Use logic and reason to advance your argument, and avoid hyperbole or exaggeration. Treat your opponent with respect. Do not spread or speak unnaturally fast. Please don't address me as judge in your speech, rather present your argument to the room.

The Debate section:

I’m a fairly relaxed judge.

I prefer professional round etiquette because it shows that you don’t rely on cheap tactics to give you the win. I will judge the round on your main speeches so don’t solely rely on crossfire to make yourself seem cool. Organized argumentation and explanations for evidence are the most effective way to sway me to your side. I’m not a big fan of straight BS. I prefer you to tell me why your BS matters.

Tell me what I should judge the round on.

Don’t rely on me to time for you, give you time signals, or provide an accurate flow. I will try my best to give time signals if asked but I most likely will forget so please don't rely on me. I can provide better critiques overall if you let me just judge you.

SPEED! I am NOT a huge fan of speed talking, I will be ok if you do talk fast. just know that I am not here for it. I want to understand what your argument is.

Grace periods are fine as long as you don’t abuse them. Just finish your thought and stop.

I won’t mainly judge on crossfire, but I can’t stop my ears from hearing your BS (so, please don’t make them bleed).

The Speech section:

This is something I love. So I am very excited for your performance.

I love stories and acting. JUST HAVE FUN and share the message of your story. Act confident when you are on stage. It helps, trust me. I just want to know what I should take away from your speech. please blow me out of the water with your acting and topic.

I believe that having a memorized script is more important than any other aspect. After that, I value characterization and then the cream on top is choreography.

I will let you know if you are almost out of time so you can have your grace period.

About me:

I was a captain of my high school debate team for 3 years ;)

I competed primarily in speech my first year and took home lots of super shiny HI, POI, and DI trophies. I’ve heard and said a lot of BS in my years so if you’re going to rely on it at least make it worth hearing.

In my second year, I ventured into the realm of debate. I could’ve done better. But in the end, Congress stole my heart...and my patience. I also tried LD.

In my third year...everything changed! I leveled up in Congress. Awful —> Mediocre. I dropped LD in the trash and never looked back but BS will always be my closest frenemy.

The part that is of the utmost IMPORTANCE.

Be nice. It’s ok to destroy your opponent but please do it nicely. Also, have fun. Debate isn't the most important thing in the world, so just enjoy it.

If you have any questions about the round or want to tell me I’m an awful/hilarious judge, go ahead.

p.s. If you read the whole thing before round come tell me what you think I could change about my paradigm to make it better. Also, tell me what you think about theater. (I'm going into theater (design) as my major)

DEBATE EVENTS:

I am a practicing attorney who occasionally moonlights as a debate judge. Over the past 30 years I have watched competitive debate deteriorate from a program of teaching students effective communication to a program contrived to win debate rounds by any strategy, including so-called "progressive" tactics that are designed to confuse and overwhelm opponents with tangential and obscure minutia rather than inform and persuade judges with impactful, well-reasoned argumentation.

This is ironic because in real life, in a real courtroom, I will only win a trial if I win the hearts and minds of the jury---presenting artfully crafted arguments that accentuate my personal ethos, while balancing appropriate appeals to logic and passion. If I tried to "spew" or "spread" my arguments to a jury, I would lose the case. If I tried it in front of a judge, I would get kicked out of the courtroom! If I tried to win every case by overwhelming the judge, jury and counsel with every "card" I ever stumbled upon (even remotely related to the case), I would lose all my cases and my clients with them.

The same goes for nearly every other professional communicator. No teacher would teach that way. No news broadcaster would report that way. as far as I can tell, the only job opportunity available to a "progressively" trained debater is to deliver the annoying legal disclaimers at the end of radio commercials.

I realize that my views are hopelessly outdated. No one reading this paradigm statement will ever select me as "1" on a judge preference sheet. Nevertheless, if you have the bad luck of getting me in a round anyway, here are some tips on how to get my vote:

(1) Speak at a normal, conversational rate;

(2) Look me in the eye;

(3) Begin with a clear, real-life illustration of how the Affirmative or Negative case effects real people;

(4) Make me laugh;

(5) Make me cry;

(6) Make me care;

(7) Help me understand what the resolution means;

(8) Help me understand why your ideas are right;

(9) Help me understand why your opponent is wrong; and,

(10) Organize your ideas in a way that makes sense.

I realize that this rhetorical model is profoundly outdated (it is in fact about 2,500 years old). Nevertheless, in the spirit of learning something useful (rather than simply winning another piece of shiny plastic today for speed-reading), please give these ideas a try!

SPEECH EVENTS:

Many Debaters [and coaches] consider speech events to be "throw-away" events---something to do when debaters are not in a "real" debate round. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Speech events teach students about the power of pathos---of making human connections. They provide a wonderful balance to the logos-heavy debate events. To capture my vote [or the vote of most ordinary human beings], a student must be prepared to do the following:

(1) Speak at a normal, conversational rate;

(2) Make consistent eye contact (for interp. events hold a steady, consistent locus);

(3) Give a clear, real-life illustration of how your topic effects real people;

(4) Make me laugh;

(5) Make me cry;

(6) Make me care;

(7) Help me understand what you mean;

(8) Help me understand why your ideas are right;

(9) Help me understand why any competing viewpoints are wrong; and,

(10) Organize your ideas in a way that makes sense.

Don't treat Speech like it is another debate event; it is an altogether different animal that requires a somewhat different, more empathic skill set. Don't be intimidated by this [if you happen to be a hard-core, card-flipping, evidence-stacking debater]. Instead, embrace the opportunity to learn a new [and equally real] way of communicating.

You can run any argumentation (i.e. progressive argumentation is great) as long as it is respectful towards your opponent.

If you run a kritik, I expect an alternative to prove how neg can solve.

I don't flow cross, and if speed/audio quality is an issue I will address it right away for the clarity and fairness of the round.

Good luck, and have fun!

Lincoln Douglas

I have been judging speech and debate tournaments for five years with the bulk of my experience focused on speech events. I have an extensive background in political consulting, speech writing and public speaking. I prefer a more traditional approach with a comfortable conversational speed. However, I am fine with rapid conversational style speaking mixed with spreading IF your value criterion, definitions (important) and contentions are clear and audible. I prefer quality over quantity so, if you plan to spread make sure the plethora of information is necessary. In other words, I'm more impressed with those that provide the most content using the fewest words.

Although a charismatic presentation can often sell your argument on the surface, in LD I am more influenced by your content. I can appreciate passion in your arguments provided you are being respectful to your opponent. I tend to prioritize value criterion and contention level arguments. I'm open minded to progressive arguments but they are not preferred.

I love a good CX! Your questions matter. I tend to give high marks to those that can strategically ask questions that require simple answers. Furthermore, those that can take control of the CX by respectfully not allowing their opponent to beyond the scope of the question, will also gain high marks from me. I believe there is a strategy to an effective cross and I am paying particular attention to those that make those most of their time.

I give speaker points from 25 - 30. Please feel free to ask questions before the round begins.

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’m a former speech geek. I competed in oratory, duet, poetry and student congress when I was in high school. I have judged before as well. Feel free to ask me any questions at the beginning of the round. For all events respect is extremely important. Any personal attacks or disrespect toward other competitors will impact ranking.

I have an autoimmune disorder that can lead to poor muscle movement. I may slur my speech or stumble. I often struggle with double vision so I frequently wear an eye patch. In addition, typing (while listening) is difficult for me. I take lots of notes and I will transpose my notes onto Tabroom.

Sources are very important. They add strength to your position and need to be cited. Not all sources are created equal. Please refrain from using Wikipedia, encyclopedias or the internet as primary sources. These are great resources and can lead you to more reputable sources.

I am a first diamond coach from western Colorado. I have some knowledge judging debate.

In a debate, I look for clarity and link. If your content has zero link to you are trying to solve, then I cannot consider it. I expect information and logic that help decide my flow.

Do not attack your opponents but you can attack the information that they provide.

Opening speeches should be detailed and well organized. Evidence should support contentions. I like crossfires that are respectful and with use of evidence presented and then attacked as appropriate. Final summaries should convince me why they are correct and their opponents are wrong. I like good even voice tempo, not rushed with good use of voice inflection.

Salutations, I am Zeque (pronounced: Zeek) Murillo. I am so stoked for the exposure to the topics you are all bringing to the table and using this platform to bring attention to the passion of the future.

-----------------

BACKGROUND:

Competitive Experience: I competed on the high school level from 2010-2014. My main events of the competition level were Duo Interpretation, Dramatic Interpretation, Humorous Interpretation, Original Oration, Impromptu Speaking. I definitely understand what it's like to Double/Triple/Quadruple/Penta/Hexa - Enter, so I'm always understanding of individuals who do multiple events.

Judging/Coaching: I've been part of the judging circuit from local, state, and national level since the fall of 2014 season - Current. I've judged all speech categories and even up to a few quarter final rounds at varying national years. I was an Alumni volunteer assisting with the NSDA program for 2-3 years. I then started Assistant coaching specifically for speech from 2017- Current. My main expertise is in the Interpretation events, but I am also well versed in assisting with the Public Address Events.

JUDGING:

Interpretation:

Content: An introduction in the piece that states the title and author is weighed heavily into account. I also really enjoy the details in the piece and if it's from a play/book/media content that is typically longer than 10 minutes, how is it cut? I enjoy material that has a nice flow and reflects the message that you are trying to get across whether that is humorous or serious in nature. Your piece should still make sense and leave an impact.

Blocking: I do love seeing the choices that students make to elevate the piece and create an environment. I notice the details in pantomime and the consistency of items that you have created out of thin air. For example, if you are holding a cup and then all of a sudden it disappears because you never put it down, I'ma notice :) Blocking is such a beautiful technique to help transport me to the environment of the scene. I think it's super cool when you can play with the dimensions of your speech.

Characterization: I take into account the emotion that you flesh out in your characters and utilizing voice, attitude, posture, and mannerisms to create an easily recognizable character. If you have multiple characters in a piece, I also will evaluate the technique in how you are transitioning from character to character. Lastly, I also consider facial expression and emotional invocation that allows us to better understand the character.

Public Address Events:

Content: Originality of the topic or stance on topic is an item I will take into consideration pretty heavily. I also am dissecting how you structure your speech and how the information is flowing into each other to develop one systematic idea. If you are providing sources, are you citing the original source, & dates.

Delivery: How are you using your movement, tonality, & gestures to engage with the audience? I look for effective speaking tools through using your natural instruments as a speaking tool to elevate the information and bring us in. I also listen to the words you are emphasizing to show how you are highlighting the information and playing with pace.

Impact: I need to know your take/stance on the presentation. Why do you feel passionate about this topic or how do you truly believe this will be resolved. Why should we be listening to this speech and what will be the major take aways?

Lincoln Douglas:

As I flow your round, I’ll be looking to see how your value and criterion work in tandem to prove the moral rationale that LD rests; furthermore, I don’t like when crossfires engage in obnoxious back-and-forths with questions that don’t add any substantive value to the round. Lastly, it's imperative that you underscore the credibility of your cards, especially when making claims including stats, data, points, and political and historical claims that attack your opponent’s arguments.

Public Forum:

I enjoy PF and like to flow the rounds I judge to provide you with the best feedback I can. I love to see link chains and impacts that are substantial to the case; rather than just reading the cards, I’d appreciate you explaining and further reinforcing your points, data, and stats, to let me know that you know your case all around. If you speak too fast, I’ll try to keep up as I flow but once you’ve lost me, I’ll stop flowing. I am not a fan of voters that are reliant on ethos; I prefer you use logic in voters that explain to me what you’ve argued in round. Don’t forget that I’m also flowing the round so if your claim is that they’ve dropped certain points, I’ll refer to my flow to assess that claim.

I am a parent judge with limited debate experience. I have been judging for the past two years, and I majored in political science, but don't assume I know the jargon.

Please write the ballot for me and tell me why you win. I love a debate with good clash and I love when warrants are extended in every speech. I'm less ok with speed, but if you plan on spreading make sure you read analytics slowly and are clear. I don't like theory very much and I probably won't vote on it, so beware of any theory arguments.

I believe debate is a space to have fun, so please be kind to one another.

I see a speaking score at 4 as doing exactly what is expected of you, so a score of 25 is good. I will only give higher scores if I see exceptional talents and abilities.

Evidence is key!!!

I am a parent of a debater and I have been judging a variety of speech and debate events since 2020. I am also a college professor. I have a PhD in art history and I specialize in medieval art. Currently, however, I am mostly employed as one of the associate Vice Presidents for Research at Utah State University where I oversee the Undergraduate Research program. I have 30 years of classroom teaching experience at the college level, and I've seen a lot of student presentations in my time! I'm always impressed that high school debaters are so much more practiced at public speaking than many college students.

To me, strong speakers are deliberate and communicate with a variety of tones, volumes, and smooth nonverbal movement. Less is more; if a speaker is talking too fast, I can't process the message.

Debate events:

I look for sound reasoning in which demonstrable facts are accurately represented, reputable sources are cited, and logical fallacies are avoided. Respect for your fellow debaters in paramount; if you do not listen and respond appropriately when that is part of the debate format, I will be less impressed with whatever you do when it is your turn to speak.

Speech events:

Authenticity is more valuable than cleverness, though by the same token, I have limited patience with melodrama. Please listen quietly and respectfully while others are speaking. I will notice if you do not.

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.

I did debate all four years in high school so I know how tournaments go.

What I would like to see in round is just a well done, civil debate. I appreciate a good amount of clash, just don't become too disrespectful. Please make sources used very clear so I know where your information comes from.

Other than that I trust you to make the round go smoothly by timing yourselves (I will also be timing) and to be prepared to speak loud and clear, and sell your case to me.

I love debate and being able to judge after graduation. Just remember speech and debate is hard work but it is also so important and valuable in your lives; don't forget to have fun with it!

For my speech friends, all I ask of you is for your name, your prep time (if applicable), and your speech time. I ask that you do your best to not go over time, but I will respect the grace period given. That being said your final time will play into my final ranking and decision.