Hello all! This is my third time judging, I did debate in high school (LD, Congress) and am in college debate. I am familiar with the main components across the debate formats (Advantages, DAs, uniqueness, etc.) and have second-hand familiarity with most speech formats.

Debate:

TLDR: yay to organization, signposting, clear argumentation, clash, and voters/impact calculus

I judge primarily based on flow, but it is important that the arguments you make are well-developed and it is clear how your analysis and evidence work together. Going into the round, assume I have minimal knowledge on the topic. Whether or not that is the case, I will be doing my best not to bring in prior knowledge of the topic, nor opinions on it. While it is not your responsibility to educate those in the room on the minutiae of the topic, please elaborate on the most important aspects of the resolution's implications (i.e., if the resolution is "States should cooperate to decrease reliance on fossil fuels" assume I know what fossil fuels are, but not what the UN's Climate and Clean Air Coalition does).

I appreciate sign-posting and clear organization. I will do my best to flow all speeches in detail; I take next to no notes in CX, so please elaborate on arguments made in the CX. You cannot win based on something brought up only during CX and in your last speech. Make sure to emphasize the most important parts of your argument throughout the debate. If your opponent drops one of your arguments, make sure to point that out as well -- if you don't, I will assume you dropped it too. I can handle a relatively high speaking pace, but please avoid spreading.

If your debate format uses a weighing mechanism or framework, make sure to evaluate the fitness of your arguments against it and contrast yours and your opponent's. I am okay with theory, K's, and progressive LD, but their use needs to justified and be a coherent and logical argument -- I will not vote on theory alone unless all other arguments in the round are dropped by both sides. If your event is prepared, make sure to have cards supporting links and anything outside of common knowledge. For all debate formats, make sure you present good evidence and argumentation that support one another and respond to the resolution. For Parli, make sure to engage with your opponents' ideas, attacking the lack or presence of specific evidence only when it is justified. For LD, simply preferring one of the debaters' frameworks does not win the round, your contentions need to work within the framework as well.

Do your best to keep time yourself, though I will do so also to the extent possible. Off-time roadmaps are always appreciated! If you go overtime, feel free to finish your thought, but I will not be flowing once time stops, so don't make any new points.

Speech:

I never competed in Speech events, but have judged Extemp and DI. I am a lay judge and will do my best to understand the specifics of the format as laid out in NSDA's Competition Events Guide (https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Combined-Competition-Events-At-A-Glance_2023-10-12.pdf) and on the NSDA's Intro to Judging Speech training. I weigh both presentation and content.

Let me know if you would like time signals.

Most of all, have fun! Ask me before the round if you have any questions :)

Overall:

• I am generally a tabula rasa judge, except for situations in which a generally untrue claim is made (Ex: Climate Change Denial, Vaccine Skepticism, Other likewise false claims of fact).

• Heavy use of debate jargon or lingo will not automatically get you better speaker points.

• Please do not spread or needlessly talk fast, unless absolutely necessary.

• Signpost contentions.

• When giving voters speeches, be extremely clear what your voting issues are (Ex: “We won on the issue of solvency because of x, y, and z”).

• I am okay kritiks as long as you give substantial backing (arguments and evidence) to why one for the round ought to be considered in the first place.

• Only use Topicality Shells when absolutely necessary (example: an opponent’s weighing mechanism or definition is very out of topic, and it disrupts the purpose or coherence of the debate).

For Parli:

• Use questions to not an excessive amount. The opponent only has so much time to speak, and there are no cross examination segments. I would say limit yourself to 3 to 5 questions per speech (excluding voters and protected time where questions are not allowed).

For Prepared Debate Formats (LD, Policy, etc.):

• Although cards are absolutely necessary for such formats, I will not disqualify your argument if you do not have cards to back it up.

• When making arguments between cards and knowledge based evidence, cards are not innately better. Arguments made against evidence based on pure knowledge should only attack the validity of its analysis, rather than its validity on whether it comes from a card or not.

Hello anyone who is reading this! My name is Lorelai Sassenfeld. (yes, like the Gilmore Girls)

Basics:

Name) Lorelai Sassenfeld

Pronouns) any / all

Current Affiliation) University of Oregon Undergraduate

Past Experience) High School Debate- Franklin High School (El Paso, Texas)- UIL, TFA, NATIONAL CIRCUIT

Events Competed In) LD, Congress, Extemporaneous Speaking, POI, Policy, and Public Forum

Overview:

I am from Texas. I am versed in traditional and progressive debate. I am OK with spreading, but do so with caution: you should never spread so much that your opponent is unable to keep up. Be respectful of your opponents. I am versed in most philosophical concepts. If you are running anything philosophy based, give me which author you are basing your philosophy off of. Sources are important- give them clearly and with a date. Speak clearly and persuasively. Blocking and visual appeal is important to many events. Speech style is key. Be clear and intentional with whatever you are conveying. Speech and debate is about communication.

If there is an email chain/ speechdrop: add me! lorelai@uoregon.edu

Event Specific:

Debate)

Lincoln Douglas (LD)-

• I prefer traditional LD, but I will evaluate progressive arguments and cases equally if presented.
• Values + Criterion are key in LD debate and should be emphasized
• Be respectful during CX.
• I enjoy evaluation + extension of sources and arguments.
• Arguments that go beyond a simple "pro" or "con" of the resolution will be weighed heavier.

Policy (CX)-

• Your links must be clearly represented. I will be skeptical of "x causes nuclear destruction" without clear and persuasive links.
• Show uniqueness. I believe uniqueness is the most important aspect of policy.
• Clarity is key. I feel like clarity is a lost art in policy. I would prefer a few, strong, developed, and CLEAR arguments over a ton of surface level arguments.
• Spread if you'd like, but do not spread your opponent out of the round and be clear.

Congress (CON)-

• Don't use AI. This goes for any form of speech and debate and should go without saying. However, I've found that AI use in congress specifically has been sucking the life out of the event.
• Arguments with depth/ nuance are weighed higher than basic "pros" and "cons." Are there precedents being set if we pass this legislation? Are there unseen international consequences? Why?
• Please clash. If we are only bringing up new points with no direct clash with points other representatives have made, it isn't debate. I value clash highly.

Public Forum (PF)-

• Clarity is key in Public Forum.
• When evidence is clashing, tell me why I should prefer your evidence specifically.
• Recency of sources is considered, as PF is about current events. Please include dates with your sources.
• This is the format I have the least experience with. Bear with me. Be respectful.

Parlimentary Debate-

• I understand this event has limited prep time, focus on giving clear speeches that include points with depth.
• Sources are necessary, but do not overuse them. You have limited time. Use sources with key points.
• Parlimentary debate was not a thing in Texas. I'm still learning about this event. Bear with me.
• Clash is important.

Speech)

Extemporaneous Speaking (DX/ IX)+ Impromptu (IMP)-

• Restate the question. If the question is incredibly long, I don't mind if you paraphrase it. I've been there.
• Topicality is necessary. Please stay on topic.
• I personally enjoy extemporaneous speeches that not only just "give 3 reasons why x will or won't happen," but explain the deeper ideological processes + inter-workings of the societies in the question.
• Body language + confidence add a lot to your speech.
• Sources are necessary, include dates.

Informative (INFO)-

• Clear transitions are big and necessary.
• Keep repetition to a minimum
• Interesting visuals will help, but speech quality and style are the most important thing.

Original Oratory (OO)-

• Solutions presented should be multi-faceted.
• Topics that are in depth and unique are more enjoyable to me.
• Speech style and quality are key.
• Similar to INFO: Clear transitions are big and necessary.

Interpretation)

DUO & DUET-

• Chemistry in DUO and DUET partners adds to a performance.
• Loud does not equal funny.
• Story should be clear and intentional.
• Creative blocking will get you higher points with me.

Humorous Interpretation (HI) and Dramatic Interpretation (DI)-

• Loud does not equal funny.
• A broad range of emotional appeal, whether that be through multiple appeals to humor or to sadness, makes any HI or DI much stronger.
• Your source material should match the spirit of the event. Carrie by Stephen King is not a humorous story.
• Creative blocking will get you higher points with me.

Program Oral Interpretation (POI)-

• Smooth transitions heavily improve a performance.
• Creative use of binder is awesome. I am picky on using a binder as a prop though. Please use within the rules of the events.
• Sources should be cohesive together. Make your piece clear in its intentions.

Overall, I will do my best to judge you and your performances holistically as long as you remain respectful to your opponents, judges, and debate as a sport. If you have any questions on my paradigm-> feel free to ask me before the round begins.

EMAIL

schmittkyla@gmail.com

BIO

Hey, I'm Kyla! I did speech and debate throughout high school (class of '20); I spent the most time in public forum, but I also did some parli, a little policy, and (once) BQD. Now, in college, I do CARD—which is pretty much just policy for schools that don't do policy.

PARADIGM

Housekeeping

Yes, I'm fine with off-time roadmaps (page order only, please), self-timing, and open cross (just don't abuse it, and don't talk over your partner when they are the lead examiner/examinee). Speed is cool, but I dislike spreading that lacks clarity (i.e., please make sure you're saying intelligible words). I'm generally not going to flow off the email chain—it's your job to be understandable and clear in your speaking about the things you really want me to factor into my decision.

Philosophy

I strive to be tabula rasa, unless whatever you’re saying exceeds my most generous levels of reasonable doubt. In other words, I'll do my best not to let any implicit argument not made in the round influence my decision—however, I will also not vote on arguments that I know to be blatant misinformation (e.g., that the "median American voter" would know to be untrue). That being said, it's still your job as debaters to oppose these arguments when you encounter them. I'll probably make a note of it on your ballot if you don't.

As for what I personally value, evidence is important and I will weigh it as such, but I LOVE analytics and would much rather hear incisive analysis in your own words than just a bunch of cards read at me. I will pretty much automatically like teams that actually engage in substantive in-round clash, evidence analysis, etc.

Speech Organization

Throughout the round, please signpost and be organized in your responses and extensions. I love a good, orderly line-by-line analysis, and I strongly dislike not knowing where to flow your arguments (I’m coaching/judging a debate tournament—there’s a 99% chance I’m going to be sleep-deprived, so make your arguments easy to follow). If you have time, overviews are great. In your last speech, be clear about why you've won. Voting becomes harder (and more biased) when you don't give me explicit, technical reasons why I should vote a certain way. Substantive voters, impact calc, or comparing worlds are a few good ways to do this. My personal preference is for impact calc.

First, I usually flow on paper, so please avoid spreading, well developed arguments are more important than saying as much as possible. I am not particularly well versed in philosophy, so be sure to clearly explain any concepts.

I am a tabula rasa judge, unless a claim is blatantly false. Going into a round, assume I have minimal knowledge on the topic, as I will be doing my best to not bring in my prior knowledge or opinions on a topic in the round, so make sure relevant details to the resolution are explained. I will weigh impacts as you say I should, if you don't have clear impact calc I will make a decision based on who most clearly defends their case.

Sign-posting and clear organization are much appreciated. I will do my best to put everything on the flow, but make sure to mention your most important arguments through the debate.

Be sure to point out if your opponents drop an argument, point it out, otherwise I will assume you have dropped it as well.

Off-time roadmaps should only outline structure, not be topical.

If your form of debate utilizes evidence, be honest in representing your sources. As a note, I do prefer arguments to be backed up solidly by evidence if your format is evidence-based.

Finally, and most importantly, have fun, be kind to your opponents, and feel free to ask me any questions before the round starts.