First year parent judge.

Congress: I have I so far judged varsity Congress once, as the very first time. I appreciate your patience in case my feedback does not come through fast enough for your next round or subsequent competition. You all amaze me even finding the courage to walk in and talk about affirmation and negation on tough topics.

Typically my ratings are based on National Forensic League training guidance between 3-6, entered as you're speaking so you have some minimal feedback on how I decided on final score for individual speech and eventual ranking. 3=Mediocre, 4=Proficient, 5=Excellent, 6=Superior

Examples: Originality of Thought, Organization and Unity, Evidence and Logic, Presentation and mutual respect.

My favorite part is how you handle questioning of your speech. Additionally, I look for senators who chose to either affirm/negate but based on the arguments presented chosen to vote for/against.

Time permitting, constructive written feedback in the comments will be provided. My overall rankings take into account your entire performance in the round as compared to your fellow senators.

Speech Events: First year judging speech. I come to spend by Saturday afternoons to be amazed by the young mind and how you future generations try and help mold our future. The very first thing I look for is how easy is to follow and interesting presentation (while also satisfying rules/objective of particular event) , they generally rises to the top of the rankings in my rounds. A request, kindly state your introductions/interesting openings as clearly as possible ( without rushing) as it allows me follow the rest of your presentation.

Current Experience:

Co-Advisor for Marvin Ridge HS Speech & Debate Club

Parent of Cuthbertson HS Speech Student

Have been judging as a parent and an advisor for 2 years now (LD, PF & Speech)

Spanish & French Teacher, National Honor Society Advisor

Previous Experience:

Directed HS theatre program & taught a speech course (also HS level)

Managed a business for 15 years

Values:

DEBATE: I value good delivery and awareness of the audience for debate events. No "spreading" please. Make good use of your cross-fires, be respectful. Interesting and innovative contentions can be stimulating, but make sure that you have good citations to ground in reality, not speculation.

SPEECH: For speech, I have no hold-ups for possible "triggers" in material. I will react as an audience member. I value good use of evidence and organized delivery, especially for info, extemp, impromptu, etc. Random movement and pacing is a distractor. Always happy to enjoy a great speech or performance!

I take contemporaneous notes, so they will flow in the order of your speech, from execution comments to suggestions, and analysis of structure. I am happy to give immediate verbal feedback to all competitors to help with any improvements that can be made, if time allows.

I am a very new Judge (Just started this year and this event Laird Lewis 2023 will be the 2nd event I am judging at). I love when participants come off organic and not super performative. It is a fine balance between measured/thoughtful before crossing the line to controlled and robotic. I am a big fan of thinking outside the box and putting your own spin on whatever it is you are taking about/debating.

I am a parent judge. This is my 4th year. I enjoy judging and am always impressed by the talent of all of the students. I try to stay true to myself and my experience both with judging and otherwise. Best of luck to all competitors.

I have no set opinion on the current topic.

About presentation in general, I will "flow", but I prefer intelligible debates conducted at semi-human pacing to spreading.

If you must spread (like in circuit rounds), please send me cases in advance at rob@teamapartments.com.You will need to hit your framework and taglines clearly.

Finally, I find that close or good debates tend to hinge on which debater best uses the CX to attack the opposing value and best helps a judge weigh impacts.

Good luck!

LD/PF

I am a professional musician so I appreciate creative interpretation. First and foremost I do not tolerate spreading, running Ks, running theory or attacking/belittling your opponents. Seriously, be respectful and debate the topic at hand.

I want to hear solid arguments with ample evidence and as little jargon as possible - quality over quantity. I am a stickler for proper citation of sources. Please don’t just give me the source, give me dates and authors.

Speaker points will be based primarily on demeanor, enunciation, clarity, command of the English language and organization. Your score will be negatively impacted for spreading. Being disrespectful or aggressive toward your opponents could result in an immediate loss. No low point wins.

SPEECH

Please note: This rubric is a general guideline. I am a stickler for sources and proper citation! Exceptions to ratings pertaining to sources are made for OO, HI, DI and DUO. I look forward to hearing you speak!

I am primarily a speech coach, so effective public speaking and rhetoric skills appeal to me. I prefer debates that stay centered on the topic to kritiks. Please no spreading. I don't mind fast-paced arguments, but I'd like to be able to flow what is happening effectively, and for that to happen, I don't want to be missing huge chunks of your argument because of speed. Thanks!

I am a parent judge with experience judging most Speech Events. I also participated in Speech and Debate as student.

In the Interpretation events I prefer that you introduce your piece and author prior to speaking (I wont start the clock until we agree) not just in your intro.

I can't wait to see what you've been working on!

For debate:

I prefer that you don't talk too fast or spread - I need to be able to understand what you're saying in order to judge its merits. I take a lot of notes and will try to judge on the flow.

For PF, please clearly articulate your contentions, back them up with warrants and support with strong evidence. I don't fully flow Crossfire or Cross-Ex, so anything important that you want noted, please extend in your next speech, and make it clear why it's important to your case or detracts from your opponent's. Please don’t run progressive debate unless something extreme has happened in the round, I will not know how to evaluate it.

By your final focus or last speech, you should have made a convincing case why your impacts or value out-weigh your opponent's. And in keeping with the rules of debate, do not bring up any new arguments in the second half of a round, or they will be disregarded. Good luck and have fun!

Rachel Mauchline

Durham Academy, Assistant Director of Speech and Debate

Previously the Director of Forensics and Debate for Cabot

she/her pronouns

TL;DR

Put me on the email chain @ rachelmauchline@gmail.com

speed is fine (but online lag is a thing)

tech over truth

Policy

I typically get preferred for more policy-oriented debate. I gravitated to more plan focused affirmatives and t/cp/da debate. I would consider myself overall to be a more technically driven and line by line organized debater. My ideal round would be a policy affirmative with a plan text and three-seven off. Take that as you wish though.

Lincoln Douglas

I've judged a variety of traditional and progressive debates. I prefer more progressive debate. But you do you... I am happy to judge anything as long as you defend the position well. Refer to my specific preferences below about progressive arguments. In regards to traditional debates, it's important to clearly articulate framework.

Public Forum

weighing.... weighing.... weighing.

I like rebuttals to have clear line by line with numbered responses. 2nd rebuttal should frontline responses in rebuttal. Summary should extend terminal defense and offense OR really anything that you want in final focus. Final focus should have substantial weighing and a clear way for me to write my ballot. It's important to have legitimate evidence... don't completely skew the evidence.

Here are my specific preferences on specific arguments if you have more than 5 mins to read this paradigm...

Topicality

I enjoy a well-articulated t debate. In fact, a good t debate is my favorite type of debate to judge. Both sides need to have a clear interpretation. Make sure it’s clearly impacted out. Be clear to how you want me to evaluate and consider arguments like the tva, switch side debate, procedural fairness, limits, etc.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

This was my fav strat in high school. I’m a big fan of case-specific disadvantages but also absolutely love judging politics debates- be sure to have up to date uniqueness evidence in these debates though. It’s critical that the disad have some form of weighing by either the affirmative or negative in the context of the affirmative. Counterplans need to be functionally or textually competitive and also should have a net benefit. Slow down for CP texts and permutations- y’all be racing thru six technical perms in 10 seconds. Affirmative teams need to utilize the permutation more in order to test the competition of the counterplan. I don’t have any bias against any specific type of counterplans like consult or delay, but also I’m just waiting for that theory debate to happen.

Case

I believe that case debate is under-covered in many debates by both teams. I love watching a case debate with turns and defense instead of the aff being untouched for the entire debate until last ditch move by the 2AR. The affirmative needs to continue to weigh the aff against the negative strat. Don't assume the 1AC will be carried across for you throughout the round. You need to be doing that work on the o/v and the line by line. It confuses me when the negative strat is a CP and then there are no arguments on the case; that guarantees aff 100% chance of solvency which makes the negative take the path of most resistance to prove the CP solves best.

Kritiks

I’ll vote for the k. From my observations, I think teams end up just reading their prewritten blocks instead of directly engaging with the k specific to the affirmative. Be sure you understand what you are reading and not just read a backfile or an argument that you don’t understand. The negative needs to be sure to explain what the alt actually is and more importantly how the alt engages with the affirmative. I judge more K rounds than I expect to, but if you are reading a specific author that isn’t super well known in the community, but sure to do a little more work on the analysis

Theory

I’ll vote for whatever theory; I don’t usually intervene much in theory debates but I do think it’s important to flesh out clear impacts instead of reading short blips in order to get a ballot. Saying “pics bad” and then moving on without any articulation of in round/post fiat impacts isn’t going to give you much leverage on the impact level. You can c/a a lot of the analysis above on T to this section. It’s important that you have a clear interp/counter interp- that you meet- on a theory debate.

I have been judging speech events since 2021. I look for presenters with a clearly demonstrated personal connection to a presentation/performance, no matter what the topic is. I also look for clear points or messages delivered with impact, whether that impact is made through strong argument or delivery, effective use of structure/wording, or compelling emotion.

This is my second year as a judge. I have judged Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas debate events, both at the novice and varsity levels. I have also judged multiple speech events, including Extemp, Impromptu, HI, DI, etc. at the novice and varsity levels.

For Debate competitors:

My preference is for the debaters to speak slowly and clearly. It's better to have lesser but more impactful statements, rather than to cram in too much information all at once that doesn't flow properly. Debaters should also take advantage of the prep time available to them, instead of rushing into things.

Start with an off-time roadmap, in order to clearly describe what you will be speaking about and to keep yourself organized. Also summarize your key points in the beginning... and at the end. "Tell me what you're going to tell me, then tell me, and then tell me what you just told me."

Don't spread, as it tends to put you at a disadvantage with me as a judge and with your opponent who can use your spreading to attack you. Enjoy yourself, and be respectful to your opponent and your judge.

For Speech competitors:

Based on your event, take advantage of your opportunities to show emotion, changing of voice tones, gestures, and overall personification. Use roadmaps when appropriate, and speak clearly and slowly. Don't forget to clearly and accurately state the question / topic / title in your intro and in your conclusion, and summarize your answer / key points in your intro and conclusion.

General overview:

I was a high school and college debater and have been an active high school coach ever since. I am chair of my state league as well as an NSDA District Chair. Dating back to high school, I have over 35 years of experience in the activity. However, please don't consider me as "old school" or a strict traditionalist. Like any activity, speech and debate is constantly evolving and I am open to and embrace most changes. You'll clearly understand all of the rare exceptions to that as you read my paradigm.

It is very important to remember that debate is a communication activity. As such, I expect clear communication. Well articulated, supported and defended arguments, regardless of quantity, are far more important to me than who has the most cards that they can spout out in a speech. While I'm okay with a limited amount of speed, excessive speed beyond what you would use in the "real world" is not effective communication in my mind. Communicate to me effectively with well reasoned and fully supported arguments at a reasonable pace and you will win my ballot. I don't accept the "they dropped the argument so I automatically win the argument" claim. You must tell me why the dropped argument was critical in the first place and convince me that it mattered. I look at who had the most compelling arguments on balance and successfully defended them throughout the round while refuting the opponent's arguments on balance in making my decision.

Things to keep in mind about the various events I judge:

Policy debate is about policy. It has a plan. Plans have advantages and disadvantages as well as solvency or the lack thereof. Some plans also might warrant a counterplan from the negative if it is good, nontopical, and can gain solvency better than the affirmative plan. I am not a fan of "circuit style" policy debate and greatly prefer good and clear communication.

Lincoln Douglas Debate is about values. I am interested much more in values in this type of debate than any sort of policy. However, I'm not a strict traditionalist in that I don't require both a value premise and a value criterion that is explicitly stated. But I do want to hear a value debate. That said, I also want to hear some pragmatic examples of how your value structure plays out within the context of the resolution. All in all, I balance my decision between the philosophical and the pragmatic. Persuade me of your position. However, please don't present a plan or counterplan. Switch to policy debate if you want to do that. Bottom line: debate the resolution and don't stray from it.

Public Forum Debate is about current events and was intended for the lay judge. Don't give me policy or LD arguments. Clear communication is important in all forms of debate, but is the most important in this one. I am not open to rapid fire spreading. That's not communication. Please don't give me a formal plan or counterplan. Again, reserve that for policy debate. Communicate and persuade with arguments backed up by solid research and your own analysis and do this better than your opponents and you will win my PF ballot. It's that simple. Debate the resolution without straying from it in a good communicative style where you defend your arguments and attack your opponent's and do this better than they do it. Then you win. Persuade me. I am also not a fan of "circuit style" Public Forum that seems to be increasingly popular. Communicate as if I am a layperson (even though I'm not), as that is what PF was intended to be.

Congress Paradigm:
Congressional Debate is designed to be like the real Congress when it functions as it was intended. Decorum is absolutely critical. While humor may have its place in this event, you should not do or say anything that a United States congressperson of integrity would not do or say. You should also follow Congressional decorum rules and address fellow competitors with their proper titles. When judging congress, I want to see clash/refutation of previous speakers (unless, of course, you are giving the first speech of the topic). Try to avoid "canned" speeches that are largely prewritten. This is not dueling oratories. It is still debate. I look for a combination of new arguments and clash/refutation of arguments already made. I do not like rehash. If it's been said already, don't say it unless you have a uniquely fresh perspective. I am not impressed by those who jump up to make the first obvious motion for previous question or for recess. Obvious motions score no points with me, as they are obvious and can be made by anyone. It's not a race to see who can be seen the most. I am, however, impressed by those who make great speeches, regularly ask strong cross examination questions and show true leadership in the chamber. Simply making great speeches alone is not enough. If you give three perfect speeches but never really ask good cross examination questions or rarely participate proceduraly in the chamber, you might not get the ranking you were hoping for. Although speeches are very important and a major factor in my decision, they are not the complete package that I expect from a competitor. I'm looking at your total constructive participation in the chamber (in a productive sense, not a "just to be seen" sense). Finally, to reiterate what I said at the beginning, I take decorum very seriously. You should too.

Congress Presiding Officers: Keep your wording as brief and concise as possible. Avoid the obvious. Please don't use phrases like "Seeing as how that was a negative speech, we are now in line for an affirmative speech." Here is a MUCH better option: "Affirmative speakers please rise" or "We are now in line for an affirmative speech." There is no need to tell anyone that the previous speech was negative. We should know that already. Just immediately call on the next side. It is acceptable and advisable to also very quickly give the time of the previous speech for the reference of the judges, but we do not need to be reminded of what side the previous speech was on. The phrase I dislike the most in Congress is "seeing as how . . ." So how do I judge you as a P.O. in relation to the speakers in the chamber? Most (but not all) presiding officers will make my top eight ballot if they are good with no major flaws. But how do you move up the ballot to get in "break" range? I place a great deal of weight on fairness and decorum, knowledge of parliamentary procedure and the efficiency in which the chamber is conducted. I reward presiding officers who are precise and have minimal downtime. And, as mentioned earlier, it does not require a great deal of language (especially jargon and phraseology) to be an excellent presiding officer. I'm not judging you on how much I hear you speak. I'm judging you on how efficient the chamber ran under your leadership. An excellent P.O. can run a highly efficient chamber without having to say much. Keep order, know and enforce the rules, and be respected by your peers. That said, you should also be prepared to step in and be assertive anytime the chamber or decorum gets out of hand. In fact, you should step in assertively at the first minute sign of it. Finally, while it is often difficult for a P.O. to be first on the ballot, it is also not impossible if your excellence is evident. And as a side note, while this is not a voting issue for me, it is worth noting. When giving your nomination speech, you don't need to tell me (or the rest of the chamber) that you will be "fast and efficient." That phrase is overused and heard from almost every candidate I've ever seen nominated. Everyone makes that claim, but a surprising number don't actually follow through on it. Come up with original (but relevant) reasons that you should be elected.

Things to avoid in any event I judge:

"Spreading" or rapid fire delivery. Just don't.

Ad Hominem attacks of any kind. Stick to the issues, not the person. This is the first thing that will alienate me regardless of your position.

Kritiks - You must be extremely persuasive if you run them. I'll consider them and vote for them if they are excellent, but I'd rather hear other arguments. Very few kritiks are in that "excellent" category I just mentioned. These are mainly only appropriate for Policy debate. I'll reluctantly consider them in LD, but never in PF.

Debate that strays outside the resolutional area. Stick to the topic.

Lack of respect for your opponent or anyone else in the room. Disagreement and debate over that disagreement is great. That's what this activity is about. But we must always do it respectfully.

Lack of respect for public figures. It's perfectly fine to disagree with the position of anyone you quote. However, negativity toward the person is not acceptable.

Condescending tone or delivery. Please do not be condescending toward your fellow competitors, your judge or toward anyone you are referencing in your speeches.

Written by son

I’m a doctor and a lay judge; I’ll take notes but I will not evaluate the round off of the flow.
Be nice and have fun!

aravulapati@gmail.com and caryprdebate@gmail.com

for chains ^

Competed personally while in HS, Primarily in Duo Interpretation. Have been Judging since completing HS and have judged multiple tournaments and many various events. Prefer judging Duo, HI, DI, POI, or impromptu.

Wish everyone the best of luck in any event!

I am relatively new judge with modest experience of judging. I am thrilled to be here today . I will take notes during your speech. Let me know if you need time signals during your speech.

Speech Events:

I am a parent judge, educator, and military veteran. My background has equipped me with a keen eye for detail and a deep appreciation for the art of communication across diverse genres and styles.

Whether you're embodying a character or imparting knowledge, I encourage you to speak with clarity and conviction, ensuring that your performance resonates with your audience and effectively conveys your story.

Throughout your performance, I'll be observing your eye contact and delivery, looking for consistency, clarity, and appropriate tone. Whether you're engaging in a dramatic performance, a duo interpretation, or an informative speech, maintaining eye contact with your audience demonstrates confidence and connection. Remember, your ability to connect with your audience through your words, your presence, and your performance style will greatly enhance the impact of your presentation across all events.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

In evaluating LD debates, I prioritize logical reasoning, factual accuracy, effective communication, and engagement. Here are the key criteria I consider:

1. Presentation Flow: Your arguments should flow seamlessly, logically connected, and supporting each other while avoiding logical fallacies.
2. Clarity and Confidence: Speak clearly and confidently, maintaining a moderate pace to ensure understanding without rushing. Command the room with confidence without being overbearing.
3. Time Management: Adhere to the allotted time without rushing or exceeding limits, demonstrating effective time management skills.
4. Volume and Energy: Maintain appropriate volume and energy levels, engaging the audience.
5. Engagement: Actively listen to opponents, basing points in questioning and rebuttals on their arguments, adapting to the round's flow.
6. Rebuttal Construction: Construct rebuttals by effectively addressing opponents' arguments, using evidence, and avoiding logical fallacies.
7. Definitions/Observations: Provide clear definitions for crucial terms or concepts.
8. Contentions: Ensure each contention contributes to your overall thesis, with arguments logically structured and easy to follow.
9. Format and Rules Adherence: Adhere to the prescribed format, times, and rules.
10. Kindness and Courtesy: Maintain a respectful demeanor, focusing on argument substance over personal attacks.
11. Balance of Style and Argument: I appreciate persuasive speeches that balance emotional appeal with factual evidence.
12. Openness to Novel Points with Evidence: I welcome new and interesting points supported by evidence, encouraging critical thinking and fresh perspectives.

I am an assistant coach, this is my second year coaching, third year judging. I am a teacher certified in English Language Arts and have actively taught high school for 5 years. My notes and comments tend to follow my flow/train of thought as I type as I go, making comments as I see things.

For my first two years of judging, I have almost exclusively judged speech events with debate/congress sprinkled in, however this year I have been judging mostly LD.

I have never gone into a round and found a student I wanted to do poorly. I want you to succeed as much as you want to succeed.

Paradigm for LD

Construction of Message:Is your argument well-thought? Is your resolve interesting? Does your evidence support your claims? Are you claims tied together and supporting each other? Does your argument flow in a logical way that makes it easy to follow by only listening, and not reading?

Delivery of Message:Are you speaking slowly and clearly enough that the judge can actually process what you are saying? (this is a speech and debate competition, not a race). Do you command the room when you speak, without being overbearing? Can the judge hear what you are saying without straining?

Evidence of Engagement:Are you actually listening to you fellow competitor? Do you make points in questioning and rebuttal that are based on what your opponents said, and not just what you thought they said? Are you adapting to the way the round is flowing?

Construction of Rebuttal:Are you able to use their Value to support your own argument? Are your counterclaims based in evidence? Are you pointing out any logical fallacies? If you raise a concern about something in your opponents case (ex: you accuse them of cherry-picking), is your case safe from similar scrutiny?

Decorum: Are you behaving in a way that reflects well on yourself, your coach, your school, and the District?

Paradigm for Congress

How I Rank:While the ballot on Tabroom only has a place to score speeches, it is not unlikely that room is full of great speakers. To fairly rank the room, I have a personal spreadsheet where I score individual speeches, as well as the categories below, to help separate the "great speakers" from the "great congresspersons". Think of it like a rubric for your English class project. Speeches are the biggest category, but not the only one.

Speeches:Do you provide a unique perspective on the bill, and not simply rehashing what has been said in the round already? Do you back up your reasoning with logos, ethos, AND pathos? Is your speech deep, instead of wide (more detail on one specific aspect of the bill, rather than trying to cover all angles of the bill)? Do you write with a clarity of style and purpose, with a good turn of phrase? Do you engage your listeners? Do you respond well to questions?

Questioning:Are your questions thoughtful and based on listening closely to the speaker, and what they actually said? Are your questions brief and to the point? Do you avoid simple yes or no, gotcha style questions? Does your questioning have a clear line of thinking? Do you connect questioning to previous speeches? Do you avoid prefacing?

Decorum:Do you follow the rules of the chamber? Do you follow speaking times? Do you speak calmly and collectedly? Do you ask or answer questions assertively, without being aggressive? Do you respect your fellow speakers?

RP:Do your speeches reflect that you are a congressperson, and not a high school teenager? Do you think of your constituents? Do you consider yourself a representative of your state or District? Do you allow your RP perspective to make your speeches better, and not become a distraction? Do you participate in motions, seconding, etc?

Knowledge of Rules:Do you have an obvious and clear understanding of the rules? Do you follow them closely? Are there any egregious breaking of the rules?

Special Consideration for the Presiding Officer:The Presiding Officer is marked for one "speech" per hour. This score is a reflection of how well they perform the specific duties of PO. It concerns knowledge of the rules (at a higher expectation than the average congress competitor), the efficiency of the room, the fairness of the PO, and the demeanor of the PO (should be calming and welcoming). I also look at them for decorum and RP.

Ashton Swinney, Senior Intelligence Analyst - Fort Bragg, NC

Background:

I am an Intelligence Analyst that works for the US Military. I have spent over 10 years in the role. My job has made me very familiar with public speaking, albeit within a military framework.

With that in mind, while I am adept at picking up jargon pretty fast, I am not familiar with the colloquialisms/slang of this organization quite yet. So I would ask that you keep that in mind.

I expect all arguments to remain professional and respectful. You may speak at what pace works best for you, as long as you are speaking clearly and concisely. I am used to listening to my audiobooks/podcasts/videos at 2-2.5x speed, so I don't expect speed to be an issue unless what you are saying is said poorly enunciated. Please do not test how much you can say in one breathe though.

I don't care if you sit, stand, or talk with your hands.

If the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision at the end of the round after I have submitted my ballot.

Please introduce yourself with your name and preferred pronouns.

I am a parent judge relatively new to debate.

Please speak clearly and slowly. If I can’t track what you're saying, I won’t be able to effectively judge you. Make sure you are organized in your speeches. Be respectful and professional, especially during cross.

I will try to take a lot of notes. Please make it clear what's important to your case or detracts from your opponent's.

Do not bring up any new arguments in the second half of a round, or they will be disregarded.

I will keep time and encourage you to do the same.

I very much enjoy the competition of debate and look forward to judging your round. Good luck and have fun!