I have judged Speech rounds from local to Nationals, and I have been included in Debate, Congress, L-D and PF competitions.

The opportunity for me to judge at Nationals several times has been exciting and very rewarding!

I want to be able to understand you, please speak clearly. My expectations for this

event are:

Disrespect is never ok, be fair to each other and treat people as you would like to be treated.

Be kind, to others as well as yourself.

Logical, clear arguments are appreciated!

"Don't raise your voice. Improve your argument." Desmond Tutu

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!

Philosophy Overview: In evaluating Lincoln-Douglas debates, I prioritize clear, logical argumentation supported by evidence and reasoning. I value debaters who engage respectfully with their opponents and the topic, showing a deep understanding of the issues at hand. Speaking with speed is fine, but make sure your points are clear and understandable.

Framework: debaters should establish a clear value criterion and framework that logically supports their case. They should use this framework to guide their arguments and demonstrate how their case upholds the value criterion better than their opponent's.

Contentions: Debaters should present well-structured contentions that are supported by evidence and reasoning. I value depth over breadth, so I prefer to see fewer, more developed arguments rather than a large number of shallow ones.

Rebuttal: In rebuttals, debaters should directly engage with their opponent's arguments, pointing out flaws in reasoning or evidence. I value responsive arguments that adapt to the opponent's case rather than pre-scripted responses.

Cross-Examination: Cross-examination should be used to clarify arguments and expose weaknesses in the opponent's case. I value respectful and productive cross-examinations that focus on substance rather than trying to score points.

Speaker Points: I will award speaker points based on clarity, persuasiveness, and strategic thinking. I value debaters who can communicate their arguments effectively and engage with the audience.

Final Thoughts: Overall, I am looking for debaters who can think critically, communicate clearly, and engage with the topic and their opponents in a meaningful way.

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.

Hello All. My name is Madhungi Vaidyanathan. I am judging speech for this and upcoming tournaments. I have judged Lincoln-Douglas debate in the past, and I am excited to judge speech for the first time as well. Here are some of the criteria I look for when evaluating rounds and finalizing ballots:

1. Speak slowly and clearly. This I value most important.

2. Make your speech encouraging. I value speeches with deep thought and articulation put into it.

3. Be polite. I do not encourage foul behavior.

4. Follow the event/round's rules. I will be directly scoring based off of the instructions given to me, so it would be easier if you stick to the rules of the round, for both you and me.

5. Try to make complex language more easier to understand with your speaking method. No matter how complex the word is, it would be helpful to convey it in an understandable way so that I can understand what you are saying.

Overall, I am very willing to meet the competitors and hear your speeches. I hope to learn a lot from your speeches (and make my day more interesting, lol!) at the competition. Wishing a good luck to everyone, I will see you soon.

1. What is your experience level? Have you been actively coaching or judging, and how long? How often have you judged rounds on this topic?

This is my first-year judging for the forensic team. I have experience judging some speech categories, but I have mostly judged for PFD. This is my fourth competition this year. I have experience in public speaking and have been trained on both the military side and civilian side in various types of public speaking.

2. Describe your preferences as they relate to debaters’ rate of delivery and use of jargon or technical language.

I recognize that every team is coming from a different demographic and are performing at different levels due to their coaches and their styles. It is a lot of information to fit into a short amount of time and I try to be mindful of that. I want each person to come in and speak at the rate they are comfortable, but please be mindful that I must be able to understand the words you are saying. I judge on the ability to effectively defend your position and I give grace to you when you fumble because I recognize that you are told which side you are debating shortly before you walk into the room. However, I do not enjoy when people give up and state words like “I do not know” or “probably” or “maybe.” You are supposed to be prepared to debate both sides and should have done research on the topic.

3. Describe your personal note-taking during the round. Do you write down key arguments? Keep a rigorous flow?

I’m not a big note taker. Do not take it personal, it is how my brain works. I do not like to be distracted with writing notes during any meeting or interaction I have because I want to be able to listen, observe, and take it all in. I’m a reflector. I write your name as soon as I get in the room and confirm who you are. I will write down single words here and there when there is something specific that I want to be prompted to mention about your performance.

4. Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Are there certain delivery styles that are more persuasive to you?

I value professionalism and follow through. I recognize everyone is different and everyone communicates differently and therefore, I do not have a preference on style.

5. What are the specific criteria you consider when assessing a debate?

I consider whether the team committed to their side and were able to properly defend it throughout or did they get flustered and change their stance continuously when the other team pushed back. I evaluate their professionalism based on how they interacted with their opponents and how respectful they were of each other during crossfire.

Please introduce yourself with your name and preferred pronouns.