School Affiliation: Carrollwood Day School

Judging Event Types: Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum

When I am judging, I will be awarding points based on effectiveness of argument, use of references/sources and clear communication. I look for respectful and thoughtful counter-arguments and sources/references to the opponents' arguments to demonstrate that real listening and understanding of the opponents' arguments occurred.

I welcome any roadmap or outlines to provide a clear walkthrough of what will be presented.

I also look for verbal communication - pitch, tone, and pace (no spreading) and non-verbal communication - eye contact, body language, use of space, hand gestures. Additionally, I do not judge technical debate.

1. General Philosophy: As a judge, I prioritize clarity, organization, and engagement across all speech and debate events. I value respectful communication, strategic thinking, and creativity in argumentation or performance. Regardless of the event, competitors should focus on delivering well-reasoned arguments or performances with clear structure and compelling content. I respect diverse debate and speaking styles but will always consider whether they are appropriate to the context and goals of the event. --- 2. Debate Events: #### Lincoln-Douglas Debate (LD): - **Framework:** I consider the framework crucial, as it sets the foundation for how arguments are evaluated. I expect debaters to clearly explain their value and criterion, and show how their case aligns with them. - **Philosophy/Argumentation:** I prefer well-reasoned philosophical arguments over purely technical debate. Clash is important—debaters should engage directly with their opponent's case and offer clear weighing mechanisms. - **Speed:** While I am familiar with progressive debate, clarity is key. If I cannot understand an argument due to speed or unclear delivery, I will not consider it. - **Evidence/Analysis:** I value strong analytical reasoning. Evidence should be used to support claims, but a debate full of card-reading without explanation will not be persuasive. #### Public Forum Debate (PF): - **Clarity and Structure:** Public Forum should be accessible, and arguments should be communicated clearly. I appreciate a conversational, persuasive tone, and well-structured arguments with clear impacts and weighing. - **Evidence vs. Persuasion:** A balance of evidence and effective persuasion is important. I value debaters who explain their evidence in a way that’s accessible and relevant. - **Framework/Weighing:** I expect teams to provide clear weighing mechanisms for their arguments. Comparative analysis between impacts is necessary for me to make a decision. - **Crossfire:** I enjoy a respectful yet rigorous Crossfire. It’s an opportunity to clarify points and create clash, but it should not devolve into a shouting match. #### Congressional Debate (Congress): - **Speech Quality:** The quality of speeches, in terms of structure, delivery, and argumentation, is paramount. Speeches should be well-organized, address the issue clearly, and offer unique perspectives. - **Engagement:** I value proactive participation in questioning and rebuttals. Debaters should be responsive and respectful, aiming for meaningful clash and engagement. - **Legislative Strategy:** Competitors should offer thoughtful amendments or arguments, demonstrating a deep understanding of the issues at hand. --- 3. Interpretive and Speech Events: Timing and Signals: For IEs, wherever applicable (and upon request from debaters), I will provide standard time signals (2 minutes left = 2 fingers, 1 minute left = 1 index finger, 30 seconds = making a "C" shape with one hand, Time Up = Fist). I will not verbally stop competitors if they cross the -30sec mark, but will count it against them in giving points and ranking. #### Declamation: - **Delivery:** I value strong delivery, emphasizing vocal variety, pacing, and clear enunciation. The speaker should convey the original speech’s intent and emotion. - **Engagement:** Competitors should engage with the audience and demonstrate command over their material, making the speech feel fresh even if it’s an interpretation of someone else’s work. #### Original Oratory (OO): - **Content and Persuasion:** Originality and depth of content are important. I look for speeches that not only inform but also persuade. Competitors should present a clear, well-supported thesis and build towards an impactful conclusion. - **Delivery:** Persuasive delivery is key. I value speakers who use vocal variety, eye contact, and physical presence effectively to enhance their message. #### Extemporaneous Speaking (USX/IX): - **Structure:** Speeches should be well-organized with a clear introduction, body, and conclusion. I appreciate clear roadmaps and signposting throughout the speech. - **Evidence and Reasoning:** Competitors should demonstrate strong reasoning and analytical skills. Evidence should be integrated smoothly and used to support the speaker’s overall argument. - **Engagement and Poise:** I expect speakers to engage confidently with their topic, even if they are unfamiliar with certain aspects. Poise under pressure is essential. #### Interpretation Events (DI, HI, Duo, POI, Prose, Poetry): - **Characterization and Emotion:** In interpretive events, I look for strong characterization and emotional authenticity. Performers should embody their characters fully, creating a clear distinction between different roles. - **Pacing and Delivery:** I appreciate performers who control their pacing and delivery to build tension, humor, or emotional impact. Transitions between characters or scenes should be smooth and purposeful. - **Connection to the Material:** Performers should show a deep understanding of the material, using their performance to highlight the underlying themes and emotional arc. #### Program Oral Interpretation (POI): - **Structure and Theme:** In POI, I look for a cohesive program with a clear thematic arc. Each piece should contribute meaningfully to the overall narrative. - **Performance:** As with other interpretive events, delivery, pacing, and characterization are key. I value performers who make strong emotional connections and demonstrate versatility. --- 4. Other Considerations: - **Respectful Conduct:** Respect for opponents and the activity is a priority. I will not tolerate rudeness, condescension, or unsportsmanlike behavior. - **Adaptability:** I encourage competitors to adapt to their audience. Competitors who are mindful of their audience and adjust their approach accordingly will leave a strong impression. - **Overall Impression:** Ultimately, I evaluate based on the overall impression the competitor leaves. How compelling were their arguments or performances? Did they effectively communicate and engage with their material and audience? --- 5. This judge paradigm provides an overview of my judging style for various Speech and Debate events. I encourage competitors to focus on clarity, depth, and audience engagement in all aspects of their performance or argumentation.