Judge Information

• Laptop with keyboard and charger

• Phone and charger

• Water bottle

• Snacks

• Jacket 

• Open mind

Debate e-balloting - documentation for JUDGES (will download resource)

Speech e-balloting - documentation for JUDGES (will download resource)

Visit live.speechwire.com for your online balloting.

Your Role as a Judge

1. Your first role is to help us run an effective tournament. Without this students cannot compete and get feedback. This means showing up on time, going to your rounds, checking you have the right students, completing your ballot within a reasonable time after the round, and reaching out with any questions or concerns during the day. 

2. Your second role is to adjudicate the round, which means ranking students or deciding who wins. Tournaments can vary but typically you rank students 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. 1st is the best. The tournament may also ask you to include "speaker points" and will provide suggested ranges. 

3. Your third role is to provide feedback to students. You will do this digitally by providing comments to students. When providing feedback focus on at least 3 positive things the student did and 3 pieces of constructive feedback for the student. Explain how and why you made the decision you did. Students and coaches will directly read the feedback. 

Your Role as a Judge: Facilitate Rounds

In general you will view all competitors or arguments in a round. 

• • Most speech and interpretation events have 6 competitors.

  • Debate rounds will have a pro/aff and con/neg side of the topic.

Steps to facilitate:

• • Come prepared: bring a device.

  • When you receive a ballot, please log in ASAP and press "Start Round". For live events, go to the room and confirm competitors are there. 

  • Check you have the right students.

  • Watch the round, keep in mind your role is to judge the information presented in the round and remain unbiased. 

  • After watching the round you should review the rules and rank students or declare a winner.

  • As a guideline, submit your ballot within ~10 minutes of the last speech.

• After a round submit your decision or ranks and then go back and provide feedback.

Tips:

• If judging virtually: keep your video on so students can see you. It's okay to turn it off if wifi is bad.

• Take notes while students are presenting or while you watch videos.

• You can type your notes to students directly on the ballot. 

• If you want to track arguments in the debate round, we recommend a separate document or piece of paper to "flow" the round. See more below in "Judging Debate."

Remember:

• You should not see a student in the same event. You may see them in a different event.

• You should not see a student you personally know. 

• Please let the judges lounge know ASAP if you are assigned a round with someone you know or have already seen in the same event.

• If you have specific questions on the rules, contact the Judges' Table/where you checked-in.

Your Role as a Judge: Evaluate/Adjudicate Rounds

In the step you will rank all students (speaking/interpretation events) or decide who wins the debate round.

• Different events have different guidelines (see below for full details)

• Either you rate students or decide a winner

• Rating students:

  • Most commonly rank 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th in the round; 1st is best

  • Sometimes done through speaker points out of 30 or 50: Example 29 speaker points, 25 speaker points

  • Sometimes both! 1st speaker gets 29 speaker points; 2nd gets 27 speaker points

  • RARELY: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 4th → shows students bottom of round without naming 6th

• Deciding a winner:

  • Pick the team that wins the round

  • Sometimes: you decide a winner AND award speaker points on a scale

  • Sometimes: you can say a team wins the arguments but was not the best speaker

Tips:

• For events where you are ranking speakers, keep a scratch note and rank the students after each speech. For example, after the second speaker, decide if they were "better" or "worse" than the first speaker. Continue to evaluate after every speaker. 

• Speaker points are subjective and have seen "grade inflation". Check for any scales the tournament provides. 

  • In general, be encouraging with points and consider them relative to other points. 

  • Most tournaments will ask for speaker points in the 20-30 range. On this scale, points below ~23 will seem discouraging. Lower than this may be allowed if conduct in the round was poor.

  • Some tournaments will ask for speaker points in the 0-50 range. On this scale, points will typically be above 40. Lower than this may be allowed if conduct in the round was poor.

  • Start with your 1st place speaker, and ask if they earned the 30/30 on speaker points. If they had some room for improvement, consider a 28 or 29/30. Then rank students relatively down through all your positions. 

Specific Rules

When it comes to facilitating, we know that one of the most frustrating things can be feeling like you do not know the event specific rules. We know this is confusing -- please always feel free to ask questions!

Specific rules might vary based on the individual tournament and, in particular if the tournament is using National Speech and Debate Association (NSDA) or CHSAA (Colorado High School Activities Association) rules.

• While rules between the two organizations are getting more similar, there are still some differences. 

• Tournament directors for non-qualification tournaments can also amend rules at their own discretion. 

• Specific rules the tournament wants you to follow should be communicated at the start of the tournament.

• In general, tournaments later in the season will be more stricter and prescription on rules.

Some areas where there may be specific rules that vary:

• How to rank students using scripts or notecards

• If notecards or scripts are allowed

• Grace periods (how long students have before they are officially overtime)

• How to rank students that go over time 

Your Role as a Judge: Provide Feedback to Students

• Once you have ranked students or declared a winner, submit your ballot.

• You can then go back and edit your ballot.

• Remember: students and coaches will directly read the feedback.

• Focus on providing constructive feedback to students. It does not help students to receive last in a round with no comments about what they can do better. 

  • Help students know what to focus on to improve

  • Be specific about why they did or did not win or receive a higher rank

  • 3 positive things the student did

  • 3 pieces of constructive feedback for the student

  • Consider the event purpose and event rules. See below for event-specific tips and recommendations for how to evaluate. 

Tips: 

• Remember you can type and complete ballots while students are talking. 

• You may also ask students for a few minutes in between speeches to fill out the ballot if you are watching students in "live" events. 

For interpretation events, there's are two main differences in types of events:

1. Is the event by an individual or with a partner?

2. Is the overall theme dramatic, humorous, poetic or a mix?

About the events:

• Humor, Drama & Poetry

  • Prepared pieces of 7-10 minutes

  • Designed to tell a story and present characters

  • Memorized; use of scripts depends on each tournament

• Program Oral Interpretation

  • Prepared pieces of 7-10 minutes

  • Designed to present a theme or important topic from a variety of angles

  • Use of “binder” is required

More details:

• Poetry Interpretation: Each student interprets a poem or group of poems totaling no more than ten minutes.

• Dramatic Interpretation: Each student interprets a work of literary merit of a dramatic nature of no more than ten minutes.

• Humorous Interpretation: Each student interprets a work of literary merit of a humorous nature of no more than ten minutes.

• Duo Interpretation: Students work in pairs to interpret a work of literary merit of either dramatic or humorous nature and of no more than ten minutes.

• Creative Storytelling: Students act out and present stories based on prompts given five minutes prior to the presentation.

• Program Oral Interpretation: Each students interprets a program consisting of various types of media totaling no more than ten minutes. Use of a manuscript is required. 

What to look for:

• Intent: Similar to a thesis, does the piece center around a key theme? Is this clear from the introduction and the piece selection?

• Story/Plot: Is there a clear story to follow? For example, rising action, climax, resolution. 

• Characterization: Are different characters clear? Do they have defined voices, postures, etc.? Are transitions between characters clear?

• Blocking: Is the performer able to create a scene? Are interactions between characters and each other or objects in the world easy to understand and clear? 

General Guidelines/Prompts for Writing Ballots (thanks to the GW Speech & Debate Team)

• Positive Feedback:

  • Consider the emotions elicited & how well the student expressed them

  • Share what worked well in the plot (What was easy to follow & understand about the character(s) journey?)

  • Describe the moments that were enhanced by blocking (the movements the students make while talking; creating the environment/where the character is during the piece)

  • Don’t give positivity where positivity isn’t due

• Constructive Feedback:

  • While negative feedback is absolutely necessary, try to keep it constructive and relevant  

  • Make sure your comments are sensitive and your intentions are to help competitors improve their pieces.

  • Be specific.  If there is a part of the piece that doesn’t work, say exactly what part it is and what was wrong with it. Mention where in the plot the error is or give a rough time stamp.

  • No piece is perfect. Be sure to help even the best competitors improve their pieces.

  • If you do not give a competitor the top rank in a round (1), justify it with some kind of critical feedback.

Questions to reflect on as you provide feedback:

Drama:

• Introduction: Did the student identify adequately the title, author, and setting of the selection? Did the student, where necessary, create the mood and prepare the audience for the performance? Were attention and interest aroused? Was the transition from introduction to selection smooth?

• Insight and Understanding: Did the interpreter appear to have an insight into the meaning, mood and emotional implications of the selection? Was there an apparent appreciation of the author's theme, purpose, viewpoint, and style? Was the cutting of literary merit?

• Projection of Dramatic Qualities: Did the interpreter re-create the mood and meaning? Did the selection build to appropriate climaxes? Was the phrasing effective? If characters were included, was the delineation vivid and consistent?

• Delivery: Did the facial, bodily and vocal suggestion enhance rather than detract from the interpretation? If the student used a manuscript, was it appropriate to the piece and/or the rules of the tournament?

• Total Effectiveness: The total impression of the interpreter and material upon you, the judge, as compared to other students in the round.

Duo:

• Introduction: Are the title and author clearly stated? Is interest in the selection created? Is the mood set? Is information relevant to a sufficient for the selection?

• Selection: Is the selection appropriate for the performers? Does the selection contain characters of reasonable depth and development?

• Insight and Understanding: Do the performers appear to have an understanding of the selection? Do the performers display insight of the author’s intent?

• Characterization: Do the performers clearly distinguish each of the characters in the selection? Are the characters and their attitudes clear and vivid? Are verbal and non-verbal responses and attitudes appropriate?

• Delivery: Does the character dialogue reflect a genuine sense of interaction, not a mechanical exchange of lines? Do the performers vary pitch, rate, phrasing, tone and volume? Is there use of appropriate gestures? If the students used manuscripts, were they used appropriately?

• General Effectiveness: Do the performers maintain the listener’s interest? Do the performers maintain high energy in the selection? Is the performance consistent?

Humor:

• Introduction: Did the student identify adequately the title, author, and setting of the selection? Did the student, where necessary, create the mood and prepare the audience for the performance? Were attention and interest aroused? Was the transition from introduction to selection smooth?

• Insight and Understanding: Did the interpreter appear to have an insight into the meaning, mood and emotional implications of the selection? Was there an apparent appreciation of the author's theme, purpose, viewpoint, and style? Was the cutting of literary merit? Projection of

• Humorous Qualities: Did the interpreter re-create the mood and meaning? Did the selection build to appropriate climaxes? Was the phrasing effective? If characters were included, was the delineation vivid and consistent?

• Delivery: Did the facial, bodily and vocal suggestion enhance rather than detract from the interpretation? If the student used a manuscript, was it appropriate to the piece and/or the rules of the tournament?

• Total Effectiveness: The total impression of the interpreter and material upon you, the judge. 

Poetry:

• Introduction: Did the student identify adequately the title, author, and setting of the selection? Did the student, where necessary, create the mood and prepare the audience for the performance? Were attention and interest aroused? Was the transition from introduction to selection smooth?

• Insight and Understanding: Did the interpreter appear to have an insight into the meaning, mood and emotional implications of the selection? Was there an apparent appreciation of the author's or authors’ theme, purpose, viewpoint, and style? Was the cutting of literary merit?

• Projection of Poetic Qualities: Did the interpreter re-create the mood and meaning? Did the selection build to appropriate climaxes? Was the phrasing effective? If characters were included, was the delineation vivid and consistent?

• Delivery: Did the facial, bodily and vocal suggestion enhance rather than detract from the interpretation? Did the student use a manuscript?

• Total Effectiveness: The total impression of the interpreter and material upon you, the judge, as compared to other students in the round.

Program Oral Interp:

• Introduction Did the student identify adequately the title, author, and setting of the selections in the introduction or in another section of the performance? Did the student, where necessary, create the mood and prepare the audience for the performance? Were attention and interest aroused? Was the transition from introduction to selection smooth?

• Insight and Understanding: Did the student develop a theme or argument through the use of narrative, story, language, and/or characterization? Did the student appear to have an insight into the meaning, mood and emotional implications of the selections? Was there an apparent appreciation of the authors’ themes, purposes, viewpoints, and styles? Was the cutting of literary merit?

• Projection of Dramatic Qualities: Did the student re-create the mood and meaning? Did the selection build to appropriate climaxes? Was the phrasing effective? If characters were included, was the delineation vivid and consistent?

• Delivery: Did the facial, bodily and vocal suggestion enhance rather than detract from the interpretation? Did the student use the manuscript appropriately and effectively?

• Total Effectiveness: The total impression of the interpreter and material upon you, the judge, as compared to other students in the round.

Creative Storytelling rules:

In general you will watch 6 students present a 3-5 minute story. It must be at least 3 minutes, no more than 5 or the student should be bottom of the round. Students will show up one at a time after prepping for 15 minutes in a separate room.

1. The best creative storytelling will utilize narration and characterization.

2. No stage accessories may be used in Creative Storytelling except one chair.

3. Acting is permissible as characterization is essential in some types of stories.

4. Fifteen minutes prior to speaking, the competitor shall draw three story outlines. The competitor shall immediately choose one of the three outlines drawn and return the two unused outlines.

5. The competitor cannot leave the preparation room until time to speak, nor can the competitor receive help from a coach or any other student. No reference material or notes will be allowed during the preparation time. A scratch pad may be used to put down notes and ideas for the presentation, but may not be used during the presentation.

6. The competitor shall present his/her topic slip to the judge. Failure to speak on the topic chosen will result in the competitor being ranked last in the round.

7. Time limits of the presentation will be not less than three minutes and not more than five minutes. There will be a 30-second grace period. Competitors who go outside the 30-second grace-period.

Adapted from Fairview High School

For speaking events, you will typically see speeches that are of two different varieties:

• Memorized or extemporaneous speeches

  • Memorized include: Original Oratory and Informative Speaking

  • Extemporaneous includes: National Extemporaneous Speaking, International Extemporaneous Speaking, and Impromptu Speaking

• Persuade or inform

  • Persuading: Original Oratory

  • Informing: Informative, National Extemporaneous Speaking and International Extemporaneous Speaking

  • No set intent: Impromptu Speaking

About the events:

• Original Oratory & Information

  • Pre-written speech of 7-10 minutes

  • Designed to persuade (OO) or information (info)

  • Memorized; use of scripts depends on each tournament

  • Only for "Informative Speaking": students may also have a board or presentation of information. It is optional and not required. 

• Extemporaneous Speaking

  • 30 minutes to prepare 5-7 minute speech

  • National or International topics

  • Use of notecard depends on each tournament

More details:

• Original Oratory: Students give a speech of a maximum of ten minutes on a topic of their own choice focused on persuading or arguing. Scripts are not permitted. 

• Informative: Students give a speech of a maximum of ten minutes on a topic of their own choice focused on informing. Scripts are not permitted.

• Extemporaneous Speaking: Students give on the spot speeches of no more than seven minutes on national and international topics. Prior to speaking, students research current events and create files that may be used in a 30-minute preparation period before the speech. Students may not use a note card to deliver their speech.

• Impromptu Speaking: Students present on the spot speeches of no more than five minutes on a range of miscellaneous topics from famous quotes to societal problems. Before speaking students are allowed five minutes of preparation. Students may use one 3 x 5 note card for their speech.

What to look for:

• Argument: Is there a clear thesis? 

• Evidence: Is that thesis supported by evidence? How much evidence and what types?

• Organization: Is there a clear organization, is it easy to follow the speech?

• Presentation: Is the speaker articulate, fluid, etc. Do they use clear language?

General Guidelines/Prompts for Writing Ballots (thanks to the GW Speech & Debate Team)

• Some things to think about when judging include: 

  • how well a competitor transitions between points and different parts of their speech, 

  • overall speaker confidence, 

  • whether or not they used filler words such as like or um, 

  • how effectively the speaker used hand gestures, 

  • the evidence they provide, 

  • how well you could follow their speech, 

  • their analysis of the evidence (how well they were able to explain the impact of their evidence). 

• Presentation: Sentence Starters

  • Your _____ made you seem nervous. To be less nervous this I would suggest _______

  • You gestured too often/not enough/ \your gestures felt unbalanced because you used your right hand more than your left (or vice versa)/ you swayed/ you moved too much/ fidgeted/ etc.  

  • It was awkward when you ______ so I would try _______

  • In order to deliver your speech better, focus on _______

  • Your movements felt natural/stilted/forced when ________

  • Vary your tone/cadence/facial expressions more when talking about/to emphasize _______ 

  • It was difficult to hear you/you were too loud

• Content: Sentence Starters

  • Next time think about including _______

  • I was confused on what you meant when you said ______  

  • You could make it easier to follow your points by adding/removing/explaining _______

  • Your speech was top-heavy and you seemed rushed at the end.  Consider removing ______.  

  • Your speech was repetitive.  This point _______ blended with this point _______ because. 

  • To make your points more believable, I would suggest _____.

  • I thought your point about could use _____. 

  • Your analysis was surface level so I would go deeper into_____. 

  • Your speech seemed disorganized because _______

  • Consider changing _____

Questions to reflect on as you provide feedback:

Extemp:

• Thesis: Did the speaker express himself clearly? Did he provide answers to the question selected? Were the answers proposed suitable, practical, advantageous? Thought 

• Content: Was the content relevant to the stated thesis? Was there evidence of critical thinking and sound logic? Was there evidence of knowledge of questions? 

• Organization: Were the introduction and conclusion adequate? Were the main ideas apparent? Were transitions clear? 

• Development of Ideas: Were adequate evidence and reasoning used? Was illustrative material used to emphasize and clarify? 

• Use of Language: Did the wording have the simplicity, accuracy, vividness, and force expected in an effective extemporaneous speech? 

• Delivery: Was pronunciation acceptable? Was there use of vocal variety and emphasis? Was the speaker direct and communicative? 

• Total Effectiveness: The total impression of the speech and speaker upon you, the judge.

Informative:

• Purpose: Was the specific topic sought by the speaker clear? Was the thesis evident?

• Thought Content: Was there evidence of critical thinking? Was the student's approach imaginative and original? Organization Did the speaker achieve unity, coherence, and emphasis in composition? Were the introduction and conclusion adequate?

• Development of Ideas: Does the speaker effectively inform the audience? Were adequate evidence and reasoning used? Was illustrative material used to emphasize and clarify?

• Use of Language: Was the wording direct, vivid, and forceful? Did the speaker show discriminating word choice? Delivery Was the speaker direct and communicative? Did the speaker avoid unmotivated gestures, random movement, and artificial vocal variety?

• Total Effectiveness: The total impression of the speech and speaker upon you, the judge.

Original Oratory:

• Purpose: Was the specific belief and/or action sought by the speaker clear? Was the thesis evident? Thought Content Was there evidence of critical thinking? Was the student's approach imaginative and original?

• Organization: Did the speaker achieve unity, coherence, and emphasis in composition? Were the introduction and conclusion adequate?

• Development of Ideas Were adequate evidence and reasoning used? Was illustrative material used to emphasize and clarify?

• Use of Language: Was the wording direct, vivid, and forceful? Did the speaker show discriminating word choice?

• Delivery: Was the speaker direct and communicative? Did the speaker avoid unmotivated gestures, random movement, and artificial vocal variety?

• Total Effectiveness: The total impression of the speech and speaker upon you, the judge.

*adapted from Fairview High School

"All debate events have a unique order to the round, divided into three parts: speeches, cross-examination, and prep time. Speeches are where the bulk of the debating is done, with each team presenting and reinforcing their arguments while refuting their opponents. It is highly encouraged for judges to flow a debate, which means the judges will take notes about the speeches in order to keep track of the debate." (From the Loveland Speech & Debate coach, Pat DeMartine)

There are three main types of debate:

1. Cross Examination Debate: Policy based partner debate.

2. Lincoln-Douglas Debate: Value based individual debate.

   • LD focuses on the conflicting values of social and philosophical issues, for example, by examining questions of morality, justice, democracy, etc. Typically, LD debates concern themselves with deciding whether or not certain actions, or states of affairs, are good or bad, right or wrong, moral or immoral.

3. Public Forum: Crossfire structured partner debate.

   • A partner-based debate event organized around resolutions that rotate monthly. Resolutions are normally drawn from current events. Teams will flip a coin for side and speaker position. The affirmative team is expected to say “yes” to the statement made by the resolution and offer supporting arguments. The negative team is expected to say “no” to the statement made by the resolution and offer supporting arguments.

Debate events: Overview of judging

• Each debate has it's own unique period for "prep time". This may vary between tournament as well as event. Check with the tournament organizer for how much prep time each team should receive if it is not clear on the ballot. 

  • Competitors can choose when to take their prep time, but it must be in between speeches, and should communicate clearly to the room when prep time is being used. 

  • It can be easiest to ask each team to time and track the other team's prep time. 

• Public Forum debate is meant to be judged by those without debate experience. Focuses on current issues and persuasive format.

• Other types but we recommend new judges learn PF!

• Once judges have some experience with PF, if they are interested in more philosophical topics, we are happy to discuss judging LD further. Some judges find they prefer PF vs LD, others just prefer debates over interpretation or speaking events!

• Cross Examination Debate is typically only judged by those who have experience in the event. 

• Students may ask you for your paradigm before the round. This refers to your preferences and judging criteria for evaluating the round. It lets students determine if there are any ways they should adjust or adapt their debate style. See more below.

Tips for getting started:

• Reflect on your biases prior to the round. See above. 

• Let debaters know that you are new to judging debate. 

• Ask debaters to time themselves and each other's prep time.

• Write down the resolution debaters are trying to affirm or negate. 

• For Public Forum: take time to set-up the room, know who is on the pro/con, and which side of the room they are sitting on.

• Check out this cheatsheet on "Debate Jargon" from the GW Speech & Debate team.

Watching the round:

• Take notes during speeches. We typically call this "Flowing" in debate. 

  • We recommend one sheet of paper to write down the pro/aff arguments, and one to write down the con. 

  • Consider writing down initial arguments all on the first ~2 inches of paper. 

  • Then use the next ~2 inches of paper to write down how the other team responds.

  • Continue as speeches trade back and forth. 

• Pay attention during the "cross-examination" or questioning period.

  • This period is designed for students to ask questions of each other. In PF the teams trade-off asking and answering questions. In CX and LD one side leads the questioning period at a time. 

  • Students should not be using this time to make arguments. 

  • Judges are not required to "flow" or take notes during this part. Students should bring up any "concessions" or important responses in their subsequent speeches. 

• Know that students will first present a "constructive speech" that reflects their main arguments and then they will deliver a rebuttal speech.

Deciding the round:

• Review the resolution the debaters addressed and ask yourself what the main question in the round was. 

• Consider not just initial arguments, but how students addressed attacks on the initial arguments they presented. 

• Reflect on the major issues in the round. 

• Reflect on the evidence students used to support their initial arguments, attacks, and subsequent speeches. 

• Reflect on the speaking style in the round: was one team more well-spoken, persuasive, etc. 

• Ask yourself, "who won the major arguments" and "who was the best speaker in the round". Many times these teams will be the same. In others, you may be persuaded by the evidence and arguments provided by one team, even if they were not as clear speakers.

  • Tournaments may allow you to assign separately a winning team and speaker points to address this.

• As you continue to judge more and more you will develop preferences: you may really like it when students are super fluid and convincing or you may like it when students use lots of evidence! Reflect on these preferences, how you view debate rounds, and consider writing or updating your judge paradigm.  

• On your ballot, try to simplify your comments down to one clear sentence that provides your "Reason for Decision": what is the primary reason you are voting for the team you did?

Value Debate (Value Debate is like Lincoln Douglas debate, but on topics students only have a limited time to prepare for. Rules are below for when it is offered.)

• Students will draw a debate topic 30 minutes prior to debating and then arrive to the round. Students should flip for sides.

• Each debater will be allowed a total of 3 minutes preparation time during the course of the debate.

• The debate should be judged on argumentation skills, including sound construction of arguments, the ability to defend and defeat arguments, and logic as well as all other aspects of debating skills.

• In the competition room, immediately before each debate, the judge will toss a coin and the winner selects the side to defend.

• The debate should be judged on argumentation skills, including sound construction of arguments, the ability to defend and defeat arguments, and logic as well as all other aspects of debating skills.

• Library resources will not be available; materials such as magazines, dictionaries, etc. are not to accompany the debater.

• In One-on-One Value Debate there is no presumption and no burden of proof (as these terms are used in policy debate theory).

• The negative debater must identify and support values and/or a hierarchy of values which are different from those suggested by the resolution of value. The negative must also fulfill the burden of clash by opposing the affirmative stance.

*Adapted from Fairiew High School

One of the best things you can do is watch rounds and ask questions!

Sample videos:

1. Public Forum Debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e19cuWoCkuY 

2. Extemporaneous Speaking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a-TFQNSujo 

3. Original Oratory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtN7_9n07Qw

4. Duo Interpretation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_n7Ayu9u-4

5. Humorous Interpretation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wyIH3YcuYk 

Independent Study Courses:

• NSDA Judge Training Hub - features introductory classes, as well as more resources on judging speech, debate, and congress

• Cultural Competency Judging

• Course on Judging Speech & Debate (includes samples to watch)

Reflection Exercises:

• Anti-Bias Judge Training

Handouts/Readings:

• NSDA "Debate Training Guide" provides an overview of all debate events and how to evaluate.

• Judging a Colorado Speech and Debate Tournament from Loveland High School

• "Debate Jargon" from the GW Speech & Debate team.

• PF Ballot With Example Comments  (Please note these list the old speaking times.)

• https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G52B_3BzibupBQduMcsZS1Q4p0OJzr_a/view?usp=sharing

• LD Ballot With Example Comments (Please note these list the old speaking times.)

• https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-_G57PlXOAvQr6GX4VJhXe-O0cG22mrb/view?usp=sharing

Training Resources

How to Judge a Colorado Speech & Debate tournament - two page summary

How to Judge - Overview

Detailed Judge Resources

*Adapted from Fairview High School