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.

Hello Debaters!

If you're reading this then you must have me as your judge. Depending on the event will depend on how I judge you. So please read carefully below. I'm the Head Coach at Viewmont HS and have been teaching and coaching for ~20 years. Debate has changed a lot over the amount of time I've been coaching and debating, and maybe not so much.

1) ADAPT TO YOUR JUDGE

Policy

I'm a Policy coach. I've been coaching Policy debaters to TOC/Nationals for nearly 2 decades. I've judged in TOC bid out rounds. I've judged quarter finals 3-0 panels Nationals rounds. I have a lot to say that about what I like to see in my Policy rounds:

a) Speed - doubt that many of you can go too fast. Don't worry about it you can go as fast as you want.

b) Conditionality - really don't like conditionality from the Neg. If the Aff. isn't allowed to kick out of the Aff case then why should you be allowed to kick out of your positions. If you have some good theory with voters about why I should allow Condo, that could work. Otherwise, don't try please.

c) Topicality - Earlier in the year, this could be an argument I listen to because plans may be less than topical. By the time we get around to February I have my doubts that the plan is not topical. If you're going to run this time suck of an argument it'd better be well reasoned out. If you kick this argument I'm likely not going to be happy.

d) Kritiks - Totally awesome arguments. I really love them. But if you run more than one of them I'm not going to be happy. I can only rethink one thing at a time.

e) Disad/Counterplans - Also great arguments that should be used in case you don't want to run Kritiks. Disad's could be run with Kritiks. Counterplans should NOT be run with Kritiks.

f) On Case - So, many people discount the power of on case arguments. Both sides. The Aff will get up and read a ton of great cards and then... nothing. The neg will get up and read a ton off case but do nothing to attack the case directly. So, most debates happen off case. Try solvency attacks. Those can be incredibly useful. When you're running K's, on case goes incredibly well with those.

g) Finally, Theory - Framework/theory... this is a very interesting and potentially abusive game played by both sides. It seems to be trying to force the opposite side into debating in a way that is only advantageous to one side. I will NEVER vote solely on theory but if it's legitimately NOT abusive and tied to the winning argument then it CAN work in your favor. Tread lightly.

Lincoln Douglas

LD is not single player Policy. You are not trying to come up with a plan to "solve" the resolution. You are also not trying to overspread your opponent. Your goal is not to destroy with theoretical nuclear war. Your resolutions are written in such a way as to give me something much different.

a) Cases - You case construction is important. You should have a value, criteria and 2 or 3 contentions. You may also have a few definitions before you start your contentions. This is more stylistic and for you than it is for me but keep it in mind.

b) Value is where I actually weigh the round. Many judges now may not do it that way but I do.

I did policy for 1 year in High-school without a coach And somehow ended up Being the Head coach of East High school. I don't know how this happened and I want to go home.

I am a technique over truth judge, I will vote on theory, topicality, Condo, and all other goofy things if I believe it comes down to that. Nothing is really off limits when it comes technique and how you deal with them. I just love good technique.

That also means I will give wins over uncontested arguements.

I have given wins to teams that have claimed that climate change isn't real because their opponents didn't touch it. No matter how ridiculous it, you just have to relate it back to the case

If you are going to speak fast, it will be beneficial to my flows if you slow down and make it clear when you read a new card. Read the title of the card, date, and author of the card clearly. That greatly helps me and you if I can correct flow.

With flows in mind. Please have a good road map before you start to speak. I will struggle without one. Though it's not required, I would recommend asking for permission to start a speech so my flows are in order (after you roadmap)

1. any reference to high school musical will make you lose points. That franchise doesnt exist, yes I know I coach the High-school musical school, but it doesn't exist

With that in mind, have fun, be respectful, keep in mind that I barley know what I'm doing, and good luck.





Debate is love
Debate is life

Ultimately I expect you to communicate persuasively and move the arguments forward. In policy I expect you to move the argument, explain the flow, and advocate for voters. I will vote on stock issues, topicality, solvency, counterplans, etc. based on where you push the argument and where your opponents push back. You can spread but realize I will likely ask for you to provide me the key cards so that I can read them in context--ensure you are properly using the text.

In LD realize that value and criterion will be key from which I will evaluate your persuasiveness of how you lay out the case. Do not ignore what your opponent says, rather address their arguments to refute them.

I am a policy judge. I debated for 3-4 years, coached for 3 more, and have judged for 4ish years now (all policy).

I can understand spewing/spreading/whatever else you call it.

I do not flow cx so if you make a good point you need to bring it up in your next speech or I will not flow it through. If I am typing during cx, I am probably catching up on my notes from the previous speech.

I like judging on impact calc, but the role of the debate is the most important thing to me (if aff or neg does not fulfill their roles, it is an automatic loss). I also invite you to write the ballot for me (tell me what arguments you won and why, what arguments they dropped, etc). Structure your rebuttal speeches that way.

***Make sure you flow your arguments through unless you intentionally drop them***

I have no history with debate, but I do have a history with law and business.

I also invite you to write the ballot for me (tell me what arguments you won and why, what arguments they dropped, etc). Structure your rebuttal speeches that way. Showing respect and professionalism is very important. Creating a strong case is just as important as breaking down the other team's case.

My name is Katie Summers. I used to compete in Public Forum for two years and Poetry for one when I was in high school. This is my second year judging.

Disclaimer: This is not an exhaustive, all-inclusive list. Sometimes I don't realize I judge off of specific things until I have issues with/discover I love them in round. I've tried my best to cover everything but I may miss or not even think to include something. I am an imperfect judge and though I try I'm often more flexible on some things than I should be, or miss other things I shouldn't.

Debaters: I became a Criminal Justice major recently and discovered that evidence gets thrown out in court if it is not obtained legally. Since I assume that many debaters are at least considering a career related to law, I have decided to become strict about the OFFICIAL NSDA rules of whatever debate you are participating in to help prepare you.If you make an appeal to the rules, make sure they are the official rules instead of just guidelines AND current rules.

Falsified or illegal evidence will be thrown out if caught and I can't base my decision on it. Unless there is some sort of plagiarism issue I won't determine that someone will automatically lose the debate over it, but the other team must have some other valid evidence and logical argument strong enough to still win the debate.

Some things that I like to see in a debate are clear, well-developed arguments that use numbers and evidence. I do not like to see logical fallacies in debates and generally do not give high scores or a win when I see them (unless both teams are using them, in which case I will often side with the team that uses the least).

Representatives/Senators:

Orators/Speakers/Etc.:

General/All: I don't care how fast or slow you speak. I don't mind if jargon or technical language is used in debates.

With note-taking, I will look at you a lot if you are giving a speech and most likely be writing more notes if you are debating.

I love argument, and tend to rank it over style. I like to see clear preparation and work over charisma. I also like to see logic and interest in the topic. I prefer a logical train of thought over emotional intensity, because I feel like everyone has their own opinion and bias needs to be eliminated for me to be able to rank you/give you a win in speech and debate, but if you could give me a good combination of both that would be best.

ALSO, please be respectful and don't talk over or laugh during other people's speeches. We all deserve to be here and speak our piece.

Former Policy debater/National Qualifier (JHS 2000-2003) and parent of freshman debater at Alta High.

For email chains: lksylvia@gmail.com

Policy: I spent the majority of my time competing in policy debate. I am comfortable with any type of debate but prefer a more traditional round and preferred a policy maker framework when I debated myself. Advantages/disadvantages, solvency, and politics are all things I like to hear in a round--how does the plan work/not work in the real world?

If you are using more progressive arguments (kritikal affs/kritiks, etc) go for depth over breadth. I think a judge should adapt to the round presented to them, and I will do my best to evaluate the issues that are explained well in the rebuttals.