School Association; if none please say "none"

Conflicts: Please list any schools or students that you should be coded against including: alum of school, students you currently coach, or students you or your students work with.

Please explain your judging experience.

Explain what you expect to see in speaking events. What makes contestants stand out?

Explain what you expect to see in interp. events. What makes performers stand out?

Explain what you want to see in a debate round.

In a debate round, do you prefer traditional or progressive debates?

What speed is appropriate for debate rounds?

What do you want to see in rebuttals?

Spring Woods High School

Spring Woods High School

Speech & Debate for two years in high school (2011-2013), Judged for Spring Woods 21-22, Assistant Coach for Spring Woods 22-23

Presentation that clearly demonstrates their personal investment in their chosen topic OR knowledge about a topic and the ability to contextualize said knowledge

Embodying a character through a practiced, smooth vocal and physical performance.

Less spreading so arguments can actually be understood.

No Debate for me please :-)

On a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being maximum spread, 5 or lower.

No Debate for me please :-)

Parent of Mohammad Gowher

Judged prior debate tournament for another family member in an out of state district

Preparedness, thorough understanding, and communication skills

Oration, rebuttal performance, and subject matter awareness

Active debate, frequent rebuttals and engaging

Either format is acceptable

Comfortable speed where articulation is understood

Westchester Academy for International Studies

Coach WSD for 5 years; have judged IX in tournaments.

answer the question with multiple points and credible evidence in an organized and fluent speech

Not judging interp

not judging debate

No Debate for me please :-)

conversational speed

No Debate for me please :-)

The Village School and Alief Early College

Well written speeches

No Debate for me please :-)

No Debate for me please :-)

10+ years of speech & debate. See tabroom paradigm.

Proper analysis of sources and statistics.

Synchronizing into character with fluid delivery

Weighing and clash

Either format is acceptable

Morton Ranch High School

I've judged and coached for the last 9 years at the National, State and Local levels

A natural, not-overly-rehearsed style with solid analysis - I don't want the performer to just let the sources do the work. I want to see the wheels turning in the performer's brain as they analyze the evidence in the context of their speech.

Dramatic events - I like to see variety with a little bit of comic relief. Also, screaming does not equal angry, find more interesting ways of interpreting that. Humorous event - it's all about timing and multifaceted characters. Please do not rely on weird stereotypes to distinguish the characters.

Clash clash clash. Speed is fine so long as you sign post/slow down on the tags. No performance, no skits, no roasts, etc.

Traditional framework with voting issues

Not too fast, please.

I have 4 years of high school speech and PF experience, the later two years I was assistant coach before I graduated in 2020. Since then I have been a volunteer and contract speech, IE and PF judge in several local and online tournaments.

In speaking events I look mistily for solid lines and reason that can easily be understood without filling in many of the blanks myself. I also look for correct sentence structure and points that don’t contradict with each other.

In interp I look for commitment to character while maintaining the proper format and staying within the traditional interp guidelines. I also look for purpose in a piece and how relevant the overall message of the piece is. I have a large theatrical background so I love to see the nature of performances in the choices made and believability of the characters. I like to see if performances come off as rehearsed or naturally occurring as well.

In debate I look for solid lines or reason and no contradicting arguments. I also look for the overall quality of speeches and ability to address rebuttals effectively.

Either format is acceptable

I don’t mind students speaking quickly but not to the extent of hindering their ability to be understood and comprehended.

4th year judging local and state tournaments

Clear organization. Strongest oratories have unique perspectives and are dialectical. Extemp speeches should convey an understanding of the issue while answering question.

Clarity of interpretation and performance. Best performances begin with a clear and engaging story. Emotions have arcs. I do not like performances that are one note throughout.

Move the debate. No need for overviews or rehashing explanations of arguments if already presented. Please weigh, I cannot evaluate without metrics.

Traditional framework with voting issues

I judge a lot and I judge pretty much every event. Not the best for Interp events. Full record on Tabroom.

Full Paradigm is on Tabroom - but, in summary, I want to see polished delivery, an argument that makes sense and is constructed well, and I want to learn something or be enlightened by the performance. Extempers have to answer the question and generally will do better if they are synthesizing the "why" behind the question.

Full paradigm on Tabroom - in summary, I want to see a well-constructed story that has meaning being performed well. I likely will pay more attention to technical aspects of the performance than overall "how did this make me feel" questions because of my background in debate. Connection to characters is important - being loud for the sake of being loud is painful.

Full paradigm on Tabroom - in summary, I want to see carefully researched and thoughtful debates that are in some way related to the topic. I reward good research and good strategy. I strongly dislike lazy debating, will flow carefully, and will make decisions based on what I have flowed. I have no strong ideological preferences for or against any arguments. More line by line is good, but students should take care to intelligently compare arguments in the rebuttal speeches to put the pieces of the round together for me.

Either format is acceptable

Speed is rarely an issue. Debaters must be clear. I will not flow off of a speech document.

20 years NSDA/TFA mostly CX, some LD, a little speech

Organization, fluency, knowledge of topic are the main things. Then I begin to factor in non-verbals like paralanguage, body language, pausing, etc. as tiebreakers.

Difficulty of selection and movements. Delivery and range of characters.

Line by line debate. offense/defense

Either format is acceptable

10+ years interp and extemp, less than 2 years PF/LD, 0 years CX.

Delivery is very important to me. Be careful of overusing gestures, make sure they have a purpose and enhance what you say. I want to see you connected to sharing your speech, not simply reciting something you memorized. While I do tend to notice style before content, it is important that your content is accurate and adequately supported. The content of the speech and the way it flows is important. I also look at diction and rate of delivery. In info, I do like fun interactive visuals—but they need to enhance your speech, not be there just to fill space. Overall, I want you to be excited about your speech and to have fun delivering it.

I am looking for honest connection to character and to text. Blocking should be motivated by the text and make sense for the character. I look for using vocal variety to add to the text and really paint a picture. I want you to really connect and tell the story. I also look for an overall arc of the story, clear beat changes, and clear emotion. I also look for clean diction and an appropriate rate of speech. Additionally, environment should be clear and blocking should be clean. In single events, I want to see the connection to your “other” (who are you sharing this with in the context of the story). In partner events, I want to see you really connect to each other. If you play more than one character, I am looking for clear and clean differences between the characters. Overall, tell your story. Connect to character, and share that with the audience.

Congress - Don't speed through your speeches, speed matters to me. Style matters to me as well, I am looking for structured arguments with clean rhetoric that comes in a polished package. Introduce new arguments. In questioning, I look for fully answering questions while also furthering your argument. I notice posture and gestures -- and they do matter to me. As far as PO's go, I typically start them at 4 or 5, and they will go up or down depending on how clean the round runs.

PF - I try to flow pretty carefully, but please make sure you reiterate important points as they become useful to your argument.

Speed is okay, as long as I can understand you.

Articulation matters to me. I would rather you speak a little slower and not get caught up in what you are saying.

I really look for you to answer each other’s attacks on cases, not just repeat what you have already told me if it doesn't address the opposing case.

Giving me a clear road map and sticking to it always helps.

If a team is misrepresenting evidence, make it clear to me and tell me how they are doing so.

Overall, I want you to tell me why you are right AND why they are wrong. Make sure you are backing up your claims with evidence and statistics.

Traditional framework with voting issues

I prefer slow enough to understand

Fort Bend ISD Travis High School

Fort Bend ISD Travis High School

I have been an assistant coach for 6 years

I consider speech events to be an excellent way for student's to have real-world practice in conveying their thoughts and beliefs. I enjoy listening to speech events that show a speaker's range as it pertains to vocal tonality, personality and knowledge. I look for clear preparation and organization through details brought fourth in the introduction, body and conclusion. Sources should be clearly stated and expanded on. I want to hear content on social, political and educational topics that revolve around current events. Adding in personal touches when appropriate are also appreciated.

I consider debate a communications event. Please present your arguments using a professional and conversational style. I prefer a traditional style of debate and am big on speaker clarity. I’m okay with a speaking pace a bit faster than ‘normal’ conversation but avoid monotone speaking and inhibited breathing! Do not spread. Better evidence is more important than more evidence. Sources matter! Evidence isn’t an argument; it should support arguments. Be sure to extend your arguments, especially after they’ve been attacked. Take advantage of Cross-ex to set up arguments for the rest of the round. Topics reflect concerns in our society, so take it seriously and do not waste my time with case approaches that do not consider the framers’ intent. My vote is based on the arguments you and your opponent present. Please don’t be jerky or rude – it will cost you speaker points!

Traditional framework with voting issues

High school and collegiate competitor, have been judging high school since 2016

- developed character/story
- multi faceted character/not flat
- clear intro

No Debate for me please :-)

No Debate for me please :-)

No Debate for me please :-)

No Debate for me please :-)

Competed in High School

Displaying strong delivery skills, Good sources supporting their argument.

Strong characterization & Blocking, feeling confident in the piece and executing it well.

No Debate for me please :-)

No Debate for me please :-)

Judge all the time. TFA, NSDA and UIL

Organization, clarity in delivery, variety of sources

Strong characters, effective movements, clarity in delivery

Line by line, strong sources, direct clash

Either format is acceptable

Clarity is key, speed should not be excessive

9 years of judging Texas circuit tournaments + 4 years of competition experience

Structure, analysis, and fluid speaking styles

Consistent characterization, body language, and a well structured cutting

Make it clear why your side won the round at the end!

Either format is acceptable

I have coached for the 7 years.

A clear structure is important: your delivery should be cohesive and flow logically from point to point. A natural delivery style that allows for your personality to shine is preferable to the “Platform Speaker”. Put simply: avoid speech patterns.

Extemp: The most important thing is that you answer the question! A polished speaking style is important, but I will often default to a speaker that has stronger analysis and evidence over a pretty speech with fluffy content. Do not rely on canned introductions - creativity is important when trying to engage me.

Oratory/Informative: Your attention-getter, vehicle, and conclusion should be creative, but they also need to fit well with the topic. I will default to stronger analysis/evidence over fluffy content.

My rankings are usually based on who is able to create the most believable characters and moments. There should be multiple levels within your piece and in the portrayal of your characters ~ not everything should be intense, or fast/slow, or super loud or quiet.

Everything you do in your performance should have a purpose. If you give a character an accent, be consistent with that accent. Make sure that each movement, mannerism, or gesture makes sense within the scope of the story you are telling. Additionally, I should be able to easily differentiate between multiple characters. Facial expressions, moments, and character development are very important for the overall performance.

Debate is al communication event.

No Debate for me please :-)

Speed is fine. I will let you know if I can't flow you.

No Debate for me please :-)

Previous competing student, coach and contract judge

I expect to see proficient speaking in whatever topic being presented. Also, I expect great diction, volume and interest into the subject presented.

I expect to see active, interactive and eye-catching acting. I expect to see a followable plot and also character development (depending on the event).

No Debate for me please :-)

No Debate for me please :-)

Uniqueness and citations where needed

Polish; uniqueness

Arguments; citations; clash

Either format is acceptable

Whatever debater can speak well

Judged all debate events over last 5 years and speaking events

Clear roadmap, quality evidence, fluent speaking

Good blocking, a good message/argument that your piece is making,

Do the work for the judge don’t assume I know something if you don’t say it in your speech it doesn’t go on the flow. Also while progressive arguments seem cool and fun however you need to run them right and also don’t spread

Traditional framework with voting issues

I’ve been judging for over 3 years. I’ve judged 2 state tournaments as well as Nationals last year. I’ve judged 50+ TFA Tournaments across the state as well as numerous National Qualifiers.

In speaking events I am looking for structure, delivery, and analysis. This applies well to any of the speaking events with looking for a well structured speech with an intro, points, and conclusion. Contestants stand out when they really bring the energy and you can see the passion for the speech.

In Interp events I really need to be brought into the story with a beginning, middle and end. I need to see clear character choices and development. The written introduction I need to feel the heart of the story. I want to see clean, rehearsed transitions if in the piece. I need to feel the momentum of the piece with it's fast points and calm when we lean into the piece.

In a debate round I am looking for clear points addressed in the speeches as well as direct responses to attacks. I need to see the contentions presented clearly and effectively. I really don't mind spreading if the case is emailed to me.

Traditional framework with voting issues

I am okay with spreading if the case is emailed over to me.

Second year as speech and debate coach

Audible, structure, substantive supportive material, cited sources, vocal variety, and polished presentation skills.

Understanding of Interpretation, organization of material, characterization, blocking, or proper use of black book, and overall impactful presentation.

Good structure or framework, clash, follow through of argumentations, and overall presentation skills.

Either format is acceptable

Judging since graduation in 2019

Either format is acceptable

Any is fine that both competitors are comfortable with.

3 Decades of judging all events

rhetoric, fluency and analysis

realisim, tech, and entertainment

clash and direct wheighing, comparison with voters

Traditional framework with voting issues

not speed, but clarity and inflection that matter

Andy Dekaney High School

Spring High School, Westfield High School

Coaching and Judging since 2019 in the categories of speech and various types of debate (such as LD and Congress)

SPEECH CATEGORY PARADIGMS:
1. GENERALLY SPEAKING, I LOOK FOR GOOD VOICES, TONE, DICTION, EYE CONTACT, APPROPRIATE GESTURES, AND PURPOSEFUL/SMOOTH MOVEMENTS THAT SEEM NATURAL VS MOVING JUST TO MOVE. GOOD ATTENTION GETTERS, SOLID STRUCTURE OF THE SPEECH WITH CLEAR THESIS STATEMENTS OR MAIN POINTS ALONG WITH GOOD VISUALS, GOOD TRANSITIONS THAT SMOOTHLY CONNECT IDEAS/POINTS, SOLID CONCLUSIONS THAT PROPERLY SUM UP THE WHOLE SPEECH/PRESENTATION, "BUTTON"/LEAVING A LITTLE GESTURE OR WORD OR PHRASE OR EMOTION THAT CAPS OFF THE PERFORMANCE, EVIDENCE WHERE NECESSARY TO BACK UP CLAIMS/INFORMATION
2. EXCELLENT MEMORIZATION OF SPEECHES
3. PROPER DRESS/STANDARDS SET BY THE TOURNAMENT (NOT A POINTS HINDRANCE, UNLESS MANDATED BY TOURNAMENT)

1. GENERALLY SPEAKING, I LOOK FOR GOOD VOICES, TONE, DICTION, EYE CONTACT, APPROPRIATE GESTURES, AND PURPOSEFUL/SMOOTH MOVEMENTS THAT SEEM NATURAL VS MOVING JUST TO MOVE.
2. BELIEVABILITY/EMBODIMENT OF THE CHARACTERS VS ACTING LIKE THE CHARACTERS, MAINTAINING CHARACTERIZATION THROUGHOUT THE PERFORMANCE/PRESENTATION INCLUDING CLOSING THE PIECE WITH A "BUTTON"/LEAVING A LITTLE GESTURE OR WORD OR PHRASE OR EMOTION THAT CAPS OFF THE PERFORMANCE, AND DELIVERING THE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE PIECE IS ABOUT AND MEANT TO CONVEY
3. GREAT ENSEMBLE ACTING IF DUO OR DUET...
4. PROPER DRESS/STANDARDS SET BY THE TOURNAMENT (NOT A POINTS HINDRANCE THOUGH)

1. UNDERSTANDING THE RESOLUTIONS BEING DEBATED
2. SPREADING IS FINE, BUT NOT TO THE POINT WHEREBY THE DEBATER CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD
3. GOOD EVIDENCE/SOURCES IS A MUST/THE ABILITY TO PROVE ONE'S POINTS (RESEARCH BASED WHERE NECESSARY)
4. GOOD DICTION, TONE, GESTURES
5. ABILITY TO THINK ON ONE' S FEET WHEN CROSS EXAMINED
6. ABILITY TO PROVE ONE'S ASSERTIONS/CLAIMS AND DEFEND THEM
7. SOUND LOGIC AND GOOD ARGUMENTATIVE SKILLS TO COMPLIMENT EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS CLAIMS
8. GOOD VOICES, TONE, DICTION, EYE CONTACT, APPROPRIATE GESTURES, AND PURPOSEFUL/SMOOTH MOVEMENTS THAT SEEM NATURAL VS MOVING JUST TO MOVE (WHEN/WHERE OR IF NECESSARY) .

No Debate for me please :-)

SPREADING IS FINE BUT IT HAS TO BE AT A SPEED THAT ALLOWS FOR BOTH THE JUDGE AND OPPONENT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS BEING SAID

No Debate for me please :-)

15 years judging IE/CONGRESS/PF in New York and New Jersey. Six years judging IE/CONGRESS/PF/LD in Texas.

I want to see a prepared performance. In speaking events I'm looking for a performance that feels less like a recitation and more like a character come to life.

I want to see a prepared performance. In interp events I'm looking for a performance that feels less like a recitation and more like a character come to life. I look for a.l9t of the same things in the interp as I do speaking events

I primarily judge PF debate and in it I look at the crossfire section where shared peaking time garners the best information during rebuttals.

Either format is acceptable

As long as I am able to understand you I am fine with it.

Have judged in the past

I expect good arguments and good rhetoric. I dislike canned speeches and want to see big picture folded into the speech.

Authentic performances that make me believe the speaker.

I want to see good arguments and line by like takedowns that allow me to easily weigh the round.

Either format is acceptable

On a scale from 1-10, i can do a max of 6.

Moderate judging experience...

Clarity, volume control, blocking control, creativity, and confidence...

Consistency with speech patterns, breathing, and relaxed intensity...

Supporting evidence, proper rebuttal, and controlled information...

No Debate for me please :-)

No Debate for me please :-)

Judge quite a bit since graduating.

Good structure. Nice transitions. Fluent drlivery.

Tell great stories. Find your voice in the story. Fully developed characters.

Do not judge much debate.

No Debate for me please :-)

No Debate for me please :-)

I have judged on every level of competition. This year I have judged approximately 10 debates on this topic.

Clear of fluency breaks, organized information, use of nonverbals

I have an in depth paradigm on tabroom. In essence you can read whatever argument you like, but know that my experience is primarily in policy debate. I’m good for K debates or if you want to have a straight up policy round.

Either format is acceptable

Slower on tags, fast on the text of cards. Slow on theory/T standards

Challenge Early College HS

Challenge Early College HS

20 years of coaching / 2 time DI National Champion coach ; TFA State DI, HI, Duet Champion coach , UIL Congress state qualifying coach. Professional actor / Actor’s equity member 25 years

Commited/ rehearsed performances that include structure and evidence .

Emotionally honest performance that is internally generated. Avoid yelling !!!!! Strong believable characters . Dramatic structure evident even in HI.

No spreading !!! No squirrel cases . Clear / evidence and arguments.

Traditional framework with voting issues

I have judged at TFA State in the past year along with smaller local tournaments in the past.

As a Speech IE judge, I look for authenticity, originality, and precision. Clean and polished performances are key to a powerful performance, along with great insight from the introduction.

As a Speech IE judge, I look for authenticity, originality, and precision. Clean and polished performances are key to a powerful performance, along with great insight from the introduction. I look for clear distinctions between the characters that are being portrayed which would require copious time spent defining each character's diction, body language and movements.

Either format is acceptable

No Debate for me please :-)

Only judging debate

Only judging debate

clash. clear impacts, label arguments on neg

Either format is acceptable

Retired speech & debate coach

Basic organization including: an attention getter, signposting, clear main points, relevant content and source validation, summary & closure. Speech can include humor if applicable. Personal experiences are good to give the speech a sense of realism.

Entertaining whether dramatic of humorous. I enjoy characterization and variation with voices. Realistic blocking, an intro that sets the mood of the piece and any physical movement that may be used/required.. With Duo, all of the above but I look at how well the team interact with each other.

Preferably, No C-X (policy) debate
LD:
I am "old school." I weigh value / criteria. How the criteria achieves the value, i.e. link. Contentions must be clear and signposted. If multiple cards are used under a contention, I like sub-pts. to be applied to distinguish the significance of the argument. Clear and relevant source cites and Impacts must be clear. Value/criteria clash is essential. I prefer line by line on the flow, and voters are essential. An interactive cross. I do not weigh plans, CP's or any stock issues in LD. I am not a fan of progressive cases. No speed...effective communication is paramount.
PF:
Based upon the original aspects of Ted Turner debate, I weigh the burden of desirability v the undesirability of the topic especially when the word "should" is applied. I prefer no elements of policy debate to be used, i.e. stock issues, Plans, CP's or kritiks. Contentions must be clear and signposted. If applicable, sub-pts employed. Relevant content with source cites. Polite, professional and interactive cross-fire and grand cross-fire. Impacts must be clear, The flow needs to go line by line in the summary & FF. No speed...effective communication is paramount.

Traditional framework with voting issues

coach of many years

Originality, smart content, solid conversational delivery.

Good selection, solid acting and characterization. Genuine emotions and acting.

Good evidence and arguments, clash, clear communication.

Either format is acceptable

Decade of experience

Well thought out arguments/points, good flow and transitions, evidence backed arguments + analysis

Good blocking, good story cutting, usage of room, intro matters to contextualize the importance of your piece/ why you’re performing it

Good thought out arguments, evidence backed arguments, proper citations, etc. Provide me with clash, no friv theory (legitimate abuse within round only time to use theory)

Either format is acceptable

6 (unless speechdrop then 8) / fast paced is acceptable, if spreading then use speechdrop, slow down on tag lines, etc.

Past 4 years in CX for TFA and State

Good explanations

Smooth transitions

Organization and clear & thorough explanation of arguments. Tab but prefer more traditional. Okay if you want to run non-traditional stuff but just spend some time thoroughly explaining it.

Either format is acceptable

Have been judging since 2016.

I pay a lot of attention to speaking style. I feel that your style should be clear and fluid in order for the speech to have clarity. Content is also really important, I look for detailed analysis on topics, which show me that the student fully understands the topic. I like speaking events where it is clear that the speaker is finding ways to engage their audience.

I expect the performers to have fully formed characters and showcase believable interactions. Emotions can be hard to capture, and I look for students who are able to fully convince me that they are feeling these emotions. I think that performances should be dynamic. When pacing is stagnant the entire performance I feel that it becomes difficult to be invested in the story that are trying to tell with their performance.

I look for clash within a round, I think it prevents the round from coming down to a "he said, she said" argument. I also like seeing detailed explanations behind why an opposing sides argument is flawed. These detailed arguments prove to me that the student understands the base of the argument. I in general, like students to be as detailed as possible when they make their arguments. It is important to avoid making vague arguments. I like clearly stated impacts in a round, but I also need to be given a weighing mechanism to evaluate the impacts. I think it is also important that students are speaking clearly, in order to make understanding their case and points easy. The same goes for sign posting during the speeches to help make it easier to flow. I always like to see voters at the end.

Traditional framework with voting issues

I would prefer no spreading, but some speed is fine.

Cypress Lakes High School

Cypress Lakes High School

Contract judge through college, then have coached HS debate for 7 years and fulfilled judging obligations for my school.

Contestants stand out by speaking clearly and concisely on a topic that brings new ideas/perspectives to a topic.

Performers should have a clear connection to their character(s). All pieces should have a complete story with a beginning, middle, and end. All movements should have purpose, not just flashy to be flashy.

Clean debate with clear voting issues. The debate should be about the topic itself. I will not buy any "disclosure theory" used within a round.

Traditional framework with voting issues

If I can't write it down, I can't properly evaluate the round (meaning no spreading)

Spring Woods, Stratford

I like good articulation and clarity. Vocal variety is needed so it doesn't sound like white noise to me.

A solid narrative with a good build up to a climax and endings that don't feel abrupt.

Either format is acceptable

Don't be Sonic the Hedgehog.

Current coach, judged in college before that

I like to see well rehearsed speeches with topics linked to real word issues. I love when student's personalities shine through. Humoris always a great way help the audience to stay engaged

I love relatable pieces where I can get lost in the story. Characters should be big and distinguishable.

I want understandable arguments that follow the flow as well as voters identified in the round. Identifying voters allows for an easy RFD on how the round should be weighed.

Traditional framework with voting issues

Very experienced

Quality of speech and content

Clash, extensions, and framework

Either format is acceptable

I have judged for Langham Creek throughout this academic year for various local tournaments, primarily speech events.

I expect coherence of ideas and arguments, logical presentation and flow. I look out for fluency breaks, and for the intro and conclusion to tie together. Contestants stand out when they demonstrate exemplary confidence and present a natural and informal demeanor during their speech.

I expect clearly differentiated characters, minimal fluency breaks, personal analysis should be clearly tied to performance and a greater theme throughout. Standout performers are well prepared and jive well together.

In all forms of debate I look for a clear impact calculus that sets your impacts apart from your opponents. You are safe to speak at a brisk pace but if you spread I won't be able to keep up well. I'm not a great judge for theory debates, though I understand the basics of topicality. Try your best to persuade me and I will consider any argument.

Traditional framework with voting issues

Conversational to brisk, I probably won't understand spreading

Prefer not to judge speaking events, my experience is in debate.

Prefer to judge debate events.

Big on flowing arguments across speeches

Either format is acceptable

I have been judging for over five years now. I am open to judging anything that is given to me. I mostly have been judging in the debate pool for the last two to three years. All paradigms can be found in my tabroom.

In speaking events I want to see/hear each point that will be said in the speech. Make sure that each transition to each point is smooth. Please be very careful when making small pauses at times it can ruin the flow of the speech. As for sources I am looking for sources that are more outside of the box. I understand that CNN, New York Times and other popular sources are "good", but there's more than just those. Overall, at this point of the timeline (date) I am expecting the speech to be memorized. As for moving (transitioning) the stage is yours.

In interp. events I want to see good characterization meaning I want to feel the character (do not force the character out). A smooth transition to and from the introduction. Do not spoil the piece in the introduction please, keep it short (maybe even a quote) just do not tell me about the piece in the introduction. As for blocking, be very careful. If you are drinking, make it look realistic. I would like to see more contestants use the stage more. I do not want to see someone standing in the same spot for nine to ten minutes (you have a stage therefore use it). Binder events keep it TFA rules. I do not mind you using your imagination on the binder but just remember to keep it TFA rules.

First always ask your judge for speed. Please do not assume that each judge likes speed. I do not mind a little speed but make sure that you are actually saying the words rather than mumbling them. LD: I am looking for value and criterion to make sure that your argument wraps around those two at all times. Role of the Ballot: A role of the ballot argument will only influence how I vote on pre-fiat, not post-fiat argumentation. It is not, therefore, a replacement for a framework, unless your entire case is pre-fiat, in which case see "pre-fiat critics". A role of the ballot must have a warrant. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression" is a statement not an argument. You will need to explain why that is the role of the ballot and why it is preferable to "better debater". Please make the warrant specific to debate. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression because oppression is bad" doesn't tell me why it is specifically the role of this ballot to fight oppression. I have a low threshold for voting against roles of the ballot with no warrants. I will default to a "better debater" role of the ballot. World's Debate: I am looking for you to convince me in fact for all debate I do not like theory. I know at times it can be hard since it can also be an impromptu round but just give it your best. Quick tip for World's Debate at times the best sources you can use is your own knowledge. PF: I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it. And, yes, I understand theory. No, I don't want to hear theory in a PF round. No, I will not vote on a theory argument that goes for all debate.

Traditional framework with voting issues

I do not mind speed, however just a quick note there is a difference between mumbling the word and actually saying the word. Remember the person who you are trying to convince is your judge.

Been in the game for over a decade

a new perspective on an old topic goes a long way in getting my ballot

control of the body, and mastery of their breathing during moments of intensity make performances come alive

Either format is acceptable

10 years of judging at the local/state/national level. Head coach at St. John's School.

Delivery and usage of techniques like blocking or movement. An overall interesting and cohesive narrative.

Good use of blocking and movement, crisp delivery and a cohesive narrative. Relevance of the piece to the performers or current events

Everything explained in round. I will vote off the least mitigated link into the strongest impact.

Either format is acceptable

Medium speed, though can tolerate high speeds.

2nd year as a coach.

Hard hitting and relevant themes. Genuine performances.

Excellent speaking skills and strong argumentation minus inherent bias.

Strong argumentation vs. all out speed (Traditional)

Traditional framework with voting issues

NOT near super human speed.

10 yrs Interp & Speech

Analytical speeches.

Unique pieces, blocking, and character dynamics

No Debate for me please :-)

No Debate for me please :-)

Cypress Lakes High School

Looking for clear organization and proper supporting evidence for any claims. Fluency and clarity are important.

Storytelling is key. Are the character choices logical based on the script? Are they well defined? Are there clear choices in terms of vocal and physical performance?

Traditional debate strategies, either based on framework or key arguments that are well supported. Looking for clarity in communication, not speed.

Traditional framework with voting issues

Cypress Lakes High School

Fifteen years experience coaching

Clear communication, good structure

Good acting basics

No Debate for me please :-)

No Debate for me please :-)

I have been judging debate off and on since I graduated from high school in 2018; however, I have been judging quite frequently at locals (as in, nearly every weekend) for the 2022-23 school year. In high school, I competed in pretty much everything but my main events were Congress and Extemp, where I was significantly more successful in the latter.

In extemp, make sure you answer the question in a well structured manner. Sources are also important to me; I read both foreign and domestic news on a regular basis, and BSing a speech is not the way to win my ballot. For all events, I enjoy humor; for the two platform events, I also like to hear a personal connection to the topic throughout the speech, as well as unique takes on common topics. Please elucidate the stakes for your speech so we know why it's important that we listen to you for 10 minutes about a given topic.

Contestants should not try to change their pieces for my ballot but here are a few things. For all events: Does the introduction adequately contextualize the piece, and does it lay out the societal critique the piece brings to the table? Does the cutting have a clear narrative arc? Does the teaser adequately tease the piece? For DI: Do you have a range of emotions? Do you yell as a substitute for other emotions? For HI: Is the piece funny? Does the piece add to a societal conversation about its topic, or is it just comedy? For POI: Does the program's narrative make sense? Are the characters adequately distinguished from each other, and do the transitions make sense?

For PF, I want to see a clear claim/warrant/impact structure with clear weighing at the end of the day; I've frequently found myself wanting some brief framing analysis or meta-weighing throughout the round as well. For LD, I am open to hearing all kinds of arguments (I do not consider myself a traditional LD judge) but I simply ask that you explain your arguments well. If I cannot explain your argument in the RFD on the ballot, I will not vote for that argument. For term limits specifically, I want to hear comparative link/warrant analysis on all polarization claims; I have heard way too many debates where both debaters seemed to be stuck in the mud, so to speak, claiming that their opponents increase polarization. For both forms of debate, I really appreciate good meta-weighing (especially evidence quality), and the more that the final speeches can give me clear voters and/or write my RFD for me, the better the round will turn out for you.

Either format is acceptable

6/10 (a little fast is OK but spreading is not)

Judged speech events multiple times in the past and also used to compete in speech events, so I’m very familiar with the judging criteria and paradigms.

Well thought out speeches with a clear progression throughout the speech. Structure, poise, and annunciation.

A good understanding of the character being performed, an ability to portray the emotions needed for the performance, and an ability to draw the audience in and take the journey through the speech with them.

No Debate for me please :-)

No Debate for me please :-)

I have been judging for many years

Structure, fluid speaking

Creativity, distinguishable characters

Clash and weighing

Traditional framework with voting issues

students from Cypress Ranch

A clear structure is important: your delivery should be cohesive, and flow logically from point to point. A natural delivery style that allows for your personality to shine is preferable to the “Platform Speaker”. Put simply: avoid speech patterns.

Extemp: The most important thing is that you answer the question. A polished speaking style is important, but I will often default to a speaker that has stronger analysis and evidence over a pretty speech with fluffy content. Do not rely on canned introductions - creativity is important when trying to engage me. Be sure you have several cited sources and have at least 5 quoted pieces of evidence to support your claims.

Oratory/Informative: Your attention getter, vehicle, and conclusion should be creative, but they also need to fit well with the topic. Again, I will default to stronger analysis/evidence over fluffy content. Again, use several cited sources and have quoted evidence for claims you are making in your speech.

For Dramatic Interpretation, Dramatic Duo Interpretations (DI, DUO) - Subtlety is the key, I don't need you to scream and shout to get emotion across. I'm not against screaming, but it should be during appropriate moments during the piece and build over time. At no point should you jump from deadly quiet and calm to intense and screaming. Gradually build the emotion. Show me the tension and intensity over time. Screaming when you erupt during the climax is perfectly acceptable. Further, intensity can be shown without screaming, crying, or yelling. The quiet moments of the piece are usually the ones I find most powerful. THINK and REACT to what you are saying. Emotion should come nearly effortlessly when you "are" your piece. Don't "act" like the mom who lost her daughter in a school shooting, BE that mom! Transitions and timing are SUPER IMPORTANT, DON'T RUSH!!!

For Humorous Interpretation, Humorous Duo Interpretations (HI, DUO) - Facial expressions, characterization, and blocking take the most importance for me. I want to see each character develop once you introduce it throughout the piece. Even if the character doesn't appear all the time, or only once or twice throughout the script, I want to see that each character is engaged throughout the piece itself. Most importantly, please remember that humor without thought is gibberish. Jokes are said for a reason - use facial expressions to really hone in on character's thought and purpose. For example, if a character A says a joke and character B doesn't get it, I should see character B's confused reaction. I will also tend to reward creative blocking and characterization. However, note that blocking should not be overly distracting.

For Programmed Oral Interpretation, Prose Interpretation, and Poetry Interpretation (POI, PRO, POE) - Regarding emotion, facial expressions, and character development, see the above text in the two paragraphs above regarding DI and HI. Personally, I place a little more emphasis on binder tech - the more creative the better! I think binder events are the synthesis of good binder tech, good script selection, and good facial expressions/emotion. Obviously, it's harder to do, since you have multiple characters in multiple parts of your speech and each have a distinct mood and personality.

A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger
quantity of arguments in constructives. Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery. A few well developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of argument. Arguments
should each be addressed individually. Rebuttals should extend arguments individually and provide voters. Debaters should include relevant evidence and citations and taglines for flow. Value and Criteria should be how the round is weighed...you should uphold your V & C with your arguments. I value the analysis. Use examples or states or qualified opinions and then give me your analysis of the evidence...why does your evidence matter...how does it fit I am a trad judge, I dislike spreading in a round. I don't appreciate the use of K's in LD. It better be *ah-maz-ing* if you are using them in your LD cases.

Traditional framework with voting issues

faster than conversational slower than spreading, if I can't understand you I can't judge you

I am most qualified for any speech events. Please do not put me into any debate events, I am not qualified to judge.

The speaker needs have a purpose. Is there a strong mood or tone to the piece? Can I understand the performer. Are word are spoken with clear annunciation ?

The speaker needs to fully understand what they are performing. Is it believable?
Is there a strong mood or tone to the piece? Can I understand the performer. Are word are spoken with clear annunciation ?

No Debate for me please :-)

No Debate for me please :-)

competitior, judge, coach and/or consultant since 1999

Research, clear argument

Polished performance, strong characterization

clear offense, direct clash

Either format is acceptable

Former Alief Coach (last year coaching 2021)

Judging, Consulting, and Coaching since 2006.

Clean and precise presentation, well-structured speeches, and unique perspectives.

A clean performance, an engaging story, and well thought out technical elements.

Logical arguments, good clash, focusing on the crucial issues, and strong refutation.

Either format is acceptable

An expedited pace, but no spreading.

Westchester Academy of International Studies

Westchester Academy of International Studies

speech at recent Texas state competition

expression/ability to portray the character and the emotion of the speech, ability to broadcast, keeping the "audience" engaged and interested and intrigued. Appropriate flow of speech. Relevant content

Engaging the character and the audience.

Logical thought processes and supporting evidence

No Debate for me please :-)

No Debate for me please :-)

I have judge for about three years now. Open to judge anything.

I want to see that you have your points. Smooth transitions tp your points. Make sure you stay on your topic. I wanna hear good reliable sources (get sources other than CNN).

I want to see a good opening scene. Captivate me instantly. A good summary that does not ruin the entire piece ( let the piece be a mystery to me). Good transition to different scenes. Make sure for characterisation each character can be distinguished.

Firstly please ask about speed. Especially if there's more than one judge in the room. Second I'm okay with speed as long as I can hear you say each word correctly. I expect everyone to have their cards ready. Make sure to state your value and criterion if you have one. If not, then make sure you let your judge know the flow of debate. I'm not into theory but if u can convince me then go for it. Make sure to always let me know your road map. Make sure when stating your contentions that you say it loud and clear.

Traditional framework with voting issues

Im okay as long as i can hear you clearly.

I have judged since I graduated high school in 2017.

Clear conscience speaking. Sourced evidence to back up your claims. I care a lot about a good clean presentation.

Characterization is a biggie. I want to see you become your character. Blocking needs to be well rehearsed and clean.

Topical debate. I want the round to be focused on the resolution. I don’t like theory.

Traditional framework with voting issues

Speed is okay, spreading is not.

30 plus years teaching Speech and Theatre

Organization of a speech, internal source citation, confidence in speaking, and motivated movement

Characterization, clear and distinct, articulation, and vocal variety to elicit emotion, movement that is appropriate to the character

No Debate for me please :-)

No Debate for me please :-)

Westchester Academy of International Studies (WAIS)

Observation 21-22 Judge several tournaments 22-23

I am looking for thought feeling and clear communication of the interpretive themes.

I am looking for thought feeling and clear communication of the interpretive themes.

I am looking for a clear answer to the question, and for you to uphold your answer with information that is cohesive and factual.

Either format is acceptable

Tompkins as their school judge

Tompkins because I am their school judge

in speaking events, reference to current events or pop culture that are within current applicable social/discussion circles is primarily important. humor is secondary but it does enhance. execution of delivery is as important as the novelty or density of the substance of the presented material

Contestant should feel free to take any direction they want with the piece, even if not intended or expected by the author of the original source material. performers stand out if they have consistent motions that uniquely identify a character if there is more than one character or voice within a piece.

framework; reasons to prefer evidence; impact calculus or comparative worlds analysis at the end. spreading is fine, but PF can only be so hasty. WSD should definitely speak at a layperson's speed and focus a bit more on persuasion than other debate events.

Either format is acceptable

8 out of 10 with 10 being the highest

Westbury (in South TX NSDA)

Travis HS Class of 2010, Challenge ECHS, Ria Panjwani - Travis HS (relative)

Contract judging since 2010-2011 school year (12th year)

Solid presentational skills and fundamentals. Good platform movement, appropriate use of gestures, correct tone, limited fluency breaks, sufficient sources & source integration, credibility and reasonability of analysis.

Spacing, Blocking, distinct character differentiation, memorability, focus on centralizing theme while maintaining entertainment value.

Clear and logical argumentative reasoning and analysis. Full paradigm available on tabroom.

Either format is acceptable

CX: any speed, LD: spreading is fine as long as taglines/signposts are clear, BQ/PF/WSD: brisk conversational (DO NOT SPREAD)

Langham Creek High School

I have judged for the past two years after graduating high school, one year in the behalf of Langham Creek High School, and this year as an independent contract judge.

I am not an ideal judge for speaking events.

I am not an ideal judge for interp. events.

My personal motto during any round is "make it make sense". I don't care if you're running a Politics DA or and Baudrillard K, you need to lay it out in a way that a clear outcome, whether it be an impact or alternative, can be visualized. If that cannot happen, I tend to vote you down.

Either format is acceptable

I don't have any issues with speed so long as it is annunciated well.

I debated for three years in high school, competing in PF for half a year and LD for two and a half years. I also did CX for UT-Austin for a year and I have also been judging on the local (TX and CA) and national circuits since 2015.

persausivness and clarity

emotional investment and building rapport with audience

a lot of clash and weighing, especially in rebuttal speeches for the latter

Either format is acceptable

Been judging debate and speech for over 30 years

I tend to focus on content more than presentation. Excellent content with above average presentation will get higher ranks than terrific presentation with obvious or fluffy content.

Technical performance, specifically in making characters distinct from each other.

I'm someone who wants to hear you debate the actual resolution. Not a huge fan of theory or kritiks UNLESS the link is very clear on the K or there is ACTUAL in-round bad behavior. My garbage filter tends to strain out arguments that I think are bad for debate.

Either format is acceptable

on a 1-10 scale (10 being really fast), I'm about a 5-6.

Have been judging extensively on local/TFA and national circuit for past 14 years.

Organization, Originality, Creativity, Clarity and Expression of Thought, a Distinct/Explicit Point of View

Character Development (Voice and Body), Storytelling (beginning, middle, end/cliffhanger), Creativity

No Debate for me please :-)

No Debate for me please :-)

Langham Creek SB (Spencer Benton and Justin Schnitzel)

Four years of judging all IE (both performance and speech) and Debate events (including pf, cx, ld, wsd, and congress)

Formatting is important. Most speeches will have a brief introduction, a roadmap, two to three supporting arguments, a restatement of the roadmap, and a conclusion. Stick closely to this organization and signpost generously throughout your speech. Use verbal transitions and the speaker's triangle to help map your speech.

Physical presence is also important. You should have a roadmap, which means you should also follow the speaker's triangle. You should incorporate movement into your piece wherever possible or appropriate. Gesticulate generously and intentionally throughout your piece. Use your place in the room, your posture, your movements and gestures, facial expressions, and other elements to make your piece moving, memorable, and engaging. Utilize eye contact as well. Look at your judges and your audience-don't look through us.

Vocal performance is another consideration. Except on rare occasions when you may exercise a characterization, you should maintain even pacing, appropriate projection, varied inflection, vocal clarity, and a confident, conversational style. Avoid coming off as meek, stilted, confused, monotonous, etc.

For original oratory, make sure you clearly define your personal connection to the content in your introduction and conclusion.

For informative oratory, make sure your visual aids are simple, straightforward, easy to read, easy to decipher, and actually enhance your speech. Any attempts at humor are always a plus.

For any speech event, ensure that you are citing a healthy amount of sources in your speech. I like a balance between qualitative and quantitative evidence in the speeches I judge.

Content and presentation are equally important to me. I prefer three point speeches, but I will always prefer a holistically superior two-point speech to a superficial and sloppy three-point speech. The content should have depth and be logically organized.

Formatting is important. Most speeches will have a brief introduction, a slate (contextualizing the piece, stating the theme, listing the title[s] and author[s] of the source material[s], and reiterating the central theme of the piece), complete the exposition, rise into the climax, and then fall into the resolution.

Physical presence is also important. You should have a roadmap, which means you should also follow the speaker's triangle. You should incorporate movement into your piece wherever possible or appropriate. Gesticulate generously and intentionally. Use your place in the room, your posture, your movements and gestures, facial expressions, and your binder to block different elements of your piece or characterize different characters. Utilize eye contact considerately as well.

Vocal performance is another consideration. Utilize vocal inflection, pacing, clarity, enunciation, accents (where appropriate), and volume to discern between different characters and different scenes. The intentional application of these elements can be used to juxtapose different elements, emphasize important ideas, and discern between different characters.

Physically move from point to point in accordance with the speaker's triangle. Use gestures to illustrate or emphasize points

The plot of your piece should be clear and easy to map. Whether you are utilizing one source or multiple sources, your piece should be paced and organized with lots of consideration. You should fully embody each character depicted, and there should be a clear distinction between each characters, each scene, each action, and each section in your piece.

DEBATE JUDGING PHILOSOPHY:

Each format has its own unique attributes, and you should always respect those attributes unless you explicitly read theory which compels me to respect your shirking of those attributes. I am willing to vote on unorthodoxy, but I have to have an important reason to vote on that unorthodoxy. 

I am a former CX debater and a tab judge. CX is the format I'm most familiar with, but I have debated and judged virtually every format. When I say I am a tab judge, I don't mean to communicate that I won't evaluate claims based on my own knowledge and experience. If your case relies on my acceptance of your argument that the sky is red, you aren't going to win. I am a tab judge in the sense that you should not assume any one paradigm from me. 

My philosophy is that each round has its own rules and must be evaluated depending on what emerges in-round. You should always tell me what is the focus of the round and why. Tell me what framework is most important, tell me what my role is, tell me what the role of my ballot is, tell me which voting issues are the most critical. Otherwise, I will make those decisions based on my own experiences and values. 

It is not my job to automatically recognize an argument you are making or extend an argument on your behalf. I'm well-versed in a lot of the theory that might come up. But I prefer being exposed to new, niche, creative approaches and ideas. The caveat to that preference is I'm not well-versed in ideas I haven't yet been exposed to. Please loop me in. 

Both traditional and progressive arguments are fine as long as you do them well. Don't ask me whether I prefer one argument over another, or whether I prefer one set of values over another. Maybe I do, maybe I don't. That's your argument to make. Context and evidence is everything, and it is very likely that I will prefer a sensible and empirically-backed argument over a sensible analytic. What I will say is that some arguments are extremely difficult (effectively impossible) to prove to me. For example, capitalism is a good or sustainable economic system, immigration causes overpopulation, the world is overpopulated, racism isn't alive and well, etc. I've seen ideas like those circulating in the debate space for a while. I don't know if debaters actually believe ideas like those, or if those are desperate grabs at a win, but don't run them on me. I would rather you collapse on ideas you are winning and prove to me why those are paramount voting issues than throw bigoted spaghetti at the wall and hope that breadth impresses me. It won't. 




TLDR;

You frame the round and my flow determines the W. In order to win my ballot, you must 1.) provide a framing mechanism or specify which framing mechanism should be preferred and why 2.) win offense to that framing mechanism and prove that your advocacy has the strongest link to that framework and 3.) provide an impact calculus. 

I always use gateway issues (T, theory, framing) to help frame my decision. If those issues don't come up, or their clash lacks depth, I consider how well each team has met their burden and allow that to frame my decision. Notice that I say this is how I frame my decision. This alone will not win you my ballot. I vote holistically. You might win one important issue and lose every other issue on the flow, resulting in an overall loss. 

Be considerate about how you construct your case, how you write analytics, and how you organize your speeches. I am a bit of a gamesplayer in that I track how the flow of your speech mirrors your opponent's flow. Spending the bulk of a constructive speech reading your evidence into the round without reading offense on your opponents' case or reading defensive arguments is poor strategy. Collapses should be intentional, not an accident resulting from mass concession. 
 
Your advocacy suite should be strategically organized and directly communicated so as to make the decision abundantly clear for me. I want clear extensions, roadmapping, and signposting. If you are going to roadmap, give me a detailed roadmap of the distinct arguments you plan to cover in your speech. Do not tell me the order will be 'aff and then neg', or something to that effect. Those are literally the only two sides we will be discussing in any debate round. It's a given that you will cover one or the other at some point in the round. 

Either format is acceptable

As fast as you want, just include me in flash.

10 years TFA, NSDA, UIL, NIETOC circuit experience... judged at NSDA Nationals, UIL and TFA State

I want to see the expert in the room on whatever subject it is. If a person off the street is better versed in the topic, that's not an "UP" ballot from me. Also, be interesting; when giving a speech, make me feel like I'm walking out of the room having enjoyed hearing what you had to say.

The performer who stands out is the performer who sells me on them as the character(s). I don't want to see "Johnny/Janie playing ____________;" I want to believe, as much as possible, that character is in front of me. Make the emotions real. Make the joys and pains real.

I want someone who is going to sell me on their ideas. The best debaters can make unconscious biases null and void; all judges try to leave them at the door- a great debater makes the judge forget they even had them.
There are no such thing as "debate tricks"- write on my blank slate.

Either format is acceptable

Spreading won't help you; I see debate as something that should resemble an academic or political debate or even argument before a court. Come poised with the better reasons for me to vote your way- that doesn't include spreading.

Coach with multiple years of experience in speech and debate. Recently started coaching HS and judging this year.

I.E

The speaker captivates its audience. Is very precise on the approach of persuading or informing. Whether you use your body or not, nonverbal communication represents 93% of my understanding. Speech and debate is a great stage for inclusion and creativity, but use of vulgar words and content should be communicated before hand as to show respect to judges and audience. It is important to protect avenues we use to grow and uphold values of professionalism.

The speaker captivates its audience. Is very precise on the approach of persuading or informing. Whether you use your body or not, nonverbal communication represents 93% of my understanding. Speech and debate is a great stage for inclusion and creativity, but use of vulgar words and content should be communicated before hand as to show respect to judges and audience. It is important to protect avenues we use to grow and uphold values of professionalism.

Debate

Purpose of debate at its core is argumentation. Winners in debate events bring not only the passion they have for their side but clear communication that judges and opponents can understand in attempt to create a well exchanged debate. Successful debate research hit the core of the cause at hand, assertions are impactful and are supplemented with recent/reliable evidence. Winners in debate do not always have to prove they are right , just that you are wrong.

Traditional framework with voting issues

Comprehensive pace

judging since 1998

I am looking for good link chains, interesting topics, clear and fluid speaking in the performance. I would like an overall well developed performance

overall performance, students should have a good grasp of author's intent and express that in their performance

good link chains, clash, organization, clarity in explanation of ideas (values, kritiks, plan, etc.)

Either format is acceptable

A couple of years with all except Congress

Moderate pacing, clear, consistent delivery

Moderate pacing, clear, consistent delivery

Thorough details proving/disproving topic

Either format is acceptable

6+ years of judging

I expect to hear a conversational tone, purposeful hand gestures, credible supporting evidence, and good diction.

Contestants stand out when they are telling a story, giving strong characterization, good diction, a clear story plot, and using creative or clean blocking.

No Debate for me please :-)

No Debate for me please :-)

14 Years coaching experience

Speaking events - Clear and concise analysis, Organized thought and diverse use of ligament

Clear story told with a rising action, climax and falling action - Distinguished characters and polished performance.

Clash of arguments, good use of warrants and evidence and follow thru with arguments.

Traditional framework with voting issues

I prefer for debaters not to spread but I can follow if they do

Competed during all four years of high school and judged at 10+ tournaments including TFA state.

Both substance and speaking style are important.

Originality and creativity.

Sound arguments, clarity, and organization.

Either format is acceptable

Speed is fine. Will say clear if too fast.

This is a public speaking event, not interp. For Extemp: one must answer the question and have a clear road map w/ sources. OO/Info-clear road map w/ sources as well.

I should be able to follow the story, the character(s) should have different emotional levels. Should have a teaser and then introduction..

No Debate for me please :-)

No Debate for me please :-)

30 years at district, state, nationals & international

Well-articulated analytical points are of equal weight to me as evidence, unless it is concerning a statement of fact, then the evidence will be valued higher.

Speaking should be fun and educational. It should attempt to expand the mind by exposing people to situations they may not have considered before. Have fun, and make it easy for me to follow your interpretation. Own your characterizations and bring me into the world you create verbally.

Debate should be fun and educational. It should attempt to expand the mind by exposing people to ideas they may not have considered before or by forcing people to defend their ideas against what other people see as flaws in them. So if you want to get high speaker points from me be civil, have fun, and make it easy for me to flow your arguments. Jokes or references that degrade people or groups of people (especially those in the round) will cost a debater speaker points.

Critical/Theory arguments

clarity allows for faster delivery

Mostly PF this year, willing to be put in for Speech events.

Depth of knowledge, fluency, delivery.

Delivery, energy, commitment to roles.

Depth of knowledge, relevance of sources/cards, attack/defense of contentions.

Traditional framework with voting issues

I am a lay judge. Keep spread to a minimum.

I have been judging, competing and coaching for almost 40 years.

PAs, I prefer unique topics. All speaking events I like structured and well researched speeches. Delivery should enhance and not supplant logic or sources.

Distinguishable characters. A story arc in the cut. Naturalness in the characterizations and emotion. Logical argument in the intro.

Complete arguments. I’m fine with all types of arguments. Pull your own arguments. Do the work for me on the flow.

Either format is acceptable

I don’t like spread but can handle some speed.

Fulfilling a school commitment

I’m a parent judge and have judged multiple tournaments for 2 years.

original & interesting topic/perspective, witty writing, confidence in delivery, clean presentation & props, I come away learning something

Interesting and unique topic, authentic characterization, creative blocking, the flow and creative cutting

No Debate for me please :-)

No Debate for me please :-)

Organization and a distinct point of view

Appreciation for the source material; creativity

Clear extensions.

Traditional framework with voting issues

Eisenhower Ninth Grade

I was a judge for Extemporaneous Persuasive Speech at McArthur HS.

I expect to see contestants expressing their ideas confidently. Contestants stand out when they support their ideas with statistics and examples.

I expect to see contestants expressing their ideas confidently. Contestants stand out when they support their ideas with statistics and examples.

No Debate for me please :-)

No Debate for me please :-)