Speech Paradigm

H! My name is Griffin. It is my pleasure to be your judge for speech. I have judged and coached circuits including NSDA, TOC, WSDA, NHSDLC, CHSSA and GGSA. All topics of speeches are acceptable to me and a more or less emotional piece, performance, speech topic or approach will not automatically score you higher in a round.

Foundational speaking skills are taken heavily into consideration when judging a performance.

Volume -Being clearly heard and not too quiet is essential for engagement with the audience.
Gestures -A moderate balance of gestures are important for visual engagement of the speaker or your characters during a performance.
Eye Contact - Eye contact with an audience shows confidence as well as creates further visual engagement with an audience.
Memorization - Memorized pieces are required in order to score at the top of a round. Memorization means fluency and shows the dedication and practice
Stumbling - If you stumble, fumble your words or other spoken errors. Do not worry, just breathe and continue. You want your speech as confidence as possible.
Emotion - Passion, emotion and tone are very important for conveying the mood of your words to an audience
Stage Presence - A strong speaker will captivate the stage and will make for a much higher score over the course of a round.
Content - If your content is too simple, or not depthful, it will most likely hurt my interest in your piece

Remember to have fun, performance is a gift. You are all very talented and should be proud of your performance.

Debate Paradigm

Hi! My name is Griffin. It is my pleasure to be your judge for debate. I have judged and coached circuits including NSDA, TOC, WSDA, NHSDLC, CHSSA and GGSA. I approach debates with an open-mind and no inherent bias towards any argument pro or con. Tech, Circuit, Flow Judge. This means I take notes on everything and prioritize technical arguments and abilities over emotional narratives.

Very Important

I am not a fan of judge interference. This means I do not like to interject or connect the dots for your team. Succinct explanations are essential for me to be willing to favor your arguments. Lines like, "this helps all of the economy, or this helps society be better" without any explanation is going to be a meaningless sentence. Furthermore, saying "we had bigger impacts, or we have more evidence" without explanation will also hold zero weight in my considerations for your team.

Views on Evidence vs Analytics

1. Firstly, analytics are not a substitute for evidence. This means that you cannot say you have proven a point which is solely built on conjecture and expect me to believe it.
   
   
2. Secondly, evidence must be portrayed accurately. I will ask for a card myself if I feel it is not accurate or too perfectly read. Misrepresented evidence will hurt the overall persuasiveness of your argument.
   
   
3. Thirdly, I weigh evidence as having more value than analytics. This means that if you try to outweigh or deny an argument with solely logic, it will most likely not hold in weight or persuasiveness compared to an effective piece of evidence.

General Things

1. I live for the line-by-line debating.
2. A rebuttal that clearly signposts which part of a contention you are responding to will be taken more effectively.
3. Direct responses with warrants are taken at more value over indirect general responses.
4. Line-by-line frontlines with signposts will be taken at more value than indirect general responses.
5. Spreading is fine for me, and I will not count against it you as long as the speaker has clarity.
6. If you insult your opponent during cross-examination with an attack outside the scope of the debate, I will vote against your team.
7. I flow crossfire examination and take heavy consideration on what happens during crossfire. That being said, if you keep cutting your opponent off and then say, "they did not respond to our points," I will not take that comment at any value. Let your opponent answer the question.
8. Clashes which clearly establish the impact weighing mechanisms (probability, magnitude, timeframe, scope, reversibility) are very effective.
9. No new arguments in Final Focus. New arguments will not be flowed or given any weight in the debate.

Expectations:

Clarity: Clear communication is crucial. Speak at a pace that allows for understanding and enunciation of arguments.

Argumentation: Present well-developed arguments supported by evidence and logic. I value quality over quantity.

Clash: Engage with your opponents' arguments and provide meaningful rebuttals. Directly address the key points of contention.

Weighing: Provide comparative analysis and weigh the impacts of competing arguments. Show why your side's impacts outweigh those of your opponents.

Respect: Maintain professionalism and respect for your opponents throughout the round. Adhere to time limits and avoid disrespectful behavior.

Thank you and I look forward to watching and judging.

Judge Philosophies

1. Judge’s Name 2. Tell us about your debate judging experience.

a. I have judged Public Forum debate for more than a year.

3. Tell us about your debating experience.

a. I have debated other formats for more than a year, but not Public Forum.

4. What is your speaking speed preference?

a. TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

5. How much do you know about the topic?

a. I pay attention to this topic, but I don’t go out of my way to know about it.

6. Do you think the second rebuttal speaker should be expected to respond directly to the first rebuttal speaker (frontlining)?

a. Yes, if the second rebuttal doesn’t respond to the first rebuttal, I consider it a dropped argument.

7. How important is the flow (your notes) in making your decision? What do you write down in your notes?

a. It’s not that important. I tend to judge the debate more wholistically.

8. What factors go into your decision as to who wins the debate?

a. How teams resolve issues, how substantiated the claims and responses are, and lastly, whether or not there is fair engagement to each discussion

9. Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you?

a. I appreciate it when teams can weigh their contributions directly

1. Judge's Name: Mezen Lababidi

2. Debate Judging Experience: I have been judging parliamentary debates for 4 years and public forum debates for over a year.

3. Debating Experience: I have ben actively debating in the parliamentary format for the last 5 years.

4. Speaking Speed Preference: Conversational speed (120-150wpm)

5. Knowledge of the Topic: I have very little background knowledge about the topic. Please make sure I understand any topic-specific ideas or language you use.

6. If the second rebuttal doesn’t respond to the first rebuttal, I consider it a dropped argument.

7. I tend to judge the debate more holistically.

Will Scott

Academic Director, TOC Asia
Coaching (primarily PF and OO) in China for over 9 years, Debated policy debate at Liberty for 3 years (2009-12: Nukes, Immigration, Democracy Assistance topics), coached policy at James Madison for 2 years(2013-2015). Did speech in high school (Primarily OO and Extemp).

PF:

-Speed is ok if you are clear. I still flow by hand, so I need pen time. If you speak really fast and don't make it clear when you are changing contentions/cards, you run the risk of me missing it on the flow.

-If it's not in the final focus, I won't vote for it.

-If there's nothing in the summary I can connect the final focus argument to, I'm very unlikely to vote for it.

-If it's only in crossfire and never explained in a speech, I'm very unlikely to vote for it.

-If there's a clear framework, I will evaluate the debate based on that framework. That doesn't mean you automatically win the round because you win the framework, just that I will look at the round through the lens of that framework.

-If the ballot is supposed to be something other than who wins the largest impact make sure I am aware of what you want me to do with the ballot.

-Stealing prep annoys me. Your speaker points will suffer.

-I don't have a defined preference as far as 2nd rebuttal frontlining the 1st.

OO/Informative

-You're not gonna change what you do for me. Speak clearly, do what you do, and have fun!

-If you're looking at this before the tournament, know that one of my biggest things is that I look for a preview in speeches. I will tend to write down the preview and use that to follow the body. If the speech has a clear preview that it actually follows then I will be very happy.

Extemp:

-I expect to see a clear structure and a clear thesis. While I generally keep up with current events, you should assume I have less knowledge than you on your topic and should explain thusly.

Policy:

I've been out of policy debate for about a decade. I have students who've gone on to compete in policy and am aware the community has changed over the past decade, but I haven't judged a policy round since the CEDA final round in 2015. My flowing speed probably isn't what it used to be. I'm also a dinosaur that flows on paper so I will need time to write. I'm going to need you to slow down a bit and make sure I'm following. It's unlikely I'm going to follow along in your speech doc- I'm gonna write what I'm hearing and then use the speech doc to help me resolve disagreements you have in the round that are close enough for me to go to the doc.

Argument-wise, I'll be open to what you ask me to vote on provided it's not an argument that involves denigrating the debate community or those in the activity. That is VERY DIFFERENT from criticizing and calling out problems in debate. When I debated policy I ran different styles of argument. My first couple years it was policy affs and a mix of neg strategies, and my third and last year we ran a planless kritikal aff and one-off race-based arguments. I'm sure there are things that have changed in debate style over the past decade, so my best advice for you is to do what you do, do it well, and be sure to explain what you're doing so I know what to do with my ballot.

Judge Paradigm:

As a PF coach and experienced judge, I take a tabula rasa approach, meaning I come into each round with a neutral mindset and allow the debaters to set the framework and define the lens through which the round should be evaluated. I do not impose personal preferences or biases but expect debaters to clearly explain how I should weigh their arguments.

I am a flow judge, so organization is key. I will carefully track arguments throughout the round, and I expect debaters to do the same, responding to key points rather than letting important issues drop. Clear, strategic extension of arguments in summary and final focus is critical.

Impact weighing is a priority for me. I appreciate when teams explain why their impacts are more significant in the context of the round, especially in the summary and final focus. Effective comparison of impacts will help me make my decision.

I value clarity and accessibility in argumentation. Public Forum should remain understandable, so I prefer well-structured, logical arguments that are free of excessive jargon. Debaters should explain complex ideas in a way that’s digestible without sacrificing depth.

I give weight to evidence-based arguments, but simply presenting evidence isn’t enough. Debaters should tie their evidence back to their broader narrative and explain its relevance. I also appreciate when teams challenge the quality or relevance of their opponents’ evidence in a meaningful way.

Finally, communication matters. Strong delivery, clear articulation, and persuasive speaking make a big difference. Debaters who can engage with me through confident, effective communication and adapt to the flow of the round stand out.