EMAIL: pattridg@asu.edu

Debate paradigm will be contextual to each form of debate. I am a college & high school speech coach (though I competed in high school debate and have judged debate at all levels of competition - it's just not my main thing), and I am a trans woman. If either of these things will bother you, strike me. It's been an issue before, so I'm just trying to get ahead of it.

Debate has historically upheld patriarchy, white supremacy, and many, many more negative systemic forces. Making sure that rounds do not do that requires active effort. Please put in that effort. I'm aware that this is a learning space, and part of the way that we unlearn toxic patterns of behavior is through ballot commentary and RFDs. In this way, I am not tabula rasa--in fact, nobody is 100% able to discard their positionality and socialization at the door--and repeated invocation of racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or transphobic discourse will impact your speaker points, ballot comments, and, if egregious enough, win/loss record.

GENERAL: You may ask for any accommodations you like. Stand, sit, whatever lets you debate with maximum proficiency. I reserve the right to say "clear" if I'm having trouble following, and will extend that right to both teams as well. Do not abuse that right.

LD/Parli/Policy: Speed is fine, love Ks, cool with Theory but actually tell me if you want me to vote on it. See above for "clear". I highly recommend explicitly stating how arguments link back to framework.

IPDA: I'm fine with any kind of argumentation in this event, but make sure your opponent is too. This is the kind of question to ask before prep starts, not after.

PF: Don't flow through ink. Don't strawman your opponent's evidence or flow coverage (saying "they didn't address Contention 2 subpoint A" when they in fact did. You can tell me why they didn't address it in ways that mattered, and go in depth here, but don't conflate that with "they didn't address it"). The first time it happens, I will give you some leeway. The second time it happens, it will impact your speaker points. The third time it happens, you will be dropped. Clarity and clear links are valued.

CONGRESS: It's never too early for clash. Please start addressing the opposition's arguments as early as speech two. It really helps ensure that clash continues throughout debate.

Hi, I’m Frederick and I debated in both Public Forum and Congress for three years. State champ PF, went to nats in Congress.

Email: fchangho@asu.edu

Overall, pretty standard tech.

The easiest way to win my ballot is by having clear warranting throughout the debate. Evidence is great and all, but please have reasoning for WHY that evidence matters in the round. You need to be able to explain the logical progression in your link chains every time you mention your arguments. Don’t say NYT 19 and move on and expect me to go along with it.

Weigh. But make sure your link chain is intact and you’ve made clear extensions through the round.

Signposting is good. Organization is important.

If you get a concession in cross, bring it up in speech.

When possible, frontline in rebuttals.

No prep time for card reading is okay, but don’t take too long to pull up a card for your opponent to read. If there are card issues that you want me to look at, tell me to call for them too in speech. I will choose to view them at my discretion.

NO SPREADING.

Don’t be a jerk to your opponents. If I need to intervene b/c someone’s consistently talking over another in cross, you’ll be on pretty thin ice. Watch your own time. Watch your opponents’ time. Don’t talk during others’ speeches or make any rude gestures.

Off-time roadmaps are okay, but you don’t need to tell me what you’re doing in your first rebuttal for example.

Clash. Address opp’s arguments and explain to me how yours interact with theirs + why yours are better. Simple way to win.

PF-specific

PF’s intent is to be accessible to the average Joe. Don’t do anything that hinders that.

Generally tech>truth, but please don’t pull up with some nuke war argument that vaguely relates or anything else that requires a significantly unlikely chain of events.

I would rather vote for a well-warranted argument without an impact over a poorly-warranted one with a good impact.

Key voters are great for staying organized, but if you choose to do line-by-line just remember to signpost exceptionally well.

I don’t pay attention during cross. Unless something blatantly wrong happens.

LD-specific

Before I ever judged LD, I had only ever seen 3 LD debates. I’ll be able to follow along with your arguments, but progressive will be relatively difficult for me to evaluate in the scope of the round unless your warranting is pristine (which it should be anyway). Disads, CPs make the most sense to me. Topicality shells and K’s, somewhat. High risk, low reward if you run theory.

By event type, you can see my general thought process below:

Congress:

I value the PO (having been one myself in the past) and consistently rank excellence in PO over excellent in round speakers, as the PO is "on" for an entire session, rather than just for a few minutes over a couple of hours. If you are seasoned in congress, I would expect that you run for PO, it is your way to give back to the event, while still giving you plenty of opportunity to win your chamber. For PO's: please be loud enough to be heard in the back of the room (where I will generally be), and DO NOT POINT your gavel at the participants - for me, it is a cardinal sin of a PO (you WILL be deducted for it!)

After the first speech on each side, remember your burden - there should be a recognition that you will need to further your side of the argument, and also defend against the other side to be truly effective. There is an extemporaneous element to speeches that should be evident, rather than reading only a canned speech. I do expect a full citation on all sources. During cross, I do look for a speaker to be able to defend their aff/neg contentions - the inability to do so will hurt you in scoring of the session (I use cross as my tiebreaker with speakers - so I am listening!). At the end of the day, congress is meant to be conversational and persuasive, articulating the possibility of change - it is not necessarily meant to change the world in 90 minutes. Have some fun with this - you did a large amount of preparation for this event (up to 10 billis, aff/neg for all and cards for quick prep). The hard part is done in advance - the speeches are the end result. BONUS POINTS for you if you can make the room laugh during the round.

Impromptu

I am super open to the creative side of this event. It is the only event that does not allow for a preplanned presentation, has almost no prep, yet expects you to still make sense of a completely random topic, meme, or idea. Those that tend to do well with me will not only use their allotted time (within margin is ok), but tells me a story about their topic that is easy to follow, has structure, and gives me something to think about. Originality in this event is rewarded, and bonus points for you if you have jokes during your delivery (it is super hard to do, and shows you to be comfortable in one of the most uncomfortable environments on the circuit).

Extemp

This is, and always has been, my favorite event! I value the analysis and warranting of a topic over a volume of evidence your speech. Draw me the map of the topic, why you are choosing your direction and how you are supporting your ideas. I will find it difficult to rank you highly if all that you do is throw out card after card throughout the presentation. Remember, there is a presentation element to this event - there should not be a need for more than 4 or 5 sources, as they are meant to be supportive of your spin on the topic, not the crux of the argument. Presentation quality is a HUGE factor - and is most likely my tiebreaker in many rounds. Lay out the ideas in order and summarize at the end. Leave me something to remember you by - what sets you apart in round, how do I justify giving you the 1?

LD

DO NOT SPREAD in this event. I have expectations that LD is a more traditional debate format, where the conversational nature of the event is to persuade me to believe in your conclusions, so I expect a traditional case. There should not be progressives, kritiks or counterplans in an LD round - if you want to play that way - you should look at competing in policy, not LD. I rely on framework to evaluate the round and value warranting and analysis over volumes of evidence. The articulation of the value definition, your analytical ability and weight of your argument in the framework of the case are primary ballot drivers.

As a judge, I rely on the debaters to handle and treat their evidence properly. Do not cut off a card to make it fit your point. If the whole card actually means something else, find a proper card to support your contention. If there are questions about use of evidence and I ask for your card, you should be very concerned. I assume all debaters will make ethical use of evidence. That said, I will follow tournament procedures for any and all violations and will immediately drop a competitor who misuses evidence. This format is meant to be a conversational exchange of the ideas at hand, not an exercise in debate theory or technical games. If you wish to explore those options in round, it is highly unlikely that you will earn my ballot.

Policy

Spreading: I think this is an educational activity; therefore, I do not like any sneaky tactics that give you an unfair advantage. For this reason, I am not a huge proponent of the spread format. Overall, spread rounds make debate inaccessible for the general public, diminishes the impact of your arguments, and forces your opponent to also spread so they can respond to all of your points. Generally I will be very annoyed and hate judging this type of round, and though I CAN flow it all, I am generally not going to reward you for trying to spread your opponent out of the round. (Exception - National Invitational Tournaments - spread debate is the expectation at the highest level of competition. You should be able to spread properly if you are entering a high end invitational - this is the time when you should truly let it all go!).

I WILL NOT BE ON AN EMAIL CHAIN! Policy debate is meant to be an oral argument about a proposed POLICY, so I should be able to hear and understand what you are saying. Run whatever you want. K's, CP's, DA's, conditionality are all fair game. If you choose to spread and you are inaudible, I won't get your insights on the ffow - which has dire consequences for your side of the case. There is plenty of time (8 minutes) in a constructive to put out a variety of supports to your case, DA's, CP's, K's and the like. If you choose to spread, tread carefully.

Evidence Violations: While I am not going to be on your email chain, If I catch you committing an evidence violation I will automatically drop you and cite that as the reason for the loss. Evidence violations are getting worse on the circuits and I believe it is no longer enough to just drop the argument. Make sure your card says what is says - if you cut it off, and I notice, and if the full card is not advancing the same argument as the partial you are using - that is an evidence violation. If I am asking to review a card (or cards) at the end of the round, that is a bad omen!

Cross examination/fire: I do flow this! While you may see me checking over my flow during this time - I am still paying attention. This portion of the round is meant to be a period for you to clarify ideas and defend your statements, not do another rebuttal. No tag teaming in cross! The reason I say this is that 1). It was never originally meant to be that way. 2) I want to see each individual's skill in questioning and defending, tag teaming allows you to hide a poor cross ex member, rather than them getting better at this function of the debate.

Signposts, Weighing, Solvency, Impacts, Extensions and 1R/2R: Please signpost! Telling me you are responding to the first contention isn't enough. Tell me "On C2, "specific warrant", we have "x number" of responses". If you are responding to a DISAD tell me if you are responding to uniqueness, external link, impact or internal link. Please be as organized and specific as possible - if I can't match it to my flow easily, it is a wasted idea or argument. If you are going to address an argument as a whole, tell me (us), and tell me why that should be enough. You still have to tell me that your opponents dropped something - I am not just going to automatically flow that through, that is your responsibility. Pull dropped items forward by telling me why they matter - You MUST extend in every speech. You need to analytically interact with your opponent's responses and tell me why I should buy your argument over your opponent. A note on impacts - while it may be fun to have everything end with nuclear war, that type of impact is not going to sway me. Be realistic, a harm that is viable and a likely outcome is much more impactful than counting up dead bodies in a worst case scenario.

BQ & PF:

Similar to LD philosophy above. No need to try and get too exotic or fast.

I have judged all events, but when it comes to debate most of my experience stems from LD and Congress. I value clash and enjoy watching strategies unfold. Framework is important and so is strong evidence. If you ask me in person what do I like in a debate, I say show me the best you can do and impress me. I don’t mind spreading (especially in CX where it is expected) or traditional and/or progressive debate as long your arguments are sound and adapt to your opponents’ points. Be respectful, professional, and have fun.

I like puns. Extra imaginary points for puns.

I am an Ares, I like lively but respectful clash.

All events are about making an convincing argument and presenting it well.

forensics@tempeprep.org

Congress:

45% presentation, 55% content. I expect lively debate and I appreciate (and take note of) good cross examination. I don't care for jargon ("vote aff", etc).

Presiding officers get a special place in my heart and will generally rank for a standard/competent PO performance. A PO performance blending effectiveness with pizazz will rank higher in my book. A really effective PO will coordinate with other competitors, exemplify authority, cleverly use humor to engage the room, and leverage parliamentary procedures to maximize the number of speeches and equitably distribute speaking among the room. Extra imaginary points for whomever can gavel the loudest.

Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum:

No spreading. Organized claim, warrant, impacts are important for me. You need to effectively synthesize the round and weigh impacts for me. Please refer to your evidence by some key word or phrase, I won't necessarily remember authors only. I prefer traditional debate (a must in Public Forum) so if you run something progressive our out there please explain it like I am 5 years old. Debaters who are witty, personable, and clear/concise speakers will score well with me - I'll vote on the content that's presented and weighed in the round.

Individual Events:

Even though IEs are not strictly debate, I expect you to make a novel argument and support it via your speech or interp. You need to convey to me why I should care about your piece - why is it worth performing? For interp, please use good judgement when choosing accents, caricatures, and themes - I expect themes that are appropriate for a high school environment although some sparse elements of adult themes are welcome if done tastefully.

Public Forum:

I flow the rounds and judge based on your speeches not cross fire. I review notes, contentions that flow from beginning to end. Please make sure to have definitions and framework. Framework is very important to your case. Make sure you are clear in your contentions and arguments. If I cannot understand you or you are talking too fast, I miss things and it can be a problem. You are there to convince me why your team wins-explain the impacts and weighing, FRAMEWORK and explain the reason for decision. Pretend I do not know anything about the topic. Be respectful of your opponents and let them talk during cross fire. You should be able to provide your cards, evidence quickly. You should be organized and have them quickly to provide competitor if asked. I will reject any extinction impacts. I will look at climate change and increasing threat of war, but the huge numbers used will not be counted. I do like when teams collapse to one or two best contentions and not the laundry list. Give me the impacts, weighing and why you win.

LD

LD is a speech form of debate and I need to understand your case and reasoning. Spreading is very common today, but it does not mean you are an excellent debater, logical or can convince someone to your side of the argument. You need to convince me, your contentions, framework and the reasons why you won the round. I will flow the rounds and judge based on your speeches not cross fire. I review notes, contentions that flow from beginning to end. Please make sure to have definitions, values and criterion. Make sure you are clear in your contentions, definitions and arguments. If I cannot understand you or you are talking too fast, I miss things and it can be a problem for you. You are there to convince me why you win-explain the impacts, logic, reasoning explain the reason for decision. Pretend I do not know anything about the topic. Debate the resolution and topic. Some LD topics are more like PF but keep to the resolution. Plans and counterplans need to fit the resolution and debaters need to keep to the resolution.

Congress:

Make sure to advance the debate and there are differences betwen first, middle and ending speeches. Do not use debate lingo as please affirm is not done in Congressional debate. Do not use computers and read your notes. Make sure you have credible sources and know your topic. Be able to debate both sides of the topic. Two good/great speeches are better than 3 average/poor speeches so in other words, less can be more. I want you to particpate but quality is very important. You are there to persuade the members.

IE:

Impromptu: Biggest ranking is did you answer the question or prompt. Do you understand what is being asked. Make sure you are organized, confident and always each reason/point relates to the prompt.

Extemporaneous. Use good sources of material. Economic would be The Economist, Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times. New York Times is better than Arizona Republic but make sure you have good credible research. The topics are very advanced and in many cases specific so answer the question. You are to use persuation and logic, with your sources to convince me the answer-keep to the question.

Hello! I'm a coach who didn't do speech and debate in high school because my school was too small to have a team. I love a good debate, though, and I currently coach LD, BQ, Impromptu, Original Oratory, Info, and Prose.

I'm a high school English teacher, and I read the news and studies for fun. Yes, really. I'm that person.

How to win my vote:

- Don't spread. Seriously - I want the time to digest what you're saying, so you need to speak at a reasonable pace. I'll tell you to slow down by saying "Slower!" if it's an issue, but unless you're flying through your case you'll be fine.

- I'm ok with Ks, but your links need to be meticulously logical. Your link chain needs to be reasonable between individual links so that each OBVIOUSLY leads to the next; if you start at the resolution and end at global destruction, make sure each link makes this overall leap seem like it could actually happen. Prove to me that Point A automatically leads to Point B and that there's no other alternatives that can happen EXCEPT Point B.

During the round:

- I'm looking for framework clash. Why is your framework the one we need to look at this resolution through? What makes yours more favorable?

- I'm very interested in the impacts. If it doesn't touch our current reality, what's the point of debating the resolution? I want you to go through why it matters to us, in this world, right now. This is what I'd deem the most important part of the debate!

- I don't mind if you finish your sentence after time is called, but don't prolong this too much. I'll give you about a 5 second grace period.

- Please stand while giving speeches, but you can sit for cross-ex.

- Be respectful and have fun :)

I am what you would call "old school". I will entertain a progressive debate, but I much prefer a straight-up classic debate with value and criteria.

Congress:

Absolutely no spreading.

Passion is a part of persuasion, how can I believe you if I don't buy you believe in your own argument

If there is a tie, I will use great questioning as a tiebreaker.

I automatically set Presiding Officer at 1st, you have to be that much better to surpass them if they do their job effectively and efficiently

Debate:

Most above applies as well, no spreading, passion, great questioning.

You cannot simply refer to a card, you must elaborate and connect the card to your/opponents arguments and must be clear in that connection.

I am a speech and debate coach and an English teacher, who taught logic, technical writing, composition, and Literature in college for 11 years. I debated in high school. These are some of the things you should consider when debating:

1. Speak clearly, do not spread. I am mostly deaf and I rely on imperfect hearing devices and lip reading. If I can't hear your arguments you haven’t made your argument.

2. Have empirical evidence and use it concisely.

3. Consider your structure. Make the time for a well thought out planned case or response that makes sense logically.

4. Be mature and respectful at all times. Yes, be confident and assertive, but do not yell, bully, belittle, roll your eyes, use sarcasm etc. . ..

5. For speaker points make sure to have a polished presentation style with appropriate eye contact, volume, dynamics, dramatic pauses, rhetorical appeals, tone etc. . .

This is my second-year judging. But have only just judge a few rounds. I have judged big question and radio. I am looking forward to judging more areas. I am flexible I am looking for speeches that have lots of evidence with support. I think it's important to be a team player in congress, but not overpower. I love when radio has different voices, but not too many. It's hard to follow. I am looking for good questions in a debate and a great response to rebuttal. I do not like spreading because it is hard to follow.

Congress:

Please speak loudly enough to be heard by the judges. Refrain from repeating the same information as previous competitors in the round, give a crystallization speech and move to previous question instead.

Debate:

I prefer to hear a few well developed arguments, delivered with clarity, rather than a mass of contentions delivered at an unintelligible rate. Debate the topic and refrain from Plans as they often tend to skirt the issue. Please avoid speaking over your opponent during Cross. I tend to weigh impacts rather heavily and I will consider the flow, however it will not be the sole factor in determining the round.

I am a parent judge, and I have no background in debate.

While I am comfortable with a moderate speaking pace, spreading can be challenging, so please avoid it. I appreciate clear and concise communication - it makes it easy for me to understand your arguments.

I will keep time, but I strongly encourage you to keep your own

Updated 10/15/24 for Jim Fountain

I am appreciative and grateful to support the Arizona Speech and Debate community. I have tremendous respect and admiration for the time and energy you, your teammates and coaches invest in preparation.

Congress

Props to students at the schools who took obvious time and care in writing deeply significant legislation worthy of congressional debate.

As a congressional debate judge I frown on former PF/LD/CX topics as legislation and that perspective is reflected in my ranking of the PO, the sponsor and the debaters from that school, so avoid at all costs! Clearly this strategy is to avoid work and research, places non debaters at a disadvantage with resulting ethical, moral and philosophical impacts and insures that debate will be rote. Excluding the bills that are former debate topics leaves adequate legislation to consider for debate today.

If I am a parli in your room, note that I will consider the caucus prior to the opening of debate as you set the order of debate on the top 10 bills and PO discussion in my ranking. I am aware that some legislation is based upon prior PF topics and would advise ordering the docket to place those bills at the end *(not to be debated) and I STRONGLY encourage you to debate 3 bills per session for a total of 6 bills. In order to do that, read the google doc below and: do not read a speech, do not repeat prior discussion *(that is do not speak if you are not adding NEW analysis), do not break cycle, do not call recess, and hold only 1 break per session. PO that achieves these goals will earn a 1 ranking. In case of a tie with PO, the afternoon PO will earn the 1 as this is a more challenging session to lead. PLEASE do not speak if you are not adding to or advancing debate, do not read a prepped speech and please read the google doc which includes the NSDA Congressional rubric for scoring. You should also be familiar with the NSDA Congressional Debate guide (review in particular pages 7 and 14).

Congress

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TBy-dcFQZeM6kUGHOZ8QPG18aVlJvQsSTG8liBX9U5k/edit?usp=sharing

Budget your time so that you have the opportunity to consider three bills in each session. The setting of docket, reference to bills, and ability to efficiently consider three bills in each session will impact my ranking. Caucus prior to opening of debate will factor into the evaluation of MOC.

PO begins the session ranked first. To move above the PO participants must present all three speeches *(authorship/sponsor, mid round and round ending speeches) that are exemplary and delivered with polish and grace. Based upon Scottsdale Prep I would repeat my hope that experienced CDers will PO. Remember never to read a speech and consider speaking throughout the session first, mid and last. Often that strategic decision will be reflected in your ranking. Never break cycle as that will also be reflected in your rankings to your detriment.

Note your ranking will impacted recess. As an example calling for a recess to for the purpose of composing a speech or if you advocate to break cycle during recess you can expect to see this impact your ranking.

This tournament uses direct questioning, from the NSDA Congressional guide: see page 8.

For more (really?) click here

Debate

I am a community/parent judge and do not understand nor do I want to understand debate theory. Moreover, you know far more about this topic than I (at least I hope so) so you need to be clear, simple and direct in analysis.

No spreading (I always ballot for the slowest speaking debater).

Warranting > evidence, truth > tech, simple > complex, less > more, no progressive or critique. NEVER run the flow, collapse and weigh. LD and PF please click through and skim the detailed paradigm you will find there as my preferences will be reflected in my rankings. Ethical use of evidence!!!

LD - this is values debate so focus your time on a clear definition of value and rational for why affirming or negating the resolution will achieve that value AND a side by side comparison of value an simple reason to prefer your value position. Collapse in 3AR and last 3 minutes of 2NR to the single argument you want me to vote on and WEIGH THE ROUND.

PF - collapse in summary and weigh in final focus.

Click on Frederick Changho paradigm for a clear set of expectations I support and share. Click on Scott Wood's paradigm for another paradigm that reflects my expectations, particularly good v bad form.

I strongly urge you to click here for more. Did I mention, no spreading?

Speech/Interp

I value a logical narrative over citation and authenticity in performance over technique.

For further detail clickhere.

More importantly, for OUTSTANDING advice that reflects my expectations for all speech, click on Mr. Jim Welty's comprehensive and on point paradigm.

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=176980

My primary coaching event is Congressional Debate. Don't freak out, I prefer the debate portion of the event as my high school background is in PF/LD.

For CD: I’ll always consider a balance of presentation, argumentation, and refutation. If you happen to drop the ball on one of those traits during a speech, it won’t ruin your rank on my ballot. I look for consistency across the board and most importantly: What is your speech doing for the debate? Speaking of which, pay attention to the round. If you're the third speaker in the row on the same side, your speech isn't doing anything for the debate. I definitely reward kids who will switch kids or speak before their ideal time for the sake of the debate, even if it's not the best speech in the world.

For both PF/LD: As long as you're clear/do the work for me, I have no preference for/against what you run/do in the round. I'll vote off of what you give me. With that, I really stress the latter portion of that paradigm, "I'll vote off of what you give me". I refuse to intervene on the flow, so if you're not doing the work for me, I'm gonna end up voting on the tiniest, ickiest place that I should not be voting off of. Please don't make me do that. Respect the flow and its links.

PF specific: I love theory. I don't prefer theory in PF, but again I'll vote off of where the round ends up...it'd be cool if it didn't head in that direction as a good majority of the time you can still engage in/ win the debate without it.

I don't time roadmaps, take a breather and get yourself together.

Speed isn't an issue for me in either event.

Avoid flex prep.

I prefer googledocs to email for evidence sharing (brittanystanchik@gmail.com).

My paradigm is long, but I will break it down by category to hopefully save you some time. TLDR version is: I love forensics. It is intended to change, not stay the same. So show me something that makes me believe in the future of the activity just a little more, and I will do what I can to ensure it gets the recognition it deserves.

My Background

My background ranges across debate, speech, and congress. I completed for 8 years, with four years in High School mostly focused on debate and interp, and then four years in college mainly focused on limited prep, interp, and public address. I've won two state championships in Arizona (Public Forum Debate in 2013 and Duo in 2014) and I'm a three time AFA-NIET finalist on the college circuit (Informative in 2016, with Informative and Persuasion in 2018). I coached for UT Austin's speech team after finishing out my competition years, and I'm currently the head coach at Brophy College Preparatory in Phoenix where I've been serving since the fall of 2019. At this point in my career, I have either coached or done every event but Policy. Nothing against Policy, just haven't gotten around to it yet.

Individual Events Paradigms

Drama

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Clarity of subtextual meaning conveyed through your performance

2. Presentation of a consistent and grounded environment

3. Control of movement to blocking in your environment

4. Organization of the narrative to create a clear story

5. Energy and animation behind the storytelling

Duo

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Articulation of a clear relationship which develops across the performance

2. Clarity of subtextual meaning

3. Showcase of coordinated blocking that helps suspend disbelief

4. Organization of the narrative to create a clear story

5. Energy and animation behind the storytelling

Extemp

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Provided a definitive answer to the question

2. Used structure and substructure that put forth unified analysis

3. Provided supporting arguments that consistently linked back to and proved your answer

4. Showcased strength in poised, confident delivery

5. Gave unique impacts that challenged our understanding of the subject

Humor, Prose, & Storytelling

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Clarity of subtextual meaning conveyed through your performance

2. Articulation of differentiation between characters through voice, gestures, and facial expressions

3. Control of movement to articulate the images of the story

4. Organization of the narrative to create a clear story

5. Energy and animation behind the storytelling

Impromptu

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Provided a definitive thesis to the prompt

2. Used structure and substructure that put forth unified analysis

3. Provided supporting arguments that consistently linked back to and proved your thesis

4. Showcased strength in poised, confident delivery

5. Gave unique impacts that challenged our understanding of the subject

Informative

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Presence of structure couched in significance and relevance of the topic

2. Clearly defined topic scope

3. Analysis that continually punctuates the urgency of the argument

4. Engaging visuals to showcase significant details within the speech

5. Conversational, poised, and confident delivery

Original Oratory

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Clarity of urgency behind the solutions presented

2. Quality of consistent structure

3. Uniqueness of the topic

4. Tangibility of solutions

5. Showcase of controlled, poised, confident delivery

Poetry & POI

In this round, I judged you by the following paradigm in rank order of significance:

1. Clarity of subtextual meaning conveyed through your performance

2. Articulation of a clear build and climax within the performance

3. Control of movement to articulate the images of the text

4. Clear differentiation of characters (Poetry specific: if multi-voice program)

5. Organization of the narrative to create a dramatic arc

Pro/Con Challenge

In this round, I ranked you according to the following qualities in rank order of significance:

1. Adherence to the Resolution in Argumentation

2. Balance between Affirmative and Negative Sides (i.e. not Straw-manning yourself)

3. Organizational Structure of Cases

4. Sophistication of Rhetoric

5. Showcase of Confident, Conversational Delivery

Debate Paradigms

Debate General

Biggest items for me in debate are that I'm a flow judge who will make very few value judgements without you asking me to within the scope of the round, and I have a few admittedly petty grievances around time. So...

• Be sure to signpost
• Weigh and identify clearly your weighing mechanisms
• I'll say "clear" twice, and then I'm dropping my pen if I still can't tell what you're saying.
• Good debate requires good diction. Do a pen drill. Take prep and do it in the middle of the round if you have to. But please speak with the intention to be understood.
• I control the clock, so: 1) The time starts when you start talking and 2) When that time is up, I'm putting down my pen.
• I think off-time roadmaps are kinda a waste of time. I get why they happen and that I'm on the losing side of this argument. But if you're reading this and would like me to appreciate your style of debate slightly more, don't do off-time roadmaps.
• If you call for many cards in a debate, I do expect that you are going to use that for something in the round. Please do not call for cards frivolously, as I would like to keep the schedule running on time.

Auto-drops for me are pretty limited, but mostly pertain to saying or doing anything particularly derogatory towards your opponent. Forensics in general should be a space where everyone feels comfortable, and is not limited from feeling so because of their identity. It therefore really doesn't much matter to me if you just clearly won the round. If you are rude to your opponent, I will drop you.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Specific

• Tech. Though I come predominantly from a PF background, I'm perfectly fine with you running more technical arguments. You just need to give me 1) The educational purpose of the ballot backed by a warrant and 2) The ability to take large portions of the debate outside the scope of the round without ignoring your opponents arguments or straw manning them. A K isn't a cop-out to repeat the same argument over and over again. You need to prove to us why your Kritik of the resolution is worth more than the resolution itself.
• Framework. If you concede framework, you need to own it and carry it to the end of the debate. I would advise against switching gears midway through and deciding you'd like the round to value a new framework right when you start weighing.

Public Forum Debate Specific

• Impacts. Vital in this event is your ability to properly link (and that does mean really warranting them, don't just read off 8 cards and call it a day) your impacts and terminalize them as early as possible within the round. It's very difficult to be on the winning side of a PF round with any ambiguity around your impacts and how you access them.
• Weighing. Actually do this. Summary and FF to me are not best used for additional front lining. Summary should be no more than 50% front lining, and FF shouldn't include much at all. 2 Worlds is probably my favorite to listen to in order to best crystalize the round, but feel free to show me something cooler and I will probably like it.

Congressional Debate Specific

• Repetitive Debate. My favorite part of this event is actually watching a debate advance over the course of the session. So rather than repeating after each other, do summaries, respond directly to others, and build on prior arguments, especially if you're the one keeping us on this piece of legislation by asking others to vote against moving the previous question.