I recently began coaching in 2023 for the Cherry Hill High School East Speech Team, specifically for Interp events. As a high school student (many years ago…), I competed in Prose, HI, and Duo, and attended numerous “Tournament of Champions” competitions. I am a Spanish teacher, but have a strong background in musical theater. I am very passionate about the arts!

When it comes to judging, I take many things into consideration. First and foremost, this is a speech competition. I look for clarity of voice, intonation, variation of volume, enunciation, etc. Additionally, gestures and facial expressions where appropriate. With regard to pieces the speaker has developed on his/her own, I also take content into consideration, such as composition of the piece and how well it is organized.

I love a good laugh! I love to see glimpses of the speaker’s personality in a piece. For the more dramatic pieces, I still appreciate some lightness within the performance and do not think pieces should be over-dramatized. For Interp events, I look to see who can settle into their character and make it believable. I love coaching and judging speech and my goal is to provide meaningful feedback and constructive criticism to help improve each and every speaker!

I am the Tower Hill debate coach. I am also a lawyer, and have been since 1980. My practice has concentrated in civil litigation. I consider the preservation of effective and civilized debate to be one of the strongest guarantees of the survival of democracy. This requires that arguments be made forcefully, with conviction, based upon demonstrable evidence, and in accordance with the applicable rules. It matters to me whether debaters treat the process and their opponents with respect.

Hello, I am thrilled to be judging LD Debate. Today, March 10, 2024, is my first time judging this event; however, it was my favorite event when I was in high school, a million years ago, so I am extremely familiar with its design and purpose. As a judge, I respect crisp analysis of research, anticipation and prep for rebuttals, and overall excellent delivery. That being said, it is important for you to understand that I am extremely sensitive to your professional demeanor. I welcome robust and dogmatic points, but if I find your tone too aggressive or condescending, you will lose favor. I also appreciate good pacing but find spreading to be less persuasive and effective. Congratulations on making it to this point and good luck!

Don't spread & have fun! Thanks!

Hi everyone, I'll be your Speech judge on Sunday 2/11! I've judged Public Forum Debate before, but this is my first time judging at a speech event. Best of luck, I'm excited to hear from you all!

As a social studies teacher, I weigh multiple facets when making my decisions. Above all I would say I value arguments which are not rooted in an underlying affirmation of bigotry and white supremacy all too evident in our society. Along with this I value genuine interaction between arguments. Lincoln Douglas, in my opinion, should never be two people talking through each other without addressing the claims made by the opposing side. Ultimately my golden rule is that these topics do not exist in a vacuum. There are real people affected by the topics we discuss and we must avoid trivializing or otherwise minimizing the weight of our topics simply due to their theoretical nature!

Don't go too fast. Be clear and concise.

Be respectful to your opponents. It goes a long way! I do not tolerate homophobic, racist, or sexist comments.

Email Chain: traviscornett16@gmail.com

Remember to have fun!

email: kdeodatt25@gmail.com

Hi debaters!

I do not have a preference in arguments, I'm fine with DAs, Ks, Topicality etc; But if you are going to run an argument, I expect you to know it well. Don't just read an argument and expect me to do the work for you. Part of being a great debater is critically thinking and proving why your point matters.

I weigh framework heavily in a round; tell me who should get the ballot and why.

Clarity>speed... If it is not on my flow, it will not be evaluated in the debate round.

I love a clean-cut debate, be respectful to one another. Have fun and simply believe in yourself!

Hi, my name is Debra. I look forward to your speech or debate!

For me, clarity is key. Weigh the impacts at the end of the round for me. Explicitly state what your voters are. And be kind to each other.

Thank you!

Kendelle Durkson

Judging PF: 8 years

Competing in PF: 4 years

Current Occupation: Graduate Student (M.D.)

My advice to debaters is to take your time delivering nuanced and developed arguments instead of speaking at a superhuman speed to cover all of the contentions. I prefer big-picture arguments that are anchored in current data while also supported by an appreciation of the historical account/data. Specifically, highlight the historical trends + current consequences in your arguments and the data that supports said conclusions.

The role of the final focus is to recap the main arguments presented and reinforce why your evidence is the most relevant in comparison to your opponent's contentions. I prefer if debaters focus on the overall logic/fact sequence of the debate and how their own contentions are factually supported. Not spending too much time nitpicking a particular data point or opponents' card (unless particularly topical to the overall debate).

As for extensions of arguments into later speeches, I support the practice if the argument prevails due to superior evidence and presentation of that evidence. It is wise for debaters to not overload at the beginning of speeches because you can use later speeches to refine the initial contentions provided. As for topicality, the arguments definitely should be on focus and directly addressing the resolution. Additionally, I do not look favorably upon contentions that rely on hypothetical proposals to address/remedy/provide an alternative to the resolution.

Lastly, as for kritiks, I urge debaters to be cautious with overpopulating their contentions with perspectives from Critical Theory. Although I recognize the importance of systemic critique (and even encourage your arguments to be framed with systemic inequalities in mind), I do not want the arguments to become nontopical and overly lofty. As for flowing, I will hand flow all of the arguments and then follow through the debate with several bullet points of significant subpoints/counterarguments/etc.

As a judge, I prefer the argument over style. Granted, I insist that debaters respect each other while speaking, the rules, and the forum while presenting or cross-examining. However, the evidence and logical conclusions drawn in the arguments are what are most persuasive to me. I will not dash points for speaking slowly or any speech impediments-- I will dash points for incessantly interrupting opponents, being rude, or not participating.

In my opinion, if a team plans to win a debate on an argument, then that argument has to be extended in the summary speeches. I prefer if teams use the cross-examination/rebuttal to highlight fallacies and inaccuracies in the opposing team's arguments while using the summary to reinforce the evidence + logic of the supposed winning argument.

If a team is second speaking, I do not require that the team cover the opponents' case or answer to its opponents' rebuttal in the rebuttal speech. I think debaters should have flexibility in how they want to frame their speeches. However, I urge debaters to know I will remember significant arguments presented by the opposing team. So if something needs to be critically addressed or answered in either the summaries or rebuttals, I urge that team to use the time to adequately address the issues.

I vote for arguments that are raised during the grand crossfire because I believe each team should have adequate time to decide if they want to address those arguments. New arguments raised during the final focus is given much less weight because they are not addressed with as much scrutiny.

Hi, I’m Jennie (she/her)! Please add me to the email chain (jcfan@sas.upenn.edu) and ask me about anything before or after round :) I competed for Providence in Congress, PF, & Worlds - Worlds was my favorite. I do a little APDA now! A few notes:

• Please WEIGH & do worlds comparison especially in the back half of the round
• Signpost, please. It helps me a lot... I'm a bit rusty...
• Tech > truth but if you're running something squirrelly there should be strong warrants.
• No speaking preferences, besides that you're comprehensible to your opponents and to me; warn us if you plan on going fast
• No new past 2nd summary. Defense isn't sticky. Extend everything you want me to evaluate (uniqueness/links/impacts/WEIGHING)

• Remember that what you say in round is a representation of & will affect the lived experiences of the people around us. Be genuinely invested in your advocacy.
• ^^ Don't be misogynistic/racist/queerphobic/elitist/otherwise exclusionary. I will drop you & tank ur speaks.
• Cross is binding - I don't flow it but if something is important bring it up in speech
• We can take a minute of flex prep instead of doing grand cross if both teams want
• Prog-theory-Ks-etc.: I can’t promise I’ll evaluate everything perfectly, but I like/read critical lit. independently of debate so I'm bringing that & a willingness to do my best to the table
• Make me laugh (I am easily amused)

Stole parts of my paradigm from William Pan and Arvindh Manian - they say it better than I do anyway. Thanks goats :)

Preferred: MJ Ferencz (they/them)

ferencz@sas.upenn.edu

Hi, all! I'm a past speech competitor with experience in DI and OO primarily but I am still familiar with all speech categories. I am really excited to hear all of your pieces and let's try to have some fun! Please feel free to speak with me before round starts.

Regardless of category (except extemp), I would like for speakers to write code and title of piece if applicable on the board in large writing. Please include trigger warnings or content warnings if you think it applies. In addition, while the content itself is the most important part of any speech, appropriate data (but quantitative and qualitative) for categories where it's needed, as well as tech are very important as well.

When using sources please cite them properly in your speech (ex. give me enough info such that I can also look it up). Of course this doesn't apply to interp categories.

Interesting tech is always a plus and should be incorporated into interp pieces. For OI, walking is not allowed per NCFL rules but binder tech is always an interesting method and please feel free to utilize that.

I will give time signals per each speaker's request. If time signals are not requested in any specific way, I will give a standard 2 down with a T at the end of the grace period. Please do not go over the grace period. I would prefer competitors do not ask to use their phone to time themselves as it will be oriented away from me and I can not ensure aid is not being used.

Please be respectful in the round (do not talk over other people's speeches, leave/enter room only when there is a break between speeches).

Let's have a great round!

TLDR: I'm old and I have experience competing in, judging, and/or coaching LD, PF, Parli, Congress, and Speech. Read the above as, I'm OLD SCHOOL!

Paradigm (for certain events, look for it in BOLD CAPS):

Former Speech competitor (high school & college), well used debate judge and coach. Formerly, Speech Coach & Co-director at Delbarton (you could probably find my earlier paradigm with a search on here) and now working at The Haverford School. The 23/24 school year is my 24th? year involved in this activity in some fashion. I've been doing this too long, give me a reason to keep doing it (partially a joke--what percentage, I'll leave up to you).

SPEECH
In Interp, I am pro-argument, especially after competing at the college level for a couple years. This can really separate you from the opposition. Sometimes, I can break a ranking tie just by which one I liked better. When that happens, I always say something like "I just liked [the 1] better" or "I connected with [those other two] more". If I constantly harp about an issue and you get a 4 or something like that, you should be able to infer why. Also, see the last sentence of my Extemp & IMP expectations section below.

For PA Events, I give you a list of grievances: Phony/Robotic/Overly Practiced or rehearsed gestures, rushed through points, and not letting your jokes/serious moments hit. Sometimes, you have to take your time and let your stories and jokes connect with your audience.

In Extemp & IMP, tie everything back to your thesis. I am not a fan of personal stories/references in the body of a speech unless as witty on-tops in extemp (feel free to use them in AGDs). I quasi-flow speeches, so don't be surprised if a decent chunk of your ballot is just me writing down what you said or what you said with comments (like "Huh?", "What are you doing?" or "Ooooooh! Nice!").

PF
Number of PF Rounds judged in career: Can safely say in the hundreds
Number of PF Rounds judged 23/24 year: 10

I've been judging PF since it began, so I've heard the infamous NBA dress code topic & remember the cancelled mosque topic. I say this because I am very traditional in my approach (i.e., the event was originally created to get folks to debate topics so that a random person from the street should be able to follow), leave LD (even though I have experience there) and Policy (NEVER! NEVER! NEVER!) out of the round.

I am a 50/50 judge in terms of content/argument and delivery. I am big on clash, but don't use that to say that you should win the round because your opponents did not counter Con. 5, Sub 8 or junk like that. If the foundation of your argument is, for example, Utilitarianism and the opposition never talks about it in their rebuttals, then you're more likely to get my ballot. I also like to use standard logic. Also, I hear your misspeaks very easily--maybe even more often than when you say things correctly (according to some). Be careful with word choice. I do like to flow if I have my legal pad with me, it may look more like a Parli flow, but you shouldn't really be looking at my flow anyway.

Cards are starting to get REALLY ANNOYING. Don't just ask for cards all willy nilly. There better be a darn good reason.

I don't mind off-time road maps.

Don't expect disclosures.

See below about speaks.

LD
I heard what I believe is circuit LD at Columbia 2019 while waiting for the PF semis to end. I was extremely disappointed in the speed and the decision to exchange cases before the round because of said speed. So I guess I'm even more traditional here than I am in PF. Debating evidence is fine, but I care just as much (if not more) about the philosophical aspects of the round (give me the Value/Criterion debates). I don't mind off-time road maps. I am a no disclosure judge. See below about speaks.

PF & LD Speaker Points: I don't automatically give 30s to the winners. You really have to earn 28+ scores. So I guess, just like my student's GPA (supposedly), I guess I'm a Speaks Killer. However, I do go along with the crowd as I try to avoid giving sub 25 (I think it's 25) unless you say/do something completely idiotic.

CONGRESS
If you speak later on a bill, I would love it if you referred to others' speeches. I know I am only judging, but you should be trying to convince me to vote on your side of the bill. Seriously treat me as if I am another Congressperson.

Good luck!

Debate

I have a more traditional background in debate. However, I evaluate what is presented in the round. I like to hear in rebuttals why you believe you're winning the round (how there's a path to vote for you). Explain how you access impacts and weigh those for me.

Speech

In interp, I look for a clear storyline and development of characters. I expect to see a teaser and an intro that justifies the selection/tells me why the performance matters.

In platform and limited prep, I listen for effective speech construction, meaningful content, and smooth yet conversational delivery. I like the use of humor and other elements to add personality to the speech.

I am an experienced judge in both speech and debate, having coached for 30+ years in all categories offered within the spectrum of S&D. I began coaching Lincoln Douglas and Congressional Debate in the 1990’s, have coached PF since its inception, having coached the first PF team that represented NJ at Nationals in Atlanta, GA. I currently coach the NJ World Teams.

I am a flow judge who looks for logical arguments, a valid framework, and substantiation of claims made within your case. As a teacher of rhetoric, I appreciate word economy and precise language. Do not default to speed and redundancy to overwhelm. Persuade concisely; synthesize your thoughts efficiently. Be articulate. Keep your delivery at a conversational rate.

A good debate requires clash. I want to see you find and attack the flaws in your opponents’ arguments, and respond accordingly in rebuttal. Cross examination should not be a waste of time; it is a time to clarify. It is also not a time for claws; be civil, particularly in grand crossfire.

Disclosure is not a discussion or a renewed debate. Personally, I am not a fan, in large part, because of a few unwarranted challenges to my decision. You are here to convince me; if you have not, that will drive my RFD.

My Background

I coached for about 10 years at Diablo Valley College, where I coached Paliamentary debate (NPDA), IPDA, and NFA-LD. I've coached High School Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and Congress for about 6 years now. I co-run a Youtube channel called Proteus Debate Academy, where I talk about debate.

I try to write as much feedback on ballots as I can, both in terms of advice and explaining how and why I made the decision I made.

Let's have a fun round with good vibes and great arguments.

What I Like Most to See in Rounds

Good link refutation and good weighing. In most rounds (that don't involve theory and so on) I'm left believing that some of the aff's arguments flow through and some of the neg's arguments flow through. Your impact weighing will guide how I make my decision at that point.

What I don't mind seeing

I'm comfortable with theory debate. I don't live and die for it, but sure, go for those arguments if they're called for.

If you're not familiar with the exact structure and jargon of a theory argument, all you need to know is that if you think your opponent did something unfair are bad for education, I would need to know (a) what you think debaters ought to do in those situations, (b) what your opponent did wrong that violates that expectation, (c) why your model for how debate should be is better than theirs, and (d) why you think that's a serious enough issue that your opponent should lose the whole round for it.

What You Should be Somewhat Wary of Running

I understand Kritiks. I've voted on many Ks, I'll probably vote on many more. But with that said, it's worth mentioning that I have a high propensity to doubt the solvency of most kritiks' alternatives. If you're running the Kritik, it might be really important to really clearly explain: who does the alt? What does doing the alt actually entail in literal terms? How does doing the alternative solve the harms outlined in the K?

If your K claims to have an impact on the real world, I should have a say in whether I want to cause that real world effect. I'm not gonna make decisions in the "real world" based on someone happening to drop an argument and now I have to murder the state or something.

How am I on speed?

I can keep up with speed. If you're going too fast, I'll call slow. With that said, it's important to me that your debating be inclusive: both of your opponent and your other judges. I encourage you to please call verbally say "slow" if your opponent is speaking too quicklyfor you to understand.Please slow down if that happens.If your opponent does not accommodate your request to slow down, please tell me in your next speech if you feel their use of speed harmed your ability to engage with the debate enough that they should be voted down for it. It's very likely that I'll be receptive to that argument.

Other Debate Pet Peaves

Evidence sharing in evidenciary debate formats. Have your evidence ready to share. If someone calls for a card, it's not acceptable for you to not have it or for it to take a lifetime to track the card down.

Please feel free to ask me more in-person about anything I've written here or about anything I didn't cover!

I am a new parent judge. No spreading and please don't be rude.

I am a parent judge who normally judges speech, but I will fill in where my daughter’s team needs me . Please speak clearly and be respectful with asking and answering questions. Please do not talk too fast. If I miss your point, I cannot give you credit for it. Clear and organized arguments are essential. Provide a clear roadmap at the beginning of your speeches to guide me through your contentions. Quality over quantity: Focus on developing a few strong arguments rather than presenting a multitude of weak points. I feel most engaged when listening to speakers who speak clearly and from memory rather than just speed reading a case . Eye contact is also important. Evidence is important, but so is making logical connections to the resolution. I want to know what are the real world implications of your arguments? Having strong convictions while still being respectful to the other team is also quite a talent

I am an investment professional with the World Bank in Washington, DC, and this is my first year as a parent judge. Please speak clearly and in a professional tone. I will do my best to provide accurate time signals.

PF: I have a basic understanding of the debate format but otherwise do not have a background in debate and am not familiar with debate jargon. It will be easier for me to follow your arguments if you provide road maps and follow them. Please be respectful of your opponents and allow them to speak.

I look for a clear argument with real, meaningful evidence. More evidence is not better evidence. Talking fast means does not give debaters a victory. If I can't understand what you said because you are talking too fast, then essentially, you didn't say it.

PF Paradigm

I am highly conscious of my role as a judge to put my own bias aside, to listen intently, and to come to conclusions based on what you bring to a round. If you and your partner prove to me that your warrants, evidence, and impacts weigh more heavily in the round than your opponents then you win, plain and simple. Please don't tell me the burden is on the other team to prove or disprove or whatever else. Public Forum Debate focuses on advocacy of a position derived from issues presented in the resolution, not a prescribed set of burdens.

I have a serious problem if you misconstrue evidence or neglect to state your sources thoroughly- you have already created unnecessary questions in my mind.

Rebuttals are a key part of debate and I need to hear a point by point refutation and clash and then an extension of impacts. Refuting an argument is not "turning" an argument. Arbitrary and incorrect use of that term is highly annoying to me. A true turn is difficult at best to achieve-be careful with this.

I cannot judge what I can't clearly hear or understand-I can understand fast speech that is enunciated well, but do you really want to tax your judge?-Quality of an argument is much more important than the quantity of points/sub-points, or rapid-fire speech and it is incumbent upon you and your partner to make sure you tell me what I need to hear to weigh appropriately-it is not my job to "fill in the blanks" with my personal knowledge or to try to spend time figuring out what you just said. Also spreading is a disrespectful tactic and defeats the purpose of the art of debate-imho- so don't do it. (See Quality not Quantity above).

The greater the extent of your impacts, the greater the weight for me. If you and your partner are able to thoroughly answer WHY/HOW something matters more, WHY/HOW something has a greater impact, WHY/HOW your evidence is more important, that sways me more than anything else.

Lastly, be assertive, not aggressive. Enjoy the challenge.

EXPERIENCE:

I am currently a civil rights trial attorney practicing in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and the Federal Courts. Throughout my career, I have sat as an arbitrator in hundreds of cases.

I am a traditional speech and debate judge.

GENERAL PREFERENCES:

-Quality is more important than quantity.

-Substance over style.

-Be organized—provide road maps.

-I prefer clear, eloquent presentations of the issues in a round.

-Speed is acceptable, but only if clear and concise.

-Direct simple language instead of jargon.

FOR DI/HI:

I like a meaningful teaser that sets the world you are creating and tries to introduce as many characters as necessary to effectively tell the story.

I think introductions should be short and sweet and be more personal.

I like blocking and movement that is used to enhance the story.

I really look for fully developed characters that really listen and react to each other.

For author's intent, I think it is okay to re-interpret a piece if it is within the rules.

I don't have any issue with a curse word if it is used purposefully.

FOR LD/PF/PolicyD/ParliD:

Theory has its place in the right argument, but I prefer you go for substance over theory.

I would rather hear a few cogent arguments, than many quick snippets.

I am fine with speed. I am not fine with spreading by reading paragraph after paragraph at a top speed with zero regard for clarity. Slow down, be clear, and enunciate.

I love cross-examination. I pay special attention to it and think it is strategically valuable.

Make sure to clash with your adversary's arguments and point out dropped arguments. Be specific with your extensions, and remind me why I should care.

Sum up with voting issues, persuasion at the end can secure a win.

FOR CONGRESS:

I look for a healthy combination of entertaining and professional.

Entertaining can look like a lot of different things- from good humor to presenting statistics in a way that keeps me engaged. I really like it when a speech is well organized and gives proper time to each point that is being made. I value clash a lot in congress because that is what makes it interesting past the third speech on a topic. It is very impressive to me if you can prove that you have been paying attention the whole round and have done the research to prove others wrong. Please make sure your clash is professional and doesn't seem aggressive or turn it into a personal attack.

Good luck and have fun!

Hi! My name is Katherine and I am a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania. I did debate for four years in high school with Acton-Boxborough in Massachusetts and have some experience in original oratory in middle school.

Please let me know your expectations of me as a judge (hand signals, etc.) before you start speaking and I will do my best to accommodate. Ask me any questions before or after the round in-person or through email:
kzlee@sas.upenn.edu

I am a parent volunteer judge. My primary format is speech. I also have experiences judging PF.

Conflicts: Pennsbury High School

Background: My educational background is a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering Technology. I work as a Project Engineering Manager responsible for the design and construction of industrial manufacturing plants around North America.

General: I value clear and consistent speaking with good eye contact, movement, use of hands and at a reasonable pace that promotes understanding of your topic. You should always treat your judges & opponents with respect. Please communicate any time signals you desire.

I am a parent judge so; I intend to treat the competitors I judge with the same care and respect I desire for my children.

My debate paradigm is... that you as debaters set the direction for the debate, within both the rules and generally accepted norms of your event.

Show me why YOUR approach to debate is the right one.

.

In addition, remember to:

- Always be respectful of your opponent(s) and audience.

- If you choose to spread, remember that your arguments are only as good as what your audience is able to hear.

.

Mr. Nick Malinak

Head Forensics Coach - The Hill School

NSDA Diamond Coach

Hi! I'm excited to be your judge today. I am a trained speech and debate judge.

For debate - Please don't speak too quickly. If you speak too fast, I will stop flowing and your arguments will not be evaluated as part of the round. Please add signposts to make arguments as clear to me as possible. Impacts are important to me - I want to understand the real world significance of the argument. Don't just tell me the argument, tell me why I should care.

For speech - I love speech events where you incorporate personal stories and humor. Have fun, because your energy will be contagious!

• Relatively new to judging.
• Speech:
• Please speak clearly and do not talk too fast.
• Make your points very clearly.
• Have good sportsmanship in the room.
• Congress
• No spreading
• Do not be rude to other competitors.

Hello. This is Stephen O'Brien, pronouns he/him.

For distributing docs, email: spobrien1@gmail.com

WSD

Good luck everyone! The winning team is the team with most points.

Style: 40% of the total score. Speakers should communicate clearly using effective rate, pitch, tone, hand gestures, facial expressions. The use of notes will not be penalized unless it hinders delivery. However, speakers should not read their speeches.

Content: 40%. Focus is on argumentation separate from style. Weak arguments are marked accordingly, even if the other team does not expose a weak argument. My personal beliefs or specialized knowledge will not influence the scoring.

Strategy: 20%. Whether or not the speaker understands the importance of the issues in the debate and the structure /timing of the speech. Debaters should identify the most substantive issues and allocate their time to covering issues based on their relative importance. Strategy may also consider answers to POI and choosing when/how to address them. Strategy is not content: a speaker show answers the critical issues with weak responses would get poor marks for content but good marks for strategy.

Scoring Constructive Speeches:

For Style/Content/Strategy/Overall

Exceptional 32/32/16/80

Extremely Good 30-31/30-31/14-15/74-79

Good 28-29/28-29/14/70-73

Satisfactory 27/27/13-14/67-69

Competent 26/26/13/65-66

Poor 25/25/12-13/61-64

Minimal Quality 24/24/12/60

Scoring Reply Speeches:

For Style/Content/Strategy/Overall

Exceptional 16/16/8/40

Extremely Good 15-16/15-16/8/37-39

Good 14-15/14-15/8/35-36

Satisfactory 13/13/7-8-14/33-34

Competent 13/13/7/32-33

Poor 12/12/6-7/31-32

Minimal Quality 12/12/6/30

VLD

I am a lay judge. Speaking quickly is ok, e.g. for the 1AC/1NC if the cards are distributed, but no spreading please. I care more about whether the debaters have a good grasp of the material they have acquired. The debate is intended to challenge debaters to address the complex ethical questions. That will be part of the assessment. Otherwise the rubric I follow will be scoring based upon the classical LD evaluation:

Burden of proof: Which debater proved the resolution more valid. Value Structure: Which debater established clear relationship between argumentation and value structure. Argumentation: Which debater presented better logical arguments with evidence, which debater performed cross well. Resolutionality: Which debater best addressed the central questions of the resolution. Clash: Which debater showed the better ability in attacking/defending their case. Delivery: Which debater communicated in a more persuasive, clear and professional manner.

I will time your speeches and prep time along with you. After 5 seconds over the given speech time, I will be obliged to cut you off - so watch the time please!

I'll do my best to be fair and impartial. Respect, courtesy and tolerance are all being observed. Tone, energy and conduct matter, but be passionate!

For speaker scores, I was provided with the following guidelines:

29.5-30: I wish I could frame your speeches – hard to imagine a better speaker

29.1-29.4: you were consistently excellent

28.8-29.0: you were effective and strategic, and made only minor mistakes

28.3-28.7: you hit all the right notes, but could improve (e.g. depth or efficiency)

27.8-28.2: you mainly did the right thing, but left something to be desired

27.3-27.7: you missed major things and were hard to follow

27.0-27.2: you advanced little in the debate or cost your team the round

26.0-26.9: you are not ready for this division/tournament

Below 26: you were offensive, ignorant, rude, or tried to cheat (MUST come to tab)

I look forward to watching the debates and may the best debater win.

Email: apaul@wssd.org.

LD: As a judge, I am looking for a debate that is friendly and respectful of people but will be critical of ideas. I value the truth, which is going to be determined by the debaters and validating or disproving the other side's understanding and truth. I do flow the debate, but if I can't understand what is being said, I can't flow, and you can't win.

PF: When judging PF, I am looking for a debate, which follows a logical and clear argument. Be clear and concise with your points, and remain respectful.

I hope to expand upon this as I develop my paradigm as a judge.

Sara Robb

• Competed all 4 years in high school in Dec, OO, OI, and Duo - multiple trips to Nationals
• Continued to judge after high school in all speech events and extemp prep
• For interp events - I look for emotion that connects with the piece and helps me to also understand the piece to its fullest potential. Pacing/Intonation/Actions/Movements are all done purposefully for the benefit of the piece and to help bring out the message and themes. I tend to prefer authenticity over practiced emotions and connection to the piece.
• For speech events - I look for arguments and the flow of the piece and the overall delivery - is it doing what the words and messages indicate? Again, Pacing/Intonation/Actions/Movements are intentional for the piece and to help deliver the messages. I look for evidence and support for the argument as well as a more personal aspect to the speeches so I feel drawn/attached/have a stake in the message.

Hi! I'm Cameron (Jack C Hays '22)

I competed primarily in extemp throughout high school but dabbled in oratory/info and congress

• my biggest factor when determining ranks (in extemp) is analysis -- make sure your points answer the question!
• In all interp events I prefer pieces with solid points of advocacy that move beyond the speech/tournament.
• have fun!! this is for fun!!

If you ever have any questions regarding a ballot please don't hesitate to reach out to me via email at clr9188@nyu.edu

Thanks!

Sorry for being really extra about Congress. I just want to make it clear what I think of each speech

Congress

I judge a lot of Congress. Congress to me is half speech and half debate. The best congress students have a mix of both qualities. I find myself in prelim rounds and local tournaments frequently rewarding better speakers because there is a greater talent disparity in those rounds, and kids who are phenomenal speakers break. However, you likely are only reading this if you are a student who takes Congress seriously and expects to get into break rounds. Here’s the thing, once you are in Congress break rounds, everyone is a good speaker and the gap between 1 and 12 is really often negligible to me. Therefore, if you expect to make it into the top 6 and move on, you have to give the appropriate speech at the appropriate time. Here is how I classify different speeches. Each one is judged differently

• 1st Aff/Authorship/Sponsorship

• Judged to a higher evidence standard since you are literally setting the table for the entire round

• Needs exceptional structure and argumentation. This should read like a debate case in PF/LD. No claim should go unwarranted, no argument should lack a variety of strong evidence, the impacts should be clear and heavily emphasized

• Speech is generally easier since it is prepared in advance, so this speech needs to be very well written

• 1st Neg

• Same standards as the 1st Aff/Authorship/Sponsorship

• Difference, you must directly refute what the previous speaker stated. You do not need to refute everything necessarily (although better speakers will), but you should definitely pick out whatever was the key point of their case and directly refute.

• 2nd Aff/2nd Neg-7th Aff/7th Neg (roughly, this depends on chamber size)

• Speeches need to address what is happening in the chamber. A good rule of thumb is to always address the claims of the speaker who went right before you plus the key issues of the round up to that point. If you are not making the debate unique by refuting previous speakers and extending previous speakers from your side, you will have a tough time being ranked top 6

• Unique arguments are great and you should draw attention to them. However you are not going to win the debate with a rando argument at the very end with limited impacts. Unique arguments are not a replacement for refutation and extension of previous speakers

• Closing Affs and Negs (like the last 4 speeches or so)

• Crystalize/Weigh voting issues. At the end of a cycle of debate, it needs to be like a final focus in PF or a 2AR in LD. Isolate the key issues of the round and explain why your side is winning. Speeches that do not weigh this late in the cycle do not add anything to the debate and are judged as unnecessary.

General Congress Speaking Tips

• Remember to always use decorum and professionalism

• Be consistent in the language you use (don’t flip between bill and legislation randomly)

• Important. At the end of the day, you are acting. You are a legislator, not a high school student. You are a legislator whose personal worth is attached to either the passage or failure of this bill because of how it affects the United States citizens. You delivery and disposition should be that of someone who is desperate to see its passage or failure. Show me this is important to you

Role of Cross Examination

• I am not paying attention to how many questions you guys ask. I am only really paying attention to the person’s answers. Cross ex should be a time you try to get the opponent to make concessions or show the judges they don’t really know what they are talking about. Be aggressive, but be respectful

• Ask lots of questions though. I may not be noting it down, but if you ask a lot of questions, I’ll remember that and it can be used to break ranking ties

Evaluating the PO

• If the PO does the following, I am going to rank them top 3 no matter what

• Maintains excellent professionalism and decorum

• Showcases strong knowledge of parliamentary procedure

• Maintains control of the chamber

• Makes no mistakes with recency or frequency

• One more thing to point out. Running an effective chamber also involves encouraging motions in order to continue facilitating legitimate debate. If there are 3 negs in a row with no Aff, and the debate has been done to death - you should be actively asking for motions and reminding the chamber about how we frown on one sided debate and can move on

One final note about Equity

• It is important to be fair to everyone in the chamber. However, this is a competition. You are trying to destroy your opponents and proceed in the tournament. You have no obligation as competitors to ensure all speakers get to speak the same number of times. Now I will admit, other judges may frown on this - so it is risky behavior. I am just letting you know that I will not take points away because you force a motion to call the previous question and end debate when the debate is clearly over and keep someone from speaking.

• Tabroom will not let me eliminate this stray bullet

LD/PF Paradigm

1. Speed kills. Spread at your own risk.

1. In LD, you need to win the framework to win the debate

1. Case needs to tell a cohesive story. You should not include arguments that don’t function under your framework for the sake of just having extra offense

1. You have to weigh the debate

1. Respect your opponent. Ideally you should be stone faced when your opponent is speaking and never snicker or make any comment of any kind. I’ll drop you

1. Voting issues. Gotta have them. What are the key issues of the round in your view? How do I know what to vote off of if you don't tell me what matters?

2. There is no 7, tabroom will not let me backspace

Speaker Points

• If you are competent and minimize mistakes, you automatically finish with 28.5 speaker points (29 if decimals are forbidden). To improve on that, there need to be zero mistakes, zero arguments that go unrefuted, clear weighing of impact analysis, etc. If you get lower than 28.5, it means you missed something somewhere. I’ll try to put it on the ballot. Overall, if you do your job, you are not finishing with less than 28.5. Going to be honest though, I can't tell you what a 30 is. You have the impress me in some way that I really can't quantify

I'm not very fancy with my language, so put simply, here's some general things I look for across the multiple debate styles:

-Clear articulation of arguments with evidence

-I not only like to see how you substantiate your claims and ideas, but also I like to see how you make them interact with those of other members of the round (this just really engages me).

-I was not a debate competitor when I was in high school, so I don't know all the terminology, but I'm familiar with most. Therefore, it's not really the terminology that impresses me, but rather your knowledge and comprehension of the topic.

-I like for you to give context to your arguments. I like to know that you fully comprehend what you're presenting. I love a deep level of analysis to the topic, especially during cross ex (although I'm guilty of getting lost with the unfamiliar- so what). If you know what you're talking about, then you know.

-I like to see competitors advance the debate; don't stick around to the same points unless you have something new to offer.

-Lastly, I'm not a brainiac (although sometimes I try to be), so I always feel like it's the competitor's job to help me understand the topic as much as possible, without watering down the content. Relating the topic as much as possible to someone who doesn't necessarily keep up with all the current events is key.

As a judge with over a year of experience in various debate styles, I prioritize clear, logical argumentation and evidence-based reasoning. While I'm open to all styles, clarity in speech and structure is crucial for me to effectively evaluate the debate. I appreciate debaters who engage directly with their opponents' arguments and demonstrate adaptability throughout the round. Tricks or overly strategic plays that detract from substantive discussion are less likely to earn my vote. My goal is to ensure a fair and educational debate experience for all participants.

My first 20 years of coaching were devoted almost exclusively to policy debate. My second 20 years were spent on every other forensic event. I am a fan of both speech and debate with PF as my personal favorite. Coming from a policy background has helped to mold my judging preferences:

What I like:

Clash - arguments only

Respectful crossfires

Evidence that actually supports the argument it is supposed to

IMPACTS - if you don’t have impacts, you won’t win; if you don’t link your impacts, you won’t win

I actually care about topicality and talking about the actual resolution

Real world issues plus a comparison of pro world vs con world

What I don’t like:

Ks

Plans

Rudeness

Unintelligible grand crossfires because everyone is talking over each other

Squirrelly arguments

HOLLERING

I don’t mind some speed, but policy garble won’t fly.

I look forward to direct clash in a respectful environment with well vetted ev supporting real world issues.

Hey, my name is Justin Thomashefsky and I'm a coach at Truman High School. I competed in LD/PF from 2008 - 2010 and Policy during the 2010-2011 season. I've been judging / coaching debate since 2012 and have circuit Policy/LD experience

General debate things

I'm good with speed.

I'm good with K's (see policy for more info)

Disclosure theory is pretty meh to me. But if you make good arguments on it I guess ill vote for it.

Please analyze warrants in your evidence! This should go without saying.

Policy

I'm much more comfortable judging a policy round but I have a decent amount of experience judging critical rounds.

T - I default to reasonability but you can definetly convince me to evaluate competing interps if you win it on the flow. You need to win in round abuse to get my ballot. This goes extra for theory

K - I'm familiar and comfortable with standard K's (security, capitalism etc.) but you may lose me with high theory literature.

Please frame my ballot in your last speech. It should be clear what I'm voting for at the end of the round.

Open cross is fine but let your partner speak!

LD

For lay rounds: Debate warrants! Don't waste time on the Value/VC (Meta-ethic/standard) debate if you're both functionally the same framework. All the framework debate should come down to is what lens I should evaluate the round through

For circuit rounds: I'm not huge on the squirrel theory stuff that's been going on in circuit LD. I'll try to evaluate whatever you put in front of me but just like with T you really need to win in round abuse to get my ballot. For the rest just read policy stuff

I prefer to see lay rounds in LD. So if you're at a tournament with me that has a weird mix of lay and circuit you might want to default to lay. BUT I'll weigh whatever arguments you put in front of me in any style.

I coach speech at Loyola School. My pronouns are they/them.

My speech paradigm is simple. Don’t be ableist/homophobic/racist/etc when choosing your material, and be a respectful audience member. Otherwise do you. When I was a competitor, I performed the seminal teen vampire romance Twilight as an HI, a DI, and a duo in the same season. Truly anything goes.

_________________

The following is my debate paradigm from my days coaching policy at SA Harlem North Central:

A note for high school JV/varsity competitors: my paradigm is geared towards the kids I typically judge, middle school novices. However, a lot of this applies to high school novice debate, and dare I say higher level high school debate. I'm a little rusty on higher theory/kritikal lit because the median age of my students is 12, so just make sure to explain those texts thoroughly. Feel free to ask me for specifics in the room.

1. Most debates can be won or lost over one central issue. Define that issue for me and tell me why your side should win.

2. Your final speech should always begin and end with the exact reasons you think I should vote for you.

3. Cross examination matters. It is as much a part of the debate as any speech.

4. 99% of T arguments are not convincing and unless the aff is wildly untopical, I will not vote on it. I will almost always default to reasonability, unless you can give me a fantastic reason not to.

5. I recognize that spreading is a necessary evil of this activity. I’d prefer if you wouldn’t for accessibility reasons. If I cannot hear your arguments, I cannot weigh them.

6. Speak like you care about what you're talking about. Inflection will boost your speaker points. Studies have shown that communication is 55% body language, 38% tone of voice, and 7% words only. Keep that in mind as you give your speeches.

7. My least favorite kind of debate to judge is one about procedural issues and debate norms. Keep it on the issues. Let's talk about how to make the world a better place, not whether or not condo is bad (and for the record, I'm on team limited condo good).

8. Any kind of "death good" or "rights bad" argument will get you an automatic L. I'm not here for racism, homophobia, transphobia, cissexism, ableism, classism, or any other oppressive frameworks of thought. Cheap tricks will get you an automatic L.

9. Argumentative clarity > technical flair. Debate can be elegant. Complex topics can be explained in concise language. I will often defer to the team who demonstrates the most effective understanding of the subject matter. Kritiks are welcome only if you deeply understand them.

10. SIGNPOST AND ROADMAP!!! Organization matters.Time that I have to spend shuffling my flow tabs and figuring out what exactly you're responding to is not time that I'm spending actually hearing you. Take that extra 30 seconds of prep to make sure your speech is actually in the order you're saying it's in.

11. Above all else, be kind to each other. Demonstrate respect in the way you listen and respond to your opponents' arguments.

12. If you're not taking notes during my RFD I'll stop talking and leave :) I know that sounds really aggressive but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to spend time and effort parsing through my notes and giving detailed feedback if you're not going to write it down somewhere.

I'm new to judging Public Forum, having judged Speech for the last four years.

I ask that you speak slowly and clearly. Present arguments/points of view that address your position, supported by an adequate amount of evidentiary citations. Please try to be concise and to the point.

Please avoid a rapid delivery of arguments followed by a lot of citations which will make it difficult for me to follow and understand you. You can be firm and forceful in your positions, but not aggressive in your demeanor.

Hi! My name is Jeremy Valle and I am an assistant coach at my HS alma mater, where I competed in Congressional Debate, Public Forum Debate, Lincoln Douglas Debate, Extemporaneous Speaking, Declamation, and Oral Interpretation.

That said, I have experience judging some debate at the local level, but I am more often judging speech or Congress. I am a flow judge to the best of my ability, but spreading is not in your best interest. It is likely better that you don’t run any high level theory in front of me: straightforward, well-warranted arguments with clear impacts, good clash in rebuttals, and ample weighing are your best path to victory, not convoluted theory and technicalities. Tech over truth won’t win me over. In PF, write my ballot for me in summary and final focus, clear voting issues and framing of the round are a must. In LD, clear bright-lines in the value criterion are a must, and clear weighing in the rebuttals and delineating the lines of clash will be helpful in writing my ballot. If you go over time, I will stop taking notes and will not consider anything you've said after your given time has elapsed. Anything not on the flow will not be considered.

-Speech Coach, NFL, Plymouth High School, Plymouth, IN (1993-1995)

-Speech Coach, (founder of Woodson Speech Team) Woodson High School, Fairfax, VA (1995-1997)

-Speech/Theatre/English Secondary teacher certificates. Graduate of Indiana University School of Education (BS Education)

-Public Speaking teacher, theatre arts teacher (acting, tech theatre), music teacher, English teacher, theatre director, speech coach (IN, VA, TX, NJ)

-Public Speaking teacher and English teacher, Cherry Hill East High School, Cherry Hill, NJ (2017-present)

-Speech Coach (founder of Cherry Hill East's first ever Speech Team) December 2021. NSDA members.

-Debate Coach, Cherry Hill East HS (Sept 2021-present)

-Cherry Hill East Speech and Debate (combined team) (Sept. 2023-present)

A great speaker possesses a combination of compelling qualities that captivate and engage their audience. To get a high rank from me, you must possess communication skills that encompass clarity, coherence, and the ability to articulate ideas with confidence. A great speaker demonstrates a deep understanding of their subject matter, allowing them to convey information with authority and credibility. A good speaker also maintains a dynamic and varied delivery, utilizing tone, pace, and non-verbal cues to emphasize key points. Additionally, adaptability is key; a great speaker gauges audience reactions and adjusts their approach accordingly, fostering a connection with diverse audiences. Finally, authenticity and sincerity are paramount, as genuine passion and belief in the message contribute significantly to the speaker's overall impact.

Overall, just make me engaged in what you are doing and just be nice!

What I'm looking for follows basically the guidelines set forth in the sepcific event that you are in. Of specific importance outside these guidelines are the following:

• clearly enunciating your speech. Take your time and effectively use your voice
• use of physical characterizations and body language to help tell the story
• creative use of your voice during charazterizations
• using pacing to a purpose
• at the close bring the entire speech together in a delightful manner

Debated 4 years in high school, graduated 2016. Experience at several NCFL national tournaments. Been consistently judging every year since graduating, including national tournaments.

Experience in CX, LD, PFD, Parli, some speech events

Flow judge, love to see clash, framework debate, and legitimate voters in final speeches. Debaters should do warrant analysis and weighing.

I see speech and debate as a scholarship event. I will take evidence quality into account. Research papers are more credible than politicians or news sources that are notoriously biased.

Will listen to any argument. Competitors must validly prove abuse if present. Don't wait until the 2AR to make a spreading unfair argument. If you think you’re winning on T, feel free to go for T

Extensions should be carried through the round. Extensions do not mean new carded evidence.

Email: czurmuhl@gmail.com

Feel free to email me about questions regarding the RFD or for general advice