I’m a new parent judge so please be patient.

I love it when people are passionate about their topic and show it in their speech.

You can increase your speaks through having good inflection, pauses, articulation, and dramatic storytelling. I want it to be engaging.

You will lose speaks if you are profane and/or unprofessional in the round.

You should not get be getting below a 90 if you try your best and be polite.

Good research that is credible with sources is always a plus.

I will time you on your speeches; you will lose speaker points if you are below 8 min and above 10 min.

I try my best to judge fairly.

I approach judging with an open mind and aim to reward clear, logical arguments and effective communication. Regardless of the event, my focus is on how well speakers or debaters convey their ideas, demonstrate critical thinking, and structure their cases or speeches.

Speech Events:

In speech, I value well-developed content, effective delivery, and emotional engagement. Speakers should focus on making a clear impact on the audience. Creativity and strong thematic coherence are important, as is the ability to hold my attention throughout.

Debate Events:

In debate, my preference is for debaters to make clear, well-supported arguments rather than relying on speed or overwhelming technical jargon. I understand that flowing is part of debate, but I prioritize quality of argumentation over quantity. If I can’t follow the arguments due to excessive speed, it will affect my ability to evaluate your case.

Rachel Mauchline

Durham Academy, Assistant Director of Speech and Debate

Previously the Director of Forensics and Debate for Cabot

she/her pronouns

TL;DR

Put me on the email chain @ rachelmauchline@gmail.com

speed is fine (but online lag is a thing)

tech over truth

World Schools

I truly love world school as an event. It is my favorite event to coach and I've been coaching worlds since 2018. I focus heavily on the event’s rubric to guide the ballot; however it ultimately is a debate event so remember to focus on the warranting and implication of your arguments. I do think there is a lot of room for stylistic flair that can add to a worlds round that can carry down the bench throughout the round. I see a lot of value in POIs for both sides - for the asking side to break up the flow of the debate and for the receiving side to clearly contextualize an answer that helps guide them to their next point of clash.

Policy

I typically get preferred for more policy-oriented debate. I gravitated to more plan focused affirmatives and t/cp/da debate. I would consider myself overall to be a more technically driven and line by line organized debater. My ideal round would be a policy affirmative with a plan text and three-seven off. Take that as you wish though.

Lincoln Douglas

I've judged a variety of traditional and progressive debates. I prefer more progressive debate. But you do you... I am happy to judge anything as long as you defend the position well. Refer to my specific preferences below about progressive arguments. In regards to traditional debates, it's important to clearly articulate framework.

Public Forum

weighing.... weighing.... weighing.

I like rebuttals to have clear line by line with numbered responses. 2nd rebuttal should frontline responses in rebuttal. Summary should extend terminal defense and offense OR really anything that you want in final focus. Final focus should have substantial weighing and a clear way for me to write my ballot. It's important to have legitimate evidence... don't completely skew the evidence.

Here are my specific preferences on specific arguments if you have more than 5 mins to read this paradigm...

Topicality

I enjoy a well-articulated t debate. In fact, a good t debate is my favorite type of debate to judge. Both sides need to have a clear interpretation. Make sure it’s clearly impacted out. Be clear to how you want me to evaluate and consider arguments like the tva, switch side debate, procedural fairness, limits, etc.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

This was my fav strat in high school. I’m a big fan of case-specific disadvantages but also absolutely love judging politics debates- be sure to have up to date uniqueness evidence in these debates though. It’s critical that the disad have some form of weighing by either the affirmative or negative in the context of the affirmative. Counterplans need to be functionally or textually competitive and also should have a net benefit. Slow down for CP texts and permutations- y’all be racing thru six technical perms in 10 seconds. Affirmative teams need to utilize the permutation more in order to test the competition of the counterplan. I don’t have any bias against any specific type of counterplans like consult or delay, but also I’m just waiting for that theory debate to happen.

Case

I believe that case debate is under-covered in many debates by both teams. I love watching a case debate with turns and defense instead of the aff being untouched for the entire debate until last ditch move by the 2AR. The affirmative needs to continue to weigh the aff against the negative strat. Don't assume the 1AC will be carried across for you throughout the round. You need to be doing that work on the o/v and the line by line. It confuses me when the negative strat is a CP and then there are no arguments on the case; that guarantees aff 100% chance of solvency which makes the negative take the path of most resistance to prove the CP solves best.

Kritiks

I’ll vote for the k. From my observations, I think teams end up just reading their prewritten blocks instead of directly engaging with the k specific to the affirmative. Be sure you understand what you are reading and not just read a backfile or an argument that you don’t understand. The negative needs to be sure to explain what the alt actually is and more importantly how the alt engages with the affirmative. I judge more K rounds than I expect to, but if you are reading a specific author that isn’t super well known in the community, but sure to do a little more work on the analysis

Theory

I’ll vote for whatever theory; I don’t usually intervene much in theory debates but I do think it’s important to flesh out clear impacts instead of reading short blips in order to get a ballot. Saying “pics bad” and then moving on without any articulation of in round/post fiat impacts isn’t going to give you much leverage on the impact level. You can c/a a lot of the analysis above on T to this section. It’s important that you have a clear interp/counter interp- that you meet- on a theory debate.

Hello everyone! My name is Mariana McCottry! I am a senior who competes in DP, DUO and, IMP. In 2023 I placed 1st in DUO at districts and 6th in DP. I am very excited to judge you all but here are something that I pay attention to:

• Tone
• Content (Structure)
• Roadmapping

Know that your outcome is not a determination of your worth, and that you all have done great just by being here!

I have been judging speech events since 2021. I look for presenters with a clearly demonstrated personal connection to a presentation/performance, no matter what the topic is. I also look for clear points or messages delivered with impact, whether that impact is made through strong argument or delivery, effective use of structure/wording, or compelling emotion.

I am not against speed, however, I do not judge a lot. Slow down for tags and analytics.

I have 30 years of a combination of leadership experience in presenting business cases in order to sway executives into either creating, building or driving initiatives in organizations. As a result, my paradigm places a premium on clear and concise argumentation rooted in solid evidence. I value debaters who can effectively apply their philosophical or value-based positions to real-world scenarios. While I appreciate depth of analysis, it's crucial for debaters to draw connections between their arguments and practical implications.

Lincoln-Douglas Debates:

Articulate, organized and persuasive presentation styles resonate with my judging approach, mirroring the precision needed to convey thoughts in the real world. Additionally, ethical considerations and the ability to weigh competing values are integral aspects I look for.

Public Forum Debates (Tech Judging and Flow):

I value tracking the logical progression of arguments throughout the debate, prioritizing clarity and how well debaters respond to each other's points. Strong organization, well-structured rebuttals, and clear impact comparison. I expect to see strategic decision-making and effective use of time, cross-examination, and procedural tactics. Technical proficiency in argumentation and the ability to capitalize on debate rules or opponents’ weaknesses can make a difference, provided it’s integrated with substantive argumentation.

Good morning, this is my first time volunteering to be a Judge. I expect a respectful and well-mannered round. I will give extra speaker points if you make me laugh. Overall I would prefer a slow speed but if you prefer to fo fast, I ask that you emphasize your main points.I will vote for the team who convinces me the most. I also will vote based on which team's argument was more organized and clear. Thank you and good luck.

I am a lay judge. While I may not have direct experience in debate, I have an understanding of PF concepts and how the rounds work at a basic level. I have a Ph.D in communication, and I teach public speaking and interpersonal communication in college, so I value the importance of your communication skills, argumentation, and overall persuasiveness. Make your points clearly, engage with other's arguments respectfully, and have impactful communication.

Please time your own speeches and prep time. I will try to keep track, but I appreciate you doing it for me. I appreciate some level of moderate pacing of speeches as well.

Thank you.

Note:

This is her son and I'm a second year LDer. My Mom usually judges speech and she's never judged an actual debate round before so you're going to have to explain all jargon very well (even the basics: turn, link, internal link, de-link). Also be aware that she's brand new to flowing as well so make sure to have an off-time roadmap and to have clear signposting.

Overall, just go slow, signpost well, and weigh clearly and you'll get the W 30.