First year parent judge.

Congress: I have I so far judged varsity Congress once, as the very first time. I appreciate your patience in case my feedback does not come through fast enough for your next round or subsequent competition. You all amaze me even finding the courage to walk in and talk about affirmation and negation on tough topics.

Typically my ratings are based on National Forensic League training guidance between 3-6, entered as you're speaking so you have some minimal feedback on how I decided on final score for individual speech and eventual ranking. 3=Mediocre, 4=Proficient, 5=Excellent, 6=Superior

Examples: Originality of Thought, Organization and Unity, Evidence and Logic, Presentation and mutual respect.

My favorite part is how you handle questioning of your speech. Additionally, I look for senators who chose to either affirm/negate but based on the arguments presented chosen to vote for/against.

Time permitting, constructive written feedback in the comments will be provided. My overall rankings take into account your entire performance in the round as compared to your fellow senators.

Speech Events: First year judging speech. I come to spend by Saturday afternoons to be amazed by the young mind and how you future generations try and help mold our future. The very first thing I look for is how easy is to follow and interesting presentation (while also satisfying rules/objective of particular event) , they generally rises to the top of the rankings in my rounds. A request, kindly state your introductions/interesting openings as clearly as possible ( without rushing) as it allows me follow the rest of your presentation.

I haven't competed in this event in almost 10 years. But spreading is heavily discouraged. If I can't understand your argument, it doesn't matter.

Congress: Speeches should not just be read. Ideal is performed without reading except for statistics. Each speech should add to the conversation, not just rehashing. Perspective should be of a representative not a speech and debate participant. Try to give specific examples of people or events when possible. Stats should add credibility and value to the speech. Use the space you are provided, don't just stand in one place. Voice should be clear, audible and most importantly, confident. Questions should be direct and relevant. Approach to questions should be assertive but professional. Participation is key.

Debate: Focus on clear points that support your argument. Voice should be clear. Clarity over speed. Rebuttals should show understanding of the issue and dissect the argument. All arguments should be tied back to value premise.

SPEECH: Clarity above all. Clear voice. Clear transitions and clear story. I want to be immersed in the presentation. Create imagery using your voice, posure, and pantomiming (Where applicable).

I'm a recent PhD from Binghamton University in Political Science (pronouns are she/her). Research focus is in American Politics (identity and pol behavior in particular) but you can safely assume I have at least average substantive knowledge on the topic even if it isn't americanist. I'm currently working for the intelligence wing of a company focusing on the digital economy. I was an extemper, normally judge PF and LD (or parli congress), occasionally judge speech. I'm comfortable with circuit debate, but not super involved anymore.

Update for virtual nat circuit: take the spread from an 8 to a 6.5 , share your case doc, slow on theory. When you aren't sharing a doc, don't spread. If I don't catch it, it won't go on my flow.

Add me to the thread: tara.s.riggs@gmail.com

LD

- I can (and frequently do) hate your arguments but still vote you up on them. You need to have a legitimate warrant and be reasonable, but you need to win the flow and some times that means winning on greyhound racing in space or something absurd. I'm inclined tech>truth but warrants still matter when I weigh rounds.

-I've grown to really appreciate a good K. You need to be really explicit in the argument. I am familiar with the lit on feminism/identity/racism, but I am an empiricist at heart not a political theorist. The more obscure your K is, the more your explanation and depth matters. I won’t vote off of theory that’s not explained. Make it clear what the alt does, whether or not you affirm/negate the resolution, and any stances you take. If you can't explain your K, you shouldn't be reading it. I'm most familiar with identity based K's and set col.

-If we end up together and you are dead set on running a CP, don't make it a PIC. I will not evaluate it. I won't flow it. You just wasted x amount of time. PICs are inherently abusive. This is the one place I will intervene on the ballot.

-I like theory rounds.

-I also like Theory rounds.

PF

- I flow but I am more relaxed on tech>truth. I am more inclined to believe an impactful truth than blippy tech. Don't consider me tech>truth if your plan is to run spark or argue climate change/ extinction/economic collapse good.

- I need to see a strong link level debate. You NEED to materialize your links if you want to access impacts. Don't make me question the links.

- Make your impacts clear. Often times, rounds come down to impacts.

- Plans and CPs in PF are inherently against the event( and against NSDA rules). I will not flow them. You may win them, but I'm not flowing it and will not consider it in round. Strike me if this is your strategy. PF isn't Policy.

- I like K's but stock K's are lazy. Don't run a capitalism K just to run a capitalism K. If you are running K, you need to be able to explain what happens if the alt is true. Weigh whether or not you want to spend the time on the K given how short speeches are in PF.

- First summary should extend defense- but does not need to extend defense UNLESS the second rebuttal frontlined their case. In that scenario, first summary MUST extend defense. Regardless, first summary needs to extend turns if you want me to vote on them.

-I do not flow CX-anything that comes up in cross-examination that you want considered in the round needs to be mentioned in your speeches.Don't be rude in grand cx. That's my one problem with gcx. I have given low point wins because a team was rude in gcx.

Parli

-Be strategic. If GOV frames the resolution in a way that makes it impossible to debate, go for theory. If OPP let's GOV slide on something obviously egregious, run with it. I'm looking for the team that best plays the game here.

** If your strategy is to frame the debate where OPP must defend slavery, sexism, homophobia, invasion, etc. I will drop you. There has to be a reasonable limit. I'm non-interventionist until you make someone defend something truly abhorrent. It doesn't show you are a great debater, it shows you are a scuzzy person.

********Live and let debate BUT if you are openly sexist, racist, abelist,xenophobic, homophobic, or insert discriminatory adjective here you WILL lose the round.********

Second year parent judge.

CONGRESS:

My Congress comments should have speech/PO criteria ratings based on National Forensic League training guidance between 3-6, entered as you're speaking so you have some minimal feedback on how I decided on final score for individual speech and eventual ranking. 3=Mediocre, 4=Proficient, 5=Excellent, 6=Superior

Examples: Originality of Thought, Organization and Unity, Evidence and Logic, Delivery.

I also attempt to score (in comments) how you handle questioning of your speech.

If time allows, I attempt to give constructive written feedback in the comments as well. Overall rankings take into account your entire performance in the round.

SPEECH:

Second year judging speech. The most polished student in a round with an easy to follow and interesting presentation (while also satisfying rules/objective/criteria of particular event) generally rises to the top of the rankings in my rounds. Please don't rush your introductions/teasers as it really helps me follow the rest of the piece.

I've also decided to try and assign speaker points to three main categories in your feedback depending on the speech event. This is to hopefully give you some minimal feedback indicating the elements of your piece that may have room for improvement. I always attempt to give detailed comments as well, but time doesn't always allow for this.

Points listed in comments do not necessarily average or add up to your final speaker point score.

27=Average, 28=Above Average, 29=Excellent, 30=Superior

From the National Forensic League:

INTERPRETATION (DI, DUO, HI)

Characterization

Is each character well-developed? Is each character relatable? Does a character’s response seem believable given the situation being portrayed?

Blocking

Can you tell what the performer is doing in the scene? Is it clear what character(s) they are playing? Is the movement motivated?

Cutting

Do you understand what is happening? Is the story line easy to follow? Does the sequence of events make sense?

PROGRAM ORAL INTERPRETATION

Programming
Were at least two of the three genresof literature (Poetry/Prose/Drama)used in the program? Did all of theliterature contribute to the theme orargument? Did the flow of theperformance make sense? Was therea balance among genres in theperformance?

Blocking
Can you tell what the performer wasdoing in each scene? Was it clearwhat selection the performer wasusing in each section? Did theperformer maintain control of themanuscript at all times? Was themovement motivated in theperformance?

Characterization
Did each selection have distinct andengaging characters? Did theperformance match the genre (e.g.,did the performer emphasize poeticelements when performing a Poetryselection)? Was the performancedynamic?

INFORMATIVE SPEAKING

Relevance:

Is the topic timely? Is the thesis clearly established? Does the delivery assist in establishing the importance of the topic?

Relatability:

Can the audience relate to the topic? Is the delivery personable? Does the speaker establish how others are impacted by the topic? Does the speaker do a good job informing?

Originality:

Does the speaker address the topic in a unique, inventive way? Are the supporting examples new and interesting?

EXTEMPORANEOUS SPEAKING

Argumentation and Analysis

Is the student directly answering the question? Does the student develop justifications for their ideas and establish the significance of their points? Have they established a clear understanding of the topic area?

Source Consideration

Does the speaker offer a variety of sources? Are the sources provided credible? Are appropriate citations used when citing a source?

Delivery

Is the student using voice, movement, and expression effectively? Is the speaker confident? Is there consistent eye contact? Is the volume appropriate?

ORIGINAL ORATORY

Importance

Is the topic significant? Is the thesis clearly established? Does the delivery assist in establishing the importance of the topic?

Relatability

Can the audience relate to the topic? Is the delivery personable? Does the speaker establish how others are impacted by their topic? Is the rhetoric of the speech inclusive?

Originality

Does the speaker address the topic in a unique, inventive way? Are the supporting examples new and interesting?

STORYTELLING

Tone
Does the performer's voice alignwith the type of story they'vechosen to tell? Is it clear this storywould be suitable for children tohear?

Expressiveness
Does the presenter bring thewords to life using effectivetechniques to convey appropriateemotion? Do the presenter’sfacial expressions aid the overalldelivery of the presentation?Does the presenter seem engagedin the literature?

Relatability
Is the presenter delivering thestory in a manner that wouldengage young children? Does thepresenter effectively establish aconnection to the audience? Iseye contact used to engage theaudience?