Kris Compton

Background & Coaching Information:

*2 Diamond Coach with over 25 years of experience coaching both public and private programs in Florida, Alabama and Texas.

*Experience coaching and judging all events

*Have had TFA finalists in multiple events, NSDA Nationals Semi and Finalists and have coached numerous Alabama State Champions in multiple of events

• 2023 NSDA Duo Interp Finals Judge
• *I have a true passion for the overall educational and life changing skills of speech and debate. I expect competitors to be respectful of all events and each other.

INFORMATIVE & ORATORY

Content & Visual aids

*A NEW perspective on a NEW topic or a refreshing and inspiring topic that is not overdone.

*Informative should not be persuasive in nature; your job is to inform not persuade

*The best oratories provide stories and a genuine moments within the speech. I should feel and see your heart in your speech.

*Research should enhance and advance information presented. Research should be relevant, current, and reliable

* For informative, Visual aids should not be a distraction but add to the quality of what is being said. The focus should be on the words spoken and not the visual aids. Just because you have strong visual aids is not the winning point for me; a well written memorable speech and performance weighs more heavily.

*Speech should be well organized, easy to follow, and engage the audience

Performance

*Professional and engaging. Performance should enhance natural strengths. Don't force cheesy humor.

*Natural movement and gestures; blocked and robotic movements sometimes can distract from the overall presentation

*Apply all the needed vocal variation that makes speeches engaging

*I want you to be genuine and real. I am not interested in fake and robotic performances. I cannot stress this enough. I don't care how polished you are if you are not real.

*I should be able to tell why this topic is important; passion is imperative. This should be obvious in every aspect of your performance.

IE ( HI, DI, PROSE, POETRY, POI, DUO)

*Creative, engaging, relevant, entertaining.

*Maturity and age appropriate.

*Follow the event rules

*Easy to follow; don't make me work to understand what is happening.

*Take me on a journey of emotions

*Characterization should be genuine and real.

*Blocking should enhance and add to the performance; not be used in place of good performance.

*When working with a partner, strengths should complement one another

*Sometimes simple moments in a performance are the most memorable. A certain look or gesture can be gut wrenching and draw an audience in. Those moments are more impressive than overblocked and overacting attempts of winning my vote.

*Same as speaking events, I value genuine and real performances. I'm not interested in polished robotic performances that have not heart.

PF

*I am a flow judge BUT presentation also matters a great deal. If I can't understand what you are saying, it is difficult for me to flow your arguments.

*Respect in the round is essential. I don't care how good you are if you are disrespectful to your opponents or to the judges you will not get my vote. Be professional and respectful at all times.

*I am good with any kind of speed, but keep it clear and articulate.

*If you do not extend properly, I will not buy any of your arguments.

*Proper extension should include tag, short summary of evidence, and impact calc.

*I expect FF and even Sums to have impact calculus (magnitude, propensity, reversibility, etc.)

*Impacts are essential. I don't care if you don't tell me why I should

* I prefer you being true to what public forum was designed for, however if you happen to run theory and Kritik debate I will be ok with it.

* The second speaking rebuttal should respond to turns placed in the first speaking rebuttal.

*Offense wins rounds, so make sure your voters are offensive.

*Please collapse or the debate will end up being a mess. If you are going for Theory make sure to delineate what you want me to do with it (drop the debater, drop the argument, etc.), stance on RVI, clear voters.

*I consider it the burden of the Kritik to provide an alt and prove its uniqueness, so I will default buy the perm even if your opponent doesn’t argue it unless uniqueness is proved.

*AGAIN, I prefer traditional PF debate, butI will and can adjust judging according to different styles of debate.

*Organization is key; make it easy for me to follow

*Words matter; word economy is essential. Don't waste time with insignificant words and filler language that takes away from overall presentation points

Extemporaneous Speaking

-Be strategic about your question; play to your strength and knowledge, but avoid easy questions that don't require much analysis

-It is imperative you answer the question clearly and concisely

-Clearly link evidence with rhetoric and impact

-Using variety of sources is important; I am not impressed with multiple sources if those sources don't directly link with what you are saying. Just spouting off sources is not impressive. The information actually has to say something of importance and connect.

-The more current the information, the better.

-Organization and structure is important; but add some personality and flair to make it interesting and engaging.

-Knowledge of the topic is essential; more rhetoric and logic used in your speech is more impressive than anything

-Professional presentation is incredibly important.

-Don't add humor if it is not your strength.

-Tone should fit the topic.

-DO NOT BE POLITICALLY POLARIZING. Bashing any ideology or person is not impressive and will immediately give me reason to not consider a high ranking. Be respectful always.

Congressional Debate

• I NEED CLASH.This is congressional debate, unless you are 1st AFF Speech, you should have clash in your speech. Bring up NEW points and please do not keep bringing up same points as other representatives.
• When you clash be sure you mention representative's names when referring to their specific arguments.
• Your speeches need evidence, MINIMUM, one piece of evidence per point. More is appreciated.
• When using evidence, it should clearly link or I will not consider it. Include dates; the more current and relevant the better.
• DO NOT read your speech; engage your audience and do this in a original, creative and respectful way.
• I do listen to your speeches and questions, so if you give clearly falsified evidence or logic I will know. Be involved and know parliamentary procedure as well.
• You are judged on the WHOLE round, not just speeches, so if you are rude or aren’t involved don't expect a good score from me.

Background: I was a high school debater, extemper, and orator back in the 1990s. I became a debate coach in 2003; I coach all the events.

Everyone: Be as polite and professional as possible.

For debate events: No spreading; speak at a normal, conversational speed. I will deduct speaker points and you will likely lose the round because you've made it too difficult for me to understand what you're saying. I shouldn't have to read a copy of your case to figure out your arguments; I should be able to flow it based on what I hear in your performance. In rebuttals, I need you to signpost the part of the case before making your argument so I know where it goes on my flow; otherwise, your arguments don't count because I don't know what you're attacking or defending. Give me voters in your last speech.

For congress: Be prepared before the tournament; I have no sympathy for students not having their speeches ready before the round begins. Don't take excessive breaks. We must meet the minimum time for the round while also keeping the tournament on schedule. If you think the Presiding Officer makes a mistake, deal with it immediately; otherwise, it's too late and we have to move on.

For IEs: ranking can come down to small details; bring your best! I like clever introductions that get my attentions with personal stories, jokes, etc. In poetry, the cadence of the verse matters to me; if your poetry performance sounds like a prose performance, you may rank lower compared to others who perform poetry as spoken word. For extemp, the depth of your analysis will impact your ranking.

I coached and judged all speech and debate events for 16 years before becoming an administrator. I coached several state champions and students successful in UIL, TFA and NSDA. As an admin, I have remained active judging and running local, regional and state tournaments.

I believe that this is an educational activity. I am accustomed to spreading though my ear isn't especially adept to it not having judged debate much recently. Watch for NV cues that you are going too fast. I will not call out at you. Since leaving coaching I have mostly judged IEs. I Adm a policymaker policy judge. For LD I prefer more LD traditional value/ criteria style debate though ultimately the round direction is up to the debates. I DO NOT like to intervene in round because the debate is messy.

I coach beginning CX at summer camps in Texas and serve as an advisor for new coaches to the activity.

I work at the UIL Region 3-5A Director and the Judge Coordinator at the CX and Academic State Tournaments as well as running several invitationals and district meets.

Most importantly.... BE NICE! BE PROFESSIONAL! Your life will not be negatively impacted because of the outcome of a round so don't let emotions push you to behave inappropriately That won't bode well for you.

do people even read these anymore ?

Former Argyle HS debater

UTA CAP (mav up)

i prefer speech drop

gcparris10@gmail.com

he/him

if you talk to me about basketball we will get along

Update after Coppell (10/6):

For 3NRS: Do NOT post-round me. If you are going to be anything but respectful to me, I am going to ask you to leave the room. There is a difference between asking genuine questions and aggressively asserting to me (through the thinly veiled guise of "asking questions") about why you should've won the round. I am by no means saying I don't make mistakes, but simply that a 3NR wastes your and my time, because the decision was finalized prior to me delivering the RFD. Doing this will only further validate in my mind that I made the right decision at the end of the round. I debated for four years across multiple circuits, I know that losing sucks, but part of being a good debater is handling losses well and implementing strategic changes to the way you debate so you never lose another ballot in the same way. I do not care who/where you've debated, been coached by, or how right you think you are, this practice is unprofessional and unacceptable in the debate space.

CX Paradigm:

TLDR:

Be respectful to yourself and others.

I will evaluate any argument as you present it to me, do what you do best and make your path to the ballot clear/explain the paradigmatic lens through which I'm casting my vote. I'm a tab judge and default to tech over truth in evaluation, I also default to policy making if not given an alternative way to vote.

I debated for a while in high school (UIL, TFA, NSDA) and I'm familiar with most arguments, just be sure to explain any obscure/high-level theory arguments well. I am a flow judge first and foremost (voting based on offense/defense) and the best way to get my ballot is by concisely explaining what you're winning on the flow and why that wins you the round.

Speed is fine and I would prefer you to not read the stock issues version of the 1AC in front of me. Spreading is fine (assuming you can articulate the words you're saying), just signpost clearly and articulate author names/dates. I prefer analytics sent in the doc.

I won't tolerate any form of rudeness, racism, homophobia, sexism, ableist rhetoric, etc. (L=25)

Topicality: I love T and am totally cool with teams running it, even as a time-suck. I default to competing interps! The threshold for me to vote on it is high, as I need you to articulate why the 1AC is unfair/quantify how the ground you're losing as the neg is crucial to a fair round. If the extensions are blippy or not as in-depth as they should be to go for it in the 2NR, I will have a harder time voting on it.

Theory: I'm cool with theory and find in-round-abuse impacts to be the most compelling (I'll vote for potential abuse impacts or other impacts also though). I prefer theory to be centered around what happens inside the round, but I will fairly evaluate things like disclosure. Theory shouldn't be used as a tactic to get an advantage on less experienced teams who you think don't know how to answer it. I'll vote on evidence ethics/card cutting/highlighting theory---these were annoying things when I debated.

Disads: I love disads and I'm super cool with them. On the uniqueness debate, I prefer warrant analysis over the date on the card (although I suggest you have uniqueness evidence that is as up-to-date as you can get). The more specific the link the better, and I/L analysis is always appreciated. On the aff I love a strategic link-turn or good no-link arguments, and I really appreciate good internal-link takeouts.

Counterplans: I love a good counterplan and the more specific it is to the 1AC the better. I will default to voting off of the net benefit (which should be clearly articulated) but I'll vote on sufficiency framing if instructed to. For the aff please debate perms clearly and explain any theory you run on the flow in-depth if you want me to vote on it.

Kritiks: You can run Ks in front of me. I like them, have read them, and I will vote on them. What I don't like is when teams that run Ks do so in an attempt to get an advantage over another team---the literature you use should be a tool for education, not confusion. If you're reading high-level theory please clearly articulate the thesis of the K. (I'm mostly familiar with Cap and Set. Col. but I've seen all sorts of args in my time debating).

K-Affs: I'm cool with K-Affs, just make sure you are clearly explaining what framework to view the round through and be concise on why this is the best metric for debate. This is admittedly not my most knowledgeable area of debate.

Framing: I like framing and will default to Util unless told otherwise. I love soft left/structural violence framing and am well-versed in slow violence literature. Please explain WHY your framing should be preferred over the other team's to win the round/outweigh their impacts.

AFF Notes: I prefer extensions/overviews of the case in every speech. A good 1AR is one that goes for the most strategic arguments to win the round, and creates the crucial winning distinctions to me that are extended in the 2AR. I love judge instruction and ask that you tell me what to flow where, etc. You are fine to kick the aff/advantages, but this should have a meaningful strategic implication in the round.

Neg Notes: Don't read brand-new arguments in the 2NC. You are more than welcome to expand on existing arguments through reading new evidence and I will flow whatever you read and vote on it, but the Aff will have an easy time persuading me on why these arguments shouldn't apply/don't matter as much. You are more than welcome to read corroborating evidence for your arguments, and brand new links/args will be flowed, albeit begrudgingly. I encourage debaters to debate in the style they feel most comfortable, but I am not the judge to read ridiculous amounts of offcase positions to. I think I tend to sympathize with condo as the Aff easily, and I find consolidating down to a few key positions and debating those in a way that is in-depth to be a much more compelling judge position. This doesn't mean you should throw away your neg strat, just maybe don't run 13 off----I will flow everything but this opens you to a very real possibility of losing on conditionality.

You are more than welcome to ask me any clarification questions before the round!

MISC:

****I will have limited knowledge of the topic, so please clarify any acronyms for the sake of the round.

Be nice to novice teams---they are literally the future of the event.

CX is supposed to be fun, so I always appreciate teams that are clearly having a good time/making it feel like they want to be there (this will reflect in your speaks!)

I am a parent judge and enjoy judging speech events. Judged a few speech events like Extemp, POI, Prose, Oratory, Informative etc. I think speech should be structured in a way that is easy to follow and understand. The content should be relevant to the title or topic of the speech and should grab the audience's attention. The introduction, body, and summary are the key factors of the speech.

Good Luck!!