Hello. In high school, I did LD debate for two years, and I highly enjoyed it I've judged on and off since 2020 (on this account and under another), and debate is something that I genuinely enjoy watching, and getting to judge is like all the fun of a good debate with none of the pressure. I look forward to judging future rounds. Here are my preferences so you can know going in what kind of judge I am (or if you want to strike/preference me). Email chain email: ellie.agler@outlook.com.

1. Spreading is fine as long as you are clear AND your opponent agrees to spreading. If you are not clear and I cannot understand you, likely your opponent cannot understand you, and we're all going to have a bad time. If one must spread, I do appreciate case sharing with both me and opponent.

2. I can handle K's, policy debate, traditional, philosophy, and theory. Traditional and philosophy are my favorites. For K's, and policy, one ought to know their material well, be well-researched, and be non-abusive. I am not a good judge if you intend to try tricks. I don't believe tricks to be a legitimate form of debate. I have a history degree and now work in library science, so I love hearing well-researched, creative arguments. I also believe one could have the best case in the world and still lose a round if their opponent argues better. If it comes down to case vs clash, clash wins with me.

3. I appreciate when one actually clashes with their opponent. If you spend all your rebuttals talking about why your value is so great and not why your opponent is in the wrong, you aren't actually debating, you're making a persuasive speech.

3. Please roadmap 1AR and 2AR, as well as Neg R. I love off-time roadmaps. They help me flow and make everyone's lives so much easier. If you want to email chain cases, go for it. I will have my laptop, but I try to flow the old fashioned way (pen and paper for life). Off-time roadmaps also help you practice being more organized in your arguments, as well as making executive summaries.

5. I allow and encourage debaters to keep their own time. I will also keep time on a stopwatch. I do not give warnings. If you go over by more than 10-15 seconds, it means deduction from speaker points.

6. Do whatever to keep yourself comfortable during the round (sit or stand, drink, etc). Please do not chew gum while speaking.

7. I evaluate debate over case or speaking ability. Meaning if you are an excellent speaker with an amazing case, but your opponent refutes all your points, and proves that their position better fulfills the obligations established in round, opponent wins. Don't get me wrong: I love it when debaters have awesome oratory skills, and I love a good case, but this is debate, not how well you are speaking and how well you can write a position paper. Additional thing: I can tell when you have no idea what you are talking about. I dislike it when debaters "teleprompt," meaning they read from their laptop in a monotone voice for 6 or 7 minutes without looking up. Look up. Get excited. LD allows you the perfect opportunity to practice public speaking skills.

8. I cannot believe I have to say this, but be respectful of yourself and others in round. Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, general jerkiness, anything like that is not okay. If you choose to pull an "ism" in round, I will be giving you lowest speaks and if we're at a local tournament I will be going and finding your coach and giving them a 15-minute lecture about why XYZ is not okay. In both debate and in life, it is important to be respectful to yourself and those around you. You never know what someone is going through.

9. I do not accept the Heritage Foundation as a valid source whatsoever. If you read Heritage Foundation as a source in round, you will get 25 speaks and an auto loss. I accept all other conservative think tanks (Cato, Hoover, Hudson, et cetera) just not Heritage.

10. Sportsmanship: I expect debaters to behave in a way that is dignified and respectful to both me and your opponent. If you are going to read disclosure theory, you better have asked your opponent in a polite, respectful manner to disclose. If you are going to read URL theory, you better have brought all the books with you that your sources are from. I'm not a fan of either URL or disclosure theory. If you do not treat me or your opponent with respect (and are not respectful to me when I disclose and give some feedback), I will go to tab and request speaker points be taken away. I have had enough after Emory.

TLDR: I am a classical LD judge by nature, and framework, clash, and proving your argument is better than the opponent's is what wins round. Strike me if you're going to pull tricks, I do not stand for them.

For PF:

1. Public Forum comes down to weighing in close rounds. Prove to me why you and your partner are right, and thus I must vote pro/con.
2. I do not flow Crossfire. If something important happens during crossfire, bring it back up in your next speech.
3. Signpost! I love it when debaters signpost. I do not know your case as well as you do, makes it easier to follow.
4. I can handle spreading, just disclose case to me.
5. Final Focus is for wrap up and telling me one last time why your opponent is wrong, NOT for new arguments. I do not flow new arguments after the 1st speakers 2nd speeches.
6. Same rules regarding respectfulness, sportsmanship, Heritage Foundation, and making yourself comfortable from LD apply to PF.
7. Random thing: I usually give 2nd speakers higher speaks. In my opinion, 2nd speaker is a little harder to do (they handle 1st rebuttal and final focus which cannot be pre-written). For 1st speakers, something I value is looking up during your first speech. You had time to rehearse your first speech.

IE: I value clear diction, clear voice, and a clear purpose while speaking. For either original speeches or POI, I value coherence as well. I believe storytelling ability is a CRUCIAL key to success in professional speaking, and this is an excellent space to practice these skills. I expect speeches to be organized. If you have a disorganized speech but excellent public speaking skills, I will weigh disorganization against speaking ability.

Thank you so much for joining your school's speech and debate team. I look forward to judging your round.

For debaters: I have difficulty with rapid spreading. The first time I will let you know you are going too fast. The second time will be a warning. The third time I'll start taking off speaker points. It doesn't matter to me whether you sit or stand for your delivery. I'm more concerned about you making your case your own.

Unless you okay it with me, I expect no eating during the round. (If you need to eat before the round because you drew the last flight in the previous round and the first flight in this round, that's different and I'll give you a minute before we start the round.) Sipping water before you start your case is also okay as long as you are respectful of your opponent and not drinking in a way to distract your opponent.

I sit in the judge's chair with a neutral opinion about the topic. I welcome clash and I am looking for the side that convinces me their side fulfills their value criterion and that their value criterion outweighs their opponent's. I hope to hear a thoughtful, respectful discussion of the topic.

For speech: I am looking for a combination of a well-organized and thought-provoking speech along with your speech techniques. Easy to follow speeches with a clear progression are especially appreciated.

This may or may not be helpful, so feel free to read it if you would like. It's also very long... but worthwhile, I think.

If you choose to read this, it means I am your judge. My email is armerechristina@gmail.com you can use this to share files if needed.

Lincoln Douglas Debate

• I debated in Georgia for three years (barely...), so I understand the gist of the event. However, I want to stress that this is a persuasion-based competition, not an imaginary rap battle against Eminem. DO NOT SPREAD- While I don't mind a fast-paced delivery, you must speak clearly. Please keep in mind that if your argument becomes difficult to understand, I will deduct speaker points and stop listening.

• How to Win: It is crucial to tie everything in your LD case to your Value and Value Criterion. This is what distinguishes us from other competitors. LD is a philosophy-based event, so it is vital to refer back to your V/VC and organize your case accordingly. Referring to your Value and Value Criterion is essential to succeed in this event. Also, ensure that there are credible links between your cards and your case, and extend your cards as required. I will be judging the round off of impact-weighing and linkage.

Public Forum Debate

Totally original.

• PF - I side on the traditional side of PF. Don't throw a lot of jargon at me or simply read cards... this isn't Policy Jr., compete in PF for the debate animal it is. Remember debate, especially PF, is meant to persuade - use all the tools in your rhetorical toolbox: Logos, Ethos, and Pathos.

General Points/Basics for Debate:

• Clash: This is a crucial topic that requires discussion, even though I know it may be too early for you and you would rather stay in bed and watch Spongebob. However, it's important to argue your points well and refute your opponent's, as it will benefit you in the long run. I suggest debating each point thoroughly and going down the flow, as I learned from experience that it's necessary. While I prefer framework and impact-weighing debates, definitions are also important at times, although they are not required as often.

• Signpost: This is essential to the flow of the round, so keep that in mind when you are countering your opponent's case (rebuttal) and rebuilding your case.

• KNOW YOUR CASE!!! From my experience, it's important to act like you know what you're talking about even if you wrote it at 3 a.m.

• Time: Please use your prep time wisely, and most importantly use all of your speech time.

• This is important because it's here twice :) DO NOT SPREAD- While I don't mind a fast-paced delivery, you must speak clearly. Please keep in mind that if your argument becomes difficult to understand, I will deduct speaker points and stop listening.

Speech Events

-Hey there my little muffins!! Just do not yell at me and expect me to pass it off as emotion-- I truly might call the cops!! Use all the tools in your rhetorical toolbox: Logos, Ethos, and Pathos. (totally did not steal the last part from a different section of my paradigm.)

Speaker Points (Unless told otherwise)

30: You altered my perception of what is achievable during a debate or accomplished something truly revelatory with the subject. Your speaking manner demonstrates a complexity that would capture a theater full of people's attention.

29-29.9: I would anticipate you to be in the tournament's late eliminations because you are a top-tier speaker and thinker. You are pondering the subject at a very high level.

28-28.9: Compared to the stock instances I usually hear on a specific topic, your speech demonstrated much more thought than was typical. Your conversational style exudes confidence and grace.

27.27.9: This is what I mean when I say that this is the "perfect average." Even though the presentation wasn't very eye-catching, you did a nice job of building your case and presenting it.

26-26.9: Although you typically made a convincing point, your delivery and argumentation lacked sophistication.

22-25.9: Your argument was little supported, and your case and/or delivery were both confusing.

Under 21: You said or did something severely offensive, and will most likely be reported to Tabroom. sorry stink <3

PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL OF EACH OTHER

It is important to remember that disrespect towards your opponent or me during a debate will result in a deduction of speaker points. In addition, I will immediately report any discriminatory behavior, such as LGBTQIA+phobia, racism, or sexism, to Tabroom. There will be zero tolerance for any form of discrimination or violence.

Upon reading this paradigm, I am pleased to inform you that you have earned an additional 0.5 speaker points.

If you have any questions do not ask me. Thank you for your time :) jkjk, ask me...

**between me and you... if you made a funny jokey joke... you earned yourself an extra speakey point**

I’m a Georgia State Representative. I look forward to listening to affirmative and negative arguments with an unbiased perspective. The focus will be on evidence and fact based points backed through citations. When the arguments and facts are close or tied. A consideration of style, delivery, and grammar will be taken into consideration. Notes will be taken on a notepad focused on capturing the key points debaters make. I expect the highest level of decorum in each round, free from profanity, personal attacks, and tantrums. Following rules and respect to one another will be an expectation.

This is my third year judging at a Speech & Debate tournament. I am a third year coach of the Wheeler High School Speech and Debate team.

Speak slowly enough that I can understand. You must use evidence to support your claims. Make sure to clearly emphasize impact. Be certain to listen to the opposing argument and respond directly to that argument. Don't forget to tell me which arguments you have refuted and why you have won the argument.

Congressional Debate:

I have judged and/or been parliamentarian at local, regional and national tournaments, including Isidore Newman, Durham Academy, the Barkley Forum and and Harvard. My students have found success at both the national and state levels.

POs- I default to you. Remember, your tone as PO has a big influence on tone of the chamber. Be efficient, clear and consistent and have fun.

As far as the round and debate within the round, consistency is important to me. The way you speak and vote on one piece of legislation should most indeed influence your position on similar limitation unless you tell me otherwise. Debate and discourse does not exist in a vacuum.

Acting/characterization is fine as long as there is a reason and has a positive impact.

Finding a balance of logos, ethos and pathos is important. Difficult to accomplish in three minutes? Absolutely. The balance is what gets my attention.

I'll be honest. I don't like when debate jargon leaks into the chamber. SQUO, affirmative/negative, counterplan, link/turn, etc. This event is it's own unique event with norms.

Additionally, Student Congress is not Extemp-lite. If you are trying for three points in a speech, how do I know what to focus on? If everything is equally important then nothing is important. Take a stance, go for the impact and make the balance between logic and emotional to persuade. Include previous debate points, elucidate your point of view and have fun.

I highly value practical communication skills and the ability to engage the audience. A passionate speaker adept at connecting with the audience is likelier to leave a lasting impact. However, it is important for me to emphasize that being loud or flamboyant does not equate to being effective. What truly matters is the content of a speech, the organization of ideas, and the clarity of delivery. I appreciate speakers who can effectively convey their message, whether it is through emotional appeals, logical reasoning, or a combination thereof.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate -

In judging Lincoln-Douglas (LD) Debate, my approach revolves around a few core principles that align with the fundamental objectives and structure of LD Debate. Here’s a detailed paradigm for how I evaluate debates in this format:

Lincoln-Douglas Debate is designed to engage participants in a philosophical and ethical discourse, focusing on values and principles rather than policy specifics. The objective is to assess the validity of competing value frameworks and the application of these values to the resolution.

1. **Central Role of Values**: The core of LD Debate lies in the clash of values. Each debater must present a value proposition, which is a fundamental belief or principle that they argue should guide decision-making. The Value Criterion (VC) is the metric by which the value is practically applied to the resolution. It’s crucial that the Value Criterion is clearly defined and logically connected to the Value, offering a clear standard for evaluating the round.

2. **Evaluative Framework**: I prioritize the clarity and relevance of the Value Criterion. It must be directly tied to the Value and effectively demonstrate how the arguments and evidence presented align with or support the Value. A strong Value Criterion will help in weighing the impacts of arguments in relation to the core philosophical issues.

### Evaluative Criteria

1. **Clarity and Coherence**: Arguments should be clear and logically structured. The debaters’ value and value criterion should be well-defined and consistently applied throughout the round.

2. **Relevance**: Arguments should address the resolution and engage with the philosophical implications rather than focusing on policy details or technicalities.

3. **Impact and Application**: Evaluate how well each debater applies their Value Criterion to the resolution. The round should focus on the ethical and philosophical dimensions of the topic rather than practical policy solutions.

### Policy Debate Tactics

I will not tolerate tactics typical of policy debate, such as "spreading" (rapid-fire delivery of arguments) or excessive technical jargon that obfuscates the debate’s core philosophical focus. LD Debate is intended to be accessible and focused on substantive value-based discourse. Arguments should be presented in a clear and accessible manner, allowing for a meaningful evaluation of values and criteria.

In summary, in Lincoln-Douglas Debate, I emphasize the importance of a clear Value Criterion connected to a well-defined Value, with a focus on the ethical and philosophical dimensions of the resolution. Policy debate tactics that detract from this focus, such as spreading, will not be considered effective in this format.

Congressional Debate -

Presiding Officer: Presiding Officers should be an individual who can show mastery levels of understanding of the role of Presiding Officers in the chamber. It's understood this would be a presiding officer who, once elected, can show leadership of the chamber by beginning with a phrase similar to “this chamber will come to order.” I expect the Presiding Officer will use their best effort to recognize speakers around the chamber in a fair and balanced manner. Describe gavel time signals. Explain procedures clearly: i.e., how they will recognize speakers, etc., that the Presiding Officer will not call for motions at any time (speakers should seek their attention when they wish to rise to move something), and that when it is clear that debate has exhausted on a bill/resolution, The Presiding Officer will ask the chamber if they are ready for the question, rather than waiting for the previous question (which should be reserved for forcing end to debate that has become one-sided or repetitive in arguments). The Presiding Officer should have confidence and authority when addressing the chamber. The Presiding Officer should use a calm, controlled and caring voice to show a genuine interest in the chamber’s business at all times.

Speakers: My expectations for speakers are competitors who have their speeches made beforehand on bills that they really have a passion about. Speakers should be ready to speak and ask questions that are going to challenge their opponents to think candidly and without much preparation. I expect speakers to think critically on the bill in question and be able to show expertise on the subject at hand. These topics take some time to truly research. I will be able to distinguish a speaker who has really taken the time on the topic beforehand or a speaker who clearly is looking for "cheap" speaking points. Although this is simply competition to some, this is a great practice and really good insight for folks to understand how our Congress works in the real world. I want them to understand the Difficulties of passing legislation that may be viewed as "one-sided" or not. I expect good back and forth discussion amongst speakers when it comes to various bills that may one day, affect them in real life if we are to see these bills appear in a real State or United States House of Representatives or Senate. These folks are the people of tomorrow. WE need our folks more involved than ever before; so to my speakers; act as if you have genuine care and passion for what you are debating for as if your FUTURE depends on it and is hanging by the rafters.

I’m a new judge and will value clarity of argument. Thank you.

I am in my second year coaching speech and debate. When judging debate, I tend to favor clear arguments that utilize all aspects of ethos, pathos, and logos.

For PF in particular:

Keep in mind that PF is about effectively convincing the judge of a superior instance of closing off your opponents’ arguments.

As PF is a team competition, I will pay attention to the cohesiveness of the team.

Preparation and agility to adapt to an opposing team’s arguments cohesively and persuasively while remaining professional is an obvious skill and rates well.

Introduce and defend relevant evidence against your opponents’ arguments. In contrast, be effective in undermining your opponents’ evidence when you spot weaknesses.

A less critical but relevant note: spreading is not penalized or ignored but can be hard to follow/keep up which may not help. Quality most often bests quantity.

My name is Russell Newell. It is a privilege and honor to serve you. I am an experienced speaker, leader, entrepreneur, and mentor who is passionate about making a positive impact in people’s lives. I have served as a volunteer assistant speech and debate coach and have judged for past regional, state, and national tournaments. I currently hold 14 NSDA judging certifications.

What I am looking for as I judge events:

- A properly prepared presentation

- A well-delivered presentation

- Talking speed that allows understanding

- Smooth transitions between ideas

- Clear, concise, and accurate information

- Citations when appropriate

- Connect the points to support the conclusion

- Logical and reasoned argumentation

- Avoidance of logical fallacies

- Clear impact or desired outcome

DEBATE SPECIFIC

Good argumentation is vital for a successful debate.

Therefore, I will be looking for a thorough rhetorical analysis.

- Clearly state the claim you want me to believe.

- Provide compelling and supportive evidence.

- Give a warrant that demonstrates the plausibility of your claim. Your warrants should reflect the beliefs, values, inferences, and experiences that resonate with your audience.

I will also be looking for the use of the Rhetorical Triangle:

Ethos, pathos, and logos are three persuasive techniques that can be used to convince an audience:

Ethos = Establishes the speaker's credibility or authority.

Pathos= Appeals to the audience's emotions.

Logos= Appeals to the audience's logic or reason.

Other factors I will consider during argumentation:

Kairos= The timing of the topic to be debated.

Stasis= means "a stand" or "a resting place" in a debate. It occurs when opposing parties agree on the issue(s) but disagree on how to address it. A skilled rhetorician can effectively move the argument away from stasis.

I am new. No spreading. Please speak clearly.

I like philosophy and theory. I don't like spreading.

I will be keeping it simple and will intend on looking in-depth in the rounds and to provide the information needed to explain why I gave a specific rank to each competitors.

Here's what I'm looking for:

Delivery: I wish to see you provide emotion and vocal variation in your speeches, after all these rounds can take up to 3 HOURS meaning as the round progresses it will be difficult to be heavily interested when someone is speaking in a monotone voice compared to someone who brings sadness, anger, and strength/impact to their speeches.

Fluency: I will be looking out for the competitors with the best fluency.

Interpret: This will be by far THE MOST IMPORTANT aspect I will be looking for. As a judge I inherently will not be researching the bills everyone is prepping for, so speakers who come up and provide an argument for a certain side of a bill on why their side is right without being confusing and overreaching and hard to catch up will get a big boost in how I rank. Essentially I wish to see speakers be clear and concise with their speeches because again, I will not have huge prior knowledge on the legislations at hand.

Legal Pad Dependence: Although it can be difficult to give speeches without a pad, I am looking for people who are not overtly dependent on their legal pad.

Uniqueness: If you make a common argument that is fine but if you go ahead and bring a whole new argument and make it unique and add new perspective, that will most definitely boost you in the ranks.

Late Round Speeches: As the round goes on and many arguments are used and it will obviously be difficult to make new argument that has not been overused. So for late round speeches I will not criticize you heavily if you cannot be special about it and instead focused more on refutation and delivery.