Hi! I'm a parent coach at New West Charter High School. I have a year of judging experience and am focused on IE. I’m excited to judge and hear your speeches. Here’s what I look for:

Things I expect:

• Clarity & Organization: Make your ideas easy to follow with a clear structure.
• Engagement & Delivery: Connect with the audience through eye contact, vocal variety, and confidence.
• Thoughtful Physicality: Use well thought gestures and movement to support your message, but don’t overdue it so it becomes distracting.
• Elocution: Speak clearly, pronounce words correctly, and expressively—good enunciation is central to great speech.
• Grammar: please please please. You're competing in a speech competition. You need to speak correctly and use good grammar. (Note, if intentionally broken grammar and speech is part of the story you’re telling, that's different - I get it.)

Things I value:

• Personal Connection: I love when speakers care about their topic—it makes the speech more powerful. If I can tell that the speech actually means something to you, I’m more interested in it.
• Content & Originality: Well-supported arguments or fresh perspectives are key.

How I Evaluate:

• Structure: Make sure you have all the right structural elements of your speech. I’m old school that way.
• Delivery: Strong speaking with confident body language and eye contact. Thoughtful physicality adds to your message.
• Content: Depth and clarity in your arguments or information.
• Audience Connection: Speeches that feel personal and relatable are more impactful.

What I tend to dislike:

• Distracting Habits: Avoid filler words, unnecessary or repetitve gestures, wandering pacing, and lack of focus.
• Weak Arguments: Always back up your claims.
• Lack of Preparation: Preparation shows!

Scoring:

• Top scores: Clear, engaging speeches with strong content and delivery, a personal connection, and thoughtful physicality.
• Lower scores: Unclear, unprepared speeches with weak arguments or lack of engagement.

Final Thoughts:

• Be confident: If you make a mistake, keep going!
• Enjoy the process: Have fun and let your hard work shine.
• Risky Ideas & Free Speech: I fully support bold ideas and free expression. Don’t be afraid to take risks and challenge norms.

Looking forward to hearing your speeches!

I frequently judge speech and parliamentary debate, and have done so over the past two years. I prefer students do not speak too quickly because that makes it difficult to track the presentations (do not spread because I will not be able to understand it). While I expect disagreement, I want students to treat each other with respect at all times. I only track the time myself if the rules require it.

I have experience in college level Forensics events. I have competed Parliamentary and IPDA style debate, as well as Extemporaneous and Impromptu speaking.

For debate events, I really value clear argumentation that is properly weighed out with links and impacts. Don't just tell me something is going to happen--tell me how you know it will happen and what it means if it does. Be sure to clash with your opponents' arguments, but please do not be rude or bully anyone. I do not tolerate that behavior. You may talk fast but don't spread at the speed of light. If no one can understand you, you can't win the round. Theory is part of the game, and should be utilized when necessary. Any sort of topicality argument should be properly structured and made an a priori issue in the round. I also appreciate listed voters in your rebuttals.

Above all, have fun! I believe a debate round is the most enjoyable and educational if we all speak with logic, work creatively, and act with respect.

For speech events, it's all about reading the room and being poised. Speak with clarity and charisma, and overall try your best to work the room!

David Chamberlain
English Teacher and Director of Forensics - Claremont High School, CA
25 years coaching forensics. I usually judge Parliamentary debate at tournaments.

In Parli debate I don't like being bogged down in meta debating. Nor do I appreciate frivolous claims of abuse. I always hope for a clean, fun and spirited debate. I trust in the framer's intent and believe the debaters should too! Logic, wit and style are rewarded.

In PF debate I certainly do not appreciate speed and believe debaters must choose positions carefully being thoughtful of the time constraints of the event. This is the peoples' debate and should be presented as such.

In LD debate I prefer a more traditional debate round with a Value + Value Criterion/Standard that center around philosophical discussions of competing moral imperatives. I understand the trend now is for LD Debaters to advocate plans. I don't know if this is good for the activity. There's already a debate format that exclusively deals with plan debate. LD is not one-person policy debate.

Speed:
I can flow speed debate, but prefer that debate be an oratorical activity.

Theory/T:
I enjoy Theory debates. I don't know that I always understand them. I do count on the debaters being able to clearly understand and articulate any theory arguments to me so that I can be comfortable with my vote. I prefer rounds to be centered on substance, but there is a place for theory. I usually default to reasonability, and don't prefer the competing interpretations model. It takes something egregious for me to vote on T.

Points:
I usually start at a 27.0 and work my way up or down from there. Usually you have to be rude or unprepared to dip below the 27.0.

Counterplans:
I don't think it makes sense to operate a counterplan unless the Aff has presented a plan. If the Aff does go with a Plan debate, then a Counterplan is probably a good strategy. If not, then I don't understand how you can counter a plan that doesn't exist. If this is the debate you want to have, try Policy debate.

Critical Arguments:
The biggest problem with these is that often debaters don't understand their own message / criticism / literature. I feel they are arguments to be run almost exclusively on the Negative, must have a clear link, and a stable alternative that is more substantial than "do nothing", "vote neg", or "examine our ontology/epistemology".

Politics / DAs:
I really enjoy Political discussions, but again, LD is probably the wrong format of debate for the "political implications" of the "plan" that result in impacts to the "status quo" to be discussed.

Sub 2 FLOOOCHY on YouTube

I am currently competing in Parli and Ipda I’d like to see arguments that make sense and have evidence relating to the topic. I’m not biased towards anything as long as it’s genuine and presented for what it is. With that being said I can’t refute points that are not genuine and have evidence you have to say something yourself.

Refute anything your opponent is saying about your arguments don’t let anything that hurts your case get turned into a fact in the round without trying to fight it while making sense.

Evidence is much better when it is recent and relative to the topic, so please say when whatever research or event happened, and if your opponent did not say call them out on it and make it invalid.

link what you're talking about to the topic and the values. Make sure I know how you are portraying your arguments and your opponents. Go over why you won and why the opponent failed in detail.

DEBATE: My preference for debate is that you make your case based on clear, cogent arguments. Elaborate whenever possible, explaining how your sources support your arguments (don't just say you "have a card" and thus assume your case is proved).

When making a technical argument, such as a dropped point, a failure to refute/counter a point, or when asking me to cross-apply a contention, always explain your reasoning. Do not just say "my points all flow through judge" or "their entire argument is discounted judge"; I will decide that based on the merits of your case.

I have experience competing in NPDA, IPDA, Extemporaneous Speaking, and Impromptu Speaking, so I value strong argumentation and effective delivery. I am open to any type of arguments and appreciate clear voters at the end. Here's what I look for:

1. Clash: Direct engagement with your opponent’s arguments is key. Show me where the debate happens and why you come out on top.

2. Clear Links: Arguments need to connect clearly to the resolution or the impacts you’re advancing. Don’t leave me guessing how everything ties together.

3. Terminalized Impacts: Explain the significance of your arguments. Tell me why your impacts matter and why they outweigh your opponent’s.

Lastly, be nice to your opponents :)

I spent a lot of time on speech and debate when I was in high school, and public speaking has been a big part of my life ever since (I am a professor - my job is literally to stand in front of people and profess). I appreciate speakers who are excited about their own topic, who know what they want to say and enjoy saying it clearly and without unnecessary bells and whistles.

I am a first year student at San Diego State University and I am majoring in Kinesiology on a Pre-Physical Therapy track. I have never judged a debate before and I am super excited to learn from this experience. I plan to judge this competition with an open mind regardless of personal opinions, as I am eager to judge with the best of my ability. This means judging off of argument quality as structured arguments are extremely effective when taking a stance on a specific topic. In addition, I am looking for confidence and thoughtful evidence presented by the debaters. Most of all, I hope everyone has fun!

I am very excited for this experience!

Hello y'all!

It's everyone's favorite time, to read the philosophy of the judge so they can bs their way to winning rounds.

Background:

My background is pretty baller. I did speech for 4 years of high school and was ranked in the state. I did debate for 2 years, mid lay level LD and parli. After I graduated, I started coaching at Chaminade College Prep. To my dismay, they were mostly a policy school. I cried for weeks about this.

I've been the assist head coach there for 2 and half years and now the head coach for the past year. Surprisingly, no one has died. I've now judged rounds of all debate events in California, at almost all levels, except Varsity Policy, because I'm not too masochistic.

Here are some general things, then you can look at event specific things below:

I try my best to not put my beliefs onto the flow. I don't mind any critical arguments, just realize most of you run them wrong/weak links. Don't do that. Be clear and articulate, explain to me how it impacts the round. Don't just say "Dumb judge, I win because of (fancy jargon word)" Explain why you win. If you're going to cross apply, explain how it cross applies. "Cross apply this to all of my contentions because in reality, I have no answers, but want to seem like I didn't drop everything on the flow"

Don't run K's with no clear link. If I feel you've run this K against every aff you've hit, not matter the topic, I won't be happy. Make the link very clear. This comes off as lazy to me.

Speed: I'm alright with speed. Usually by the rebuttal level, I'm fine. I'd say in policy try to go 70% your fastest. LD you can go 80% your fastest. I have yet to have an issue with speed in PF and parli, so don't worry. You'll want to go slower with me, mostly because I tend not to give any indication if I can't understand what you're saying because I'm trying so hard to understand what you're saying.

Also, when spreading, there is this thing called enunciating. Do that. I like that.

And in spreading, I know that tends to turn into yelling, try not to do that. As a speech a coach, I feel horrible for your vocal cords that your abusing and misusing. Also, no one likes to be yelled at for an hour.

There's no reason to be rude. I will tank your speaks if you're a jerk. Be passionate by all means, but making your opponent cry, or just being a "meanie face" will not make me like you. I will still give you the win in the round, if you won the round, but you can say bye bye speaker award, because your speaks are destroyed. Moral of this story: Win, but let your arguments win, being a jerk doesn't gain you ground on your arguments and it hurts your speaks for me. Being a meanie poo (I'm avoiding curse words, for if some reason my school I work at finds this) isn't educational and won't help you in the real world.

I generally enjoy rounds where the topic and cases are engaged. I'm more of a straight policy/LD person. However, trust me when I say, I'm totally fine with any arguments you want to run, just please make it follow a clear train of logic.

I'm cool with flex prep, if everyone agrees. In the prepared debate events, especially LD and policy, if your opponent is misrepresenting evidence, and you call that out, I love that.

LD:

Yo, LD, I like that event.Since it's LD, I'm a big fan of the values debate. Otherwise just go into policy.

Policy:

If I'm judging a policy round, I'm already crying inside. Don't make those tears turn into a full out sob. Meaning, clearly explain everything, go slow on your tag lines. I won't time "flash" time towards prep, but don't go super slow.

Parli:

I love parli. As a judge, I realize that you've only had 20 minutes of prep. For this reason, unless you cite where you are getting your information, I'll probably assume you're lying.

I'm definitely fine with any critical arguments you want to run. However, I'm not a huge fan of parli in which the topic is ignored entirely. If it's a poorly written topic, call that out, but don't refuse to debate it because you think it's poorly written. If we're getting a resolution on if we need to send aid to the Sahel region, I don't want the aff to come in an talk about how we need to stop oppression in America or an entirely different case for a resolution (unless there is a very clear link to the resolution) Again, if you feel the topic is horribly skewed, explain that in round, but I don't like when the aff comes in with a new topic, It just comes off as lazy and not willing to engage the debate and topic.

Public Forum:

I've never had any issues with speed or anything in Public Forum. Basically, if you're in Public Forum, do you boo. PF you understand me and I love you for that public forum.

Also, because I'm fat, I'm receptive to receiving donuts, cheesecake and fettuccine Alfredo. It won't give you the win, but I'll give me something to cry into during the policy rounds.

My background: I'm primarily a Speech Coach and have been since 2003. I coached Public Forum a long time ago and judged Public Forum and Lincoln/Douglas at the high school level since our school was heavily invested in those forms of debate.

I am "old school" and prefer debaters speak to me as if I were a lay judge. Please don't make the mistake of thinking I know nothing about debate. It's just that I really don't like to hear a lot of debate slang. If you speak too fast for me to understand you, I will stop typing or writing. I don't like abusive arguments, but if you are on the receiving end, you should mention your opponents’ argument is abusive and why it's abusive. And if anyone runs an "everybody dies" or "nuclear war and the world ends" kind of argument, it better tie VERY logically to the topic or I will drop you.

I like rounds where there’s clear framework set in place. Give me a way to weigh the impacts in a round.

Please respect your opponents and all people in the room. I will dock speaker points if debaters are rude or don't let opponents get a word in during crossfires or cross-examinations. On the other hand, I will hand higher speaker points to those who use soaring rhetoric and appropriate humor - did I mention I'm a Speech coach?

Harvard 2025 - I am sick so please take it easy on my lol. I'll try my best to keep up but am not at top shape. Also I won't be shaking anyones hands.

Email: timothy.matt.meyer@gmail.com

Circuot wise, I'm generally a bit rusty; judged a bit last year and before that was actively involved in 2020. When running advanced arguments do your best to make it clear what my role is and why it matters. Speedwise, I'm still a bit rusty and don't like being overly reliant on docs (self rating of 7/10).

RVI's

My default position is against RVI's, with the only exception being extreme quantity (of legitimate violations) or severity of a single one.

Slightly tech over truth

__________________________________________________

Experience /Qualifications:

I've been a part of forensics for almost 10 years, competed in multiple IE's and both Lincoln Douglas and Parliamentary debate. Qualified and broke at nationals. Coached state and national finalists across Congress/Speech and extremely competitive PF and Parli teams at the state level.

Preferences

All forms of debate:

Make sure you signpost effectively and clearly convey your arguments. Also clearly illustrate any links and impacts you have.

I have a fair understanding of the active topics (and am always interested to learn more in these rounds) but it is against my principles to make arguments for you. I won't connect your links/impacts to something you haven't said in round, so don't assume that I will.

I'm fine with speed for whatever is reasonable for your event (policy-✓✓✓, LD-✓✓, PF-✓, Parli-why?). Debate is educational, nobody wants to be in a round where they are just being yelled at incomprehensibly. Respect clears and share your docs.

I have a more traditional background; if your impacts are extinction, make sure the link chain in getting there is clear. I strongly prefer impacts grounded in reality that cleanly flow through vs a shoddy push at 5 different extinction scenarios.

My most important personal preference: Manners

This activity is very competitive and confrontational. I understand that sometimes it can get heated. But at any point if anything offensive is done to the other team, I will immediately drop speaker points (and potentially the round based on the severity.) It's important to engage in discourse respectfully.

Lincoln Douglas:

Make sure to clash and subsequently defend your framework. This is the crux of your case, you shouldn't be moving over it.

Be organized, and clearly lay out how your arguments interact with your opponents.

Fairly open to progressive argumentation. I enjoy Kritiks (though I'm a bit rusty on these) and Plans. I'm not a big fan of theory but respect meaningful shells (frivolous theory). Respect the rules of the tournament as well. I really don't want to have to run to tab to figure out if your arguments are legal or not.

Public Forum:

I want clear links and impacts from both sides. Anything you think is important, emphasize. Make sure to be organized and professional.

I accept the use of Kritiks/theory when permissible, but personally believe the format of PF is not conducive to the depth of kritiks.

I pay attention during cross but won't judge on it. Make sure anything you want to be flowed is said in round.

Parliamentary:

Signpost Signpost Signpost

Signposting is more important here than in any other event. Make sure you are organized, and you are consistently signposting throughout your speeches. If I get lost, there's a good chance a main argument will be missed.

Make your links clear and stay relevant to the resolution for your arguments to flow through.

Argument wise, basically anything goes

I'll start with this, since it seems to be the only question anyone cares about anymore: if you scale speed on a 1-10, with 10 being as fast as humanly possible, I prefer a 3-5 depending on the time of day (lower in the early morning or later evening).

Now, if you want more nuance: I'm the coach at Clear Lake High School in southeast Houston. I previously coached (and attended high school/competed at) Deer Park High School in Deer Park, TX. I've been a head coach for fourteen years and judging for the past nineteen. I don't judge very often anymore, so when it comes to debate I'm not probably as up to speed on the current meta of your event or the lit of your topic as you'd like me to be. Be kind. :)

As a CX judge, I find myself becoming more and more of a policymaker-style judge. I am a flow judge and am okay with moderate levels of speed, however as an educator I feel that this is a communication event first. I'm not going to call for a bunch of cards if I didn't hear them, so please make sure I can actually understand you. Unless I'm judging virtually, I don't want to be on the email chain. On DisAds, I can't stand generic links and am incredibly unlikely to vote on them. Make sure your internal links also follow some kind of logical train of thought and tell a coherent story. I will vote on topicality, but I have a pretty high threshold for what I consider reasonably T. I don't love kritiks or deep theory debates but I'm also loathe to tell a debater that they can't run them at all just because of my personal feelings. With that said, please make sure that you explain your kritikal arguments, since philosophy has never been my forte.

As an LD judge, I do not have the experience as a competitor and judge that I do for CX. Because of that, understand I might need my hand proverbially held a bit if you dive deep into philosophy. I prefer a slower, traditional/old school style LD round with a strong emphasis on that quaint notion of a value framework. If you've somehow read the last couple of sentences and still think I'm the kind of judge that you should run tricks in front of... let me be clear that I'm very much not. If that's not the kind of judge you want - and I recognize that what I've written sets me far apart from the norm as far as what LD has become - then I encourage you to rank me as low as MJP will allow you. It'll make my life and yours much better.

I feel that PF shouldn't require paradigms (seriously, can we go back to the original intent of this event?), but since we're here... I really despise rudeness in crossfire, and I want to see a solid line-by-line throughout the debate with good impacting at the end. Don't overthink this.

I love Congress. I absolutely adore the event. If I'm in the back of a Congress round I'm a happy camper and I want to see polished, extemp-style speeches that show thought went into them. I also expect to see either clash or new argumentation in the speeches following the first couple of bill cycles, otherwise I feel the debate grows stale and boring. I want to see an attempt at collegiality and a little sprinkle of LARP'ing never hurt anyone.

I've never judged or even watched a WSD round in my life, but I'm coming around to the event and want to learn. If I'm in the back of your Worlds round... consider me a flay judge. And definitely be kind to me, since I'm learning.

A quick run-down for speech/interp paradigms, since evidently that's a thing now?

Extemp: I love this event and for my money I think this is the best event we have as far as portable skills are concerned. I don't want or need you to be a citation machine, I'd prefer you take a handful of sources and build solid analysis around them.

OO/Info: These are my favorite events to watch and judge, and I love how much of an opportunity they give students to showcase their own unique voices. I like humor but don't want this to be stand up comedy (you're not Josh Gad, and that's perfectly okay). I want a clean performance with solid, memorable analysis. In Info, I love when the visual is something outside the norm; one of the most memorable Infos I've ever judged used a sealed plastic cup filled with water and an egg, and I still remember that (many) years later.

POI: I don't judge POI often but every time I do I'm blown away by how creative students can get within its parameters. I want to see a POI that's seamlessly blended and brings in as many disparate genres as possible. As with all interp, I want to see and hear the "story" you're telling me come alive. I also really like the idea of POI as a form of argumentation, so if I can see that clearly throughout your piece all the better for me. My thoughts on POI also cover (with obvious changes for the rules/norms) my thoughts on Prose and Poetry, for what that's worth.

HI/DI/Duet/Duo: I'm looking at the totality of the performance. Much like I mentioned on POI, I want to see and hear your script come to life through the interpretation. It's exceptionally rare that I get to judge these (I can't tell you the last time I have, to be honest), so I don't go into these rounds with any real expectations. I just want to be wowed overall.

I competed in speech and debate all throughout high school. I was the debate captain for Parliamentary debate my senior year and I was the WBFL league Champion in Info for three years. Since graduating, I have been mostly active as a judge and assistant coach.

I am comfortable with Jargon and technical debating. I'm not a huge fan of spreading, but I won't hold it against you if you do. I like to see a good mix of both argumentative and speaking prowess. I will mostly judge debate based on the flow as I have it. Note that your flow and my flow may tell different stories based on whether or not I find an argument is convincing.

In speech, I like to see clear structure, quality of evidence (if applicable to your event), and overall emotional appeal (if applicable to your event). I try to give quality feedback to help you improve. I do have special expertise in Oratory, Info, and Impromptu, so expect useful feedback in those events in particular.

Hello! My name is Miguel Oliveros, and I have competed on the El Camino Speech and Debate Team from 2022-2024 in NPDA, IPDA, LD, extemporaneous, and impromptu.

For debate, I judge the rounds based on organization and presentation. The top of case should be well-defined with proper context and agents. It's imperative that both teams give me clear signposting so that I can understand the flow of the arguments more clearly. The harms, links, impacts, and solvency must be explained thoroughly to give significance to your case. Otherwise, I go with whoever had better reasoning. I don't mind topicality but be aware of proper structure. As for presentation, I don't like spreading. If you do speak fast, please make sure it's accessible for everyone with clear pronunciations. Do not personally attack your opponents in any way possible and make sure you're respectful to everyone regardless of whatever happens. Be confident, bold, and take calculated risks! It's okay to mess up but get up ASAP.

As for speeches and individual events, I judge mostly on presentation. If you can communicate effectively your points, I'll be swayed. It's as if I'm watching a movie or a series. Persuade me! Act to me! Tell me a good story! And I promise you'll do great. That doesn't mean to use poor information though. Have enough substantial material to sell off your performance.

Good luck in your events!

I have experience in collegiate level speech & debate. I debate in Parli, IPDA, & LD. I compete in extemporaneous and impromptu speaking. Here is my judging paradigm:

Impact out your arguments, I weigh the issues that've been clearly presented to me. Highlight timeframe, magnitude, probability, etc. I consider theory to be critical to debate and weigh it when judging if it is presented as a voting issue. Respect your competitors' requests for slow/clear and do not interrupt your competitors by speaking with your partner outside of flex. No flow is taken outside of when the timer is running. Most importantly, keep things professional and respectful, everyone is here to learn and become more educated.

I competed in speech & debate in both high school and college, but never in policy. I have coached & judged public forum and parliamentary debate for ~10 years, but this will be my first time judging policy. I don't like speed, I'd say. I tend to value the quality of the arguments over style. I will be flowing the round on my computer. I don't like when debates get bogged down in technicalities that aren't core to the heart of the debate. I prefer when debaters treat each other with respect, even if they feel like they're winning the round or they think a particular argument is absurd. I tend to vote for the side that establishes the stakes of the debate clearly and makes a compelling case based on those merits.

Speech:

Extensive experience competing in HI and DI, and judging in all forms of IE.

Extemp/IMP: Please have a thesis statement. Don't simply answer your question "Yes/No", and then jump to your points. I need to hear WHY you are answering Yes/No in a well-crafted thesis statement.

Oratory/Advocacy/INFO: You're here to teach! Teach me!

Interp: There is a difference between true interpretation and simply making somebody laugh (HI) or cry (DI). Good "Interpers" know the difference.

Debate:

***** PROFESSIONALISM AND COURTESY ARE OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE TO ME *****

***** IF YOU TREAT YOUR OPPONENTS WITH DISRESPECT, SPEAKER POINTS (AND PERHAPS RFD) WILL BE IMPACTED SEVERELY *****

***** YOU ARE HERE TO ATTACK ARGUMENTS, NOT PEOPLE *****

I am experienced as a competitor in Policy and Lincoln-Douglas. I am experienced as a judge in Policy, Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, and Parliamentary. See below for more info.

General: Debate is about your ability to understand, analyze, weigh, educate, and persuade in a contest of oral communication. Show me that you have developed these skills and abilities. I want to hear well-constructed arguments & reasoning, supported by relevant evidence and analysis. Depth means much more to me than breadth. During refutations, I want to hear true clash and expansion, not simple repetition of previously stated arguments. During final rebuttals, I want to hear a thoughtful bottom line -- the ability to sum up an entire debate is a very important skill. I can still make a decision without any of that, but good debaters will always demonstrate that they have learned the above skills.

PF/Policy/Parli: IF YOU SPREAD IN A ROUND WHERE I AM THE ONLY JUDGE, I WILL PUT MY PEN DOWN, AND I WILL NOT RECORD YOUR ARGUMENTS OR EVIDENCE (FOR OBVIOUS REASONS, I DON'T APPLY THIS TO ROUNDS WITH MULTIPLE JUDGES). Bottom line, I CAN flow when you speak fast, but your speaker points will reflect poorly. "Spread debate" teaches you (and me) nothing more than how fast you can speak and how fast I can write. The "spread" dynamic exists nowhere in the real world, except at debate tournaments. As such, I find spreading to be artificial and unproductive. If you never spoke at all, and simply pasted your cards onto a communal flow sheet with a series of arrows, you would reach the same endpoint as spread debate. So, please don't spread. Give me an outstanding LAY debate. USE YOUR POWERS OF PURSUASION!

Lincoln-Douglas: I understand that these are values debates. But I see no utility in "stating your values" at the top of the speech (i.e. "My values for this debate are 'quality of life' and 'egalitarianism'.... now on to my arguments"). These opening statements mean very little, and I never write them down. I want to hear your case first. I want to hear solid background, arguments, and evidence, all of which SHOULD organically convince me of the values you support. You wouldn't make such empty opening statements about values in the real world, so I don't need to hear them in your speech. Show me how your arguments support your values, not the other way around.

MY BACKGROUND

competed in parli debate on the collegiate circuit - socal based
some experience in public forum and LD - ms + hs

WHAT I WANT TO SEE:

- extended impacts
- clear sign posting. please don't make me figure out where you are on the flow i'm begging
- weighing mechanisms. i would prefer if you didn't make the weighing mechanism debate last the whole round, but that's still better than no weighing mechanism brought up at all
- cordial debating. don't yell personal attacks at your opponent. i will drop you on account of courtesy if you do. cattiness is fine, just don't be a bad person
- CXbrought back into the debate where applicable (I don't flow CX)
- clash. please, please, please don't talk past each other

SPREADING (my takes):

I'm alright with fast paced debates and actually prefer them, but I was never fully introduced to the art of spreading. I agree that it can make debate a little less accessible to the general public, which is a shame (imagine if everyone knew how to spread lol). if you do decide to spread, I can get down probably about 70-80% of it. but I'd prefer not to struggle to get down your arguments.

TL;DR: fast talking, yes. spreading, no.

my definition of spreading is any pace that requires you to double clutch (the double breath, not the car thing) to keep it up. if you don't know what double clutching is, I will be able to understand you

Hi, I go by the name Bhanu. I an excited to be a part of and support NSDA. I am an engineering graduate with post graduation degree in MBA Finance. At work I am an IT director managing business applications. Looking forward for an exciting season.

I am a parent judge and will be judging individual events (speech).I look forward to your speech. Enjoy it.

·Structure your material effectively to achieve your goals

·Be confident and humorous

·Use your voices and hands wisely

·Engage with audience

·Be nice to others

I like to see a lot of clash between arguments. I like it when competitors explain their argument and the impact of their arguments. I weigh heavily on the value criterion and voting issues expressed in the first constructive speeches, extending to the last rebuttal speeches. I do not like fast reading or spreading. I am OK with value debates, policy debate and philosophical debates.

I judge highly on Speaker Performance and Speaking and Presenting Skills and constant and Decisive Body Language that enhances the speech. Though speech formatting, and speech itself is incredibly important to me it is more important that I am captivated throughout your speech. Reading off your speech/paper/or phone to me, will knock off of your speaker points. Given that I typically write comments on paper I typically do not comment Tabroom however just know that if I lowered your speaker points or placings it was due to the fact that you did or could not meet the criteria listed above.