or extend arguments for you. This means I want impact calc and explanations of why your arguments outweigh your opponents'.

I have judged policy before, but techy jargon (especially in more theoretical arguments like kritiks) is relatively unfamiliar to me so please give thorough explanations for all the nuances of your arguments.

The more progressive, the higher the bar. If you're going to run a fancy, complicated argument about capitalism, you're really going to need to flesh out why I should vote for it over the actual topic.

LD/PF: Progressive debates are not my thing. Traditional arguments would be best; pick a couple of good arguments to go with and clearly explain them. I will not tolerate spreading, and complicated jargon must be thoroughly elaborated upon.

I am a parent of a Timpview High School debate student. I did not participate in debate as a student, and have not judged very many debate tournaments.

I appreciate when debaters can present their arguments clearly and succinctly rather than speed reading through a list of flow points as fast as they can.

For LD, I will evaluate the round using an interpretive framework. This establishes an approach to the resolution and presents evaluative positions to the judge. For each resolution, no matter what side you are advocating you
should ask yourself, not only what must I defend but to which degree must I defend it? Must my
position (and my opponents') be true always or true most of the time? What exceptions can be
made and which exceptions cannot be tolerated? Your interpretive framework should explicitly
answer these questions.

I do:

*shake hands.

*let you keep your own time, although I will keep time as well.

*like eye contact and demonstrative body language. (Hint: You can't do this as well when holding a Chromebook.)

*like it when you stand. It shows respect.

*like sources. There is such a thing as too many sources, but usually I don't see enough.

*like good evidence and easy-to-follow logic.

*like you to stay on topic.

*like easy, everyday sort of examples that help make a big topic more understandable. I particularly like personal examples.

*like open minds.

*like respect of all in the room. This includes respect for your opponents(s), topic, classroom objects, and judge.

*like ethical, professional behavior.

*like old fashioned good manners.

*like to call "time" on cross. That is the judge's job.

*like it when your contentions/topics are relatively few (with few or no subpoints) and VERY easy to identify. Repeat them many times to ensure I know what they are. I can't flow contentions that I can't easily identify.

*like when you allow your opponent a chance to ask a question during cross. (Please don't hog all the time for yourself.)

I do NOT:

*like spreading. Please slow down. I have never heard anyone go too slow.

*like when you read your content word for word from your notes. Wean yourself from your notes! Usually presentation is better when you speak from your mind and on your feet.

*like animosity, disrespect, or obscenities.

*like when you abruptly cut off your train of thought simply because your time is up. I am fine giving a grace period of 10 to 30 seconds so you can wrap it up nicely.

*like when you talk over another individual (although it can be minimally expected during cross).

General intro:

I’m an engineer and former debater/extemper who has judged off and on in the many years since. Always feel free to ask me any questions at the beginning of the round. For all events respect is important, personal attacks or disrespect towards others in the round can affect ranking.

LD:

Lincoln-Douglas was my passion in my debating years. Here are a few of my views:

• LD is first a foremost a value centered debate not a battle of evidence, you need a framework and to tie each argument to it

• I’m not formalistic in judging LD there are no set rules on how to set up a framework or make arguments

• While I did debate in LD it was a long time ago during an era I've heard referred to as "traditional", as opposed to the more modern progressive era. Traditional LD was more truly value based with less spreading and focus on amount of evidence. But an increased focus on definitions and articulate arguments. I recognize that this can be difficult with many of the modern (non-value based) topics being generated by the NSDA currently.

• I understand that some new era LD coaches push adding "plans" to LD cases I'm not a fan of this in my opinion there is no place for a plan in value debate, I will not expect the other side to provide a counterplan or convert to a more policy/plan based debate if that is the route you choose in your case. That being said I have given the win to debaters who presented plans

Policy:

I was never a policy debater so I'm certainly less skilled than many but I have judged policy a bit so I'm not new to the field. Here are some points I focus on:

• I can handle moderate spreading but certainly not full nationals level speed

• Please speak to the quality of the evidence provided not all cards are equal and I will weigh the strength of the cards against each other.

• Do more than dump evidence, spend time on connecting it clearly to the plans and arguments

PF:

Public Forum is the debate I've judged the least, but given that it is designed to be judged by a non-expert that is the approach I take. Your delivery should be such that an common citizen could understand. Be respectful and share time during cross-fire. I want to see evidence but don't let it become a policy style battle to see who can read the most card with no clear connection between them.

BQ:

I love BQ it reminds me a lot of how LD was in the "good old days" before NSDA forgot how to create LD topics. Keep the arguments directly related to the topic. You get the same topic the entire year so I expect to see very refined cases the later we are in the season.

BQ should be very philosophical, given that while you should have supporting evidence you should also clearly connect it together with your own reasoning in a way that clearly clashes with your opponent.

Remember all your arguments need to connect directly to the resolution.

Extemp:

• Please cite your sources I prefer the source name and a date but at least a name

• Give a definitive answer to the question

• You are welcome to time yourself. I will also be timing and have a timer large enough you will likely be able to see it, I usually use it in count up mode so no beeping disturbs your speech.

Obviously I can't list every event here but if you have questions just ask.

I am a traditional judge. I value topicality, and I like signposting by both sides so that I can flow the round. I do not flow cross ex, so if you have points to make based on cross-ex, you will need to include them in your next speech. I will not read a case that is submitted to me, as I believe that you should do the work of debating your case vocally. If your spreading prohibits my ability to flow your case, you are not likely to win your round. I am seldom swayed by complaints of "unfair"--it just sounds whiney.

I am a very traditional judge who prefers good analysis and traditional case structure. I am ok with progressive ideas if they are well explained. Moderate speed is ok

Paradigm: This isn’t my first rodeo! Although I may not be a professional debater, I stay informed of today’s political issues. I’m most interested in how the status quo is affected by these issues. I appreciate a debater who can present both facts and real world applications. I also appreciate when two debaters can refute each other and there is some good clash! It also doesn’t hurt when you treat this as an actual congressional debate (mini congressmen and women).