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.

Hello! I am a former high school debater for Okoboji where I did LD all three years. Currently a high school science teacher and NSDA speech and debate coach for Waukee High School. This is my third year of coaching and judging. I frequently judge LD and IEs.

rowens@waukeeschools.org

DEBATE:

tldr: I flow and should hear clear extensions, turns, and weighing; Speed is fine, but check with your opponents before spreading; be thorough and respectful.

PF: I am more traditional in PF - this event was created to be accessible to all. Some speed is fine, arguments should be warranted with evidence or logic.

Flow: I will judge based on what I've flowed and what you tell me the voters are. Evidence should be prevalent and should also be clearly linked and explained. Don't just read a card without telling us why it's important. When extending, tell us what you're extending and why. You do not need to reread the entire card or your entire point when extending, but make sure we know why it should be extended

Speed: Speaking quickly is fine, but it should not come at the price of your clarity or depth of argument. I prefer not to flow spreading, especially on the local circuit. If myself AND your opponents are not able to keep up, you need to slow and speak clearer. Debate should still be accessible to all, so please check with your opponents on whether they are comfortable with spreading before the round

Weighing: Need to link to your framework; if what you're weighing doesn't match the value/criterion of the round, it won't have much strength.

Theory, Ks, etc: Have limited experience running and responding to these in LD. Generally not preferred in the local circuit or PF. If you make a warranted argument or there is a legit rules violation, I will judge it. I will not automatically vote against you for running it, but these are not the preferred main arguments to be run.

Speaks: Generally give speaks between 26-29. Use your time, try to make solid arguments, respond to your opponents, be courteous during the round for higher speaks. Lower speaks if you are rude, make short speeches without addressing all relevant arguments, or are lying.

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.

LD

I have judged LD a few times so I am familiar with the structure of the round. My suggestion for you to win my ballot is to lay out your arguments for or against the topic and convince me why your side means more than the other. I do not appreciate speed when presenting your arguments. I am a quality over quantity when it comes to judging. If you try any tricks, theory, or K's, I will not be able to vote for your side. I have extensive experience judging PF and know argumentation and Impacts. This will help you win your round with me.

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!