Speaking ease and flow that takes the audience along a journey.

Gestures that appear natural, smooth, and flow naturally with speech.

A presentation that flows naturally and is easy to get lost in the story.

Points that are clear with good supporting material

Ease of speaking as if it were a discussion with a friend or small group of friends.

An emotional context that feels genuine and organic.

Make me laugh, make me wonder, make me cry - I enjoy it all. But most of all, make me believe.

Personal Background

As of Feb. 2023, I have competed/judged speech for 5 years and judged debate for around 3.5 years. I also participated in theatre/musical theatre and MUN in high school.

Speech

I can always give time signals and will usually ask if you would like any if I forget to, please feel free to ask for them

Generally anything goes, I never really expect you to make any significant change in speech based on a judge’s preferences.

That being said for interp my ballots often end up being highly technical(Pantomime inconsistencies, vocal inflection at key moments, etc.) as I want to give you as much actionable feedback in my comments as possible, however the ranks may not seem to match as often the more non actionable reasons of the RFD supersedes in importance for my decision.

For platform/limited prep I generally want to see some physical organization that mirrors your speech organization(walks to separate points, etc.).

Debate 1v1/2v2(Congress and Worlds are further down)

• I keep time and I expect you to keep time for both yourselves and your opponents, keep everyone honest
  
  

• for speeches I generally give ~2-3 seconds of grace to finish a sentence unless in a panel, do not abuse this privilege
  
  

• Spreading is fine as long as articulation is good, although scale back some for PF such that a lay judge can fully comprehend your arguments(whatever that looks like for you)
  
  

• If a format has Cross, I generally want to see you do something more than just clarifying questions, ex. Like probing for weaknesses that will be expanded on in your next speech
  
  

• Fully realizing your impacts is very important especially in the final 1-2 speeches even if some repetition is required
  
  

• Unless instructed otherwise, feel free to run almost anything at your discretion Ks, Aff-Ks, Plans, Theory, etc.
  
  

• That being said your links need to be strong for me to vote for it
  
  

• Specifically for Ks, I often want to see a R.O.B argument to give me a reason to vote for you in the round even if I do buy the K
  
  

• Specifically for Theory, the communication of what the theory argues/shows needs to be clear
  
  

• Unless you can explain one of the above to a Lay judge with ease I would advise against running the above in PF(Particularly "fully realized" plans/CPs as it is against the rules of the event, I will of course consider arguments for the interp of what "fully realized" means and T/argumentation on the rule itself in round)

• Do not run any of the above in BQ, as per NSDA rules you cannot get my ballot, do not even run in round theory to call out your opponents violation this will also make it impossible for me to vote for you.
  
  

• At the end of the debate I will often give verbal feedback (exceptions being if a tournament runs on a tight schedule with flights, I have been double booked in the speech and debate pool and need to make it to a round, the tournament is running far behind, or I am instructed not to do so), after this verbal feedback I may if I have a clear winner(unless instructed otherwise), otherwise I will not

Congress

• CLASH sorry for yelling but if you are not the author or sponsor PLEASE CLASH in at least some capacity please don't make congress 50 separate 3 minute pro/con challenge speeches

• Round vision and how you fit into your speaking position in round are often very important to my ranks

• examples being an early speaker presenting the “stock” issues(that haven't already been presented) which will have clash throughout the rest of the topic, presenting more uncommon arguments as a middle speaker, grouping arguments for more efficient clash as a later speaker, and giving a concise round overview and impact consideration on why we should/shouldn’t pass a bill as the set of final “crystallization” speeches

• Speech scores are relative to that speaking position only. Having a speech score of “5” for a pre-prepared authorship speech is not equivalent to a “5” for a crystallization speech for example. As the difficulty of the speeches are not equivalent, differences in rank as when compared to speech score sum are often attributed to this.

• The best way to make up for what you felt may have been a mediocre speech, in a non-ideal speaking position for your strengths is to ask pointed questions throughout that havent been said before that probe a weakness and set up another speaker. As a judge questioning period is often important to rankings on both sides of the question

• Despite some compelling reports to the contrary I am not a robot, and as such memorability influences my ranks, when I get down to the bottom ranks especially memorability can go along way to getting a 7 for example and not becoming just one of the 9s

Worlds

• For worlds I generally try to judge as by the book as possible for the 40/40/20 split for content, style, and strategy.

• Content: I do flow for the sake of content scores and a record, the flow is not the end all like it is for other events

• That being said for this part of the scoring being technical does matter, for example for me dropping an argument does matter and if pursued by the other team can significantly affect the content score

• Style: This scoring section pretty much correlates to how I would judge speaking for a platform event in speech. Examples being vocal inflection, rhetoric, stumbling, emphasis, etc.

• Strategy: When I score this section I first consider the question “Did you address the most critical issues as it pertains to both the round and the topic, and did you prioritize them effectively” This will be the bulk of the strategy score. The remainder of the score is considering POIs, particularly when you accept them(you probably wouldn’t want to accept one in the most impactful part of your speech), how you address them(skipping over it, punting it to the next speaker, or answering/outweighing it), and if you don't accept any. Not accepting any will only hurt you if the other team has given ample opportunities to accept POIs and you don't recognize any of them.

I will be looking for the following while judging Congressional Debaters:

1) Do you speak confidently, clearly, and slowly while presenting?

2) Are you backing up statements with accurate, precise, and verifiable data specific to your cause?

3) Are you professional, show respect to competitors, and listen attentively to appropriately respond?

I will be judging the Presiding Officer on how well they manage the congressional session.