Longhofer,+Gordan

Longhofer, Gordan

I’ve been judging speech and debate events quite extensively for the past three years. My best areas of expertise are Student Congress and the IE interp events (OI, DI, HI and Duo Interp); I’ve judged all of these at local and national levels including semi-final and final rounds. I am also very comfortable with LD and Public forum, having judged both of these at multiple levels of competition including break rounds at the national level. My philosophies are listed below by events:

1. Congress – Clarity is always important. You have only one chance to make a good first impression. Be certain I can understand every word you speak, otherwise the argument never happened. For Authorship/sponsorship and first negative speeches, I value logic, evidence with source citations, and presentation in that order. In subsequent speeches, I value refutation/rebuttal that is logical and supported by evidence, again with source citations. Organization of material demonstrating a natural progression should always be present; random thoughts may often get lost, or at least lose impact. Tier 1 sources are highly valued; tier 2 sources don’t carry as much weight but are generally quite usable. Use of tier 3 sources will hurt your score. Opinions are just that, opinions; everyone has them. How you handle cross examination is very important; you should anticipate objections and be prepared to deal with them. You should also be very adept at questioning others in cross-ex. This can push you over the top against other competitors. Quality presentation always enhances your impact and is quite useful as a tiebreaker, other factors being equal.

2. IE (interpretation events) – Much of my decision will be based on one question: “Did you move me?” I always ask this question whether the event is dramatic or humorous. If I am not moved, you may not be winning. Choose your material carefully. Interp competitors need to pick pieces/selections that, while impressive, are ones they can “knock out of the park.” Your voice quality and physical characteristics may enhance or detract from your ability to do this. Don’t be afraid to create large characters; they read more easily to a large audience. Timing is everything in humor; make sure yours works for, not against you. Work, re-work, and re-re-work your piece to be certain you have no form breaks in your characters; breaks can destroy an otherwise memorable performance. Follow the rules and watch the clock. I am forgiving if I think the amount of audience laughter/reaction extended the performance slightly beyond the time limit, but you should not rely on this during your preparation. Keep us laughing and don’t be afraid to make us cry.

3. LD – It’s a philosophical debate so statistics and objective evidence, while useful, are not as important as they are in congress; I need to know what you think and feel and have you connect it to real people. In addition, don’t count on being able to just rattle off loads of information in order to make more contentions than your opponent can rebut. I am not opposed to spreading or something close to that, but both are "risk/reward' scenarios; if I can’t understand you, then you didn’t say it, and I won’t know where you stand.

4. Public Forum - Like congress, it's an event based upon evidence and requires a logical flow. Your initial case must be sound and well supported. The importance of quality rebuttal cannot be overstated. Clarity, regardless of speed, is also a necessity. Source quality will make the difference in an otherwise even round.

All of these events give you tremendous opportunities to move your audience. Congress and the debate events (LD and PF) alo require you to persuade someone to your viewpoint. Such skills will serve you well throughout your life. Put great effort into polishing these skills and you will always do well.