Throughout speaking events it is crucial that you always maintain the attention of your audience using organization, relatability, and a suitable platform. The delivery should be clear, concise, and feel conversational. Speeches should be well-organized so that the audience can follow along easily, and they should include sources to help establish credibility. Last but not least, speaking occasions should involve a range of vocal tones, facial expressions, and purposeful gestures.

When it comes to interpretation, I value natural acting, purposeful blocking, and experiencing the true emotion. The characters' feelings should be conveyed to the spectator. I also assess the characters' authenticity.

During the debate, you should have clear explanations so that I can follow along with the scenario you've developed. I do not approve when you are unpleasant or hostile to your opponent, and I do not approve when excess vice is propagated. It's challenging for me to absorb your ideas if I can't grasp what you are saying. Whoever has the strongest case will win, regardless of how many arguments they can provide.

As a judge, I approach CX debate with a commitment to fairness, rigor, and intellectual engagement. I believe in evaluating rounds based on the quality of argumentation, evidence, and logical reasoning presented by both teams. My philosophy revolves around the following key principles:

• Clarity and Organization: I value clear and organized presentation of arguments. Debaters should structure their speeches logically, signpost effectively, and articulate their points with clarity. A well-organized case enables better understanding and evaluation of arguments.

• Argumentation: I prioritize substantive arguments supported by credible evidence. Debaters should develop coherent arguments, anticipate and respond to opponent's arguments, and use evidence effectively to support their claims. I assess the strength of arguments based on their relevance, logic, and soundness.

• Critical Thinking: I encourage critical thinking and analysis in CX debate. Debaters should not only present arguments but also critically evaluate them, identify logical fallacies, and engage with the underlying assumptions and implications of arguments. Critical thinking skills are essential for effective persuasion and engagement in debate.

• Clash and Engagement: I value substantive clash between teams. Debaters should engage with each other's arguments, refute opposing claims, and defend their own positions effectively. I look for depth of engagement, including direct refutation, rebuttal, and extension of arguments throughout the round.

• Fairness and Respect: I expect debaters to uphold principles of fairness and respect in their interactions. Debates should be conducted in a civil manner, with mutual respect for opponents and adherence to rules and norms of debate. Any breaches of fairness or respectful conduct will impact my evaluation of the round.

Overall, my philosophy centers on the principles of clarity, argumentation, critical thinking, clash, and fairness. I approach each round with an open mind, carefully evaluating the merits of arguments presented by both teams and rendering a decision based on the strength of those arguments and adherence to debate norms.

And no spreading.

In speaking events, it is extremely important that you always keep the interest of your audience with relatability, organization and good vehicle. Delivery should feel conversational with a good pace and easy to understand. Speeches should have good organizational structure that makes it easy for the audience to follow along and sources that help build credibility. Lastly, speaking events should include motivated gestures, facial expressions and a variety of vocal expression.

In interpretation I appreciate natural acting and blocking with a purpose and feeling the real emotion. The audience should feel the emotions of the characters. I also look for believability of the characters.

In debate, I should be able to follow along with the story created which means you should have clear explanations. I do not appreciate being rude or aggressive towards your opponent and I do not appreciate excessvie spreading. If I cannot understand what you are saying, it makes it hard for me to take in your arguments. It is not how many arguments you can get in, it is who has the strongest case.

If you plan on emailing the case to your opponent, please include me in email: cassy_molina@yahoo.com

Hello, my name is Ramiro Soliz and I would consider myself a traditional judge. I look for characterization and their consistency and if movement and blocking is motivated. Articulation and projection is another thing I look for in all performances.

For DI, I like when the performer knows who they are talking to (us the audience). I do not like when performers throw themselves on the floor or yell for the "dramatic effect" if it fits the character and their tendencies then fine. I also look for the little hints of comedic usage in a DI so it is not sad the whole time. Characterization is really important to me and reestablishing and recreating the scene for us the audience. Natural intro, a time for me to hear YOU the performer.

HI, this is alot different from DI because of the use of multiple characters. I look for distinguishable characters and if I can understand and follow the story with the performers choices of characters and blocking. I also look for how this "hilarious story" relates to something happening in society that the performer wants to bring awareness to. Dont use the 30 second grace as part of the performance, its there to help performers not go over time.

PR/PO/POI: Same as above, I also tend to rank higher those performers who have good tech work. Clean and motivated page turns and consistent style of holding the book. I like for the intro to be natural so I can hear YOU and not the character in the performance.

Trigger warnings are appreciated when appropriate.

Teasers should set the mood for the piece and not be too lengthy.

Intros need to continue to prepare the audience for the piece by setting the appropriate tone as well as give important exposition. A sharp or clever intro that is well constructed can be the determining factor in scoring among two equally done pieces.

Blocking and movement should be clear, well defined, and motivated. Clever or creative staging is appreciated. Unclear or unspecific pantomime, upstaging, or weird angles that prevent seeing the actor's faces should be avoided.

Characterization should be consistent and easy to follow if performing multiple characters. Pops should be clean. Vocal characterization should be suggestive of the character and not an opportunity to showcase cartoon voices/cliche characters (the surfer, the New Yorker, the Brit, the Aussie, etc.) unless warranted by the script/story.

The binder is NOT a prop other than in POI. Movement below the waist (steps) should be clear and motivated as well as minimal.

Author's Intent and/or Appropriateness of Literature-How do you feel about an HI of Miracle Worker (author's intent) or a student performing mature material (appropriateness)?

That's a big NO for me if it's offensive more than it is creative. (Miracle Worker as an HI, or The Lovely Bones, or anything like that is offensive to me. Hearing loss and child rape aren't funny and do go against the author's intent.) Mature content if it's handled well and suits the piece doesn't bother me- if it's excessive or for shock value, then I may not like it. It really depends on the piece and the performer; I'm not conservative.

For Speech Events OO/INFO– I weigh the written speech (construction/logic/novelty/grammar/humor) equally with the presentation of the speech. I like creative/inventive Info props.