My favorite event is Extemp, so I treat all debaters like I would a national finalist in Extemp. Talk at a human pace so that the audience can understand the debate, but feel free to extend your impacts as far as possible pending you keep up the warrants for each claim. Impact turns make debate more fun, try to turn them. Work to cross apply your contentions to your opponents impacts. Making voting claims that I missed during the round won't be used to judge the round. The speakers have a duty to communicate what they want the audience to hear, the judge has a duty to listen to the best of their ability and shouldn't feel burdened by advanced debaters who go beyond the judge's means. I've got a PhD in Communication Studies and embrace a qualitative perspective, values matter. Be smart, be concise, and be respectful. If you can deliver the argument well, feel free to also be creative. For what it's worth, demanding language is a peeve, as opposed to suggestive; in voters, please tell me what I should(n't) do rather than what I can't do.

Kathleen Bogen

I am parent of a congressional debater at American Heritage in Boca/Delray Florida. I have judged local, regional and national tournaments. I judge primarily IE and Congressional Debate.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

I like a good speaker and refutation is important. No spreading.
I prefer that debaters be strong in their conviction but not be abusive in their treatment of others.

I DO NOT SHAKE HANDS AT THE END OF A ROUND

PUBLIC FORUM
I like the original intention of this event that it should be a debate that would take place in a public setting and would have ideas and delivery that any person off the street could understand. To this end, I don't want you to be a policy debater. While I do want structure to what you are saying and evidence to support your ideas, it is the PUBLIC approach that I prefer. Are you clear? Do your points make logical sense? Are you able to persuade me that your side is the side that is best for our current population?

I DO NOT SHAKE HANDS AT THE END OF A ROUND

I am a completely new parent judge. I am not very clear on how a Congress chamber is supposed to run and I do not have much experience with the parliamentary procedure. I have studied the NSDA Congress manual and feel I have enough knowledge to be fair and critical. That being said, I will be looking for a clear speech with refutations. No REHASH. Eye contact and fluency is important as well as having strong arguments with reliable sources of evidence to back up your claim. However, I do not enjoy speeches that are too technical so please refrain from using technical arguments. I also dislike those who spread their speeches. I believe spreading is a waste of time and if I cannot understand you, then I will not give you points for your speech. Do not forget the rules, the P.O., and most importantly the judges when addressing the congress.

In general, my Paradigm includes strong arguments that shows inherency to why you made that claim. You must have well-constructed and organized speeches, with strong evidence to back up any claims that you make. You must also be able to present your argument well with a strong speech. I look for debaters who are able to properly convey their argument while being articulate. You should be able to convince me that the claim that you make regarding the bill is solvent and overall show why that side is the side to support.

About me:

Hi! I'm a very experienced parliamentarian.

My rankings as a parliamentarian tend to be pretty spot-on for the top three to five students in my prelim chambers before varying a little bit going down from there, as they should.

Try not to overthink where I rank you. I would say to focus on the feedback; I've been a part of the Congressional Debate community as a competitor, judge, and coach for over a decade now, so I certainly have some thoughts on how I think you can improve.

Prelims:

We are all aware that teammates share prep, students are using AI, and some unscrupulous coaches prep their students out. That is why I have found that I actually judge more heavily off of delivery in prelims. I'm always listening to your arguments and taking note of strong and weak ones, but I'm not exactly flowing the round like it's PF; I'm just trying to give each of you a paragraph of feedback for each speech. Here is a non-exhaustive list of things I will try to evaluate over the course of nine or so hours as your parliamentarian:

Content:

☐ Good arguments & avoid rehash

☐ Full (with the date) citations & high-quality sources

☐ Signposting your arguments/clear taglines

☐ Ability to refute

☐ Ability to crystalize

☐ Strong analysis

☐ Strong questioning

☐ Strong introductions

☐ Strong conclusions (that relate to your intro and last for longer than 5 seconds)

☐ Rhetoric & humor

☐ Appeals to pathos

Delivery:

☐ Effective hand gestures

☐ Eye contact (especially during your introduction)

☐ Volume/presence

☐ Passion, not aggression

☐ Vocal variation (tone & volume & speed)

☐ Fluency of speech

☐ Walking on points

☐ Conversational pace

☐ Ends on time/time management (this is a BIG pet peeve of mine; try to end at 3:00 please)

Style:

☐ Leadership/influence in the chamber

☐ In-round strategy (overcoming bad pre-set recency, getting a third speech in without losing the respect of your peers)

☐ Decorum

☐ Use of a legal pad or non-technological equivalent (this is part of the role-play)

☐ Maintaining the role-play (if you are a senator, that means you're pretending to be at least 30 years old)

Elimination rounds:

I'll be honest, I only occasionally judge elimination rounds because I am usually conflicted out of all of them except for at the largest tournaments (think Harvard or NSDA House quarters). However, I do watch them all the time as a spectator.

What I am really looking for in semis (or quarters) are students who have not only mastered the fundamentals, but also find a way to stand out in a room where everyone is pretty decent at speaking.

Specifically, the key things I am really looking for when I judge an elimination round are:

☐ Outstanding intros & conclusions

☐ Clear signposting & structure

☐ Authentic rhetoric & pathos

☐ Advanced argumentation & synthesis

☐ Conversational pace & stellar eye contact

☐ Strong time management throughout a speech (3:00 is the target; if both of your speeches are 3:10, that looks comparatively weak)

A note on presiding:

If you're going to be a presiding officer while competing in Congressional Debate, be a great one. Above all, time your fellow competitors accurately. If you mistime or misgavel your colleagues, I consider that to be a critical failure. Pay attention to your timer and if you make a mistake, be honest about it and come clean. I also don't like it when POs lie about speech times (saying a speech that is 3:13 is 3:10).

POs should demonstrate authority and leadership through problem-solving, managing the chamber when conflict and confusion arises.

I keep a close eye to see if a PO appears to have read the tournament-specific rules.

I highly value word economy. The more you speak as a PO, the more time you are wasting.

Dockets and agendas are not the same thing. The words are not interchangeable.

If no one wants to preside and you are genuinely taking one for the team, I will obviously recognize that and try to help you out if I'm your parli.

Finally:

Remember why we are all here: Speech and Debate is an educational activity. This is about you becoming the best, most capable version of yourself (and using those talents to make the world a better place). Five years from now, the confidence, talent, and knowledge you cultivate through this activity will be useful to you, every single day. The plaques and trophies will either still be on display at your old school or sitting in a box at home somewhere, out of sight and out of mind.

I value well-supported, creative arguments - secondly clash and refutation. Knowledge of the topic is important, fluff is not. And at least you should sound like you really care.

I am a High School English teacher, this is my fifteenth year of teaching, my first year in the debate world. Over the years I have taught students to construct effective arguments and recognize that arguments are strongest when they are logical and reasonably paced. As a judge I am listening intently for your argument's claim then for your strong supporting evidence. I am listening for evidence that has credible sources and your confident delivery and rebuttal. Please do not rush. Take your time, present confidently. If you feel as if you're stuck, do not falter, pause take a breath, regain composure and let the respectful debate continue.

Nancy Dean- Director of speech and debate at Western High School in south Florida. I have been the head coach for 19 years, main interest is Congress

Speak clearly, do NOT spread. I look for well thought out arguments, no canned speeches. There must be clash or there is no debate. I stop listening when there is one-sided debate.

I read the bills so make sure you are on point with your arguments, refute and extend. Rehash will not be cool. Where you get your sources is important to me.

The PO will most certainly be considered.

Do not be rude, but again, clash is important. Look and play the part of a representative/senator. You are not a kid in high school, be well polished. I'm good with NO handshakes. :)

Congress:

General Round Preferences:

- Don’t re-hash.

- Try to bring up new impacts or points of view into the debate.

- If you’re going to crystallize, make sure you aren’t just repeating args.

- Remember, Congress isn’t a speech event, you can actually refute and debate.

- Tie in your args back to the U.S. if the topic is foreign policy. Tie in your impacts to the constituents if domestic. Why should we care about the aff/neg? how does this impact the people in the end?

Refutation:

- Have substance, don't just repeat what others have said and claim they are wrong. Prove why they are wrong and how this affects the round.

- If you can give a good analysis on how your arg turns the other side's impacts, you're going to be ranked higher.

Timing:

- I know it's hard to pace yourself but don't speak too fast. Congress is a combination of eloquent speaking and argumentation.

• I can tell when you're running out of time and trying to squeeze one last argument into your speech. I don't particularly like this because it reduces the quality of your speech and leaves it unfinished.

I stg if there's no claim, warrant, data in each point.

Heyoo and Howdy, Its Jomi,

I have been Competing, Coaching, and Judging for going on 8 years now and I'm 21 so that says a lot about my wild amount of commitment I have towards this activity.

Mainly competed and coached extemp and congress so that is where my best critiques would come from since those are the events that I know the most about, however, I am proficient in knowing PF and LD since I have judged tons of elimination rounds for those events and have friends in the events so they teach me the game.

I would say no matter the event it always comes down to three solid principles for me

Logic without evidence

Quality of evidence

Speaking and execution of rhetoric

Logic without evidence meaning how solid on a logic understands deductive or inductive reasoning is the argument, to the point that at the least from a basic philosophical level can I consider that argument valid but not being true because that would require evidence.

Quality of evidence is what sets an argument to being a good argument because if your evidence is timely, relevant, and flows within the speech or case then that sets you apart from the round. Good evidence balances arguments, Bad Evidence breaks arguments

Speaking and execution of Rhetoric meaning simply how well are you conveying your speech and case in your delivery, even in Policy debate, if you want the judge to hear something import and round defining then you slow down and say it with conviction. How well do your voice and your inflections convey your narrative especially on the impact analysis which to me is the most important parts of arguments especially;y on a human level is to be important

Most of all, be respectful and courteous to your judges and especially to your opponents because if you are rude, condescending, sexist, racist, you know the deal if it's bad and I catch it, expect the worst result from me and expect for me to back it up. So just be a respectful person and we will be all good.

While I enjoy judging a variety of events and encourage students to have fun with competing, I do take judging events very seriously. I have been coaching a small, yet quickly growing team for almost three years and have been a middle and high school judge for almost six years. I judge consistently on both the local and national circuits, including the TOC and NSDA championships.

I strive to remain objective regardless of personal opinions and have often ranked students debating on the side of an argument I may not agree with personally because they were the most convincing or were able to poke holes in the arguments presented on other sides. I believe that as a coach and a judge it is my job to provide detailed critiques and solid feedback to all students, even those I rank highly, to best serve the hardworking students competing at these tournaments.

in general, my paradigms include strong evidence to back up claims, well-constructed and organized speeches and assertive, yet not too aggressive questioning. I expect courteous, respectful behavior at all times, both in and out of sessions, and frown upon negative facial expressions, comments, hand gestures and the like.

Specifically regarding Public Forum debate, I want the participants to be able to show me why the team won the round and each speech after the first constructive should have clash. That said, I am not a fan of spreading and look for a combination of persuasion, argumentation and reasoning in each round.

Regarding delivery, I will not mark down for speaking quickly, as long as I am able to follow what is being said. I look for debaters who make eye contact and are not simply reading a well-written speech. While voice projection and inflection are in no way valued over content and argumentation, they do go a long way with impact and keeping the attention of listeners.

TL;DR- be a good person, make good arguments, and speak well enough for your arguments to be effective.

I competed in congress for 4 years, so I know my way around the "politics" of this event. I can tell when you're being manipulative/exclusive, and will reflect this in your ranks. Don't expect to be a bad person and get picked up. Just be inclusive!

The majority of my rank will be based on the flow. DO NOT REHASH ARGUMENTS. Present a UNIQUE net benefit/harm, and LINK TO THE LEGISLATION. A lack of refutation in any speech except the authorship is inexcusable. Arguments, including refutations, should feature CLEAR LINKS AND QUANTIFICATION/SUBSTANTIATION AT MINIMUM. Make sure to cite sources that are credible, and don't waste time telling me the author's life story—publication name and date are fine unless you feel you need to add more. Know when you are speaking, and show me that you know—I shouldn't hear a constructive speech in mid/late round. Crystallizations should prominently feature weighing.

Delivery is a secondary issue for me, but is still very important. Speak clearly and concisely with effective use of emotion and you will be fine. Do not worry about speed. Unless you're trying to be an LDer, I can understand you. However, it is in your best interest to be as clear and concise as possible. Rhetoric should be powerful and well-crafted, not canned lines from your coaches and teammates. If I've heard your "rhetoric" before, IT'S NOT GOOD RHETORIC. You're talking about people's real experiences; I don't want to feel like you're using them to win a round. Be both passionate and compassionate—it's not that hard.

I will pay attention to questioning, so make your questions count. This is an opportunity for you to show me how you think on your feet. Quality is better than quantity, so ask pointed, intelligent questions. Don't give another speech when asking or answering a question.

Presiding officers are expected to be flawless. If you're a good PO and run the chamber effectively, you'll be ranked. Don't be a control freak—if you know your stuff and are calm and collected, authority will follow. I keep my own recency chart and will lazily look at questions. I will never call you out for making a mistake, but it will be reflected in your rank. To restate what I said earlier, please be fair. I went to a big school, so I know that the culture rewards picking up your "circuit friends" and teammates. Let this be a reminder that this event is open to everyone, and you are privileged to have access to the resources you do. Punishing those less fortunate with intentional drops makes you a bad person—plain and simple.

One last thing—I am not among those who equate assertion and rudeness in this event. I will reward witty remarks and well-delivered responses to your opponents. As long as you do not attack someone's personal character or identity, you are fine. It's ok to have a little fun in round, so roast your friends!

Congress: I care about what you say way more than how you say it, and to that effect, I care about seeing three things above anything else.

1. Quantified and substantiated evidence. Here's my basic framework of evidence philosophy.

- Good arguments are based on facts.

- Opinions are not facts. Therefore...

- Good arguments are not based on opinions.

Analysis, opinions, and theories are not facts and are therefore not evidence. In reality, there are only two kinds of evidence that prove things.

- Quantification: Numbers and statistics

- Substantiation: Unquantifiable things that are objectively true (laws in effect, historical examples, statements from foreign leaders, etc)

If you see me write (q/s) on a ballot, that means the evidence wasn't properly quantified or substantiated, which means your argument wasn't properly supported.

2. Net offense. I need to know why your side is right, not just why the other side is wrong. Strong refutation is obviously great and usually is the difference between a good debater and a great one, but it can't be the only thing in your speech. At some point during your speech, whether they're new impacts or you're extending old ones to weigh, I need to hear you advocate for benefits on aff and harms on neg.

3. Humanized impacts. When you argue benefits and harms, I need you to show me how the legislation helps or harms people, which means I need to hear you say the word people, or some derivative of it (Americans, workers, families, etc). Great impacts will paint me a picture of the real person the legislation hurts or helps.

Otherwise, I'm open to all sorts of styles and formats of debate.

PF: Quantification is key. Many warrants in PF rely on expert opinions, but opinions are not evidence; I need quantified and/or substantiated proof of the claims you are making. I'm a util judge on face; I will evaluate on the cost-benefit analysis of all things considered if not given a framework to follow, but I am open to evaluating off of a specified framework. Weighing for me is key- a good team should be able to right my RFD for me. Impacts need to be humanized; I need to know why your claims matter to individuals, not just broad concepts like democracy, economy, or hegemony. Any of those broader impacts can be linked back to the individual, but you have to connect back to people or that impact doesn't stand for me. Also, please don't run completely defensive points in constructive- that's what rebuttal is for. If you run progressive arguments on me (K's, theory, etc.), I will drop you. Don't run topicality as a T-shell, just run it as a regular response.

LD: I have limited experience with LD and cannot handle spreading. I can deal with speed within a reasonable degree, but I'm not afraid to say 'clear' if I can't understand you. If I can't understand you, I can't reasonably say you've won the round. If you run progressive arguments on me (K's, theory, etc.), I will drop you. Don't run topicality as a T-shell, just run it as a regular response. Pro should introduce benefits, con should introduce harms.

Extemp: Impacts should come back to the individual; don't just impact to broad topics, tell me why what you're saying is important to people. I want to see quantified and substantiated evidence- not just expert opinions or pure analysis, but proof of what you're saying.

DP: Have fun.

be creative somewhere

if you have a boring intro, have creative points

if you have boring points, have a creative intro.

refute each other and when you do it be hyper specific on why, and i'll respect that as a real ref.

don't be afraid to call out bad evidence, and be even less afraid to call out bad logic.

be cool

I competed throughout high school (at Miami Beach High) in two-man debate and in Congress.

For debate -- I can handle spread speaking to a point, but need to be persuaded. Too fast and you will lose me. All arguments are not equal so what you choose to emphasize I will notice.

It's critical that competitors not be rude -- and that they show respect to one another and the process.

For Congress, the same rules apply with an even greater emphasis on civility. I served in both the Florida House and Senate and believe that our society is best when we respect those we disagree with. I also believe it important to put a face on a policy so linking real life to theoretical arguments gets me sitting up in my seat. I also believe that now and again outrage is appropriate so that the outrageous can be called out -- that said, rudeness and incivility is never appropriate.

My demeanor will likely not communicate my pleasure or displeasure with an argument -- so don't try to read into my expressions.

I spent much of middle school and high school competing in debate and congress, and much of my professional life I credit to the lessons and skills I learned in high school speech & debate. I've been a federal prosecutor, directed U.S. Senate investigations, served in the Florida legislature and am currently a mayor of my hometown. So learn your cards, perfect your contentions, never stop improving your speeches -- and all will be good:)

I am a former Congressional debater and previously served as the Head Coach of Speech and Debate at Oak Hall School. 

I like a balance between speaking skills and debate. Please have clash in your speech if you are not the 1st speaker. 

Also, do not rehash. If someone has already said the argument, there is no need to clarify and repeat what they meant in your speech - I got it, let's see something new. 

If you are a good PO, I will rank you highly. If not, well...

If you have any questions please feel free to ask before or in between rounds. 

This is my 39th year teaching and most of that I have also coached speech and debate. As far as debate goes, I coached LD starting in the mid 80's running on and off through 2017. I coached policy on and off from 1990-2000. I have coached PF on and off since its inception. I have coached congressional debate since the early 80's. I don't have a paradigm for Speech events, but I have coached and judged all speech events since the early 80's as well.

As a Congress Judge:

Delivery: I embrace the role play. You are all portraying legislators from across the country and should behave with the decorum that role suggests. That being said, we have legislators from across the country with various styles and habits -- that makes congress debate AWESOME! There is no single, perfect way to deliver!

Evidence Usage: CD is, at its core, a debate event. Arguments should have sound, sourced evidence that follows NSDA rules. Empirical claims require empirical evidence.

Analysis - If I am judging Congressional Debate, chances are the tournament is a national caliber tournament (otherwise I would be working in some capacity in tab). I expect high level analysis at a high level tournament. If you are the 4th speaker and beyond - I expect unique arguments and I expect analysis and refutation of earlier speakers. Crystallization speeches do not merely mention every speaker that spoke earlier on a piece of legislation. It literally crystallizes the two sides, weighs the impacts of the two sides, and persuades me of their chosen position.

Argument Impacts: Please identify who or what is impacted. Be specific. In CD, please explain real world impacts. The narrative of impacts is as important (if not more) as the numerics of impacts.

On the topic of cost benefit analysis and weighing... Be careful of playing the numbers game. A large number of persons harmed may not necessarily outweigh a single person harmed, if the single person's harm is total and complete and the larger number still enjoy existence.

Decorum: Behavior in and out of chambers is important. Respectful, educational, kind, and full of fun... these should be in balance! (I don't like boring debate)

I don't have a calculator on the above. Very seldom is there a debater who is awesome at them all... But all need to be part of the mix. If I am judging a top round, I suspect that all speakers will be amazing! That means the final ranking will come down to relevance in the round. If all speeches were brilliant, questioning and answering were spot on, and knowledge of topics is at the top, who stood out as the genuine, 'real deal'?

PF Paradigm - I embrace the notion that the event is intended to be judged by an informed public forum. That does not mean dumbing down arguments because you think the judge is dumber than you because they didn't go to camp (adults don't go to camp). I think most judges want to hear good arguments that pertain to the resolution and want to hear clash between positions. That being said, here is my more specific paradigm:

Speed - I love an energetic debate, but save spreading for policy (and sadly LD). You should have written a prima facie case that either affirms or negates. It should be written so that the first speaker can energetically deliver it. Most PF spread isn't really spread, it is spewing and incoherent choking due largely to the student's failure to adequately cut their case. I am fine with clean, clear, speed. Can I hear arguments delivered at 385 wpm? yes. Will I flow them? probably not.

Frameworks - Sure, if you really are running a framework. If it is legit (and stays up in the round throughout), both sides will be weighing impacts within that framework.

Observations - Sure, if they are observations. Observations are not arguments. They are observations. "It is raining - observation: things are wet." "If Trump wins the election it will trigger nuclear war" is an argument, not an observation.

Warrants and Impacts are your friends!! Numbers are just numbers - how do they happen? why do they happen? who is affected and why them? is there possible counter causality? Really good logic if well explained will beat blippy numbers. Well explained statistics that are connected and clear will beat poor logic.

Flowing - Yes, I flow. I expect you to do so as well. I don't flow card names and dates - so make sure when you refer to a piece of evidence you reference what it says, not a name.

Jargon - I am not a fan. Don't say de-link. It is often unwarranted. Explain how and why. Unique is a noun, not a verb. You cannot 'non-unique' something. I love turns, but don't just spout 'turn.' Explain why their argument works against them. Or show how their impacts actually are good, not bad. At its heart debate is a communication education activity; I take your education seriously.

Kritiks - They are arguments. I was okay with them in policy when they were a 'thing,' largely because policy is more game than debate. I was not okay with them in LD when used as a gimmick. I am the LD judge that still clings to the notion that we should have value debate. However, a well thought out K that communicates the impact of the issue must be answered in any debate! In PF, I might be okay if a team ran a kritik that they truly believed in, and they clearly had the ethos and pathos to convince me it wasn't just a gimmick, I MIGHT vote on the K if it is argued well. OR, if their opponents clearly understood the K but just didn't want to deal with it. A K is still an argument, and the premise of the K needs to be responded to as an argument. If not, chances are I am going to vote for the K.

I am not a fan of: rude behavior, gender put-downs, dog whistle language, or individuals being mean/cocky just for the heck of it. =26s-27s. I would go lower, but most tournaments won't let me.

I love intense and lively debate. I love true arguments that are well researched, argued, and impacted. I love smart. Smart gets 29.5s and 29.9s. It has been a very long time since I gave 30's but I do give them!

•Encourage clash

•Move debate forward--continue to examine impact (cause-effect relationships)

•Synthesis of prior speakers as debate rounds ensue

•Questions that probe for clarification of key terms and implications of key choices

 I competed in multiple speech and debate events for 4 years at West Broward High. Although I never competed in PF, I am familiar with basic argumentation, and I prefer debaters to carefully explain all of their arguments throughout the debate. Don’t mention an argument in summary or final focus if you didn’t emphasize it in prior speeches. Logic matters, so if you can refute arguments with it, I will tend to favor those extrapolations. If you have any questions email me. Good luck!

For Congressional Debate:

To judge the merits of evidence, I look to the links and warrants given to me. If there are competing links and warrants that are logically explained and also backed up by evidence, I consider the frameworks given to me. If there are competing frameworks and none are clearly superior, or if none are given, then I will weigh the frameworks and links myself. If only one acceptable framework is provided, even if there are significant holes, I will use that to judge the debate.

I also highly value impacting out evidence, and weighing them against each other. What I do not want to see is a complete defensive position where speakers refuse to acknowledge the merits of opposing arguments and simply try to win by throwing back more/ "better" evidence. Admit when your opponents raise a valid concern, and feel free to attack them back by going for the links and other weak areas in their argumentation instead of just denying or ignoring their evidence. I value offensive arguments higher than defensive arguments.

I believe Congressional debate should also partly be judged on speaking, and so I will look for things like an intro, conclusion, and other stylistic elements that will help me rank speakers higher against their peers with comparable quality of argumentation.

References to how awesome the blue devils are and how terrible UNC is will get a clap.

I am a coach -- but I coach many events (do not specialize in any in particular). I have a working knowledge of Lincoln Douglass, not an extensive one. Don't overcomplicate your arguments. I prefer clear signposting to guide me through your points. To me, the most important aspect of any argument is the organization of your material, so make sure that is clear and logical. Make sure you can back your impacts up. Progressive case styles (theory shells, kritiks, plans, etc) are not my favorites, but I will consider them if they are reasonable, logical, and used very effectively. Be nice to each other in the round; rudeness will cost you speaker points.

-Students who spread will NOT receive high speaker points;

-Students are to manage their own prep time;

Good luck!

I am a 5th-year coach and I have specifically coached an LD squad for 3 years. I have judged LD at many tournaments.

I am fine with moderate spreading, although I would appreciate the competitors sharing their cases with me if they plan to spread.

I don't like weak/hypothetical arguments and I find most extinction arguments to be particularly weak unless they are specifically applicable to the topic.

Tech cases are fine.

I appreciate a good case, but I feel like I'm deciding most rounds in rebuttals.

A competitor must have a framework and that framework really needs to make sense for their case.

My background is in comparative literatures and I currently teach high school Spanish. I prefer Congress and forensic arts over Public Forum but am equipped to judge all events. I know you are passionate about debate and I seek to provide the most objective decision possible so please make sure you are speaking at a slower rate than usual. If a PF round sounds like a ping pong match and everyone is spreading, I cannot accurately flow. Regarding research, make sure the sources are credible and current. It becomes interesting when you question, challenge and re-evaluate the opponent’s sources. Sound logic, decisive language and weighing arguments are key. There are plenty of arguments out there as to why high-probability events are worse than high-magnitude ones and vice versa, so all it takes is a little effort to come up with an effective strategy. It should go without saying but professional decorum is necessitated; before, during, and after rounds.

Regarding my background, I have served as a career diplomat with the U.S. Department of State and have served in U.S. Embassies across the globe as well as in Washington, DC and at the United Nations. Prior to that, I initially began my career working on Wall Street for Goldman Sachs in corporate finance. I transitioned to consulting on international finance for Price Waterhouse, and then left to begin a career in government working for the CIA. All that to say, my background is heavy on foreign policy, economics, and finance. I have judged speech and debate for the past 15 years but most actively in the last 5 years. I have judged every speech and debate event on both the local and national circuits. Congress has become one of my favorite events to judge because almost every round there is an issue that I can relate to from real world experience and it is truly a joy to watch students delve into significant and strategic issues.

I tend to spend more time listening and evaluating your arguments than I do writing feedback, though I aim to give constructive comments. In general, I look for strong evidence to back up arguments and well constructed and articulated speeches. Coming from a diplomatic background, I like a courteous debate, although I appreciate, when appropriate, the need to be assertive and forward leaning in defending a position.

I am very objective when it comes to the issues. However, I will mark down for a speech that does not stand up in the status quo. While content and argumentation are at the forefront of my judging criteria, I do appreciate fluidity and strength in delivery. I frown on rehash and grandstanding. Speeches should also demonstrate strong impact. Questions should be relevant and purposeful. Lastly, I especially enjoy judging rounds where students are listening and creating good clash. Have fun and make it a true debate!

I competed in speech and debate for four years both in Congressional and LD debate. I think they equally contributed to what I like to see in a debate round: great speaking ability and plenty of direct clash in argumentation. I believe my job as the judge isn't to evaluate the quality of each individual argument (since that can allow my own biases to affect the debate), but rather the quality of the clash, and engagement with the standing arguments of the debate. So what I'm getting at here is if your opponent makes a bad argument, even if I know it, and you know it, the burden is always on you to point it out and explain why it's a bad argument as briefly (or not-so-briefly) as that requires.

I'll always be evaluating the round based on the clash of ideas because that's what makes it a debate, rather than just serial back-to-back speeches. The debate aspect is of course more important to me in so far as you can win a round with great debate skills and poor speaking skills more easily than you could win with no debate skills and great speaking skills. However, keep in mind that (especially at high-level tournaments) most people will have both so I don't advise neglecting either.

For LD specifically, I'm fine with speed but you should flash me your case if you're going at a speed that will make it likely for me to miss an argument. Congress not so much, I feel the role-playing aspect boxes you in a little more, so high-speed arguments will likely not score well.

For Congress specifically, (at least with me) you're not throwing away a rank by POing. As a career PO, I will always consider POs that performed at a high level, kept the session running smoothly, and did not mess up recency or precedence.

I like framework in both events. In both events, they're not 100% necessary but I like having an organized way to evaluate the round, so if one does come up make sure you address it well, and weigh why/how it should be evaluated. Weighing and impacting is EVERYTHING. Nothing seals a debate more than "more bad stuff happens if you vote for my opponent(s), more good stuff happens if you vote for me". Feel free to ask me any specific questions on how I evaluate rounds but I just enjoy good argumentation, so give me a good exchange of ideas without being excessively rude to your opponent and you'll be alright.

The person/team who I will favor is the one who presents a cogent, sound argument that can be followed with sound evidence and logic. If the cards aren't there, and you need to delve into philosophical debate, just be aware that I might not agree with your philosophies. That being said, if you want to provide the judge (me) with a specific value/judging framework, and you can convince me to use yours over your opponents, then I will lean in your favor.

I'm not a huge advocate for spreading, as I feel that it cheapens the debate and leans more towards sophistry. If I can't follow you without straining and being flashed your files, then you need to slow down.

ABOUT ME -

I have been judging in Speech Events (HI, DI, DUO, EXT, OO), Debate Events (LD, PF, Policy) and Congressional Debate since 2018.

I enjoy judging Congressional Debates where I can see many debaters debate on numerous topics in the student chamber.

I favor to give points and rank high upon following skills even though congressional leaders need to be successful in passing legislation.

- Assertiveness – Standing up for one’s beliefs and being able to confidently take charge of difficult situations, making tough decisions despite opposition. In a politically charged environment where everyone is vying for their opinion to be heard, being assertive is key.

- Building Alliances – Earning trust and respect from others and taking the time to build effective working relationships with individuals.

- Commitment - Passionately and enthusiastically demonstrating a dedication to the causes and beliefs you espouse.

- Conflict Resolution - Effectively resolving misunderstandings, disagreements, and disputes with other individuals. Directly addressing issues with others in a non-threatening manner. Being willing to compromise in order to maintain effective working relationships.

- Influence - Using a variety of persuasion tactics, interpersonal skills, and communication and presentation strategies to convince others to make decisions that are mutually beneficial to all parties involved.

- Presentation Skills - Using effective verbal and nonverbal communication skills to clearly deliver information to a variety of audiences. Being confident and comfortable when speaking in front of groups. Making presentations that are clear, engaging and impactful.

JUDGING HISTORY-

- Barkley Forum for High Schools 1/29 - 1/31/2021

- Sunvite 2021

- Cavalier Invitational at Durham Academy 1/16 - 1/18/2021

- Florida Sunshine District Tournament 12/5

- FGCCFL December Tournament

- Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/21 - 11/23/2020

- FGCCFL November Tournament

- Florida Blue Key 2020 10/30 -11/1 Congress Debate

- Duke Invitational 2020 9/19 -9/20 Congressional Debate

- National Speech and Debate Season Opener Hosted by UK 2020 9/12 -9/14 Congressional Debate

- FGCCFL Grand Finals 2020 2/28 -2/29 Congress Debate

- FGCCFL February All Events 2020 2/8 IE & Congress Debate

- FGCCFL January All Events 2020 1/18 -1/18 IE & Congress Debate

- Florida Sunshine District Tournament 2019 12/14 -3/28 Congress Debate

- The Sunvitational 2020 1/10 -1/12 Congress Debate

- FGCCFL December All Events 2019 12/7 IE & Congress Debate

- Barkley Forum for High Schools 2020 1/24 -1/26

- Congressional Debate FGCCFL September All Events 2019 9/28 -9/28 IE & Congress Debate

- Florida Blue Key 2019 11/1 -11/3 Congress Debate

- Yale Invitational 2019 9/13 -9/15 Speech

- FGCCFL Grand Finals 2019 2/22 -2/23 Lincoln-Douglas

- Barkley Forum for High Schools 2019 1/25 -1/27

- Congressional Debate Florida Sunshine District Tournament 2018 12/8 -3/9

- Congressional Debate FGCCFL November All Events 2018 11/17 -11/17 IE and Congress Debate

- FGCCFL October All Events 2018 10/13 -10/13 Lincoln-Douglas

- FGCCFL September All Events 2018 9/22 -9/22 Public Forum Yale Invitational 2018 9/14 -9/16 Varsity Public Forum

BACKGROUND

Undergraduate:

- MBBS, University of Medicine, Yangon, Myanmar.

Post graduate:

- MPH, London School of Hyigene and Tropical Medicine, University London, UK

- MSc. Computer Science, Western Illinois University

- Post Doc Medical Informatics Fellowship, Health Science Technology, Harvard-MIT

I am a parent judge, although I did compete in forensics competitions in high school.

My Speaking Style Preferences are as follows:

I appreciate assertiveness when presenting arguments and debating, but only when that assertiveness does not get in the way of a civil and professional demeanor.

Make sure to speak clearly and at an understandable pace. I will not be able to judge you on arguments that I can’t understand when they’re presented.

Also make sure you stick to your time limits, and please don’t go too far over since that puts the opponents at a disadvantage.

As for argumentation:

The team that is able to support their contentions with strong logic and good evidence while effectively refuting their opponents' case will win the round.

If you want me to vote on an argument, make sure to carry it through your speeches so that I can follow it through the debate, I cannot judge you on arguments I cannot follow.

Your arguments should be topical, I will not vote on arguments which are not connected to the topic.

As a final note,

I know that all debaters have prepared themselves extensively, which I very much appreciate. Make sure to remember that the goal of debate is to learn and grow as well as have fun. Good luck!

I am looking for clear speeches with refutations. No REHASH. Eye contact and fluency is important. Strong argumentation and good use of evidence.

I expect competitors to have a strong delivery, emphasized impact, and well constructed arguments. Speeches should be professionally articulated and constituent focused.

I'll vote for whatever you persuade me to vote for. Judges hear different things than you think you're saying, so, slow down and say them like you've been practicing to say them in these moments, and don't just let them sound the way they sound coming out of your face. Slow down. 

Speaker points are awarded for good speeches, good teamwork (which includes prep time allocation), and good jokes; cordiality is, generally, irrelevant; civility is not. 

This is a general paradigm for all events, and I'm not highly active in the speech/debate communities any longer, so here's me, in case you're wondering whether I'm flowing or just somebody's cousin. I did competitive forensics in all of high school and college. I won the student congress TOC and the Harvard congress tournament in 2009 and I directed the congress camp at UTNIF for four years from 2012-2015. I did parliamentary debate in Canada (APDA/CUSID) for the first two years of college, then policy debate at Wake Forest and Emporia State in my final three years. Now I do Medicare Advantage stuff.

If I am judging your round this is my criteria:

- This is congressional debate so I expect to here actual debate.

- I am looking for a good balance of flow and debate.

- Being able to adapt to the round is essential.

- After the first cycle I expect to hear refutation.

- If you start rehashing you will lose points.

- If the debate is one-sided, after 3 speeches on the same side I expect to hear a speaker on the opposite side speak. I do not want to sit there and listen to a one-sided debate.

Otherwise, good luck! Can't wait to hear your speech!

High School Experience:

I did four years of debate in South Florida, competing in Declamation, Original Oratory, Congress, and Duo. I also have experience with Impromptu speaking. I competed at Florida Blue Key, Wake Forest, Harvard, Emory, Varsity State, and CFL Nationals, winning a variety of awards.

College:

I stayed active, judging at Blue Key, Emory and Nationals. I was often used as a Congress judge. I prefer speeches that are well developed, and delivered in a measured, and easy to understand way (no spreading). I have a MA in Political Science, so I am knowledgeable on current events, and will call out a speaker on their ballot for fabricating information or misusing it.

Coaching:

This is my second year coaching, and my school's first year having a team. My preferred events to judge are Extemp, Congress, Original Oratory, and Duo.

PF: I am a lay judge but also a lawyer. Give me a ballot story in final focus. You can sit or stand while you present. Be respectful to me and your opponent.

As a judge for this Public Forum debate, I prioritize clear, logical arguments supported by credible evidence. I expect debaters to engage directly with their opponents' arguments, offering thoughtful refutations and maintaining a well-organized case structure. I value articulate communication over speed, and I discourage spreading. I'll assess each team's ability to effectively construct and deconstruct arguments while maintaining a respectful tone. My decision will be based on the strength of arguments, quality of evidence, engagement with opposing views, and overall presentation. Good luck, and let's have a substantive and respectful debate!

I did PF for 2 years in high school and I have judged it numerous times since then, though it has been some time since I last debated myself. I will do my best to flow and judge based on that.

TL;DR: Weigh, offense in final focus should first be in summary, don't spread, stuff from cross must be in a speech to reach the flow, try not to paraphrase evidence.

Weighing:

Please weigh your impacts. If you don't, I have to decide how to weigh for myself and you may not agree with my choices. If your opponents offer a different weighing mechanism or weigh differently, tell me why I should default to yours over theirs.

Extensions:

Try to extend at least claim and impact, preferably with the warrant, not just the name of source. With just the name, I may lose the extension on my flow/lose understanding of what argument that source was supporting. You don't need to re-read the entire card again (please don't) but offer me more context than simply the name.

Summary/Final Focus:

Every argument in final focus should first be said in summary (especially in terms of offense). This keeps it fair for whoever speaks first. Don't try to extend every argument from your constructive/rebuttal, you do not have enough time. Pick the ones you think you are winning and go from there; you'll do much better, I promise. Make sure you specify your weighing mechanism!

Arguments:

Whatever you want to bring up is probably fine, but just know that I am much less likely to believe obscure arguments that aren't necessarily well warranted than I am stock arguments that are. Obscurity does not imply a better argument, so be careful when running them. If they make sense and are well backed, however, I will have no problem voting for whatever.

Speed:

I'm fine with some speed, but don't spread. If I miss something, it is to your detriment.

Cross:

1. I do not flow cross. If you want me to put something on the flow, it must be brought up in a speech.

2. Be respectful. Don't try to drown out your opponent. Please don't start yelling. Being forceful is fine, but know the limit. Don't try to steal questions; let your opponent have the opportunity to ask questions as well. One or two follow-up questions is fine, but don't overdo it unless your opponent does not have any questions to ask.

3. I actually think cross is really important and is one of the most fun aspects of PF. That being said, make sure you have questions to ask and try to have everyone talk during grand cross. The interactions between all four debaters are what make grand cross exciting.

Evidence:

Paraphrasing is iffy. I don't necessarily hate it, but I don't like it. It is much easier to call a card and see where the evidence comes from when it is directly from the document. When paraphrasing, it is easy to misconstrue the meaning of a source. If I call for a card and your paraphrasing does not match up with what is in the doc, I will drop that source and potentially the argument very quickly. Basically, it is in your better interest to quote directly from the source to avoid any issues (obv with a few changes/exclusions to make the card coherent).

Have the full pdf of your evidence ready, not just the card. If the source has a date, make sure it is visible somewhere. Newer evidence from a similar source probably has more weight.

Prep:

Prep starts when you say it does, and stops when you say stop. Don't stop your prep and continue to write. Don't take forever trying to pull up a card/doc after you stop prep, that probably should have been done during your prep. I will be somewhat lenient with that one, but don't take forever.

When using prep to look at a card from your opponent, your prep will start when you receive the card (unless you wish to run it while they look for the card and you are prepping something else). (Docs should be readily available so as to minimize the time needed to look for them. Expect for them to be called.)

Speaks:

Things that will lose you points: spreading, disrespectfulness, lack of clarity, etc.

Everything else:

I don't care if you sit or stand for cross, decide amongst yourselves.

Off-time roadmaps are fine but largely unnecessary unless your structure is weird (i.e., not going straight down your opponent's case).

Joking is perfectly fine but don't be obnoxious.

Ask me before the round if you have any questions or if I missed something.

1) Don’t spread so that I can understand all of your arguments.

2) Be respectful and don’t yell during cross in order to keep things civil.

Background: I am the head coach of a Speech and Debate team. I tend to lean towards the flow when deciding debate rounds. I favor argumentation over style in most situations. I value clarity over speed; if I can not understand you, I can not  judge you. Civility is of paramount importance in all debates, and I will penalize competitors for incivility. Assertiveness is applauded and aggression will be penalized.

LD: I am not a fan of Kritiks or ROBs.  I do NOT enjoy judging this style of debate.  I personally find these types of arguments counter to the essence of the debate activity. So in that respect I consider myself more of a traditional LD judge than a progressive one. Debaters who can present a strong case with great logic and evidence, effective refutation of their opponent's case, and ultimately prove their Value/Value Criterion will win. if both debaters are equal on contentions and rebuttals, I will decide the round on which value holds up. If competitors do not connect their contentions and evidence and support material(s) to their value and value criterion, I take that into consideration for my voting decision. Competitors addressing voting points are important to my decision. I firmly feel that all arguments should clearly connect back to the value and value criterion.

PF: The team that is able to support their contentions with strong logic and good evidence while effectively refuting their opponents' case will win the round. I know pace and time is of the essence; however, I want clarity and focus in competitors' speaking. You will see me flowing during most of the round, so I am less concerned with eye contact/hand gestures/facial expressions that some lay judges may favor. Although I won't decide a round based on a single dropped argument, I will consider that as part of my decision. The best rebuttals are those who can systematically go down the flow and address most arguments. Strong contentions will include important impacts. Strong cases will provide some sort of framework. A good final focus will include impact weighing and voters. Noting voting points are important to my decision. I enjoy PF teams that function as a team and not to individual competitors.

I would say that if you needed to classify me I would likely be considered a "classical style" judge. That being said, this is how I would describe my beliefs for debate...

- Please make certain to link your arguments as I cannot assume your reasoning is valid.  I strongly focus on the Value in LD debate, so please connect back to your value.

- Please make certain to link your arguments as I cannot assume your reasoning is valid.  LD is a Value-based debate and I expect to see your arguments linked back to your Value and VC.

- I feel Kritik is rarely used well enough to convince me, so I would be careful in using these arguments.  Most of my judge wins will go to the debater who debates LD the way it should be debated!

- I am STRONGLY opposed to spreading. I flow fairly well, but I would say QUALITY over QUANTITY, and that if I did not hear you say it, then you didn't say it. As this is a "public speaking event" and as both opponents are supposed to receive equal time and consideration from the judge, I see very little value in flashing cases. Make your arguments during the round please, as I can only judge you on the arguments you make.

- At the end of the day I will be looking at your entire debate and want to feel that you are more "right" in the round. Please make certain to weigh your impacts and provide me with solid voters as to why you have won the debate. I will care much more about your arguments being presented and linked believably, authentically, and logically than being 'ahead" on the offensive flow.     

A debate is a search for the truth. That's why, along with voting, debating is at the heart of America's democratic process.

So please call out people who just make things up.

Also important:

* Intros that are directly about the topic always beat generic intros that could apply to any topic.

* Quotations always beat paraphrase.

* Fully-cited evidence I can hunt down always beats "The New York Times tells us that . . ." (Remember: NSDA-minimum is name or publication and year. That's an absurdly low standard that makes zero sense for the new-resolution-every-hour world of Congress. Many Congress debaters still fail to meet it.) The challenge posed by AI will make attention to sources even more important.

* An authorship without an expert solvency advocate--a credentialed source who advocates what's in Section 1 of the bill or the Resolved clause--is cursed. An authorship which has an expert solvency advocate is blessed. I hold cursed bills against their authors/sponsors and reward blessed authors/sponsors. It's considered rude to point out that the only people in the whole world who think the bill is a good idea happen to be the handful of AFF speakers, but that argument is an automatic winner for NEG. A great nation doesn't make policy based on a random hunch. If you can't quote an expert who says "We should spend X billion on Y program" (for instance) then your bill is cursed. I won't, of course, hold cursed first-AFFs against speakers, because someone has to kick off. TL;DR: Find your Section 1 in your research. Don't just wing it.

* Giving the right kind of speech (constructive, rebuttal, summative/"crystallization") at the right time always beats giving the kind of speech you're best at without thinking about what the debate needs. I think I can tell an "oops, thought I'd PO" crystal from one that groups and clinches the best arguments in the round.

* Rehash is a venial, not a mortal, sin. And if you're a novice, always give the speech. That said, giving a third- or fourth-in-a-row is an admission of under-preparation.

* The assumption that everyone is going to give two speeches in a round seems fair, but it has pernicious effects. It discourages folks from speaking early. That in turn results in several "please, someone give a speech" moments in the round. It also discourages people from prepping the full agenda. I have mixed feelings about people ruthlessly taking speeches whenever they can. It's not friendly, but neither is stonewalling until some novice buckles and agrees to kick off the debate, and it's hard to blame someone who grabs a speech opportunity that's just sitting there.

* POs start at 1 on my ballot and lose ranks from errors. They can also be displaced by truly excellent speakers. The PO starts at 1 because the PO is the only indispensable contestant in the round. Can't have a round without the PO. The more people there are who run for PO, the faster the winning PO loses ranks from errors, because you're claiming you're better than everyone else who wanted it.

* Congress is speech *and* debate, so be sure you're listening and responding (debate) and keeping me focused on what you're saying (speech). Congress is getting too fast and burdened with jargon. The ideal Congress speaker is perfectly intelligible to someone who wandered into the room. A conversational pace is a supreme sign of confidence, and if your arguments are also the ones the round needs, you get the one.

* Respect the role-play, which is the only thing that has kept Congress from joining the long list of last decade's big new debate event that will solve everything but which is now moribund because the college kids got hold of it.

* My feedback more often plays the doubting game than the believing game. For instance, I often suggest arguments I think would be better. I do this to help debaters, which helps Congress, which is something I love. Anyone who spends a perfectly good weekend trying to honestly hash out trade policy etc. is a hero, and I encourage everyone to be their best, which is why my feedback is more full of "grows" than "glows." But you're glowing just by playing.

I've been judging debate events for 3 years now and have enjoyed the variety in events and topics. I believe in any and all debate styles, provided you are clear, your arguments link directly to the resolution, and you do not abuse or demean your opponent. I have a zero tolerance policy for disrespect to include any form or racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc.

Public Forum

Feel free run whatever you want. I lean toward reason and logic. I enter the round as a blank slate and will evaluate the round based on definitions and topics as discussed. Make sure your arguments include impacts - the more specific and tangible, the better. When providing numbers and statistics, make sure you have evidence to support your arguments.

Background:

My high school and college experience consists mostly of public speaking, speech, and student government involvement. I also have an extensive performance and theatre background.

I graduated from University of Florida with a B.A. in Political Science, with a focus in Constitutional History & Education. I then went on to obtain my M.Ed., focusing on Secondary Social Studies Education.

Speech & Debate Judging Experience:

I currently work closely with the newly formed Navarre High School Speech & Debate Team. The NHS team is coached by Meghan Rodriguez, who trained me to judge.

I have traveled to and been a judge at several local and regional tournaments, and have also served as a judge for two National Tournaments. I am most comfortable judging speech events, including Dramatic Interpretation, Humorous Interpretation, Duo Interpretation, Program of Oral Interpretation, and Original Oratory. My specialty, however, is Congress.

I look for sharp, fluid speakers, who are animated and engaging. I want to forget the outside world when you are speaking, to forget that this is an event. You should be natural, flexible to your environment, and your performance should not seem over-rehearsed.

In Congress, I expect informed and succinct speeches that adapt to the mock Congress setting/dialogue/debate and do not rehash. There is no need to attack, but feel free to address other speeches when necessary and pertinent. Speak clearly - your speech is not a race.