Im a student at UVA and a former congressional debater in high school for all four years. I currently coach public forum, congress, OO, and LD at the middle and high school level.

congress:

I look for strong speakers who can assert and distinguish themselves in the round. People who are able to situate themselves in the round and address whats been said before, and change the course of the debate and add to their side with their speech are the ones that I most prefer. Each subsequent speech should build off the ones previous and understanding where your speech is in the round and what it does for the round is really important. As such, there needs to be refutation, weighing, and defense. PLEASE WEIGH!!!! you will lose my ballot if you don't weigh especially in later speeches. congress is a debate event, there needs to be clash. generally, however, avoid techy language and technical debate-y strategies.

speaking style is important. I look for good pitch, speed, and volume modulation.

Authorships/sponsorships should lay the problem out clearly and explain why the legislation solves. I need a firm basis for the round. Assume I know absolutely nothing about what the bill is on.

pf:

Clarity is critical. Assume I know as much as a normal college student about the topic (that is probably as much as I will know). if i don't understand the case i won't vote for it. need clear links and clear warranting. especially true for impacts. I need impacts if there aren't developed impacts, you won't win. If the impacts aren't linked you won't win.

don't paraphrase ev.

be respectful

frontline 2nd reb

I find it hard to vote for theory and K's in PF because I think it is contrary to the purpose of public forum and I find that they are generally inaccessible and are not good for the public forum event. be careful about running it for me. that said, I am not entirely opposed to voting for a case that runs theory if it is done right and I am persuaded by it. walk me through it and really explain to me why I should vote for it in light of the concerns expressed in this paradigm.

tech over truth

I flow cx sometimes just to orient myself to the argumentative commitments of either side. That said, If you think something in cx is important, bring it up in a speech.

I think speaking is important in debate and especially in PF. don't spread please. I can handle a little bit of speed but if its too fast for me to understand I won't flow it and you will probably lose.

I think a few simple things can easily lose you a round, so I will caution people to avoid them but don't feel pressured by a paradigm to debate a certain way. I think paradigms only make people pander to judges rather than actually consider their style, but I'll still write a few for those who would like one. I am heavily experienced in parliamentary, presidential, and most extemporaneous debate, I can judge LD and PF but try to not box me out of the round with confusing metrics, sign posting is the first thing a judge considers.

- Do not spread, the point of debate is to be understandable by the public and a general layperson to judge an argument it should not a barking competition. Maintain a reasonable speed for anyone to understand, even if I'm a naturally fast speaker.

- I know how to flow tech terms but preferably don't run Kritiks, T-Shells, or any form of Theory for the sake of my sanity, if you need to please spell it out for me very clearly and don't linger on it for too long

- Please time yourself; I will also be timing, don't run too over time but I do allow a bit of grace

- I will run heavily on flow and speaks will vary based on quality of argumentation and speaking ability, the better speaker will not always win, however being a clear and intelligible speaker will make your arguments easier to follow and vote for

- Do not speak in absolutes, one of my biggest gripes is when someone spats on about uniqueness for 30 seconds and says "their entire case is absolutely disproven we win", what was the point of debating if your opponent just loses like that, try to keep your language to not sound so certain, "And because of x, y, and z we win this debate judge and urge you to vote for x" it's much better than saying "judge we win so you must vote for x" just a general gripe because often debaters who speak in absolutes strawman and only hit the surface level of arguments

- My scoring range for normal 30 point is pretty standard,

- 22: (extremely rare) awful and probably inappropriate

- 23: (rare) really bad, barely spoke

- 24: bad, not speaking for full time

- 25: average, not good but decent enough

- 26: good, nothing fantastic but good

- 27: I really enjoyed you as a debater, very good

- 28: (rare) fantastic, clear, well argued, and extremely efficient

- 29: (extremely rare) phenomenal, no real critiques and offered flawless argumentation and speaking ability

- 30: (never going to be given, but try and prove me wrong and earn it) felt like Churchill was in the round

Generally I just like a debate where each team gives their all, is civil, and acts human. Best of luck to anyone I judge and I hope this was helpful!