I love to see honest acting in interpretation events. If you have blocking, l'd like it to be clearly purposeful and clean. Most importantly, have fun.

In platform events I like you have unique analyses of your topics with clear implications. Again, above all else, just have fun.

LD

TLDR: First time parent judge — speak clearly (no spreading, please) and don’t run progressive arguments unless you think you can adequately explain them to someone who has never judged debate before. I want clear warrants and refutations. Assume I know nothing about the current topic, and err on the side of over-explanation, particularly when weighing, making case turns, and engaging in framework debate. Don’t forget to provide a roadmap/signpost.

The number one thing is that I would like you to write my ballot for me. This means clear weighing (both framework and contention levels), well articulated arguments, clean extensions, and clear refutations. If I am confused/unable to follow your train of thought, I am also unable to vote for you. For competing frameworks, please do not forget to weigh and explicitly connect your contentions to the framework debate. I want to see engagement with your opponent’s arguments and decisively prove why your side should win.

If your opponent drops an important argument, please highlight it for me AND explain why it matters.

Extra things:

• Keep your own time in round

• Please remain professional and courteous in round. Remember that everything you do in round is eligible to be judged, and that includes your etiquette. I reserve the right to base my final decision on any discriminatory/unsafe conduct that occurs (I will also lower speaker points).

• Please limit your use of debate jargon; I’m familiar with some terms but would greatly prefer that you avoid it. In other words, use at your own risk.

PF

TLDR: All of the above apply; due to the shorter speech times as compared to LD, clear weighing/extensions and signposting are even more important. I will also have a much lower likelihood of understanding progressive arguments.

I want to see clear impacts to your case and consider ease of understanding a key component of PF. Please make sure that I can understand what you are arguing and exactly where you are ahead of your opponent. Final focus should narrow the debate down to key voters.

If running a framework, I’ll be looking for you to prove that you uphold it better than your opponent.

Speech

I am looking for eye contact and a polished, compelling presentation. This means that informative events (extemp, info) should provide new knowledge. Make sure that you also have a firm grasp of the topic you’re presenting on. OO should have clear societal implications and persuade the audience (me) to care about your topic. All acting events should have a clear story with blocking/acting that makes your narrative easy to follow and enjoy.

Please remain respectful and courteous of the judge and your fellow competitors. Remember that everything you do in round is eligible to be judged, and that includes your etiquette.

Priya Chaudhari:

Affiliation: Plano HS '18

Experience: Competed at Plano Senior HS 17-18. Judging since 2019.

Contact: priyachaudhari2018@gmail.com

A little about me:

She/He. I identify as a queer POC and transphobia, homophobia, and racism are not well received unless deemed narratively 'necessary.' I do not take these things lightly.

I recently graduated from UNT with a BA in Media Arts. I am a performer, and most of my experience is from years of theatre, films, and the IE sides of speech. I am, however, in no way a seasoned debater. That does not mean I will not judge debate, I will simply evaluate the manner in which the information was presented to me... but please do leave me out of congress and LD I will be lost.

I do not tolerate inappropriate room etiquette. Behavior such as being on your phone or laptop during a round (unless clarified to take notes of the performances), talking to other people in between performances or immediately after (where the judge is still present), eating or chewing gum, or just being disrespectful can greatly affect the performer as well as the judge. Failure to be a kind and respectful audience member will likely turn up on the ballot though I will never let it hinder the rank/score in the room unless there is a very specific circumstance. Treat other competitors the way you would like to be treated, please.

I competed in PF and WSD for the majority of the time I spent in debate.

PF:

If you spread, please, at least enunciate your words, talking fast and clear, is different than just talking fast. Make sure all your arguments are concise yet well explained, if it comes down to me doing some analysis in order for your side to win the argument, I won't give y'all the round and will make my decision solely based off of what was said in the round. Cross should be used to get valuable information, but also to clarify points in order to make your argument stronger, or theirs weaker, however it should not be a mini-argument in itself over one point, cover multiple arguments, and use the short time efficiently.

WSD:

Don't spread. WSD from my perspective is mostly about the logic behind all your arguments, and hypotheticals, but that also means that the hypotheticals have to be somewhat justifiable. That being said I don't want to hear just blatant facts, and regurgitation of PDFs online. I need to hear some real analysis as to why your argument is inherently better in the context of the motion. Refutation should also be analysis, not blatant countering. Being able to turn arguments is great, and a good tool to display your understanding of an argument in the first place. Also if you are going to use the word principle please know what you are talking about. A principle argument can be a winning argument and the last thing I want to hear in the reply is a principle vs practical analysis and you're just weighing practical arguments against each other.

Good luck to all teams!

1. I am a Current DC speech teacher and coach. Background in communications, though I've been within the realm of speech and debate for close to 6 years.

Higher preference in traditional LD rounds, with min spreading. Need to be able to clearly understand and hear contentions and significant points, however won't completely judge against competitors.

2. a. With a preference in traditional LD cases, value and criterions are significant in the round.

b. If using K's, should be clear to follow and refute throughout round.

c. Voting issues should be given, throughout the flow or final rebuttal.

d. Winner decided by key arguments and sense of persuasion.

e. Notes/flow is taken based off off significant arguments throughout round. If I cannot follow, I cannot judge.

PF:

Vote mainly off of framework and understanding of concepts. I keep track of the round, but I'm not a flow-heavy judge. It's your responsibility to tell me what was dropped, the impact of what was dropped, and why it's a voting issue. I'm fine with speed, but please don't spread. Not a fan of theory, ks, or plans/counterplans. Shouting cards at me won't guarantee you a win.

LD:

I am as traditional of an LD judge as traditional gets. My interest is in seeing debate in which alternative viewpoints are presented on a philosophical basis. I'm fine with speed, but spreading will guarantee you minimum or close-to-minimum speaker points. I vote mainly off of the value-criteria debate. Not a fan at all of theory, Ks, or plans/counterplans. I'd rather you not use them, but if they're well-constructed, I'll at least listen. Also, since this has come up lately, I couldn't care less that your opponent didn't share their case with you before the round.

Congress:

Be nice to others please. I'm very much a traditionalist. I'm less interested in empty words and fluency than I am in real policy proposals. Tell me your ideas and why they're good. If you craft a well-constructed argument that makes sense, I don't really evaluate how many fluency breaks you had. "Gotcha" questions get old after a while (that's what clash in your speeches is for), further the debate with your questioning. I'm a fan of friendly questions.

INFO/OO:

While your speaking style is important, I'm much more interested in what you have to say. As such, I'm not going to give you the 6 just because you had more than two fluency breaks. Commonly-used topics and gimmicks become less interesting after a while. I like to hear topics that are unique, interesting, and thoughtfully-presented. Try to avoid subject matter that is too political, as you don't want to alienate me as your judge.

Extemp:

I used to be a journalist, so keep in mind that I'm generally aware of current events. If you say something that's factually incorrect, I will point it out and it will affect your overall score. I'm much more worried about your content than your speaking style. Focus on creating well-constructed arguments — as long as I can understand you, it's not important how many fluency breaks you have.

Other IEs:

Focus on telling a good story first and foremost. As long as the narrative, the characterization, and your blocking are crisp, you have little to worry about from me. If you're doing PO, PR, or POI, don't just read from your book — make sure you're keeping eye contact with me as your judge and the audience in general.

For speaking events I appreciate well structured and supported arguments (cite your sources). A good persuasive speech or informative presentation should be well paced with a clear voice and some audience engagement, for example, through humor. Please avoid humor that may insult your audience.

For interpretation events I look for performances that provoke audience emotion and engagement. I don’t look for structure as heavily, but a clear through line with transitional elements (like using specific characterization through voice and/or gestures) is important.

School Affiliation: Coach at The Episcopal School of Dallas

Coaching & Judging Experience: I have been coaching teams and judging tournaments since 2006. This includes LD, PF, Congress, CX and IEs at different schools in Virginia and Texas. I have had debaters qualify for NCFL and NSDA on multiple occasions which are both considered traditional tournaments.

Speed: Although I am personally not a fan of it, please make sure your spreading is clear and coherent. If I can't understand you, I probably will not flow it. If you see me stop flowing for an extended period of time then it would be in your best interest to slow down. I also heavily prefer if you go slow on your taglines, analytics and any theory arguments, especially during your rebuttals.

Types of Arguments: Although I prefer framework heavy debates, a lot of clash in the round, and good crystallization and overviews in your final rebuttal, I will still vote on topicality, counterplans, some theory arguments at times and kritiks if they are explained well by the debater. I am not a fan of non-topical Affs as I tend to favor whole resolution ACs. Make sure when you run T, that you are linking your violation to your standards/voting issues and that when you run a CP, you explain your net benefits and how it's competitive.

Theory Argument: If you run any disclosure theory or new affs bad arguments, make sure you thoroughly break down the reasons to prefer. Although I have never really been a fan of these types of arguments, I am willing to consider them if you can show the impacts of the abuse committed by your opponent and how this outweighs. Please make sure that whatever theory shells you plan on running are presented at a slower rate of speed.

Kritiks: Run at your own risk because I'm not really a fan of complicated philosophical arguments that have nothing to do with the actual resolution that should be debated upon. I'm not saying you can't win if you run them, but I might look at you funny and simply not flow the argument depending on the complexity of the K.

Speaks: Clarity over speed is prefered. If your spreading is incomprehensible, this will reflect on your speaker points. Any acts of rudeness or displays of an unprofessional demeanor towards your opponent will also be taken into account. If you go against an inexperienced debater or a traditional style opponent, it would be in your best interest to accommodate their format and invest some time clashing with or turning their value, criterion and contentions. Also, please do not ask me if I disclose speaker points. It's not going to happen. In addition, please do not use profanity at all during the round. It will impact your speaks and could also impact my decision so don't do it. Lastly, please refrain from attacking the character of any political figures or political parties as a whole. It's okay to discuss policies of the USFG but please avoid bashing politicians or parties that you may dislike as I consider that type of tactic in a debate to be very unprofessional and offensive. Debaters have lost my ballot over this in the past.

Tricks: Please don't.

Overview: Debate the resolution, clash with your opponent's arguments, provide framework, slow down during tags and analytics, throw in some voters at the end.

Email Chain: If and only if both debaters are sharing files, please include my email as well: kesslert@esdallas.org

I am a new parent judge.

In Public Forum and Extemp: I value delivery & analysis supported by evidence from credible sources. I want to know the significance of your topic and what are the impacts of your arguments, tell me why it matters. I can't vote for points and impacts I can't hear or understand, so slow up for key points and explain them clearly. Understand that you are Debating not Arguing, this is an important distinction that must be known by each debater!

In Congressional Debate: I value the natural delivery of points and impacts and reasonable positions. I look for acknowledgment of prior speakers' points and clash leading to good argumentation and refutation, and for purposeful questioning leading to clarity, understanding, or insight. A lack of clash is frowned upon. Knowledge of and adherence to Parliamentary Procedure is expected in the chamber. Skillful Presiding Officers make sessions a positive experience for all and will be ranked accordingly.

In Oratory, Info, and Impromptu: I value your originality, creativity, and persuasive presentation of ideas of personal importance. Cite your sources, explain their importance, and tell me why it matters.

In DI, HI, DUO, Poetry, and Prose: It is crucial that you tell a story in a meaningful and impactful manner. Characterization, gestures and facial expressions, and, vocal variation will all add to the overall decision. Along, with the dramatic structure of the piece and mindful storytelling!

Overall speaking skills or/and argumentation are critical to winning! But remember the most important thing is that you learn!

Spoken Word: It is crucial that you tell a story in a meaningful and impactful manner. Characterization, gestures and facial expressions, and, vocal variation will all add to the overall decision. Along, with the dramatic structure, organization, clear theme, and mindful storytelling!

Sarah Lyngholm

Affiliation: Plano Senior High 2019

Experience: Competed at haggard middle school, Judged middle school events in high school, and I have been judging High school tournaments since 2021.

Contact: selyngholm@gmail.com

A little about me:

She/Her.

Transphobia, Homophobia, and Racism are not received well unless necessary to the piece.

I will always appreciate a warning about any sensitive content in a piece.

I will not stand for inappropriate etiquette within the tournaments. I encourage students to stay off of their phones (unless taking notes), stay quiet between speakers, and refrain from eating/chewing gum during rounds. Being disrespectful during rounds will end up on ballots, but will not affect the competitor's rank (unless absolutely necessary).

I am typically an I/E judge, so keep that in mind if putting me in a debate pool. I do not favor spreading during debate rounds, and I will judge based on how you present your piece or argument.

TREAT PEOPLE WITH KINDNESS AND RESPECT.

Hi y'all! I'm Ellen Marshall. I’m a social sciences student at UT Austin. As a high school student, I competed in every IE available at the time (so not Info or POI!) excluding Duo, but I specialized in Oratory, Prose, and HI/DI. Since then, I’ve had some experience volunteer-coaching (mostly oratory) and as a hired judge. I’m not affiliated with any high school. Here's the gist of what I wanna see, followed by a much longer version with more specifics.

THE SHORT VERSION FOR SPEECHES (OO, INFO, EXTEMP)

Have a clean and engaging delivery. Organize clearly what you are going to say in your introduction. Specificity > breadth in your topic. Make your speech personal, approachable, and interesting.

THE SHORT VERSION FOR IEs

Inspire emotion, tell a story, and be polished. Don’t be excessively crude or graphic. Creativity, inventiveness, technical skill, and personal connections to the plot/theme are all big pluses.

SPEAKING EVENTS (OO, INFO, EXTEMP)

I emphasize delivery, organization, and material depth. Bring plenty of energy and speak confidently and clearly. Vary your delivery, bring in comedy and drama as appropriate. Signpost your speech clearly in your intro. I find an argument that is in-depth on one area is preferable to a shallow overview of a larger topic.

Extemp should include plenty of cited sources. However, do not just summarize a series of articles. Explain briefly what the source says and explain why it is relevant to your stance. You don’t have much time, so have purpose in everything you say,

The number one most common criticism I find myself writing for Extempers is in delivery. Enunciate clearly and do not spread. Vary your delivery speed, pitch and tone, make eye contact to the best of your ability, and move with purpose. The event is called extemporaneous speaking for a reason, so I’m more forgiving of stumbles or rushing than I would be in OO or Info, but it’s still a speaking event. Being a good presenter is just as important as having a well-researched argument.

I find OO and Info have an odd tendency to be conflated with each other these days. If you're giving an oratory, you need to be trying to persuade me on something, and if you’re giving an Info, you need to give an as-unbiased-as-possible overview of your subject.

Also, for either event, PLEASE come memorized. It's always clear who has written a speech, and who is doing improv off bullet points. This is something you’re performing for a whole season. It’ll be easier for you just to write a speech than re-invent the wheel every time you perform. Lastly, I prefer to see topics students have a personal stake in in some way. You’re picking these topics, and I’d like to know why it matters to you. Covering something mainstream you have no stake in is much less interesting to me.

A final note specific to OOs: please make your solution realistic. This is my single largest pet peeve. If your topic is on a massive societal or international issue, acknowledge that, and offer day-to-day changes the audience can make instead. This isn't extemp: policy changes are not always a feasible answer.

IEs:

When it comes to content in an IE piece, I have no preference between character- or story-driven pieces. I’m also relatively flexible with cuttings that stray from an author’s original intention. I do, however, take issue with excessively dark, mean, or risqué material. Don’t punch down, don’t be unnecessarily graphic or crude, and don’t go for the ‘shock factor’. Heavy themes are to be expected in dramatic pieces, but cover them tastefully and respectfully. You never know what your audience may have experienced in their own lives.

Regardless of event, I want to see three things: an emotional connection to your piece, a complete story, and polish and creativity. The emotional core of an HI should be different than a DI, the way a Poetry performance tells a story is different than a Duo, and the blocking and characterizations used in each event varies greatly.

As long as your performance makes me feel something and has a clear beginning, middle, and end, you’re golden. Those two things are your foundation. Once you have them, I’m most concerned with how clean your piece is.

Keep your character voices and physicality distinct and consistent. Enunciate and carry yourself with confidence. Be memorized. Block with purpose. A piece with no blocking is dull, but a piece that never stops moving is exhausting.

Please make use of silence and pauses!!! It’s such an underrated element of a piece. Giving your audience (and yourself!) time to think and breathe in appropriate spots is maybe the single biggest improvement you can make to your performance.

IEs are an art. Put your heart into it, make whatever you’re performing your own. A personal connection to the subject matter is a huge plus (especially in dramatic pieces), and if you have one, I’d love to hear it in your intro. Bonus points as well for inventiveness/creativity in your cutting, blocking, and acting ability!

For TFA State:

Interp: I am a pretty open minded judge when it comes to judging interp overall but there are a few things I look for in performances. Creativity and honesty will always be the most rewarded in my book because it is why we do what we do at the end of the day. Showcasing your own interpretation, but staying true to the core of the story is important to me. Character development and emotional shifts are super important especially over a digital platform to keeping us engaged with the story and showing us the meaning behind the words. Have fun with the choices you make as long as they are PURPOSEFUL, doing something that distracts rather than enhances makes us lose connection between what is happening in the story.

Speaking/Extemp: Big thing is show your own unique style and approach to speaking because this is what separates you from other. I am a big fan of humor, but PLEASE, I BEG do not make it feel forced or this is just awkward for both of us. In terms of depth of the speech, I like more than just surface level arguments and I want to see you get to the higher end issues and core problems effectively. Structure is important obviously to make sure we can connect all of the ideas and know how you are getting to what you are wanting to. Finally, have variation in your delivery, it is important to showcase the different levels and power of your arguments and statements and so we should feel very engaged with how you are saying and what you are saying.

Worlds School Debate:

School affiliation/s : Northwest High School

Hired (yes/no) : Hired for WSD

High School Affiliation if graduated within last five years (required): Northwest High School

Currently enrolled in college? (required) If yes, affiliation? No

Years Judging/Coaching (required) I have been judging for 5- 6 years.

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event (required)

I pretty much started off my first year judging in interp and PF and then slowly incorporated all other forms of debate the following year.

Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year (required): Since August I have judged about 40 world school rounds around Texas.

Check all that apply

__x___I judge WS regularly on the local level

_____I judge WS at national level tournaments

_____I occasionally judge WS Debate

_____I have not judged WS Debate this year but have before

_____I have never judged WS Debate

Rounds judged in other events this year : 75 rounds including PF, LD, Interp, Speaking, and Congress.

Check all that apply

__x__ Congress

_x___ PF

__x__ LD

____ Policy

_x___ Extemp/OO/Info

__x__ DI/HI/Duo/POI

____ I have not judged this year

____ I have not judged before

Have you chaired a WS round before?

I have chaired multiple WS rounds before locally.

What does chairing a round involve?

Chairing a round basically is keeping the round in order and ensuring a productive and efficient debate. The chair is in charge of calling up the speakers, leading the RFD for the panel, making sure people do not ask questions during protected time (which I discuss students should keep their own timer at the beginning so we do not have this issue), and making sure a fair debate is occurring.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else?

I would describe WSD as a form of debate in which you are arguing ideas and issues to show which side of the motion is the most logical. This is way different than Americanized debate where theory and jargon is utilized more, so it is focusing on the core issues of the debate. Worlds is suppose to make sense to anyone who is listening to the debate and therefore the arguments should make rationale sense to anybody.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate?

I am fortunate enough to have a full setup for my computer. I have two monitors and on the main monitor I watch the debate, and the second monitor has my tabroom ballot where I am writing notes over each speech and speaker. I also in front of me use a notebook to flow the debate to make sure I keep up with what is being said in the round.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

This just simply depends on the topic itself. I am pretty open minded when it comes to arguments and do not have a personal preference as long as it is discussed why you chose what to advocate for. This clarity is needed to really emphasize why that approached is needed and it's on the debaters to tell me why it is preferable.

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy?

I think strategy usually is overlooked in terms of how you want structure arguments. A speaker's strategy is how do you connect the claims you present and how you word things in order to be effective in elaborating on arguments presented by the other side. Picking the right way to argue things and how you say it are definitely things to be aware of for your strategy.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast?

First, I am glad to have not judged a WSD where someone was spreading, so let's keep it that way hopefully. If someone is just not effective with their speed and tone I usually deduct points from their style.

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

As silly as it may sound, I usually vote on simply what makes sense. Since we do not have to have the 20 minutes of calling for cards (thankfully), I simply view whos reasoning and rationale makes the most sense towards the topic and arguments presented in the round. Show me your thought process through your speech and it usually comes down to who can prove their claims in a clear manner, rather than the throw everything at the wall and see what sticks strategy.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

I look at how effective and clear some model is to make sure it sets the foundation for your ideas. Make sure you think through your model to answer any potential questions individuals may have about it. I do not think all motions need a model or countermodel, so just make sure if you use one there is a purpose to it.

LD Debate

Aff has the convince me to support the resolution. Neg has an obligation to provide clash, and if either fail in their respective roles, then the win falls to the one that does it correctly.

Presenting arguments/speeches should be in an easy, digestible way.

PF Debate

Basically the same as above; theory is cool with me. Also, this is PFD, not CX--we don't really need to be spreading

My background is primarily interp/theatre. I value well-researched, well-presented arguments (quality over quantity). Please do not spread. I abide no hatred, so keep things civil. Loud debate/speech is not indicative of good debate/speech.

Simply put, speak so that I may understand you clearly.

Howdy y'all!

My name is Matthew and I'm a current freshman at UT Austin (Hook 'em!). I primarily did Info and OO but I also have experience in Impromptu, Extemp, Congress, and Prose (don't ask...). I reached semis at TFA State and Berkeley, broke at NIETOC, and qualified for TOC and Nationals.

Public Address Events:

Extemp:

The biggest thing I'm looking for is for you to answer the question. Make sure that your speech is balanced so that you're providing roughly the same amount of evidence and analysis for each main point. Also, even in an event like extemp, don't be afraid to be yourself! Letting your personality shine through and adding humor (in your intro, transitions, etc.) are great ways to make yourself stand out in a round!

Info/OO:

These are the primary events I competed in throughout my career and also my favorite to watch! The most important thing I want to see is you having fun. These are the events that I feel allow for the most creativity + expression and I really want that to shine through. Chances are if you're enjoying it, then I will too! For OO specifically, I'd really like to see a personal connection to your topic. By the end of your performance, I should have a good understanding of why YOU chose this topic to deliver a 10-minute speech on. You can structure your speech however you'd like but at some point, I would like to see you address the problem, its causes, effects, and solutions. Make sure that your solutions are realistic and manageable. For info, I don't really have anything that I'm specifically looking for. You have so much liberty in the topic you choose, the way you structure your speech, and how you deliver it. Just ensure that by the end I'm leaving having learned at least one new piece of information. Visuals are definitely not required but if you do have them I appreciate quality over quantity. They should be clean and actually add value to your speech. Similar to extemp, in both of these events, I'd appreciate appropriate use of humor and seeing your personality through your presentation.

Interp

I don't have a ton of experience in interp but I was surrounded by some very talented performers in high school. To quote one of my old coaches: "My overarching philosophy with all interp is that as a performer, you are baking a cake. The three main ingredients of this cake are "characters," "emotion," and "story." Everything else - blocking, accents, how your intro is written, suitability of subject material, author's intent, humor - is icing on that cake. Not totally unimportant - just not the first thing I think about when I'm deciding whether or not I liked it." I don't have any partiality towards piece selection, just make sure you're being authentic. Remember that these are real people's stories you are telling.

Debate

I’m lay. Please don’t spread. I don’t really understand theory.

Congress:

Speaking = 60%

Content = 40%

I'd rather you not give a speech than completely rehash a previous representative's points. Every speech after the first cycle should have clash. The sponsor should outline the problem in the status quo and then refer back to specific parts of the piece of legislation. Negation speakers should be proving net harms, not just saying the bill won't do anything. POs will probably end up in the 3-6 range.

Interpret and public speaking, should leave a judge, wanting to know more answering questions I never thought of getting insight into a topic or character that is not just on the surface

Hello,

I am a husband, father of five kids, and supervisor in the insurance industry. I enjoy reading and applying contract language, hearing arbitration disputes, and coaching my direct reports on how to achieve their greatest potential. When I was in high-school I enjoyed dabbling in both debate and theatre. Now that I have high-school aged children, I'm excited to see them (and you) practice the valuable skills of critical thinking and communication. I am fairly new to judging these tournaments, but I'm excited to share in this journey with you.

A final note: as you communicate, please remember the dignity of those you interact with. Failure to treat others with dignity will lose you ethos points with me.

Sincerely,

Justin Sterenberg

Note for today's event (The McMillen High School Last Word) - I have a sore throat and would like to minimize my speaking / talking as much as possible.

I am a parent judge and have been judging for many years now. I used to judge PF earlier but for last couple of years I am doing IEs.

My paradigm regarding IE:

• I did a lot of drama and theater in my school and college days and am still involved today. So I am familiar with the intricacies of most of the IE events and have a good understanding of what makes a for a good performance.
• I like to see energy and passion in performances. Ability to evoke the emotion in audience is a key metric of success for me.
• Delivery, voice modulations, facial expressions, hand gestures, character swapping etc. are key component of IE performance (as applicable to each event). They make the performance richer and more impactful. So doing more is preferred than doing less.
• Each IE event has its guardrails. I like to see students stick to that as much as possible.
• Time management is key for me. I would like performances to use as much time as possible and avoid a situation of finishing too early. But going over is also a no-no.
• Most important - your conviction as a performer in the piece that you are performing. Make it convincing!
• Lastly, in every round, I need someone to help me with the time keeping.

My Paradigm regarding PF:

• I would highly prefer that you speak clearly than quickly. I like when teams use a structured framework for their arguments. I will vote for the team that best responds to the other team's arguments while at the same time clarifying their own arguments.

• Comparison and direct weighing of arguments will make it much easier to make my decision. With that being said, please refrain from using too much technical jargon without being able to explain it first.

Good luck to everyone!