I value a good mix of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos in a debate. Lincoln-Douglas debate is about the value clash; I expect to see debtors using philosophy and moral arguments.

Hey all! I am so excited to be back and judging because Speech and Debate is one of my favorite activities. I only did Speech and Debate my senior year of high school because I used to be a big running person. After I injured myself I thought I would give Speech and Debate a try. I loved it! I primarily did Info, Drama, and Poetry but I also had a Humor at one point. I double qualified for nationals in Info and Drama and I took my Info for my qualifying event and then poetry as a supplemental. I broke to the quarter-finals in Poetry, and I was super ecstatic about that. So that is just a little about me, but here are a couple of things to remember in the round.

1. There will be no bad-mouthing of anyone. EVER. You are all part of the same community. One that loves everyone no matter what. A community that wants to inspire change in our young people. It is ok to respectfully not like someone's piece but that doesn't mean you get to bad mouth them. Everyone has worked hard to bring a unique perspective to each tournament. Be kind because kindness is free
2. Please be respectful of others. Everyone has worked super hard to be there and it is super disrespectful to talk during someone else's piece. I'm sure you would want everyone to be respectful to you, so please listen and see if you can take something away from their piece.
3. If you have to leave because you are double-entered please do so between performances and politely excuse yourself. Otherwise, I would encourage you to stay and watch all of the performances
4. Just remember to have fun. Speech and Debate isn't all about the awards and placings. Speech and Debate is about inspiring change one audience member at a time. It's about making new friends that will last a lifetime. So if you like someone's piece go talk to them! Tell them how much you enjoyed it and you never know what might happen :)

You need to support assertions with analysis and evidence to make them into persuasive arguments. You need to listen to previous speakers in order to provide direct clash and expansion and to avoid mere repetition. You need to speak articulately and succinctly. Your speed needs to not preclude clarity.

Competed for four years for Jackson Hole, Wyoming—NSDA national qualifier in Public Forum (2x), Congressional Debate (3x), Big Questions, and Duet Interpretation; most NSDA points in the U.S. for class of 2021; TOC National Champion Presiding Officer in 2021.

I won't vote you down for speed, but if I can't understand an argument, I can’t vote for it. The quality of your speaking and presentation matters. Please weigh and contextualize your arguments.

For any questions regarding my paradigm or an RFD, I can be reached at joshuahansen@college.harvard.edu.

————————————

For Congressional Debate:

This is a debate, not just a platform speaking event. Speeches on a bill should flow coherently between one another, with rebuttal and refutation, not just existing in a vacuum. Outside of a sponsorship, I'll be much more impressed by a primarily extemporaneous speech that interacts with the round than a perfectly recited, pre-written speech read verbatim off your computer.

Additionally, I'm judging you for the entirety of the round—your questions matter, as does your behavior when you think no one is looking. Excessive whispering or disruption during another competitor's speech is grounds for losing ranks, as is talking over other competitors or otherwise lacking decorum during motions and segues between speeches.

————————————

For the Ronald Reagan Great Communicator Debate Series:

I was a 2020 National Finalist, competed at and made out-rounds in four regional tournaments, and have judged multiple final rounds at regionals since graduating. I take the GCDS prescribed paradigm seriously—be polite, be presidential, focus on the big picture, and don’t treat it like a normal NSDA debate event.

In an LD round I tend to vote for the side with the most substantive arguments as opposed to the side who has pushed to most arguments through.

In terms of speed, fast conversational is fine but nothing faster.

My biggest paradigm is to be respectful to your opponents. I want to see a clean fair debate. I want debaters to speak clearly and don't rush so fast that I can't understand them.

I competed in college forensics for four years, so I am very familiar with speech and debate. In high school, I competed in PF so don't break the rules, I'll know. You can talk quickly if it's understandable, however do not cross the line into spreading. If you spread in PF, I will stop flowing.

In PF and CX/policy, I vote on the flow, that is to say dropped argument, evidence, and the such.

I like clean debates so don't be rude to your opponents. Personal attacks will result in an automatic loss regardless of the rest of the flow.

In Ld debate I vote on the Value, Value Criterion, so make sure to carry that through.

If you are here because you are a policy debater... treat me kinda like a lay judge. I can follow complex arguments but I need you to clearly explain any lingo and give a good justification for why you are running a T or K over engaging with the resolution. If you choose to spread, make sure to clearly signpost everything and annunciate like your life depends on it. If I can’t understand and follow you then your arguments won’t make it to the flow.

Speech & Debate Judging Paradigm

As a judge with limited experience in debate events but a background in platform events, my primary focus remains on content and engagement. I prioritize effective communication and the ability to convey ideas compellingly. In exempt and informative speaking, I value substance, clarity, and the speaker's ability to connect with the audience.

Extemp & Informative Speaking:

• Content: I seek well-researched, informative content that is relevant and engaging. Speakers should demonstrate a thorough understanding of their topic and provide valuable insights or perspectives.
• Engagement: I look for speakers who can captivate the audience through compelling delivery, including vocal variety, appropriate gestures, and effective use of visual aids if permitted. Engaging the audience through storytelling, humor, or personal anecdotes is highly valued.
• Clarity & Organization: Clear structure and organization are essential for effective communication. I expect speakers to present their ideas coherently, with logical transitions between main points and supporting evidence.
• Connection with Audience: The ability to establish a connection with the audience is crucial. Speakers should demonstrate empathy, authenticity, and a genuine interest in communicating their message to the audience.

Oratory:

• Influence & Persuasiveness: In oratory, I prioritize the speaker's ability to influence and persuade the audience. This includes the use of persuasive techniques such as emotional appeals, rhetorical devices, and compelling storytelling.
• Content & Substance: While persuasion is paramount, the content must also be substantive and well-supported. I expect speakers to provide credible evidence, relevant examples, and logical reasoning to support their arguments.
• Delivery & Style: Delivery plays a significant role in persuasiveness. I look for speakers who command attention through confident delivery, strong vocal presence, and effective use of body language. Passion and enthusiasm can enhance the persuasive impact of the speech.
• Memorability & Impact: Memorable speeches leave a lasting impression on the audience. I appreciate speakers who craft speeches with memorable phrases, powerful imagery, and a compelling call to action that resonates with the audience long after the speech has ended.

Debate Events:

• Content & Argumentation: While my experience with debate events may be limited, I value well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence and logical reasoning. I expect debaters to present clear, concise arguments and effectively refute opposing points.
• Engagement & Rebuttal: Engaging with opponents' arguments and providing effective rebuttals is essential. I look for debaters who actively listen to their opponents, address counterarguments, and adapt their strategies accordingly. As a sidenote, however, I do not have extensive experience with tracking the whole flow of a debate, and this might leave some debaters feeling frustrated if I miss a piece of their case flow. Please just recognize that debate is not in my wheelhouse generally speaking.
• Clarity & Organization: Clarity and organization are crucial for effective communication in debates. Debaters should structure their arguments logically, signpost key points, and maintain coherence throughout the round.
• Professionalism & Respect: I expect debaters to conduct themselves professionally, treating their opponents, judges, and audience with respect. While passion and conviction are admirable, debaters should avoid personal attacks or disrespectful behavior.

In summary, whether evaluating exempt and informative speaking, oratory, or debate events, my judging criteria prioritize content, engagement, influence, and persuasiveness. I appreciate speakers and debaters who demonstrate a deep understanding of their topic, connect with their audience, and effectively communicate their message with clarity and conviction.

I do not like spreading. Please slow down.

I expect you to treat your opponent with dignity and respect.

I am looking for a good mix of fact base and anecdotal evidence to support your position.

Good luck!!

Please do not spread. I appreciate that you have a lot to say in a limited time, but if I cannot understand you, or if you make it to where I don't want to understand you, then you might as well say nothing at all.

Experience- 4 years high school as competitor, 2 years competing on my college team, and 5 years coaching my high school team.

What I like to see- I joined the dark side of debate as a parli. debater on my college team. Because of this I value the logistics of the debate rather than cards/evidence. Meaning, I am not putting any ink down while you are throwing out information off of all the cards you are reading. I think that you should read your card and then explain why this is relevant in your case. Any type of debate is suppose to be a persuasive speech, not a competition of evidence. As far as technical debate I will vote on those arguments alone if they are done well. I don't appreciate spreading or just dropping arguments as a strategy, I think that is a waste of time. K's are welcome, especially if they are done right. Speed is fine, but if I have to ask for your case because you read so fast nobody could understand you I will vote you down. I believe that if I have to do the work and read over your entire case in order to understand it that you are not debating. Don't make me do the work for you! I will not flow during any cross x. I believe that the time is for opponents to clarify and get information. If you want to bring up what is said during your speech I am cool with that. Lastly, during cross x I would appreciate letting opponents finish their thoughts and being respectful, I don't think being rude during cross x should be used as a strategy.

I am a platform speech and debate coach with experience coaching kids in oratory, informative, extemporaneous speaking, and congressional debate. I also have past experience helping kids write cases for debates and cut literature for poetry, drama, and poi.

As a platform or interpretive events judge, I try to follow the recommended rubric and rate speakers on the quality of their logic, their development, their delivery, and their physical presence.

The one event you absolutely do not want me to judge is humor. However, I would be best suited to judging oratory or extemporaneous speaking.

As a debate judge, I pay attention to the logical flow of arguments and prefer to hear sound logic without reliance on logical fallacies. I can judge any of the debate formats, but my personal preference is Lincoln-Douglas due to the added requirement of adhering to a value and criterion throughout the debate.

My paradigm changes a little bit depending on the tourney -- please ask in round. If you have me for a speech round I'm sorry. For debates Tech > Truth but only a little bit. I'm partial to well run Phil, and I'm happy to work with K's, speed, T, or anything else. As a general rule you have to say something pretty exceptional for me to think that Condo isn't good, and if neither team tells me the status of the CP it's automatically Condo. Please don't read a performative Aff.

Speaks are broken, so they shouldn't matter. Unless you're blatantly unethical you'll get a 25 or above. I don't usually give 30s unless you're clearly brilliant. 27.5 is average. 29 is truly fantastic.

I want to disclose decisions after rounds. Sometimes tournaments grouch about this, so it depends, but ideally I'll give Oral RFD's. Please tell me if you're uncomfortable with this -- that's totally ok.

literateliz@gmail.com

Worlds:

The main thing I judge on is a deeper level of debate. If you are just repeating your points I'm less likely to vote for your team. Make sure to take your arguments to the next level and actually debate what the other team says- essentially, I like to see clash.

Please support your teammates and cheer them on! I love to see the knocking when someone makes a good point :)

General guidelines:

1. Please do not stress over how I judge an event based on my paradigm. You should focus on your event and how you deliver your speech/debate, instead of my judging style

2. I appreciate the attention to time; however, I need to understand you. Please speak at a rate that is clear and coherent..

3. I appreciate when you speak to others in a courteous and respectful manner.

4. It is evident to me when you use your prep time effectively.

Drama:

1. Make me laugh, cry, or get angry with your piece. I want to feel the passion in your message.

PF/LD:

Former PF debater, current LD coach. Spreading is fine. Open to any K or theory except disclosure theory (disclosure theory will result in an instant loss). Time with whatever you want. I start CX timing when the first question is asked. I'm okay with off-clock roadmaps unless I state otherwise (only for cases where we are on a time crunch). I won't weigh an impact unless you tell me to. I'm not getting paid to think.

WS:

As far as WS goes, I competed at Nationals once, and judged once, and that's all of my experience with the event. As far as the structure of the event itself, consider me a lay judge. As far as args go, run whatever you want, go crazy.

Congressional Debate:

Long-time congressional debater. My general stance is to let the chair run their round as they see fit unless intervention is absolutely necessary. Feel free to time yourselves and notify me, but my time may conflict and will be final. Whether you get deep into character or not is up to you; I won't take points away for not enjoying Representative role play if you still speak well and present good args.

LD - Prefer classic value clash debate, but only if it is meaningful. Clear case construction with logical links are important. Coverage of debate flow and respectful approach important to me. Evidence is fine, but I like philosophical debate in LD too. Please treat each other with respect.

CX - Stock Issues are important in my judging. I don't especially like spreading, but don't mind quick reading (as long as I can understand it). Prefer transparent and respectful debate. LINKS LINKS LINKS. Fine with K's, as long as they link and make sense. Impact calculus done well often sways my vote.

PF - Prefer winsome and clear debate. Respectful questioning approach appreciated. Evidence links are important. Dropping arguments is fine as long as you stay within a meaningful framework.

I've judged many debates over 10 years + of coaching, but am still learning more and more about debate all the time.

Hey y'all! A little about me: I did speech and debate all throughout high school and currently an active member of the NSDA Alumni Community. I've done each event a couple of times, so I am very aware of the rules and the general dos and don'ts of each event. I've gone to nationals for world schools, extemporaneous, and congressional debate, and was also a two-time alternative qualifier for duet interpretation.

For Debates: please do not spread, if I cannot understand your argument it will not be considered when choosing a winner. Please remember that we are all human so before, or after, the round please do not bad mouth each other, because nobody wants to hear that! I don't mind sass, but if it turns into rudeness, that is not a very good look. Let's keep the debate civil and clear.

For Interpretation: please please please be respectful while others are presenting, I know you have all worked so hard on your pieces I don't want whispering or comments to ruin that. I understand if y'all cannot stay through the whole round just remember to let me know so I know where you're going in case something happens, I don't want you to be lost!

Most importantly have fun with your event!! Sometimes things happen that are out of our control so going into a round with a good attitude makes all the difference!