LD Debate: I am a judge that leans toward the classic style. I don't mind K-debate, but you'd better make it apply to the resolution! I am not a fan Topicality arguments. If you run more than one off, I'm not going to apply the rest. Don't be a whiny debater. Debate the round! Speed is fine as long as you are articulate. Don't be rude to your opponent, and if you are a male debater...DON'T BE SEXIST OR CONDESCENDING to a female opponent. I want to hear framework, value, criterion, impacts, and links. Give me that and I will be happy.

PF Debate: Framework and Impacts! I don't like rudeness in Cross Examination. I like a mix of claims, warrants, and narrative. Tell me a story. I am not looking for solvency. I'm not sure why people think they have to solve in PF. I just want to understand why you support or oppose the status quo, how that fits into the framework provided, and where/how it impacts. Don't make it too difficult.

Speech and Interp: I enjoy being in speech and interp rounds, where I get to see student's personalities take flight! I love stories, and I feel like the journey's students choose to take us on are important ones!

In interp, I look for HONESTY and connection in each performance. Don't force emotion. We see that! It takes us out of the context of the piece! Also, please don't stare directly at me. I can't get lost in your piece if you are including me in the scene. I want to be a fly on the wall. And I'm a big believer in the FOURTH WALL. Also, I'm not a fan of those who exploit special needs characters, or make fun of them. If you use the "R" word in my round, or show disrespect to special needs characters, you will hear about it on my ballot. Please reconsider doing this in any piece you choose. It is exclusive and disturbing...don't resort to such things for the purpose of a trophy. This community encourages you to find growth in your humanity as well as your talents!

In speech, I like it when I learn something I didn't already know. Teach me! I love coming out of rounds and telling people, "I was in this OO/Informative/Extemp round and I just learned that..." And I don't mind controversial subjects either! As long as you aren't excluding anyone, or being offensive to a particular group of people (race, ability, religion, sexual preference...etc), then I'm okay with controversy. And whatever your topic...have conviction!

In both speech AND interp, I like it when students make CHOICES and take CHANCES. I'm a tough judge, but only because I want you to improve and have the best critique you can get to do that! I love the community that speech and debate provides for students. I also know that the experience I get from every single performer is invaluable! So thank you!

As an Oral Interpretation judge, I look for the performer's ability to recreate the story at hand. THIS IS NOT AN ACTING CONTEST!! The loudest and most dramatic performer does not automatically win with me. The speaker who conveys their characters, setting, themes, etc. most appropriately and effectively, will win that round. I want to believe that you have essentially stepped out of your published piece and into this world seamlessly.

As an Extemp judge, if I have to do the heavy lifting with your topic (meaning I have to interpret what you "meant" by that fact or area of analysis), it's an automatic pass for me. I look for a speaker's ability to set up their topic effectively; walk me through their areas of analysis, and then explore each point thoroughly. 7-9 sources is always an effective number for an extemp round. Because I am a previous "extemper," I am sensitive to those unlucky topic draws, but an effective speaker is always able to convey their message no matter what.

DEBATE:

CX -I am not comfortable or knowledgeable enough about CX to either judge or create a paradigm for this event.

Congress - I look forward to hearing prepared speakers who take the initiative, have the knowledge to speak extemporaneously when necessary, and can also ask probing questions that lead to well-constructed arguments. Students should take an active leadership role by participating in the chamber's motions, whether or not they are presiding.

LD - I want there to be a connection between the V/C and the arguments. I do not like to see LARPING (as a CXer) in LD, but if the first statement holds true, then I can overlook that as long as the debate is more philosophical overall. I prefer LDers to have a strong morality-based framework that I can flow; therefore, I want to hear speeches that are organized and easy to follow. For example, your value, criterion, contentions (or whatever you call them), and subpoints must be clear, but you also must have strong support for each of your arguments. Speed is fine as long as I can hear your arguments, but I would also like to be on the email chain if possible (courtney.plotts@canyonisd.net). Participants should look at the judge during cross-examination, not at the opponent.

SPEECH/INTERP:

Extemporaneous Speaking: As an Extemporaneous Speaking judge/coach, my judging paradigm is rooted in a commitment to fairness, clarity, and the promotion of effective communication. I value speeches that demonstrate a deep understanding of the chosen topic, providing well-reasoned responses with the support of credible evidence. Clear organization and engaging delivery are key components I look for, as they contribute to an effective and memorable speech. While there is a particular framework commonly used for extemporaneous speaking, I do appreciate speeches that are non-formulaic, where the speaker uses style and finesse to inform or persuade the audience. As a judge, I want to be able to easily outline your speech. I do not want to guess what your “road map” is, or where you got your information, so I prefer easy-to-understand taglines as your main points. When it comes to citations, I think the month and year of publication along with the name of the publication is more than a sufficient citation. The amount of evidence depends more on the topic. Cited evidence needs to be enough to justify the argument. Usually, five to seven sources is a good benchmark, but I am not willing to rate a speech lower based solely on the number of cited sources. I would like to further note that gestures should have a purpose without being too repetitive. Filler words and distracting, repetitive movements are not the hallmarks of good public speaking. Additionally, the speaker's tone should be conversational and not condescending or intentionally inflammatory. Specifically, with informative speaking, I appreciate a comprehensive analysis of the question, a nuanced exploration of the topic, and a commitment to presenting relevant and timely information. On the persuasive side, I encourage speakers to skillfully blend facts and emotional appeals, crafting compelling arguments that resonate with the audience. Both genres should showcase critical thinking, a structured approach, and an ability to navigate complex issues. I emphasize the importance of direct address to the question posed and value speeches that exhibit a thoughtful consideration of diverse perspectives.

OO/Informative - Oratory and Informative should mirror Extemp in many ways. These speeches, however, should be more polished and contain better, more specific citations. As a judge/coach in Original Oratory, I prioritize speeches that are not only eloquent but also deeply impactful. I value creativity, authenticity, and a genuine connection with the audience. Original Oratory provides a platform for students to share their unique perspectives on significant issues, and I appreciate speeches that delve into personal narratives, societal concerns, or thought-provoking ideas. I encourage competitors to craft speeches with a clear purpose, well-defined structure, and compelling storytelling techniques. Effective use of rhetorical devices, emotional appeals, and a strong conclusion that leaves a lasting impression is crucial. While I appreciate passion and conviction, I also value a nuanced and well-reasoned argument. Original Oratory is an opportunity to showcase both expressive and analytical skills, and I look for speeches that engage, inform, and inspire the audience. I also enjoy it more when the speeches come "full circle," tying the end back to the beginning. When it comes to Informative Speaking, my judging paradigm is grounded in the importance of delivering accessible and engaging content. I value speeches that provide clear, accurate, and interesting information on a chosen topic. Competitors should demonstrate a thorough understanding of their subject matter, using credible sources and evidence to support their claims. Organization is key, and I appreciate speeches that present information logically and coherently. Visual aids, when used effectively, can enhance the audience's understanding and engagement. While clarity and conciseness are essential, I also encourage speakers to inject their unique voice and style into their presentation. Whether exploring current events, historical contexts, or scientific concepts, a successful Informative Speech leaves the audience with a deeper understanding of the topic. I'm particularly impressed by speeches that strike a balance between educational value and entertainment, making complex information accessible to a diverse audience.

HI/DI/DUO/DUET/POI - As a judge/coach in different interpretation events, my approach is grounded in the power of storytelling and the art of performance. I value interpretations that captivate, engage, and transport the audience into the world of the chosen literary piece. Whether it's a HI, DI, Duet, Duo, or POI interpretation, I encourage competitors to go deep into the character, evoke emotion, and illustrate the theme. I appreciate performances that showcase a keen understanding of the text, allowing the audience to connect with the material on a profound level. Teasers are a wonderful way to get the audience's attention and should be used with that thought in mind. The introduction should tell me who is performing and what they want me to know about the piece, but, most importantly, should clearly articulate the title and author. Effective vocal variety, facial expressions, and body language are essential elements that contribute to a compelling interpretation. For duet/duo interpretations, seamless coordination and chemistry between partners elevate the overall performance. I encourage interpers to explore the subtleties of the text, bringing forth a nuanced and authentic portrayal of characters and their narratives. Your interpretation is not just a recitation but a vivid and dynamic exploration of the human experience; however, over-the-top, farcical performances that do not contribute to the overall storytelling, are a little jarring. Furthermore, I caution performers to understand the difference between cultural appropriation and cultural appreciation when it comes to playing a variety of characters. For the physical part of the performances, blocking, gestures, and facial expressions need to reflect the intent of the HI, DI, Duet, Duo, or POI pieces. Characterization should be varied enough that I do not have to wonder which of your characters is speaking or moving. In HI, DI, Duet, Duo, or POI, I like to see the acting range. HI is not standup comedy. I am not looking for "jokes per minute." HI needs to be funny overall but can include dark humor and/or serious moments. On the other hand, DI needs to have drama but can be funny at times throughout the piece as long as that is not central to the theme. In POI, I will be wanting distinguishable pieces.

*SIDE NOTE: For all Speech and Interp performances, I believe "strong" language can be appropriate depending on the piece. Considerations when using language include demographics of characters, period of setting, etc. However, language should never be used purely for shock value...there needs to be a reason. The same goes for sexual or intimate content; I personally feel uncomfortable judging teenagers when performing content with over-sexualized topics. Although, depending on the content, it could make sense as a plot device. Just consider your audience.

As an IEs judge, I believe in fostering an environment where every participant has the opportunity to showcase their skills and talents to the best of their abilities. I appreciate:

1. Fairness and Impartiality: I am committed to evaluating each speech objectively, without bias or prejudice. Every competitor deserves a fair chance, and I will base my judgments solely on the content and delivery of the speeches.

2. Clarity and Communication: Effective communication is paramount in speech competitions. I value clarity of expression, coherence of ideas, and the ability to engage the audience. Speak with confidence, and ensure that your message is conveyed effectively.

3. Content and Argumentation: Substance matters. I appreciate well-researched and thought-provoking content. Whether it's a persuasive speech, an informative presentation, or an interpretive performance, I expect speakers to present compelling arguments supported by evidence and reasoning.

4. Organization and Structure: A well-organized speech demonstrates careful planning and attention to detail. I look for clear introductions, logical progression of ideas, and concise conclusions. Structure your speech in a way that guides the audience through your message effectively.

5. Delivery and Style: Delivery plays a significant role in capturing the audience's attention. I appreciate varied vocal inflections, appropriate gestures, and effective use of language. Tailor your delivery style to suit the nature of your speech and engage your audience from start to finish.

6. Adaptability and Flexibility: Adaptability is key in any competitive environment. Be prepared to adjust your performance based on the feedback and dynamics of the competition. Embrace challenges as opportunities for growth and improvement.

7. Respect and Sportsmanship: Respect for fellow competitors, judges, and the audience is non-negotiable. Maintain professionalism at all times, both in and out of round. Embrace the spirit of sportsmanship and celebrate the achievements of your peers.

8. Feedback and Growth: My role as a judge extends beyond evaluation; I aim to provide constructive feedback that helps competitors grow and develop their skills. Take advantage of this opportunity to learn from your performance and strive for continuous improvement.

Remember, the ultimate goal of this competition is not just to win but to learn, grow, and connect with others who share your passion for speech and debate.

I competed in Policy Debate in high school (grad. 2012) and competed at UIL State. I have been involved with Speech and Debate in varying capacities since then and have coached since 2022.

I value strategy, clash, and believe Policy Debate at its core is still a speaking event.

I would consider myself a “stock issues plus” judge. The stock issues matter to me in debate, but I have grown more interested in progressive styles of debate and will flow these arguments as long as you do the theory work and explain your arguments well. I will not connect any dots for you.

I don’t mind speed as long as you maintain clarity. If I feel you are unclear, I will stop flowing.

I don’t love voting on Topicality because, for most of my career, it has been used largely as a timesuck argument. However, this year, topicality is incredibly relevant. Carry your argument all the way through to get my vote on T.

I prefer highly technical DAs and will be looking for all of the ingredients. One of my most important voting issues will be impact calc!

If you run a CP, tell me why I should prefer your plan. I’m looking for Net Benefits/Mutual Exclusivity for you to win. Spell out how you solve better.

At the end of the day, my decision will be largely based on world comparison and impact calc. Tell me why you should win! Good luck!