I debated policy in high school and in college in from 1988-1994. I have coached policy, LD, public forum and now Congressional debate. Because of my policy roots substantiating your argument with evidence and refutation are important to debate. I fundamentally see Congressional debate as debate not as another form of extemp.

Organization: Be prepared! Make clear points, organize your thinking, and follow logical steps. Your speech should not come across as stagnant; rather, it should be characterized by creativity, passion, and focus.

Clash: Ask bold questions, offer direct refutations, and be adaptable. Demonstrate leadership and confidence.

Respect: Be bold while maintaining respect. Assume positive intent from your fellow representatives.

Enjoy this time and seize the opportunity to learn from one another.

I am a parent judge for Congress. My degree is in Political Science with a focus on the U.S. govt. I have lobbied Congress, written opinion pieces on behalf of a Senator, and worked closely with govt. agencies such as FDA.

I am looking for a healthy debate. Can you provide new facts or pull the facts given together and summarize? If not, please think twice about speaking. Speaking for the sake of speaking and not to further the debate, seems rather useless. Try not to read your notes. You need to have a strong open and at least three reasons we should affirm or negate a bill. Smooth language read from a page is less important than a passionately delivered, well researched piece.

Congress, overall - I am here to judge you and you are here to speak. I don't like when time is wasted not debating when that's the whole point of this event existing. Along this line, if previous question was moved and you still have a speech, maybe you should have been better prepared or chosen to speak sooner. I believe it is selfish to make an entire chamber sit through a broken cycle if your speech is not going to actually contribute to debate.

Congress Scorer- Congressional debate should be extemporaneous or have an extemporaneous feel. If I can tell that this is a pre-written speech and not your actual words, this will result in an automatic 5.

Because there is only 3 minutes per speech, the critiques I can provide are generally not the most thorough, however, I do try to provide feedback based on what I notice.

Speaker ranking is determined by conduct in chamber and questions asked. I do not necessarily take into consideration the number of speeches; however, in a competitive round, quality of speaking and speeches will be a distinguishing factor between close competitors. To break this down: You will be ranked higher in my ballot if you:
1) Use questioning time effectively both as a speaker and as a questioner (I don't mind asking question to bolster your side as long as you aren't wasting what little time is given in each block)
2) Effective and correct use of parliamentary procedure
3) Have well-spoken speeches that do not read from a page (or do not feel like they were written from a page).

Speeches scoring is determined based on this rubric on page 14 https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/2017-Congressional-Debate-Guide.pdf. I prefer this rubric to the 2020 guide due to its detail.

It is rare for PO to rank below 5th in the round on my ballot. I understand the difficulty and the difference in the role of PO vs Speakers in the Chamber. That said, if there are many people deserving higher ranks as speakers,

Congress Parliamentarian - I ensure that proper order will be kept in the chamber at all times. I am very familiar with Parliamentary Procedure and will assist the Presiding Officer as needed. For Novice and JV, I will generally hold a more interactive seat with clear and direct instruction, as well as advice. For Varsity, I will take a more observational seat (unless the PO has specifically asked for a more hands-on parliamentarian). My expectations for both are similar (being more lenient with JV/Novice), however, are also understanding of experience in Speech and Debate, as well as the category overall.

What you can anticipate from my feedback: If you are a speaker, honestly, unless I have to say something (for good or bad), don't expect to get feedback from me on your speeches. You have two other judges that are giving you feedback. If you are PO, expect very detailed feedback and suggestions. Don't be intimidated by walls of text and paragraphs (with links), because that feedback is there to share my knowledge and tips that I have had with my experience with ParliPro and POing and imparting that on you.

Scoring, overall, is based on conduct in the chamber. Generally, students will receive a higher rank if they:
1. Use proper parliamentary procedure in every role in chamber (personal privilege, point of inquiry/order, effective uses of motions, etc.)
2. Utilise questioning blocks appropriately and functionally (actually asking questions, and not bringing in more information that should be addressed in a speech and ACTUALLY follow NSDA and MSHSL, when appropriate, guidelines)
3. Ensuring fairness and efficiency from every role in chamber
4. Pet peeve of mine: If you say that you are going to follow NSDA guidelines, actually follow them. There are many things that are done that explicitly go against NSDA (and MSHSL) guidelines that no one corrects. Examples include, but are not limited to: opening the floor for debate (this has never been a thing as long as I have been alive), closing the floor for docket nominations

In competitive rounds, I am looking for competitors who are paying attention, genuinely adding to the debate, and making themselves appropriately known.

While I understand that speeches are an important aspect of debate, when I am Parliamentarian, they are my second focus while ranking. I do not score speeches in this role. Most of my feedback is provided on an as-needed basis, with the exception of PO.

Before I get into this you need to understand that I will not accept being bigoted in any way shape or form. Congress is a debate event.

I think congress is a debate event and should be treated as such. Be nice don't bully others. Have confidence in yourself you will do great. Talk to me after round if you want more specific feedback, I would love to help in any way possible. Have a good round.

POs should not exist

(That said I rank POs)

I think that Chat GPT is a tool that should be used in debate but don't let me see you using it round its not going to write a speech for you...

When I judge Congress, not only am I looking for arguments (claim/warrant/data/impact), I am looking at the quality of your presentation. Speech still applies to Debate. I look for a confident, passionate persuasive speech that asks us to affirm or negate. As a session progresses, I look to see follow up speeches that draw in other supporting Senators/Representatives, as well as refuting the opposition - including being presented more extemporaneously. If the topic makes you angry or frustrated, I want to see and hear that. If it makes you happy or satisfied, I want to see that, too. For Q&A blocks, I expect to see the level of prep that anticipates what others will ask after your speech. I look for confident, crisp answers. Thank you.

For Congress:

For LD:

Major considerations for me as a judge:

1) Value clash seems unnecessary...aren't you all valuing something good? I rarely vote on the value debate.

2) Criterion/standard is VERY important. Please keep in mind: just because we use your framework to weigh the round doesn't mean YOU WIN. I vote for the debater who meets the agreed-upon framework the best. Whosever framework we use, I will use that lens to review the round.

3) Impacts are ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY and should be stated IN ALL SPEECHES. Otherwise, I am witnessing two debaters throw evidence and arguments at each other, but I don't know what to do with this content. TELL YOUR AUDIENCE WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO DO WITH THE ARGUMENTS/EVIDENCE IN YOUR SPEECHES! How does what you are saying influence the round?

4) I hate nuclear war/extinction arguments. Like, super hate. The only reason I would vote for you if you use nuclear war impacts is if the resolution is actually about nuclear weapons. Other than that, I will not buy slippery slope arguments. I truly hate extinction arguments...like, truly truly.

5) I don't like debate theory. It seems like an excuse not to debate the actual topic. It avoids thoughtful discourse about the topic at hand. I'll listen to topic-appropriate theory/philosophy, but not debate theory.

6) Speed does not equal winning. Just getting as muchstuff on the flow as possible is not a tactic for a win.

7) Racist, sexist, antisemitic, or ableist arguments will be automatically downvoted. I understand that arguments that contain these ideas might be made by accident. However, you need to work with your team/coaches if I bring this up to you on a ballot. There is no excuse to be denigrating a group of people.

Helloooo, I'm Adrianna she/her, I did congress for four years at Eagan High School and I now attend the University of Minnesota. If you wanna email me for whatever reason... my personal email is adrianna196@comcast.net.

I'm mostly looking for a well-structured congress round. That means I want to see intros, rebuttals, crystals, an actual debate round. Don't give in to the stereotype that congress is a speech category and not create a debate round :/ I hate when cycle is broken and will encourage against it in round. Know that if you prevent cycle from being broken and take the speech, I WILL remember and consider that. BUT, you should have both sides ready at any position, PLEASE.

I really like seeing you look at me and the other debaters, having an interesting intro to your speech, clash, emotions/expressions, impacting, ethical sources, and a good attitude! It should be fairly easy for me to follow your points, evidence, warrants, impacts, weighing, and reasoning. Remember I'm going in with no research on the legislation and you are persuading the room to your side.

Know you'll be dropped automatically if you use ANY offensive language, you're rude to others, or you yell over others during questioning. I also hate when people put triggering evidence in their speeches whether or not you put a trigger warning. If you have to put a trigger warning you probably shouldn't say it all. Another thing I dislike is if you don't use up the full 30 secs you're allowed for direct questioning. That's a WASTE of a question, please try to keep going or have more prepared to ask. If you were paying attention to the speech, this shouldn't be a problem ;) I also don't appreciate asking questions, trapping someone, then giving up any remaining time in the questioning period to the chair and cutting off the speakers answer. VERY rude and you are NOT making a point by doing it, let them answer or let the time run out, be respectful, or expect to be dropped.

For POS, I mostly want to forget you're there, sorry. If I'm not thinking about you then you have done your job well. I want no mistakes regarding precedence and recency - one or two isn't the end of the world, as well as short and to the point statements. No one cares about the chair's feelings. You end up wasting mine and the participants time in round when you include unnecessary speech. Furthermore, when calling on speakers and questioners at the beginning of the round, if the tournaments provides no precedence and recency chart, it should be RANDOM. Please please please don't create your own "chart" and use that to call on people. Wait a couple seconds for everyone to rise, then call on someone random. I'll know who in the round is from your school. Two people from the same school competing for po is weird so maybe communicate before round. Be a good sport!

HAVE FUN

Background: Current college student, 4 years of Congress. Current forensics competitor.

Paradigms (all categories)

1. Respect. Respect your opponents as people and as debaters. Don’t be rude- speaking over your opponents isn’t cool. Racism, misogyny, transphobia, ableism, classism, and any other kind of oppressive behavior or arguments are completely unacceptable.
2. I love good structure. I want clear links, roadmaps, and clarity.
3. Do not misrepresent your evidence or your opponent’s arguments.
4. Impacts are important. I’ll tend to prioritize reasonable impacts over extinction (unless that’s a likely impact).
5. If you go over time, just finish your sentence and don’t start a new one.
6. When debating, talk like the people you’re talking about are in the room. They very well might be (POC, disabled people, etc.)

You got this! Have fun and ask if you have any other questions about my paradigm.

Samuel Hoska’s Judge Philosophy

A little about myself: I have been involved with forensics for 15 years as a student, judge and coach. I am currently a coach at Edina High School, teaching Lincoln Douglas Debate. My background was originally in debate and speech where I competed and coached. I have been judging debate for the last 4 years, in all categories. I am currently a student at Minneapolis Community College for a Business Bachelors. I have a half a year remaining and then I will be working on a Bachelors in Communication and a Teaching certificate. I typically judge LD but I am capable of judging any category.

General: I enjoy a coherent arguments made with properly argued evidence. I am a “big picture” judge. I do appreciate the attention to detail, however, I don't like when it devolves into a debate that’s myopically focused on one thing. Make sure you take the time, especially in rebuttals to do a “birds eye view” of the debate. Remember, the rebuttal is the last time I hear from you before I make a decision, make it count. I appreciate good crossfire, and cross ex, specifically using information obtained in these for an argument. I try to bring the spirit of Tabula Rasa to every round I Judge.

Topicality: I like topicality, especially in varsity level debate. I think it makes a for a boring debate to have a non-topical aff. So it’s a pretty garden variety argument for the neg to make.

Critical Arguments: I was a LD and PF debater in high-school. I appreciate all critical arguments when they are understandable and explained properly. I catch on to arguments quickly, however I loathe having to have to fill in the gaps of an argument because its poorly argued. Make it logical, make it understandable.

Theory: I don’t have the background in this, so this won’t be very successful with me as a judge. I overall prefer substantive arguments over theoretical or procedural arguments. My flow can’t be muddy, and the explanation must be very logical and understandable. I pay attention when a debater uses Voters, I always want to know what each side thinks was the most important points in a round.

Speed: I have no problem with speed. I do ask two things. 1. Slow down enough on the tags so that I can understand them 2. Make your tags count. I dislike deciphering poor tags that do not tell me anything about the evidence.

Post Round Discussion: Please be respectful, I don’t appreciate a “shake down” when I’m explaining my decision. I don’t do speaker points till after the round is over and all the debaters have left the room and I take decorum into account. I am a bit of a non-traditional judge and I do make a concerted effort to bring up constructive criticism and positive comments. Please take these comments as an opportunity to learn!

Last Updated: 11/30/2018

hi ! my name is abiha kashif and i did congressional debate at eagan high school for four years, card @ the UMN for a semester, now i coach congress at bloomington. if you have any questions for me, feel free to email me at kashif.abiha09@gmail.com.

for speakers:

things i like:

i like seeing that people know the different kinds of speeches (constructive, rebuttal, crystal) and where they're meant to go. i like direct clash, which is more than just mentioning names, but actually interacting with opposing arguments. "why do i believe u and not the other side?" instead of just introducing clashing data. i pay attention to your questions + making the effort to try to question, i like super active speakers. i like seeing you can speak in multiple positions, especially when you can go late.

impacts are also good! tell me why exactly ____ problem will happen if we pass/fail + why i care about it (the formula tbh)

things i don't like:

when people break cycle

rudeness

repeated recesses to write speeches

only speaking in one position

lack of clash

POs:

things i like -

not being too wordy especially in senate rounds - less talking the better!! clear handle on motions/majorities/other stuff. taking a second to double check is ok! really just the typical presiding stuff.

Because I'm not entrenched in the debate world as much as I am in speech, you need to have clear taglines that help to tell your story.... and it is a story as much as an argument.

Although I consider myself to be a left-leaning moderate in the real world, that very easily could be construed to be conservative in the debate world.

Beating up on your opponent with "That's rude" is very Jr. High -- it bounces off of me and sticks to you. I do consider "what my opponent said offensive" though.

LDers - take more than 10 seconds to explain your values. It's worth your effort. ***see also Great Speeches: why just giving me a rhetorical analysis from the Andromeda Galaxy does me no good

PFers -- It is called Public Forum for a reason. I'm an educated person who votes and keeps up with the news on well-balanced and respected platforms. I am not the norm for "public" that is always in the back of my head in my decision making.

And like Ellen says at the end of her show: Be kind to one another.

For Congress:

The number one thing I value is active analysis. You are not competing with facts or statistics. You should be using them to compete with arguments formed using those facts. Presenting sources or statistics as your argumentation is not intriguing to me as a judge. Of course, that doesn’t mean you can give an argument without evidence to back your claims, but it’s about how you use the evidence to convince a compelling and fresh argument beyond what an article simply tells you about a topic or issue.

Beyond that, never restate points of the debate, unless you are a crystallization and trying to summarize impacts or a rebuttal speech that is re-explaining something differently than how it was previously presented, do not restate points already made. That will immediately decrease your ranking.

For PF + LD:

I have limited experience in both these categories. But I do have a much stronger inclination to favor cases that are spoken at a reasonable and not overbearing pace. Conciseness in communicating your points is key throughout your rebuttals and final focus. I value that a lot, because it means you can speak slower and fully flesh out arguments. Also, line by line rebuttals can be great. But it’s much more impressive to me as a judge if you are able to underpin the oppositions argumentation across various points with fundamental flaws or misunderstandings and then explain them clearly. In doing that, your rebuttal is far stronger and impactful. As for final focus, literary flourish isn’t needed at all. Just explain the impacts clearly, and don't explain them contention by contention. I want you to reference all contentions for sure, so you aren’t dropping anything in the flow, but give me overall impacts that stretch across contentions and actually use analysis to extend the impacts into a compelling summary of the significance of each side’s argumentation.

Important:

Evidence: 8

Analysis:8

Clash:7

Question:7

Extempore:9

Delivery:9

Persona:1

Atiitute:5

Even though debate is different from speech competition. But making a good speech always makes your opinion stronger.

Congress:

Please DEBATE with each other. If you refute and weigh you'll do well. For sponsors and authors, I need a problem/solution explanation of the bill, and I love when you frame the debate around one metric/value/impact we should weigh both sides on. Also keep me interested! Have fun with it! If you're enjoying debating and care about what you're saying, I can tell and it makes me want to care. If you're speaking on the NEGATION of a legeslation, you need to prove a net harm of passing it. The later in round your speech is, the more refutation it needs to have.

I did congress for four years of high school. I know what good debate looks like. Also I'm evil.

1. If you give a pre-written speech while holding your laptop in front of you and staring down at it, I'm telling on you. Speaking extemp is wayyyyy cooler and sooooooo much more fun. all the cool kids are doing it.

2. Keep in mind: this is high school debate. if you stumble or say the wrong thing or mess up in some way just remember it's okay! Be kind to yourself and others & give yourself grace. I'm not dopping your rank just because you stuttered. We're all in this to have fun. Spread love, everypony!

TLDR; REFUTE, WEIGH, RESPOND, IMPACT & BE KIND

POs: Have control of the room. Be in the background. Be accurate above all else. Don't take up excess time in the chamber with unessesary flourishes. If I hear a "the chair thanks you" your rank is being moved down.

If you want more feedback after a round, my email is pear0816@umn.edu

BACKGROUND: I did LD for 3 years during my time in high school debate and congress for one. Feel free to run any framework or contention lvl argument in front of me, I don't judge your sources or opinions but your ability to debate and defend them.

LD JUDGING:

-Framework-level debate is a priority for me, if the round is messy, I will default to the winner on that level. I like to see a clash with the framework.

-Do not spread, if you are speaking too fast for your opponent to reasonably respond to you, or if I cannot understand you, I will judge off what I can understand in the round. I did debate for a while; I should be able to follow you.

-Refer to your opponent as "my opponent" or the "the affirmation" or the "the negation".

-Evidence rules should be adhered to.

Congress:

-To be transparent with my judging I rank each speech in the room from highest to lowest scoring, the highest scorers get my 1 on the speech, I then add up all of the points for each individual debater on all of the bills. Overall lowest scores place, higher. This means you need to speak on every piece of legislation, or you will be saddled with a 1 on one speech and a 9 on another and average out to around a 5. One great speech will not win you the round. If there is no reasonable time for everybody to speak, I will not use this ranking system.

-please please please be prepared to speak! unless you have a crystal or rebuttal heavy speech you should be standing up constantly throughout the round.

-For experienced POs, if you make more than one mistake, I will drop you. If you are exceedingly wordy, I will drop you. If you do your job expect to get at least a 5 from me in an average room.

-Questioning is cool, I used it as a tiebreaker in my ranking system. If you bring something up in questioning that somehow gets more references in rounds than speeches are getting, it might go a little further. Do not just stand up with statements.

-Name drop and extend other speakers on your side of the debate, rebuttal your opponents. This should be happening from the start.

-

In Congressional Debate, I am a big proponent of a well structured speech that includes a thesis and preview of your points. It goes along way to help me score your speech when I have a roadmap. I will be looking for CLAIM, WARRANT, and IMPACT each time. Please have cited evidence to support your claim but also provide real-world impact for your argument so it shows that it matters. Anything else will sound just like an opinion speech.

I believe that being a clear, concise speaker is integral part of Congressional Debate. I prefer quality speeches over the number of speeches given.

I value clash and non-repetition. Avoid rehashing the same arguments and please refute the points of specific representatives and show how you differ by pointing out specific arguments. I want to hear the debate advance and not get stuck on the same point. I will lose interest no matter how well-spoken of a speaker you are.

Be clear and concise during the question and answer period. Above all, be respectful and kind to each other during this process.

I expect the P.O. to be fair administering the parliamentary procedures. Make sure you call on people fairly. I will be understanding when it comes to other procedures that arise and it can be a tough task.

I expect professionalism and proper decorum throughout the session. No bigotry or disrespect of your fellow representatives will be tolerated.

Have fun and make it an enjoyable round! Stand out and give unique arguments. Be passionate and confident because that will come through and make me more engaged.

My name is Alary Schmitt. I did Congressional debate and a variety of different types of speech throughout high school (mainly a variety of interp, but I also did some public address and extemp); now I coach Congressional Debate for Edina High School and judge. I use they/them or he/him pronouns and am nonbinary & transmasculine; I prefer neutral or masculine titles, so Mx. or Mister both are preferred over Miss or Mrs.

General notes: I try to write as many comments as I can, but I often spend more time listening to your speech than I will writing things down. Also, if any comment I give you contradicts the advice your coaches give you, then take your coach's advice before mine.

For judging Congress:

I love good authorships or sponsorships. Please give me a good authorship or sponsorship. I like them more than rebuttals or crystals. Frankly in some ways I think they're harder since you set the tone of the debate. Please please give me a good author or sponsorship speech.

This is a pet peeve but please make eye contact with me/your other judges/your fellow reps. (Preferably your fellow reps/the other judges; I don't actually like making eye contact, I just like knowing that you're looking around instead of staring down at your legal pad/laptop).

PO: I love POs. Presiding officers will get great ranks from me personally. Don't be biased towards your team or your friends (I will notice). If you are good at precedency and recency I will love you forever. Leadership will also get high marks from me (this applies to you even if you're not presiding; I will notice if you're taking charge of docket coordination and it will make me think favorably of you).

Questioning: If you are too long you will get ranked down from me. Please at least let the person you're asking questions ANSWER. That said, the more questions the better and the more I'll like you.

Other things I enjoy and will rank higher: impacts, linking, a good AGD, and signposting.

Amanda Soczynski’s Judge Philosophy

A little about myself; I have been involved with forensics for 19 years as a student, judge, and coach. I am currently in my 8th year as the congressional debate coach at Edina High School. My background was originally in speech where I competed and coached. In High School, I learned policy debate as a class rather than competition on a local level, so I competed but not in a typical local circuit. I have been judging debate for the last 13 years, in all categories. I judged CX for the first 5 years and the last 7 years in LD, PF and mostly Congress. I graduated with a Mass Communications degree from University of Minnesota School of Journalism and a J.D. graduate from William Mitchell College of law in 2014. I work at Thomson Reuters on legal software & research, as a content expert. I really love congress, watching, coaching. I always try to strive to do my best! If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask. My goal is always to be an educator and help you succeed!

If for some reason my parli notes don't end up in your results packet, email me at amandasoc@gmail.com or amanda.soczynski@edinaschools.org. I will send you my google doc. I parli a lot and I always take lots and lots of notes and try to give RFD's when I can. If you don't get the link. Please ask, I put a lot of work into them. ????

I have a congress paradigm and CX,LD,PF one included in here.

Evidence / Citations / Warrants for all categories: *note - Statista is not a source, it's like Wikipedia, it's a congregation website not actually doing any of the studies that are on there. If you copy and paste the title of the stat you're looking at it will likely take you to the original source. Also the little (i) icon often will tell you where it can from. DON'T USE STATISTA as a source with me. I am a professional researcher by trade, so I care about citations! They matter and if they are from a source I don't know or if they're suspicious to me, I will google them.

Congress Paradigm:

General:

One thing to remember - judging congress is hard! It's just as exhausting for us as it is for you. We're trying really hard to compare a lot of people who have vastly different styles! I try to write as much as I can, but I spend a lot of time listening, so sometimes my comments can be lite at times. I'm working on that, the three mins go so fast. I'm hoping this will help shed some light on how I evaluate debaters.

When it comes to national level tournaments, at this point, almost everyone is a proficient speaker, so I really focus on the quality of arguments and ability to be flexible in round. Being a well rounded debater is important for me, especially as a Parli. I want to see a variety of type of speeches, and ability to switch sides, and flex to what the round demands. Make sure you are listening and not rehashing, if you're doing a rebuttal make sure you are extending or further attacking an argument.

I REALLY APPRECIATE A GOOD AUTHORSHIP OR SPONSORSHIP. Nothing is worse than judging or watching a semi-final round where there is no first aff, and having to take an in house recess immediately. Come prepared, have one. Spend the rest of your time doing great questions and defending your position there. I feel like people don't like to do this because they feel like they will be dropped. Rebuttals and Crystals are great, but there's a lot of them. If you can do this well, we'll know. It comes with the most amount of questioning time that if you know a lot about the topic you can show boat.

Linking: This is a debate skill you should have, you should able to link your impacts with others, link arguments together for rebuttal. Most national level congress debaters are great at linking within their own argument, but make sure you link and contextualize to the round. I want to see that they go together rather be a stand alone. That being said, contextualizing by: "I want to separate myself from the other AFF or NEG arguments", that's okay because you are still contextualizing within the round. Do not operate as an island in the debate, it's a good way to be dropped by me. Also remember, you can have great speeches, but if you don't ask questions, you're going to find your way to the middle of my ballot. It's a crucial part of debate.

Impacting:

THIS IS SO IMPORTANT. Again, at the national level, most people can impact to lives or economy etc. But what I find people aren't as good, is contextualizing the impact. Example: You tell me that thousands of lives are being lost in Yemen, take it one step further tell me what percentage of that population is being killed, or how that compares to another genocide for context. Make it hit home for all of us. Just giving generic #'s, sure it's the impact, but it doesn't show me the impact. Make sense? Remember I come from a policy background where pretty much everything leads to nuclear war.

Questioning:

Direct questioning is great, but make sure you're not too long winded or too brief, there's a nice sweet spot, where you have maybe a sentence or two question and answer. I've seen people basically run out the time by doing a really long answer, and I've also seen debaters ask such long questions that there's no way the opponent can answer. You only have 30 seconds, make it count.

Participation in Round:

Leadership is important. Remember, I'm comparing a lot of kids, participation with motioning and making sure that all students get to talk is important. This can help make up for bad presidency etc.

PO:

I almost always rank P.O.s in the top 5. It's a hard job, and as a parli, we appreciate good POs. A good way to get to the top 1/2 of my ballot as a PO. The round runs so smoothly I barely know you're there. You are able to solve issues of people not being prepared / docket issues. (This happens so often, time restrictions make things complicated. Especially since lots of tournaments have their own rules).

Mistakes happen, one mistake is not going to tank you. Continuous mistakes, or failing to help chamber resolve issues. This makes it harder. Fairness is also important, I notice when you pick your teammates repeatedly or if you always start in the middle of the room.

Inclusiveness - especially on the local circuit. I don't like parliamentary procedure used to limit people talking. It is also important to encourage those who haven't talked to go. Do your best to make sure the chamber is inclusive.

DON'T ALWAYS PICK YOUR FRIENDS FIRST. I know this happens. And it's easier to pick up than you think it is. Presidency means a lot in congress. Make it fair.

There's a reason I love coaching congress, it's a fun event!

CX/LD/PF Paradigm

General: As I’ve previously mentioned I come from a legal background. I am a “big picture” judge. I do appreciate the attention to detail, however, I don't like when it devolves into a debate that’s myopically focused on one thing. Make sure you take the time, especially in rebuttals to do a “birds eye view” of the debate. Remember, the rebuttal is the last time I hear from you before I make a decision, make it count. I appreciate good crossfire, and cross ex, specifically using information obtained in these for an argument.

Topicality: I like topicality, especially in varsity level debate. I think it makes a for a boring debate to have a non-topical aff. So it’s a pretty garden variety argument for the neg to make.

Critical Arguments: As I wasn’t a debater in high school, I don’t have the technical experience dealing with these arguments, however, I don’t mind critical affs on-face. Since I don’t have the technical experience, I appreciate all critical arguments to be understandable and explained properly. I catch on to arguments quickly, however I loathe having to have to fill in the gaps of an argument because its poorly argued. Make it logical, make it understandable. I generally dislike affs that are anti-topical or affs that critique the topic. I’m not saying I’ll never vote for a critical aff, whiteness aff, performance aff’s, etc, but its the one area where an affirmative is asking the most out of me as a judge. Again, I have less experience with these types of aff’s so extra explanation of sources and philosophies. For kritiks from the negative, I prefer ones that are topic-specific rather than K’s that are broad or philosophical. I’m pretty familiar at this point with cap k, neolib, fem, eco-k, anything outside of these again you’ll have to communicate more effectively as it is a bigger burden for me to decipher.

Theory: I don’t have the background in this, so this won’t be very successful with me as a judge. I overall prefer substantive arguments over theoretical or procedural arguments. My training in law, and my work, deals almost exclusively with substantive arguments, so I tend to prefer and understand those better. If you do decide to go this route, it must be very well done. My flow can’t be muddy, and the explanation must be very logical and understandable.

Speed: I have no problem with speed. I do ask two things. 1. Slow down enough on the tags so that I can understand them 2. Make your tags count. I dislike deciphering poor tags that do not tell me anything about the evidence. Keep tags like 5-8 words, long tags suck.

Post Round Discussion: Please be respectful, I don’t appreciate a “shake down” when I’m explaining my decision. I don’t do speaker points till after the round is over and all the debaters have left the room and I take decorum into account. I am a bit of a non-traditional judge and I do make a concerted effort to bring up constructive criticism and positive comments. Please take these comments as an opportunity to learn!

I look for about 50% content, 50% presentation. Show me passion and confidence and have facts to back up your argument and you'll do well :)

Please email me your case before the round! Thanks!

keertitumu123@gmail.com

Although I compete in a different debate style, I am very experienced in argumentation and rhetoric of debate.

Things to take note of:

+ Please do not spread in any speeches and cases

+ PLEASE signpost so it is easy for me to follow along with your speeches, tell me exactly where you are on the flow

+ Be firm but be respectful, any disrespectful behavior will impact your speech.

+ Use cross-fire wisely, I will pay attention. Cross is a great opportunity to poke holes in your opponents' cases.

+ WEIGH! Tell me specifically why I should vote for you, don't leave it up to me to weigh all the impacts in the round...you might not like my final decision if you do that

+ I DO NOT disclose in round

And most of all, please remember to have fun! Debate is supposed a learning experience :)

Congress:

If you contribute meaningfully to the debate (rather than reading a pre-written speech repeating arguments), that's a good way to rank highly with me. I want to see clash and rebuttals, even if those rebuttals are logic-driven and not necessarily evidence-driven. I want to see that you're following the round and thinking critically about it.

I understand wanting to stay relevant in the round, but please be mindful of the questions you ask. I am unimpressed by questions that are really a statement that you end with "wouldn't you agree?" or "what's your response to that?" Please don't use questioning periods as time to bring up other evidence or preface. And ask questions that are relevant to the speaker you're asking them of. If they didn't talk about an argument, a question about that argument doesn't make sense.

Public Forum:

Arguments that are well-warranted go further for me than an argument you try to fiat your way out of. Almost always, I think that's a cheap way of dictating the round and avoiding a question.

Don't make me do the work of making arguments for you because I won't and a half-baked argument isn't going to generate you a lot of offense on the flow.

On the topic of weighing- do it. Give me quantification, a weighing mechanism, magnitude, an impact calc, I don't care. This goes along with the whole judge intervention thing- I want you to be pretty clear what I should flow as most important in the round.

I'll take a logical rebuttal to an argument if that logic is very sound. If that logic is sound, I may not necessarily need evidence read to clunk up the argument.

I enjoy giving feedback after the round and I'll usually disclose if I've made my decision at that point. Feel free to ask me anything else you'd like to know. But don't shake my hand please I'm not a fan.

Lincoln-Douglas:

I'm a pretty new LD judge! I'm not the most familiar with LD mechanics, but I do know what good debating looks like. Other info in my paradigm applies to LD as well.