I like a nicely structured debate. Making the framework and definitions clear is important. However, I do not like for this to carry on. Make the structure clear and move on. You should not still be debating what the framework is in your last rebuttals.

I look for quality sources, not quantity

Debates that build off each other are the best. Don't debate at me, debate with your opponent.

I also look for speaking style. Since I am primarily a speech judge, I take speaking skills into account. Mumbling, speaking monotonously, over using hand movements, and stumbling will rank you lower.

Lastly, I just want the argument to make sense. Don't give me a convoluted, overly complex argument. Make it make sense.

I am a Class of 2024 Extemporaneous Speaking and Impromptu competitor, with competition experience in LD/Congress and teaching experience in all major events on the NC East District Circuit. Here are some things I tend to look for when judging:

Interp Events: How well did you suspend my belief and pull me into your message/story? Can I distinguish between your characters? Is your piece fluid and coherent in storytelling from start to finish? Does blocking compliment the story being told? These are questions I typically use to separate the best from the best.

Platform Events: These events will be judged on the presentation of ideas, its relevance/significance, and solid delivery, in that order. I really love judging these events because I feel like I'm learning something with each piece, and these three key elements really help accomplish your message. Make sure your humor is tasteful and relevant.

Limited Prep Events: Analysis/Connection to topic is number one. Do you have a thesis and clear signposting, are your arguments organized in a way that they build on each other? Does your introduction tie back to your conclusion nicely? Do you have quality sources, and do they build upon your arguments (quality > quantity)? Next comes delivery. Is your speech delivered in a way that compliments your argument? Is enough time given to each individual argument/point? Inflections, enunciation, diction, rhetorical impacts, confident delivery, hand gestures- these elements add to your speech and can set students apart.

PF/LD: I will be flowing your arguments most of the time just out of habit. Make sure your arguments are well developed with substantial warranting, as I'll be primarily judging you off how well you build arguments. Developing your arguments and challenging your opponents with counterarguments are equally important. I appreciate when debates consider larger implications and are not limited to a specific scope. I'm a former speech competitor, so good articulation and delivery is important to me. Not a huge fan of spreading, if you're going a million miles a minute, I probably won't be able to follow you too well- especially without clear diction. Also, I understand debate gets heated in the moment, but please exhibit decorum because it really is an essential part of keeping a debate productive.

Congress: The biggest thing I look for in Congress is how well you add to a debate. Be actively involved in building arguments in speeches and questioning. I don't enjoy rehash and get bored after the same arguments have been read several times. Delivery and presentation are considered and can separate tied debaters. Follow the rules of the chamber and exhibit decorum in round, it'll be noticed.

Good luck and have fun! I'm excited to see what you've prepared :)

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! During my 3 years in Speech and Debate I qualified for NATS 3 times and attended twice. I competed in DP, Duo, and impromptu. I placed 1st in DUO in our district in 2023, and 2nd in DP in 2024. I am very excited to judge you all but here are something that I pay attention to:

• Speed
• Blocking
• 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! Speech and Debate is not all about winning, it’s about expression. If you love it, use it as an outlet and that’s when you will truly succeed.

I competed under Jackie Foote in the early 90's in Policy Debate and Student Congress, Nats Alt for Congress, triple-ruby. I know the game but the scenery has changed. Public school teacher of 18yrs. Navy Nuclear Engineering veteran.

All Events: Be polite and professional. Derisive attitudes and poor intellectual sportsmanship will lose the round.

PF: I can follow fast flows and take notes. I pay attention to your defined voter criteria and issues. Squirrely arguments are ok if supported but I don't chase squirrels if they're unattended red herrings. Unanswered arguments are easy wins if you emphasize them. I will not fill-in-the-blanks for you but I love to cross-apply arguments when you indicate so and provide germane analysis.

LD: Looking for true clash and contrast between competitors. Provide me moral hierarchies and I'll vote for them. Otherwise, as above for PF.

Congress: Professional demeanor affects points. Familiarity with Robert's Rules of Order gains favor. Speak as if you are in a chamber of legislators with serious resolutions. Cordial cross-ex that sets up your next speech is impressive; using your CX to give a speech is not so. I respect PO's that are fair with speech priority, maintain decorum, and keep the chamber moving and speaking.

IE Speech: Entertain me. Move me. I'll laugh. I'll cry right there. I'll rank you up. Epitomize humanity and win.