Though I am not a lay judge, I believe Public Forum debate should be accessible to lay judges. So don't go too fast. Be respectful. And make sure impacts are realistic; it doesn't take much for me to buy an argument that breaks a multi-step link chain. Finally, and most importantly, honesty matters. So make sure you represent your evidence accurately; I will drop teams that misrepresent evidence, and I'm willing to ask that they be disqualified too.

Debate Judging Paradigm

Experience Level: With over ten years of experience coaching and judging high school speech and debate, including various formats such as Policy, Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, and Congressional debate, I bring a wealth of knowledge to the judging table. While I have primarily judged Congressional debate in the last two years, I am well-versed in the nuances of argumentation and public speaking across multiple formats.

Rate of Delivery and Use of Jargon: I prefer that debaters define technical jargon and acronyms upon their first usage, but subsequent use is acceptable as long as clarity is maintained. While I can comprehend brisk delivery rates, I value the balance between effective communication and analytical rigor. Rushed delivery compromising essential elements of public speaking is a concern.

Note-Taking Approach: During the round, I prioritize note-taking on key arguments and rebuttals. I maintain an aggressive flow for the first two-thirds of the debate, focusing on capturing the essence of arguments. In the final one-third, I hone in on unique insights or turns presented by the debaters.

Argument versus Style: While I prioritize argumentation, I recognize the importance of style in communication. I am unsympathetic to debaters who discount performance aspects entirely, especially in advanced tournaments or rounds. Eye contact, inflection, appropriate pauses, and empathy can enhance the persuasive impact of arguments.

Assessment Criteria: When assessing a debate, I consider several criteria, including the originality of thought, organization and cohesiveness, evidence and logic, decorum, and the thoughtful response to cross-examination questions. Debaters demonstrating evidence of research, original thought, and credibility are particularly impressive to me.

In-Round Conduct Expectations: I expect debaters to demonstrate evidence of preparation, a depth of knowledge for the topic, and professionalism in their interactions with other debaters or senators. Conduct that aligns with the standards of respectful discourse is paramount.

I am in my 4^th year of coaching speech at East High School in Des Moines. I competed as a student in LD in high school. I have judged every IE event and every debate event. I primarily view debate as an educational activity. If debate weren’t a place for students to develop speaking and argumentation skills, I think debate would have almost no value and I wouldn’t be spending my valuable time away from my small children coaching and judging debate. I’ve broken down my paradigm into sections so that you can skip to the portions of the paradigm that apply to you.

LD/PF

Because I primarily participate in debate for the educational value. I am a Truth>Tech judge but I want to explain what that does/doesn’t mean to me. Truth>Tech doesn’t mean that you don’t have to respond to your opponents’ factually spurious arguments. I’m still going to rely heavily on my flow to determine the outcome of the round. I think it is fundamentally unfair to insert my own arguments into a round though I will do it if a competitor is arguing something abhorrent ie: that it is morally good to kill children or something.

Truth>Tech does mean that unserious arguments do not require a response. Logical fallacies exist for a reason and modern debate is filled with logical fallacy abuse. If in LD, you use a non-topical nazi analysis to point to some problem with a moral framework I likely won’t take that argument as seriously as a resolution critique of the moral framework. Similarly, I don’t find many of slippery slope arguments that have 40 links to some colossal impact to be especially strong arguments either. This doesn’t mean that you can’t win with these arguments on my ballot it just means that I am going to be receptive to responses that point out the problems with slippery slope arguments or bringing everything back to the third Reich when we are debating public service or something.

I expect you to fully articulate your arguments. Don’t just tell me that your first contention turns their second contention tell me why your first contention turns their second contention. Similarly, don’t just make the claim that some behavior is bad for debate, tell me why the behavior is bad for debate. A claim isn’t an argument and won’t really get acknowledged as one on my flow.

I realize that this is debate and not speech and so I don't decide debate rounds on speaking skills but rather the argumentation. However, an argument rendered incomprehensible because of the rate of a person’s speaking is the same as an argument not made on my ballot. I will not read a speech doc unless the document is an accommodation to allow someone to participate in debate. Debate, be definition, is an oral activity and I think that reading speech documents invites the judge to understand arguments that have been ineffectively articulated in round and is a form of judge intervention.

Unless a tournament tells me not to, I will always disclose, and I almost always tell the losing competitor(s) what they could do to have won my ballot in the round. I will sometimes provide feedback about how I would have argued for or against a point but unless those arguments were made by students in the round, they won’t affect my ballot.

Congressional debate

Speeches should be well organized. By this I mean the listener should be able to clearly delineate between your points, introduction, and conclusion. If the delineation between these things is unclear to me, the listener, your speech isn't organized enough. This does not mean reading me a list. A list is better than no organization, but the lists are basic. Think about ways to organize a speech without just going 123

Your speech, when appropriate, should be well supported by reliable and relevant sources. If you can't find research or credible analysis to back up a point that doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't make it but your speech shouldn't be entirely filled with this type of argument. Additionally, I would caution you to avoid simply making an appeal to authority in your speech make sure the source of your information is properly credentialed before making a claim

I prefer an extemporaneous delivery. Computers/notepads should be used as a reference rather than as a script. I also prefer a more polished delivery in which eye contact is more frequently maintained and a student’s movement is controlled so that it enhances the speech rather than distracts the listener. I can handle faster speech speeds but to a reasonable limit. I need people to speak at a reasonable volume. I need to be able to hear you, but yelling is also inappropriate.

Your speech should bring up new information. If your points have already been made in round, then don't waste everyone's time by repeating them. Secondly, While I understand that crystallization speeches are popular in the congressional "meta" they have to be well done and actually work to clearly delineate why one sides arguments are preferable to the other sides arguments. If all you have done is summarize the arguments the other speakers have made in round you have wasted everyone's time.

This is congressional debate not congressional speech. While I can understand a lack of clash in the authorship speech, I believe that all other speeches in a cycle of debate should make a clear attempt at refuting the specific arguments that other speakers have made in round. Bonus points if you can set up these arguments using a questioning block to draw attention to the flaws in your opponent’s logic.

If you are speaking in the negation, please don't center your argument around a problem that can be amended away. Write an amendment. If your problem with a bill is that it appropriates 20 million dollars instead of the 25 million that it should have fix that problem with an amendment.

While the PO is responsible for running a smooth and equitable chamber it is not only the responsibility of the PO. debaters that have a clear understanding of the rules and don't disrupt the chamber by making incorrect motions or violating chamber rules will be more highly ranked.

For PO’s: I care that you run a smooth and equitable chamber. Make sure you are properly following rules for recency and precedence. Additionally, where rules/procedural issues arise I expect you to be able to handle them without relying on the parliamentarian I will say that I typically have a hard time ranking POs at the top of the chamber unless the quality of debate is exceedingly low or the PO is exceptionally proficient. However, I will usually rank the PO in the top 5 if there are no serious errors in the way they conduct their chamber.

Speech

I consider your decision of what piece to perform one of the many decisions that I will evaluate in round. If your piece is problematic in its portrayal of people with mental illnesses or you are depicting an act/event I don't think is appropriate that will affect your final rank. I am tired of judging rounds in which students mine traumatic events that happen to real people in the real world to win a high school speech contest and that fatigue will start being reflected in the final ranks I assign after speech rounds.

Speeches should be well organized. By this I mean the listener should be able to clearly delineate between your points, introduction, and conclusion. If the delineation between these things is unclear to me, the listener, your speech isn't organized enough. This does not mean reading me a list. A list is better than no organization, but the lists are basic. Think about ways to organize a speech without just going 123

Your speech, when appropriate, should be well supported by reliable and relevant sources. If you can't find research or credible analysis to back up a point that doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't make it but your speech shouldn't be entirely filled with this type of argument. Additionally, I would caution you to avoid simply making an appeal to authority in your speech make sure the source of your information is properly credentialed before making a claim

I don’t judge visual aids in informative speaking. If the visual aid detracts from your speech, it will hurt your score. If the visual aid enhances your speech, it will help your score. If you have no visual aid but deliver a stellar speech I will give you a high rank.

Finally, I place a high emphasis on actually answering the prompt in USX, IX and Spontaneous Speaking. Try to make sure you answer the question you’ve been asked and aren’t doing something adjacent to it. I will rank people who do not actually answer the question at the bottom of the chamber.

Blake RR update: Let's have some fun! Congrats on being selected to participate in this prestigious event.

Hi, I'm Parker or Mr. Klyn, whichever you are most comfortable with.

I am the Director of Forensics at Theodore Roosevelt High School (Des Moines, IA).

I coach national circuit PF and occasionally LD.

I'm on the NSDA Public Forum Topic & Wording Committee.

Come learn debate from me: NDF: Public Forum – Summit Debate

"I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck," and "Most judges give appalling decisions." <-- Two quotes that illustrate my views on judging. My promise to you as a judge is always giving you 100% of my attention and rendering decisions that I honestly believe in and can defend/justify.

More in-depth 2024-2025 judging record for your convenience and for transparency: Parker Klyn judging record

I debated PF in high school in rural Iowa (I was also a double 2[!] in the most local policy debate circuit of all time) and had no exposure to the national circuit. Since becoming head coach at Roosevelt we've had state champions and TOC qualifiers every year.

Debate is the best part of my life. I feel so lucky to be able to do this as my calling and I'm proud of you for doing it too.

If the round starts in 60 seconds and you don't have time to read the whole paradigm...

Public Forum: I am a standard national circuit PF flow/tech judge who can handle speed and is open to any form of argumentation, whether substantive or "progressive."

Lincoln-Douglas:

Policy/LARP: 1

K: 1

T/Theory: 1

Phil: 3

Tricks: 4

–––––––––––––––––––

Public Forum

Add me to the email chain (klynpar@gmail.com). In national circuit varsity/bid PF rounds, send speech docs with cut cards ahead of case & all speeches where you read new evidence. (i.e. not a link to a google doc, not just the rhetoric, etc.) This is non-negotiable. (1) It makes the debate and by extension the tournament run on time and (2) it allows me to be as non-interventionist as possible.

I’m a tech/blank-slate judge, I flow line-by-line on my computer using Flower. Judge instruction is key. The best debaters essentially write my RFD for me in final.

The above means that I will vote on anything. However, due to time constraints and neg's ability to go first, I generally believe the format's best debates are substantive rounds over the resolution. With that being said, run whatever arguments (substance, K, theory, Spark, etc.) you would like in front of me if you feel they will earn you the win. Debate is a game.

Be kind and respectful, I will never change a ballot on this but I will lower speaks especially when it comes to experience/age/resource imbalances.

I vote on offense/defense, that includes framing, layering, and specific weighing mechanisms.

Speed is fine, go as fast as you want. However I will not have the speech doc open other than to peruse evidence I have not heard before (usually during prep time). It's your responsibility to be clear.

I always disclose my decision alongside some feedback. Feel free to ask questions afterwards; let's leave the round feeling like we had a positive, enjoyable educational experience. My email is open for this purpose as well. Multiple debaters have told me I look intimidating/scary during round and then turn into a teddy bear afterwards; I'm just tired.

Speaks are based on technical execution, not some arbitrary standard of what makes a "good speaker." My speaks are pretty standard although I find I am particularly generous (29.5+) to great debaters and particularly stingy (27-27.9) with debaters that miss the mark or make major strategic errors. In order to promote good norms, I will bump your speaks by +0.1 each if you (1) send speech docs with cut cards and (2) indicate to me that you open-source disclose.

Long story short, Just win baby~!

–––––––––––––––––––

Lincoln-Douglas

Email: klynpar@gmail.com

People get scared when they see a primarily PF coach in their circuit LD judge pools -- I promise, I can handle what you're throwing at me as long as you do the effective work in judge instruction. In any debate event, capable judging is a must-have, and I will live up to that expectation.

Overriding judge philosophy is blank slate/no judge intervention. Debate's a game, do what you have to do to win.

You are welcome to run whatever you want, but based on what I've watched, I am most comfortable with: Policy/LARP, Ks (of both the Aff and the debate space), and topicality/non-friv theory i.e. disclosure. Love scouring the opencaselist for unique, creative arguments. I am not confident in evaluating performance, academic philosophy, or postmodernist arguments -- these would probably require lots of warranting and explanation, but if that's your lane, don't feel the need to adjust to me.

Go as fast as you want as long as you're flowable (I will not flow off a doc; this is the one place where it's up to the debaters to adapt, not the judge).

I value the intellectual freedom that debate provides -- running arguments and justifications that exist outside the academic norm is one of the event's true benefits. The only arguments I will not vote on are unwarranted IVIs and "new affs bad."

–––––––––––––––––––

Congress

If you're in Iowa and you do the literal bare minimum (speak as much as you can, provide sources for your arguments, REFUTE OTHER SPEECHES, ask questions), you're practically guaranteed to finish in the top half of my ballot. Seriously, why are so many of y'all just seemingly along for the ride!

Smaller things: Crystallization speeches are lazy unless it's like the 7th speech of a bill and there has been actual clash the entire way down (make actual arguments instead!), being charismatic/entertaining is a good tiebreaker but doesn't replace a well-argued speech, good POs are hard to beat and bad POs make debate no fun (unless literally nobody else was willing to do it -- then I'll reward you on the ballot), treating bills as having real-life implications around the world >>> LARPing as US legislators

–––––––––––––––––––

Speech

Just like debate, speech is very hard. Because I value your long hours of preparation, I promise I am fully invested in your performance and will evaluate it to the best of my ability. I would consider myself an extremely competent Extemp (coached multiple state champions) and Platform (coached a NIETOC semifinalist) judge and a middling Interp judge -- UNLESS it's POI, in which case I definitely know what I'm doing. I look forward to seeing what you have prepared!

Extemp: Don't just answer the question accurately, but implicate it -- why is this even question being asked? Confident facial expressions and humor are always appreciated.

Platform (OO/INFO): Topic selection is massively important. No matter how technically proficient you are, if your thesis boils down to "we should be nice to each other" or "here's some information about something" you will probably not get a high rank. I put strong emphasis on actually taking a bit of a risk for your topic selection and eschewing "safer" options.

Interp: I do not have much expertise when it comes to these, although I adore POI as the work involved in crafting a strong program feels far more intellectually robust than simply performing a dramatic or humorous piece. All interp performances should feature believable acting, clear storytelling structure, distinct characters, and intentional blocking. I do NOT value excessively traumatic topics in DI; they feel very cynical and almost exploitative to me. HI should obviously make me laugh. The interplay between performers in DUO is fun. And in POI, the most important thing I'm looking for is a clear theme or thesis that ties your program together.

–––––––––––––––––––

Debate thoughts:

1) Flow. It is so easy to tell when you're not flowing.

2) You should not need a marked doc when only a couple cards were skipped.

3) This idea that "spreading has no real-world benefits" is so blatantly and obviously false to anyone who has actually engaged in fast debate. Worse argumentation presented in a pretty manner is indisputably less academically robust and pedagogically valuable than more in-depth argumentation presented at a speedy pace.

4) Everyone should always be willing to proactively disclose all evidence read previously in a debate. People who don't do this usually fall into a few camps: (1) genuinely being uninformed (in which case adjusting to disclosing is an easy fix), (2) strategic reasons (i.e. those who know deep down disclosure is good and utilize disclosed evidence in their files but do not disclose themselves to prevent prep-outs), or (3) coaching (i.e. their coach won't let them, tells them it's bad, etc.). All of these reasons fall apart if debate is to be taken remotely seriously as an academic endeavor. (Note that this does not mean I am a disclosure theory hack.)

5) Despite the time and energy I spend in this wonderful activity, I am a glorified volunteer. I teach literacy to struggling readers and my stipend averages to about $2/hour. Many debate coaches, even those at the highest levels, are in similar situations -- be good to them.

6) Be kind and reasonable to everyone in the activity, whether you are a judge (don't bully children in your RFD, don't arbitrarily change speaker points because they brought you food) or competitor (welcome novices with open arms, practice epistemic humility, thank the adults in your life who have allowed you to find a home in debate). If you are someone who indicates in their paradigm that they increase speaker points for anything unrelated to debating or norm-setting, I actively think less of you as a member of our community and feel immense second-hand embarrassment on your behalf.

7) Stick with debate. I emphatically believe is the best thing you can do with your time in high school.

My Quick Dos & Don'ts:

DO send me an email chain with your case/cards.

DO signpost your arguments.

DO be professional and respectful at all times.

DON'T spread.

DON'T run Ks.

Email: mgrdichian.kailey@iowacityschools.org

Longer Intro:

Hello all! I'm looking forward to your debate/speeches.

I have judged multiple tournaments before. In high school, I competed in the following events: Extemporaneous (1 year), Oratory (2 years), Informative (1 year), Policy (1 year), PF (2 years), and LD (1 year). This was on a different circuit, though, in Kansas City. So I may be unfamiliar with the regional jargon.

I generally DON'T like Ks. I want to hear your arguments on the assigned topic.

During debate, I try to keep a thorough flow of arguments. Clear signposting is key. I prefer a moderate rate of speaking, well-enunciated. PLEASE NO SPREADING! I value well-researched arguments supported by clear statistics/evidence. Anecdotes and hypotheticals are fine, but I don't find them as persuasive. I base my decision on the arguments, not on my beliefs on the topic. Multiple times, I've voted against my personal beliefs because that team presented strong and cohesive arguments.

I also think one or two dropped arguments doesn't automatically decide the round.

I prefer for competitors should be professional at all times during the round. Some behaviors I've witnessed and find unprofessional: shaking your head / making faces while the opponent is speaking, constantly interrupting/talking over the opponent during CX, and being on your phone. (Time keeping is fine. Yes, I've actually seen competitors text and play games on their phone during a round/session!)

High School Speech and Debate Experience: Congress, Public Forum, Duo Interpretation

Coaching Experience:Coach since 2019

Judging Experience:Judging since 2013--Congress, PF, All speech events

Preferences: Please watch speed reading and use of jargon--consider saying the full thing the first time around then shorting lingo/acronyms.

Notes:I do my best to take diligent notes on argumentation, speaking demeanor, performance, etc. as applicable by event. If I am not looking at you it is because I am trying to listen and make sure I record as much information as I can.

Argumentation and Style: Argumentation takes precedence over style for me. In other words, I care more about what you say rather than how you say it. Exceptions would be harassment/vulgarity/rudeness especially towards your fellow competitors. If you can't argue against someone without insulting them, you may not have as good of an argument as you think.

Pronouns: she / her

Style: I respond negatively to speakers who are rude, inappropriate/disrespectful, and grandstanding (my def = talking just to talk / pontificate).

Background: I have been teaching for 25 years in Iowa and Texas, and I have been Hoover's head debate coach for several years (and judged several years prior to that). I also have legal assistant training; this, too, informs my perspective as a judge.

I teach speech, argumentation, and persuasion daily – same concepts, different venue.

I’m here because I prize lifelong learning, and I find these experiences are fun, rewarding, and add insight into both my classroom teaching and debate coaching. I hope you, too, find these experiences fun and rewarding and that you learn and improve from each interaction… even if you don't win your round. :)

What I look for in a PF round:

I view my role in the round mainly as a trained observer and judge as teams do their work; I prefer teams to time themselves (and report the time) and I will rarely interrupt, direct, or ask for a card. However, I will note called cards and how they are subsequently used. If cards aren’t called or if points are left unchallenged, my assumption is your team agrees to their use – barring fundamentally untrue things ("racism good"). Note also that teams should extend the card’s argument and not just shorthand the author’s name.

Teams should independently, explicitly, at the beginning, address and agree upon how the round should be weighed; if not, my assumption is cost-benefit analysis.

I like roadmaps and prefer clear signposting throughout the round as these features allow all parties to be on the same page.

I can follow moderate speed – especially if it’s because you truly have a lot of strong links and evidence to present -- but if you go so fast that I miss your point, that’s on you. Same if you’re spreading or spending a lot of time talking but not actually saying anything, such as entire rounds spent on agreeing on definitions or other minutia.

Additionally, jargon doesn’t impress me; I spend my days breaking down jargon and complex topics for students, so I expect you to practice this real-world skill as well. Seeing your ability to adapt, contextualize, and show mastery without needing to resort to jargon is key for me.

During cross, ask questions to which you legitimately want answers and don't steamroll your opponents by interjecting so they can’t respond.

In your final focus, I prefer the focus to be on your case -- what are the main voters in the round and why your evidence should be preferred, why your impacts outweigh, why you should win, etc. – instead of your opponent’s case.

Joe Rankin

Bettendorf High School

jrankin@bettendorf.k12.ia.us

UPDATED: October 4th, 2022

I'm not sure what happened to my previous Paradigm that was posted, but it appears to have been erased/lost. My apologies as I just learned of this at the Simpson Storm tournament (Sat, Oct 1, 2022) this past weekend.

My name is Joe Rankin and I am the head coach at Bettendorf High School in Bettendorf, IA. I have been the head coach at Bettendorf since the 2005-2006 school year. I primarily coach Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Public Forum Debate, Congressional Debate, and Extemporaneous Speaking...however, I am familiar and have coached all NSDA sanctioned speech/debate events over my time at Bettendorf.

In terms of my coaching paradigm, I'd generally consider these the 'highlights:'

1. I prefer topical debate. The resolution was voted on by coaches and students through the NSDA voting process. That's what I want to hear about.
2. I can generally handle 'speed,' but that doesn't mean I enjoy it. I'd rather help you develop skills that you will actually utilize interacting with other human beings outside of this one particular subset of existence - so I'd much prefer a rate that is more akin to real-world applications.
3. You can make whatever arguments you want to make...but I generally haven't voted on many things associating with theory, kritiks (or however you want to misspell the word critique), or other generally non-topical arguments you make in the round. It takes more work for me to believe those types of arguments are true and not a whole lot of work to make me believe those types of arguments are generally false. So, I wouldn't encourage this type of argumentation in front of me.

I figure that is sufficient for now. If you have any questions, I tend to give you that window before the round begins while setting up to judge. If not, please feel free to ask before the round. The end goal of the round for me is a competitive academic environment that is focused on education. I don't mind answering questions that will help all of us improve moving forward.

PF

I am a judge who listens for Impacts on why your Impacts outweigh others. I am not a huge fan of speed. I am more concerned with the content of the speech rather than the amount of information given. I do understand the PF jargon. It is up to you to persuade me to vote for your side. I am not a huge fan of using FW and definitions as a weighing mechanism but will consider it if the other arguments are well-balanced. Make sure to clearly state your Impacts and how these impacts link to the resolution. I will do my best to flow the arguments presented. I am a judge who will listen to cross X but will only count it in my decision if there is no other way for me to vote.

Congress

Presiding officers:

I expect you to use preset recency unless otherwise determined by the competition. I pay attention to pre-session, in-session, and post-session politics and expect to see the presiding officer as a leader in those discussions. Remember that your job is to run things quickly while adhering to parliamentary procedure - Exercise your power if necessary, but don't skip the essential processes.To get a 6 from me, you must be efficient, clean, and commanding. Time signals should be obvious and consistent.

Structure: The structure of the round is extremely important - The first few speeches should be constructive, the next few speeches should be heavy on refutation and extension, and the final few speeches should crystallize the debate. Keep in mind that Congress is a debate event, so every speech past the author/sponsor needs engagement.

Your intro is a way to add value to your speech and enhance my understanding of the topic. I have a strong preference for intros that feel specific and unique to the particular bill at hand and your speech. If it feels generic or recycled, then I don't think it's a good use of your limited time.

Authorship and sponsorship speeches are very different from 2nd or 3rd pro speeches. Since you aren't being asked to refute, the expectation is that you frame the debate: set up the problem and how this bill addresses it.

Your contentions should be the most important reasons for the bill, not necessarily unique arguments that no one else thought of. 1st con should similarly help frame the debate for the neg side. There needs to be a clear warrant and impact. Avoid making assumptions of what we should/shouldn't know by being explicit with your logical steps to connect each cause and effect. Impacts should be the consequences that are reasons we should pass/fail a bill. Try not to reiterate points that have already been given unless you have a particularly unique perspective or piece of evidence to add to the debate.

Ethicality: Evidence is borrowed credibility; borrow honestly. A source should necessarily include its date & the publication in which it appeared, & should not be fabricated. No evidence is better than falsified evidence.

Presentation: Congressional Debate is the best blend of speech skills & debate ability; what you say is just as important as how you say it. The best speakers will maintain a balance of pathos, ethos, & logos in both their content & delivery style. There's a performance element and an argumentation element to each speech. Do not speak quickly and make sure to enunciate so you are clearly heard. Make sure that your tone doesn't change for your flow but that your tone changes for emphasis.

Participation: Tracking precedence & recency is a good way to participate – it helps keep the PO accountable, & demonstrates your knowledge of Parliamentary Procedure. Questioning is an integral part of Congress; I like thoughtful, incisive questioning that doesn’t become a shouting mach. Both your questions & your answers should be pertinent & to the point. Above all, I am a big fan of competitors who are as invested in making the chamber better as they are in bettering their own ranks.

Questioning: A skilled questioner either leads the speaker down a line of reasoning to where the speaker arrives at a conclusion that contradicts themselves or asks a question that immediately forces the speaker to acknowledge a hole in their argument. Furthermore, do not condescend, gaslight, or otherwise be rude to the speaker. Do not bring in new evidence. Keep the questions short and to the point.

Speech:

I have been coaching speech for 8 years. In terms of content, as long as the topic being covered is not vulgar or offensive, I am fine with it. In interop events, I want to understand the climax of the piece. Take me on a journey through your piece. Loud does not necessarily mean you will get a good score from me. Provide dynamics to the piece so that when you do go big, you catch me off guard. For the other categories, I want you to have structure in your speech. I want you to either convince me of your position or inform me about a topic or question you are presented with. Memorization is key!