Prose: Coming from a background in UIL and standard prose & poetry- the point of this event for is not so much action/flashy based, but all choices of the performance should be made from the text and not just so it it gimmicky. I appreciate the time and commitment that it takes to do certain binder techniques- and I'm not against it, however that shouldn't be the driving factor in your performance. Let the author's words breath what they wanted to say.

Duo: Duo was always my favorite event to compete and judge in; performing the choreography, sound effects, and lines perfectly in sync with another person without looking or touching them was always an incredible. I'm looking for polished, passionate, and hard-working teams. The genre of the selection doesn't matter, if the performance is capturing comedically or dramatically, the effect is still the same and the audience and judge should want another 10 minutes of the performance.

Duet: I don't think that duet's should go along with the moniker of being super 'clean' like duos - meaning poppy techniques, duets should be raw performances between two people, you can touch and look at each other, use it!!! Doesn't matter if the performance is funny or sad, it should still be entertaining and unique!

HI: I did HI for 4 years and loved every minute of it.

HI is the hardest event to go in front of everyone and perform- you can fake sad, but you can't fake funny. I'm looking for clean/innovative technique, non-recycled jokes and characters, and biting/clever humor. You don't have to have 30 characters if they aren't all polished, it'd be better to have 4-5 really solid ones instead. Make the story clear! There should be a point to HI's, and not just joke after joke. My favorite HI's are the one's that trick you into either feeling something, thinking, or laughing hard. The effort goes a long way.

DI: This was the most important event I ever competed and judged. Competing at Nationals in it really made me think about what a good DI is. The best DI's do not have to be full of sobbing, yelling, or crazy technique. The ones that make it all the way have a sense of humanity to them. Even when you're playing someone else- there is a person behind that performance and it should be embraced. DON'T TRY AND PERFORM LIKE SOMEONE ELSE, overacting killed so many beautiful pieces. Be honest, be passionate, and have a message.

Every single DI should have a message. What's yours?

About me: 

*Over 28 years experience coaching and judging all events at the state and national level 

*Coached in Florida, Alabama and Texas 

*Awards:  2nd Diamond coach with NSDA, LBJ District Coach of the Year, LBJ District Communicator of the Year, Alabama Coach Of the Year

PF

*I am a flow judge BUT presentation also matters a great deal.  If I can't understand what you are saying, it is difficult for me to flow your arguments. 

*Respect in the round is essential.  I don't care how good you are if you are disrespectful to your opponents or to the judges you will not get my vote. Be professional and respectful at all times.  

*I am good with any kind of speed, but keep it clear and articulate. 

*If you do not extend properly, I will not buy any of your arguments.

*Proper extension should include tag, short summary of evidence, and impact calc.

*I expect FF and even Sums to have impact calculus (magnitude, propensity, reversibility, etc.)

*Impacts are essential.  I don't care if you don't tell me why I should 

* I prefer you being true to what public forum was designed for, however if you happen to run theory and Kritik debate I will be ok with it.  

 * The second speaking rebuttal should respond to turns placed in the first speaking rebuttal.

*Offense wins rounds, so make sure your voters are offensive.

*Please collapse or the debate will end up being a mess. If you are going for Theory make sure to delineate what you want me to do with it (drop the debater, drop the argument, etc.), stance on RVI, clear voters.

*I consider it the burden of the Kritik to provide an alt and prove its uniqueness, so I will default buy the perm even if your opponent doesn’t argue it unless uniqueness is proved.

*AGAIN, I prefer traditional PF debate, but I will and can adjust judging according to different styles of debate.

*Organization is key; make it easy for me to follow

*Words matter; word economy is essential.  Don't waste time with insignificant words and filler language that takes away from overall presentation points  

Extemporaneous Speaking

-Be strategic about your question; play to your strength and knowledge, but avoid easy questions that don't require much analysis

-It is imperative you answer the question clearly and concisely

-Clearly link evidence with rhetoric and impact

-Using variety of sources is important; I am not impressed with multiple sources if those sources don't directly link with what you are saying. Just spouting off sources is not impressive. The information actually has to say something of importance and connect.

-The more current the information, the better.

-Organization and structure is important; but add some personality and flair to make it interesting and engaging.

-Knowledge of the topic is essential; more rhetoric and logic used in your speech is more impressive than anything

-Professional presentation is incredibly important.

-Don't add humor if it is not your strength.

-Tone should fit the topic.

-DO NOT BE POLITICALLY POLARIZING. Bashing any ideology or person is not impressive and will immediately give me reason to not consider a high ranking. Be respectful always.

Congressional Debate 

• I NEED CLASH. This is congressional debate, unless you are 1st AFF Speech, you should have clash in your speech.  Bring up NEW points and please do not keep bringing up same points as other representatives. 
• When you clash be sure you mention representative's names when referring to their specific arguments. 
• Your speeches need evidence, MINIMUM, one piece of evidence per point. More is appreciated. 
• When using evidence, it should clearly link or I will not consider it. Include dates; the more current and relevant the better. 
• DO NOT read your speech; engage your audience and do this in a original, creative and respectful way.
• I do listen to your speeches and questions, so if you give clearly falsified evidence or logic I will know. Be involved and know parliamentary procedure as well.
• You are judged on the WHOLE round, not just speeches, so if you are rude or aren’t involved don't expect a good score from me.

Debate Paradigm:

I am about as traditional as traditional can be. I typically won't disclose, please don't ask about it.

I am not a fan of:

-the k debate

-plans/counterplans in debates other than CX

-not standing when you are speaking or during CX

-disclosing before the debate starts

-talking fast unnecessarily

-being a part of email chains, I shouldn't have to read your evidence, I should be able to hear it and understand within the confines of your speech

I prefer:

-a slower more methodical debate

-actual discussion on the topic/resolution

-standing up when speaking

-understanding what the debater is saying

A debate is not won by the fastest talker or the one who quotes the most evidence cards. It is won through argument. Ultimately, I decide the winner as one would decide a civil lawsuit--by the preponderance of the evidence. This means you must quantify, quantify, quantify. Both sides must quantify the degree of benefit from their respective plans and the degree of harm due to either the absence of their plan or the implementation of the other side's plan. In the end, the team that quantifies the most compellingly and effectively will win the debate.

--Speech--

As far as extemp/oratory/informative, I look for a least some evidence to support their point or topic. However, these are speaking events so "speaking skills" are important to me (rate, diction and delivery).

When it comes to Interp, I am all about the story and the journey, regardless of humorous or dramatic. Introductions can be at the beginning or done as a teaser (whatever works). I have no specific issues with lots of technical blocking or no blocking at all...it all depends on the piece and how well it is executed. Some pieces require lots of tech and some are very simple and need almost nothing.

I am a Theatre Arts coach and a Interp Coach, so acting is the most important to me. And, I am a big fan of keeping with the author's intent. I am pretty liberal about mature material, however it has to be appropriate for the piece and needed, not just mature to get attention. I do not like it when an actor makes up things and adds to the script for no reason.

I am a parent lay judge - slightly more than a trained newcomer and I prefer traditional LD. I have judged LD at a few local tournaments and 1 national level tournament.

I prefer traditional value-criterion LD debate. If you decide to run Ks, CPs, DAs, etc. be sure that you clearly explain and provide justification to convince me that your case is better than your opponents from a value criterion basis. No LARPing.

I do not understand spreading. Do not spread. If you speak quickly, be sure you are speaking clearly and distinctly. I will only say “clear” once. If you do not slow down, then I will not be able to follow your arguments much less flow your case. The faster you speak, the higher the risk that I will miss something. If I cannot understand you or follow your arguments, then I have no choice but to vote you down.

You need to make my job easy. Provide voters that are clear and easy to follow. Your points should be convincing and constructive. You must explain why your points/arguments are better than your opponents. Provide clear weighing mechanism. Stay topical and link your arguments back to topic.

Please be courteous throughout the round including cross-ex. I will give low speaker points to those who are abrasive, dominating, discourteous, yelling, ill-mannered, etc. I will also give low speaker points to those who spread for a judge who cannot understand spreading.

I've been around for some time now and have seen how many things have changed. If I were to sum up my overall philopshy, I'm very much a traditionalist but reward originality and creativity. I competed in policy debate in hight school and Individual Events/CEDA in college. I am also a rules generated judge. If I feel you are on the wire or have leaped over it, I make mention of it.

On the IE side:

Interp - I belive in maintaining the authors intent. Of all the events, interp has changed the most over the years and in my opion in a good way. Today's interpers are unique, creative, and original. I have one steadfast rule in interp; I want to be drawn into the world the interper is giving me. If they can grab me from the beginning and keep in in that world throughout ther performance then they have succeeded. Anything that distracts or pulls me out of their world minimizes thier overall performance (crying, etc.).

Limited Prep: I judge on a 50/50 ratio. The first 50 is organization, content, and delivery. Firm beliver in the "walk-n-talk" philopshy that you walk only on transitions. The other 50 is content. If you make a statement, be able to support it. Make sure the question / topic is answered correctly.

Prep: Much like the limited prep but I reward originality on topics and their develoment.

On the Debate side:

Again, very much a traditionalist and don't particualy care for some "anitics" I have seen over the years. The affirmative must maintain burden of proof, counterplans are non-topical. negative wins one stock, they win the round. Rapid fire is okay as long as I can flow. If I can't flow it, I can't judge it. Depending upon the type of debate is how I judge it. Polcy debate must be fully supported with evidence. Public Forum is more on the philosphical (What the student knows and how they are able to communicate it), with LD being a combination of both support and philospical. Additionally, over the years some new "terms" have been develped. Basically, I don't care what you call it, all I want you to do is support it. If called for, I will give orals at the end but will not disclose my decision. The reason, I am not opening the the opportunity for the loosing team to debate me, that has happened a couple of times, I don't like the atmosphere when that happens so I have made it a rule never to disclose. I am also a firm believer in speakers roles and duties (don't accept open cross-x, etc.) . Each speaker has been give a role with duties and they are accountable for them.

I have a more detailed paradigm and once I locate it, I will attach.

LD Debate: I am a judge that leans toward the classic style. I don't mind K-debate, but you'd better make it apply to the resolution! I am not a fan Topicality arguments. If you run more than one off, I'm not going to apply the rest. Don't be a whiny debater. Debate the round! Speed is fine as long as you are articulate. Don't be rude to your opponent, and if you are a male debater...DON'T BE SEXIST OR CONDESCENDING to a female opponent. I want to hear framework, value, criterion, impacts, and links. Give me that and I will be happy.

PF Debate: Framework and Impacts! I don't like rudeness in Cross Examination. I like a mix of claims, warrants, and narrative. Tell me a story. I am not looking for solvency. I'm not sure why people think they have to solve in PF. I just want to understand why you support or oppose the status quo, how that fits into the framework provided, and where/how it impacts. Don't make it too difficult.

Speech and Interp: I enjoy being in speech and interp rounds, where I get to see student's personalities take flight! I love stories, and I feel like the journey's students choose to take us on are important ones!

In interp, I look for HONESTY and connection in each performance. Don't force emotion. We see that! It takes us out of the context of the piece! Also, please don't stare directly at me. I can't get lost in your piece if you are including me in the scene. I want to be a fly on the wall. And I'm a big believer in the FOURTH WALL. Also, I'm not a fan of those who exploit special needs characters, or make fun of them. If you use the "R" word in my round, or show disrespect to special needs characters, you will hear about it on my ballot. Please reconsider doing this in any piece you choose. It is exclusive and disturbing...don't resort to such things for the purpose of a trophy. This community encourages you to find growth in your humanity as well as your talents!

In speech, I like it when I learn something I didn't already know. Teach me! I love coming out of rounds and telling people, "I was in this OO/Informative/Extemp round and I just learned that..." And I don't mind controversial subjects either! As long as you aren't excluding anyone, or being offensive to a particular group of people (race, ability, religion, sexual preference...etc), then I'm okay with controversy. And whatever your topic...have conviction!

In both speech AND interp, I like it when students make CHOICES and take CHANCES. I'm a tough judge, but only because I want you to improve and have the best critique you can get to do that! I love the community that speech and debate provides for students. I also know that the experience I get from every single performer is invaluable! So thank you!

I competed actively in IE events in high school (OO, INFO, DUO, HI, DI, POI, Prose, Poetry), competing in both local Texas circuits and national circuits throughout my career. While I did have my opinions and artistic preferences as a competitor, I will not project those onto competitors as a judge.

Interp:

For all - Clear storyline, thought-out characters, and an intro that injects purpose to your piece are what I baseline look for. What stands out to me is when a performer has an artistic and powerful usage of volume, non-verbal expression, and pauses.

DUO - I care a lot about chemistry and cleanliness. Blocking should add to the story and be used purposefully. Partners should be in-sync and build off each other as actors.

DI/HI - I don't look for bells and whistles. I judge based on a clear, followable storyline (how well did you cut this piece), character arcs, and character work (character choices in physicality and vocal nuances should be purposeful). In either event, you should leave me thinking about something. Every good story has humor and heart regardless of the category of event it falls under.

Binder events - Just don't be reading off the text like it's your first time. Pages shouldn't be flying out of your binder while you're performing.

Public Speaking:

For both - There should be a clear structure in the speech. I don't have a preference for what type of structure. Delivery should be personable and natural, don't try to be someone else -- talk to me as yourself. The utilization of space should be purposeful and pointed. I care a lot about the passion and personal connection to the topic. I judge because I want to hear what you care about, so don't just have me listen to you talk about something for 10 minutes that you don't even care about (that wastes both of our time!).

INFO - I enjoy a creative visual, but don't let visuals take away from your speech.

PF/LD: I will normally judge based off of the round. Okay with speed. Prefer it if you don't run theory arguments.

Interp: I will take piece selection into account. Prefer more versatile pieces that display a wider range of skill and talent.

Speaking Events: I will count evidence and fluency breaks. I will also keep track of how evenly your time is distributed. I would also appreciate some humor - more in Original Oratory, less in extemporaneous speaking events.

For TFA State:

Interp: I am a pretty open minded judge when it comes to judging interp overall but there are a few things I look for in performances. Creativity and honesty will always be the most rewarded in my book because it is why we do what we do at the end of the day. Showcasing your own interpretation, but staying true to the core of the story is important to me. Character development and emotional shifts are super important especially over a digital platform to keeping us engaged with the story and showing us the meaning behind the words. Have fun with the choices you make as long as they are PURPOSEFUL, doing something that distracts rather than enhances makes us lose connection between what is happening in the story.

Speaking/Extemp: Big thing is show your own unique style and approach to speaking because this is what separates you from other. I am a big fan of humor, but PLEASE, I BEG do not make it feel forced or this is just awkward for both of us. In terms of depth of the speech, I like more than just surface level arguments and I want to see you get to the higher end issues and core problems effectively. Structure is important obviously to make sure we can connect all of the ideas and know how you are getting to what you are wanting to. Finally, have variation in your delivery, it is important to showcase the different levels and power of your arguments and statements and so we should feel very engaged with how you are saying and what you are saying.

Worlds School Debate:

School affiliation/s : Northwest High School

Hired (yes/no) : Hired for WSD

High School Affiliation if graduated within last five years (required): Northwest High School

Currently enrolled in college? (required) If yes, affiliation? No

Years Judging/Coaching (required) I have been judging for 5- 6 years.

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event (required)

I pretty much started off my first year judging in interp and PF and then slowly incorporated all other forms of debate the following year.

Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year (required): Since August I have judged about 40 world school rounds around Texas.

Check all that apply

__x___I judge WS regularly on the local level

_____I judge WS at national level tournaments

_____I occasionally judge WS Debate

_____I have not judged WS Debate this year but have before

_____I have never judged WS Debate

Rounds judged in other events this year : 75 rounds including PF, LD, Interp, Speaking, and Congress.

Check all that apply

__x__ Congress

_x___ PF

__x__ LD

____ Policy

_x___ Extemp/OO/Info

__x__ DI/HI/Duo/POI

____ I have not judged this year

____ I have not judged before

Have you chaired a WS round before?

I have chaired multiple WS rounds before locally.

What does chairing a round involve?

Chairing a round basically is keeping the round in order and ensuring a productive and efficient debate. The chair is in charge of calling up the speakers, leading the RFD for the panel, making sure people do not ask questions during protected time (which I discuss students should keep their own timer at the beginning so we do not have this issue), and making sure a fair debate is occurring.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else?

I would describe WSD as a form of debate in which you are arguing ideas and issues to show which side of the motion is the most logical. This is way different than Americanized debate where theory and jargon is utilized more, so it is focusing on the core issues of the debate. Worlds is suppose to make sense to anyone who is listening to the debate and therefore the arguments should make rationale sense to anybody.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate?

I am fortunate enough to have a full setup for my computer. I have two monitors and on the main monitor I watch the debate, and the second monitor has my tabroom ballot where I am writing notes over each speech and speaker. I also in front of me use a notebook to flow the debate to make sure I keep up with what is being said in the round.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

This just simply depends on the topic itself. I am pretty open minded when it comes to arguments and do not have a personal preference as long as it is discussed why you chose what to advocate for. This clarity is needed to really emphasize why that approached is needed and it's on the debaters to tell me why it is preferable.

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy?

I think strategy usually is overlooked in terms of how you want structure arguments. A speaker's strategy is how do you connect the claims you present and how you word things in order to be effective in elaborating on arguments presented by the other side. Picking the right way to argue things and how you say it are definitely things to be aware of for your strategy.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast?

First, I am glad to have not judged a WSD where someone was spreading, so let's keep it that way hopefully. If someone is just not effective with their speed and tone I usually deduct points from their style.

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

As silly as it may sound, I usually vote on simply what makes sense. Since we do not have to have the 20 minutes of calling for cards (thankfully), I simply view whos reasoning and rationale makes the most sense towards the topic and arguments presented in the round. Show me your thought process through your speech and it usually comes down to who can prove their claims in a clear manner, rather than the throw everything at the wall and see what sticks strategy.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

I look at how effective and clear some model is to make sure it sets the foundation for your ideas. Make sure you think through your model to answer any potential questions individuals may have about it. I do not think all motions need a model or countermodel, so just make sure if you use one there is a purpose to it.

I look for and emphasize conviction within a speech. I think purpose and thought behind words and actions is a necessity to draw me into your speech. I love when competitors tactfully think outside of the box to distinguish themselves within the round. Best of luck to all competitors

No preferences except for speed, speakers must be clear and concise.

Hello!

If you're viewing this page, I'm most likely going to be your judge for a Speech/Interp Round, and my paradigm is located below!

Firstly, I'm a national qualifier in this event, and a 2018 National Qualifier. I have major respect for this event and have few things to mention before you go off into round

I'm going to be incredible honest with you I.E. events are my favorite events and have little to no paradigm. You've already made your pieces and there's no way you can adapt to what I like 5 minutes before the round. I'll judge your piece like it is. These paradigms are for after

- If I happen to judge you and leave comments, use them to your advantage!! One thing I HATE seeing is someone who I'm judging for a second time only to see the exact same performance. USE WHAT THE JUDGES SUGGEST FOR YOU AND ADAPT!!

- Last thing: Speech and Interp is a forum and a platform to all types of voices. Any discriminatory/sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic (etc.) types of language and rhetoric will result in me, simply, not listening, and this may (and probably will) result in a ranking of dead last, accompanied with a talking-to with me about correcting such behavior. Just avoid it. Don't try to exploit the matters to seem edgy or explosive especially if you have not specifically researched the topic thoroughly and care about the topic and those affected by it.

- Speech/interp is amazing!! Have fun!!

PF/LD

- really simple here: DON'T TURN THE ROUND INTO A SCREAMING MATCH. i understand that in debate you have to attack your opponent and advocate for your side but still be respectful to your opponent and to my ears.

- I consider myself more "tabula rosa" and will flow and evaluate what is presented to me; this means: offer some framework for me, carefully quantify your impacts, and etc.; tell me how i ought to judge this round !!

- comments about being respectful of the debate space apply here from what i mentioned from speech/interp above

- Any form of argumentation is fine as long as it is warranted and you can clearly explain it. This includes T, plans, and counterplans. However, I am not familiar with critical arguments, so run Ks at your demise. (also, if i don't understand your DA, CP, etc, and its obvious, that's on you)

- I would strongly encourage you to disclose arguments before round and even add me to an email chain. How much or how little you disclose is up to you and your opponent. You can ask for my email in round. If you choose not to, I may request full access to any pieces of evidence at any time

- For speaking speed, still go a little slower. If you're fast and I don't understand and I can't flow, it's your loss

- Have fun !!

Congress

- not many things to mention, but watch "when" you place your speeches

- I expect the first quarter of the debate to have contention args and speeches that sound like a sponsorship, after that, please focus on a more rebuttal speech!

- Disrespectful PO's are NOT the move

- Super new in Congress so if i ask questions don't be rude about it.

Exempt: FX and DX

- Make sure your hand motions are not super distracting. Some motions are okay and if they make sense but if they are all over the place then I definitely will use it against you when i think about your rank. Same with leg movement when standing in place don't sway or move around unless it's to move to your next point.

- On my ballots i usually write down your argument so i can keep up with your reasoning and write any disputes i have. So if i just write what you said either i didn't get much from it or it didn't need any work.

-Clearly state and cite you're sources so your argument has merit also provide framework/ road map to your speeches

- I'm sort of new in exempt so for the most part my comments will be more speech based since that's what I'm used to. But that doesn't mean i can't tell when you're not doing your best or doing something wrong

- Don't stand there and yell your argument at me

- Do people spread in exempt? Don't in mine please!!!

- Make it interesting ad in a saying or a joke or two to keep your judged invested and interested.

Overall in a pretty fair judge in general and if you have problems I encourage you to talk to me about it

Public Speaking Events: Structure and presentation is important. It should feel like a conversation but not like I'm talking to a friend either so no informal language or tones

Oratory/Informative: I am not opposed to performance pieces when they are natural. If the "interp" feels forced, fake, or mechanical, it throw the speech off for me. Performance pieces should be for a purpose and a gimmick.

Interp Events: Blocking and conviction is key. Just because you have movement does not mean you have blocking. For example walking/running around the room is not blocking unless the script scene really calls for that. Blocking and transitions between character should be clean and clear. Literary merit is just as important as performance and when it comes down to breaking a tie between two amazing performances, I will go with the selection that has the most literary merit.

POI: Binder usage is fine but should be with purpose. Using it as prop for the sole purpose of having a prop is not okay. While I understand that most people memorize their performance this is not supposed to be performed that way. If you are going to memorize your performance do so with a sufficient number of page turns and block in reading from or at least look for a moment at your binder. If you never appear to read from it I will drop your ranking because you have given me a DI/HI. Additionally I am not a fan dropping images or words from your binder from visual effect. The only time I think this is okay is if it is a direct photo copy of the images in the original script or the only words you have spoken while on that page. Outside of this you are using the drops as a prop which is not allowed.

I am a lay judge who has judged a few PF debates in the past.

Here are my preferences:

Please speak slowly, especially when talking about a major argument. No progressive arguments or theory.

Please provide good warrants and implications. Also, make clear points while weighing and don't use jargon.

I understand that focus is on quality of argumentation and not on speech and delivery.

To make it easier to judge please summarize when possible.

Please keep track of your own time

I don't mind low level interruption and lively back and forth but please don't make it overly aggressive and offensive.

alexvaughn389@gmail.com

Wylie High School (2015-2019)

UT Dallas (2019-2022)

he/him

I am rewriting this because why not.

CX - I rarely judge but if i happen to default to my LD paradigm

LD - I rarely judge but have experience. I consider myself a tab judge so give me a framework to evaluate the round and emphasize that over the course of the debate. I urge you to stray away from progressive debate tactics (like K's, T, etc.), mainly bc most debaters in LD can not run them properly or respond to them properly, and it makes for bad debate. Sorry. That being said, I am competent at evaluating any round of LD and any type of argument as long as you can explain it well.

PF - I judge this the most. Please know that blatant PF "toxic disrespect" is an automatic loss and 25 speaks. Make sure that you are always respectful to your opponents and have healthy discourse. Also, there seems to be a trend where people waste time by asking and begging to flash a certain card that ends up not mattering or teams taking too long to respond when people want to see the evidence. Please know that this will not happen in any of my rounds. I will immediately intervene and decide for myself, and then talk to your coaches because it is ridiculous. It should take no more than 20 seconds to find and flash a card, albeit email it, and any longer or other abuse of time theft will result in my intervention. Aside from that, I can evaluate any arguments, including DAs and T, but be sure that your opponent knows how to respond to them, otherwise its an awkward debate. Be sure to give voters.TLDR: don't be ridiculous, be respectful, give voters, and give good debate.

Congress - Just know that the person that gets my one will likely not have all of their speeches prewritten. Rather, they take what their opponents say and craft a speech mid round to give rebuttal arguments and constructive debate. Also, they actively participate on every bill. For the PO, as long as you know the basics it's fine and you will likely be ranked well, you can ask for help whenever.

Extemp - Make sure you answer the question. I have ranked the best speeches last because they simply don't answer the question word for word as it appears. I don't want that to happen to you :(

IE/whatever else - Give TW's if you discuss sensitive material. That's it just do you.