I have participated in Congressional Debate (as a debater, judge, or coach) for 25 years. As a judge, I am looking for a well-rounded speech that emphasizes real debate (review the debate section below). When evaluating your speeches, I focus on what I like to call the "Six D's of Debate":

Definition - This can also be referred to as organization. I am looking for a relevant, attention-grabbing introduction; a sign-post/road map/outline statement (i.e. for the following two/three reasons: Reason 1, Reason 2, and Reason 3; I urge you to pass/fail this bill/resolution); two to three well defined arguments(claim, reference to previous speaker if applicable, evidence in the form of a quote or paraphrase, analysis of evidence, brief statement leading to the next argument) that authentically leads to the following argument, re-statement of sign-post/road map/outline statement, and a conclusion that ties back to the introduction. Timing also plays a crucial role in this facet; should you go drastically over or under your allotted time, it will likely impact your score.

Due Diligence - The use of evidence and the analysis/synthesis of that evidence is a key factor in debate. Evidence should be as recent as possible, from reliable sources, preferably referencing peer-reviewed studies. Quantitative evidence (evidence based on numbers) is better than qualitative evidence (evidence based on observation) or anecdotal evidence(evidence based on opinion). Avoid having your evidence speak for you; I am not interested in hearing a spoken version of a well-written study or news article. I am more interested in how you analyze/synthesize your evidence to support the claim of your argument.

Debate - Unless you are giving the first speech on a particular topic, I will expect that some, if not all, of your arguments directly refute previous speakers whom you are speaking against. I have always believed that the greatest skill in debate is not speaking, but rather listening; targeted arguments against another individual's claims prove that one is not just making arguments to prove their point but that they are actually listening and responding to the other side. As such, debate is heavily weighed in my scoring considerations.

Delivery - How you deliver your arguments will be taken in consideration when determining your final score for a speech. Movement should occur (walking from here to there, hand movements) but it should appear purposeful and natural. Your delivery should also appear to be extemporaneous and unscripted. Word ruts and extended pauses should be avoided.

Defense - Your ability to respond to questions and defend your arguments is a major part of Congressional Debate. Thoughtful responses to impromptu questions demonstrate your depth of understanding about the topic. Responses should be concise; this is not an opportunity to extend your speech.

Other Notes:

If you give the first speech on a topic, prefutation (mentioning future debaters' arguments and addressing them before they can make that arguments) is appreciated. Also, as the first speaker on a topic, you are responsible to outline the problem and explain how the proposed legislation is the best solution to the problem.

Avoid referencing current and former lawmakers (Congressmen, Senators, Presidents) as a source of evidence. You do not know what they are basing their opinions; it could be faulty logic or poor research.

Please be prepared. If you are presenting a paper critique/ballot to a judge, be sure it is filled out in its entirety. Judges complete anywhere from 15-25 critiques/ballots a session; they do not need to do any extra writing.

I am not a fan of debaters referencing themselves as adults in Congress and saying things like, "When I was in high school..." You are in high school, and these are unnecessary theatrics.

A little bit about me: I coach for Millburn High School in New Jersey. I competed on the circuit in high school and college.

I do my very best to be as non-interventionist as possible, but I know some students like reading judge's paradigms to get a better sense of what they're thinking. I hope that the below is helpful :).

Overall: You can be nice and a good debater. :)

Here are some things to consider if I'm your Parliamentarian/ Judge in Congressional Debate:

- I am a sucker for a well-executed authorship/ sponsorship, so please don't be afraid to give the first speech! Just because you don't have refutation doesn't mean it isn't a good speech. I will be more inclined to give you a better speech score if you stand up and give the speech when no one is willing to do so because it shows preparedness.

- Bouncing off of the above bullet point, two things I really dislike while at national circuit tournaments are having no one stand up to give the earlier speeches (particularly in out rounds) and one-sided debate. You should be prepared to speak on either side of the legislation. You're there to debate, so debate. I'm much more inclined to rank you higher if you flip and have fluency breaks than if you're the fourth aff in a row.

- Asking the same question over and over to different speakers isn't particularly impressive to me (only in extreme circumstances should this ever be done). Make sure that you are catering the questions to the actual arguments from the speech and not asking generic questions that could be asked of anyone.

- Make my job easy as the judge. I will not make any links for you; you need to make the links yourself.

- Warrants are so important! Don't forget them!

- If you are giving one of the final speeches on a piece of legislation, I expect you to weigh the arguments and impacts that we have heard throughout the debate. Unless there has been a gross negligence in not bringing up a particular argument that you think is revolutionary and changes the debate entirely, you shouldn't really be bringing up new arguments at this point. There are, of course, situations where this may be necessary, but this is the general rule of thumb. Use your best judgment :).

- Please do your best to not read off of your pad. Engage with the audience/ judges, and don't feel as though you have to have something written down verbatim. I'm not expecting a speech to be completely flawless when you are delivering it extemporaneously. I historically score speeches higher if delivered extemporaneously and have a couple of minor fluency lapses than a speech read off of a sheet of paper with perfect fluency.

- Be active in the chamber! Remember, the judges are not ranking students based upon who is giving the best speeches, but who are the best legislators overall. This combines a myriad of factors, including speeches, questioning, overall activity, leadership in the chamber, decorum, and active listening (i.e. not practicing your speech while others are speaking, paying attention, etc.) Keep this in mind before going into a session.

- Please please please don't speak over the top of one another. This being said, that doesn't mean you have a right to monopolize the questioning time, but there is a nice way to cut someone off if they're going too long. Use your best judgment. Don't cut someone off two seconds after they start answering your question.

- I rank based on who I think are the overall best legislators in the chamber. This is a combination of the quality of speeches, questioning, command of parliamentary procedure, preparedness, and overall leadership and decorum in the chamber.

Let me know if you have any questions! :)

Here are some things to consider if I'm your judge in Public Forum:

- Please add me to the email chain if you have one: jordybarry@gmail.com

- I am really open to hearing almost any type of argument (except K's, please don't run K's in PF), but I wouldn’t consider myself a super techy judge. Do your thing, be clear, and enjoy yourselves!

- Please debate the resolution. It was written for a reason.

- It's important to me that you maintain clarity throughout the round. In addition, please don’t spread. I don’t have policy/ LD judging experience and probably won’t catch everything. If you get too fast/ to spreading speed I’ll say clear once, and if it’s still too fast/ you start spreading again, I’ll stop typing to indicate that I’m not getting what you’re saying on my flow.

- Take advantage of your final focus. Tell me why I should vote for you, don't solely focus on defensive arguments.

- Maintain organization throughout the round - your speeches should tell me what exact argument you are referring to in the round. Signposting is key! A messy debate is a poorly executed debate.

- I don't weigh one particular type of argument over another. I vote solely based on the flow, and will not impose my pre-existing beliefs and convictions on you (unless you're being racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, or xenophobic). It's your show, not mine!

- Please please please don't speak over the top of one another. This being said, that doesn't mean you have a right to monopolize the questioning time, but there is a nice way to cut someone off if they're going too long. Use your best judgment. Don't cut someone off two seconds after they start answering your question.

- Be polite!

- Make my job easy. I should not have to (and will not) make any links for you. You have to make the link yourselves. There should be a clear connection to your impacts.

- Weighing impacts is critical to your success, so please do it!

Any questions, please feel free to ask! Have fun and good luck!

I am a History and Geography teacher at Lied STEM Academy in Las Vegas, Nevada.

I have been judging as a favor for a former student and have really come to love seeing young people speak! Congress is the event that I am most familiar with. I have no problem judging 3 or 4 rounds at a tournament...I know, I'm crazy, right??!!

As someone who has no previous experience with Speech and Debate events, I have developed my own way of judging events through the eyes of the uninitiated.

Since Congress is what I do best, this is what I like to see:

-Please try not to just read off your pad or computer. Anyone can read well, but reading well is not the same as speaking well. Give your speech to the chamber and not to your screen/paper. Competitors who just read their speeches will lose points with me.

-Be conscious of your volume and your enunciation. I need to be able to understand what your saying in order to judge your fairly. Don't yell! That will make me not want to listen. Study the pronunciation of words before giving your speech. Nothing says you don't understand a topic more than when you mispronounce things!

-Make your speech more conversational, rather than technical. Explain things in ways that are easy to understand. Don't assume that I am going to understand your acronyms.

-Make your speech unique. Don't rehash the same things that other speakers have said. The whole point of a debate is to argue the legislation, not to just hit copy and paste.

-Don't be afraid to put your personality into your speech. It's OK sometimes to smile!

-Don't be insulting and rude. That will lose you points. I have no problem with aggressive questioning, but don't let it get personal.

-Good cross-x questions get my attention. Don't ask fluff questions. Ask something relevant.

-Be active. Don't just sit and practice your speech to yourself. Pay attention to what is going on in the chamber. Participate in the experience!

Feel free to ask me questions!

Paradigm for Congressional Debate- David Burnett

To me, Congressional Debate is a beautiful combination of the best qualities of all things speech and debate. From the theatric element of presentation and strong, impactful delivery to excellent points of contention and clash, the skilled congressional debater must strike a balance between presentation and statistics.

What do I look for when judging?

1. Impact

Who does this bill hurt? Who does it help? Why is there a sense of urgency to pass or fail this legislation. While this may sound simple, too many speeches get bogged down with piles of fluff or dry statistics. Above all, you are there to legislate. The mark of all great legislators is the ability to strike a common tone with their audience and work together with other legislators to create solutions and lasting change.

2. Congressional Decorum

Direct questioning is not the time for PF-style shouting matches. Additionally, PF and Policy jargon take away from the 'Congressional' element of the event. Yes, we all want great attacks across the 'flow' and for the 'Affirmative' to point out the 'drops' of the 'Negative' side. While those terms certainly frame and inform congressional debate, we should still present it for what it is- super high-quality debate in the style of the United States Congress. Pass, fail, my constituents, my district, etc. all add to the charm of this wonderful event.

3. Unique and exciting information

Above all, I hope each speaker brings great information to the floor and avoids repeating anyone's point unless they intend to clash with it or expand upon it.

Have fun and be kind to one another!

Congressional Debate Paradigm:

I'm looking for the best legislator overall which means I am considering your holistic participation in the round including the types of speeches you have given and the questions you've asked. I love that Congress is a unique blend with an emphasis on delivery and debate/analysis in the round.

Additionally, I value evidence based debate with credible sources. Cite a source so I can look at it if I'm interested.

Please don't re-hash arguments--Know when it's time to move on. I flow the round and will know when you re-hash arguments and evidence. It's also important to know where/when you are speaking in the round in terms of what type of speech you are giving.

Be prepared to speak on either side of a bill.

You are also role playing as a legislator--remember this as well.

I was an active member of my high school speech & debate team, under an amazing coach, Ms. Croley, who instilled in us the true joy of forensics and its deeper impact on the larger community.

I have been judging high school students, for several years at the local, district, regional and national circuit tournaments and TOC. I have judged various categories and have great admiration for students who invest their efforts in the category selected. I started serving as a volunteer coach for younger students, from my teens, in part due to the legacy left by my late Coach.

In Congress -

I value substance and substantiation, and overall active involvement in the Chamber, through an organized presentation and active questioning.

Regardless of my own stance on a bill, I welcome convincing arguments with reliable sources.

Drama, unnecessary questions simply to garner attention and loudness, does not make a good legislator.

As competitors, I expect proper and thorough preparation prior to the session.

I expect the PO to be fair, respectful to all in the Chamber, with knowledge of proper procedures.

I am a parent that did LD and policy debate in high school and loved it.

For Congressional Debate, my focus is on logic. The better I can understand your arguments, the more it clashes with arguments made by previous debaters, and the better you can explain why those should be the reason to vote for the position you're advocating, the better the score will be. For the question of content vs presentation I try to follow the 70-30 rule -- the focus is mainly on the content, but great presentation is appreciated.

In a round with a lot of great speakers and strong arguments and clash, I will tend to rank higher those that "raise the room" more. All things being equal, the tiebreaker for me will be those that are friendlier to others and have a more civil / respectful tone in their speeches and questioning.

Background: I'm the Director of Debate at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX; I also coach Team Texas, the World Schools team sponsored by TFA. In high school, I debated for three years on the national and local circuits (TOC, NSDA, TFA). I was a traditional/LARP debater whenever I competed (stock and policy arguments, etc). I have taught at a variety of institutes each summer (MGW, GDS, Harvard).

Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: court715@gmail.com.

2023-2024 Update: I have only judged at 1 or 2 circuit LD tournaments the last two years; I've been judging mainly WS at tournaments. If I'm judging you at Apple Valley, you should definitely slow down. I will not vote for something I don't understand or hear, so please slow down!

Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round. I also feel there is very little argument interaction in a lot of circuit debates--please engage!

Theory/T: I think running theory is fine (and encouraged) if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments. If you are wanting a line by line theory debate, I'm probably not the best judge for you :)

Speaker Points: I give out speaker points based on a couple of things: clarity (both in speed and pronunciation), word economy, strategy and attitude. In saying attitude, I simply mean don't be rude. I think there's a fine line between being perceptually dominating in the round and being rude for the sake of being rude; so please, be polite to each other because that will make me happy. Being perceptually dominant is okay, but be respectful. If you give an overview in a round that is really fast with a lot of layers, I will want to give you better speaks. I will gauge my points based on what kind of tournament I'm at...getting a 30 at a Houston local is pretty easy, getting a 30 at a circuit tournament is much more difficult. If I think you should break, you'll get good speaks. Cussing in round will result in dropping your speaks.

Speed: I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll stop flowing if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. Based on current speed on the circuit, you can consider me a 6 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.

Miscellaneous: I don't prefer to see permissibility and skep. arguments in a round. I default to comparative worlds.

Other things...
1. I'm not likely to vote on tricks...If you decide to go for tricks, I will just be generally sad when making a decision and your speaks will be impacted. Also, don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc. I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence argument that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please don't run morally repugnant positions in front of me.
3. Have fun!

WS Specific Things
-I start speaks at a 70, and go up/down from there!
-Make sure you are asking and taking POIs. I think speakers should take 1 - 2 POIs per speech
-Engage with the topic.
-I love examples within casing and extensions to help further your analysis.

I am a content judge as opposed to a style judge and have been judging Congress for 7 years, mostly on the National Circuit. I value well constructed speeches with properly linked evidence to arguments and you have to explain why it matters. If you don't provide evidence of some sort then I will most likely disregard your argument. To just list a person's name and say they are wrong is not refutation. You must give supported arguments as to why they are wrong and it is not necessary to refute everyone in the round. Congressional role play is low on my list, but being considerate of your opponents is something I value. If you intentionally talk over your opponent in CX you will most likely lose points. And please wait until all your judges are ready before you start. If you are the PO and don't pick someone who has been standing up regularly in favor of someone else who has not been standing I will question your fairness. If your chamber has time left I would suggest using it for debate. I'm not a fan of ending early. Being prepared on all items counts.

I look for speaking ability. I like a calm, cool and collected speaker. I prefer speeches that have been clearly well researched and also practiced. During questioning, I like when fair questions are asked. I can appreciate making a point, but you should not be aggressive or attacking. Participation is noted highly in my mind and showing being engaged in the debate, even when you are not speaking, is something I look for.

As a practicing trial lawyer, I craft arguments based on evidence, attack arguments made by others, and seek to persuade judges for a living. Having done so for more than 20 years, I evaluate arguments rank speakers based on:

» Rationality: not every argument needs to be crafted as a logical syllogism, but arguments do need to be free of logical fallacies and proceed from premises to conclusions. In the congressional-debate context that means clear articulation of claim, warrant, data, and impact.

» Evidence: The data element in your proposal is essential. You need to be prepared to provide evidence to support your argument, especially when asked for it. This means you need to be well prepared and not try to fake it. And whatever evidence you use should be from credible sources that would not get you laughed out of a courtroom.

» Precision: Make your argument. Provide your evidence. Advance your conclusions. Be concise when you do so. Then stop talking. Do not fill up your time just because you can. Do not rehash arguments or evidence you’ve already provided. When it’s time to respond, be sure you actually respond rather than restating your original argument.

» Style: If in doubt, slowing down is always a good idea. To the extent possible, avoid reading. Be respectful and civil. Don’t condescend, even when it’s deserved. Listen to the arguments of others and respond to those arguments. Be willing to change your plan or tactics when appropriate.

I highly value extemporaneous speaking and the effective use of evidence to defend any and all claims. The PO starts with my 1 and it is theirs to lose.

As a former congressional debater, I've been in your shoes. When judging, I take the unpredictability of congressional debate into account but expect the best debaters to remain unphased by the chamber's unanticipated direction. I have listed the key aspects that make or break a debater in my ranks.

1) Refutation. I do not rank debaters (with the exception of sponsorship/authorships) unless they have complete refutations. This means you fully reiterate the previous speaker's argument and offer a clear counterpoint from either a logical or evidentiary basis. Even the first negation speaker is expected to have some level of refutation. By the fourth speaker in the round, refutation should be deeply embedded in a speech. Namedropping does not count as refutation. If you do not fully explain the links in your refutation argument then it was not a complete refutation.

2) Extension. If a previous speaker has acknowledged an argument already and you are choosing to expand upon it, you need to mention that previous speaker. If you do not recognize previous speakers for their arguments, I will assume you weren't paying attention or you are attempting to rehash. Extensions done well are impressive. Ignoring previous speakers to seem original or giving the same point twice is not.

3) Logical argumentation. It goes without saying but make good arguments. Consider the context of your contention and the scope of its impacts. I have no qualm ranking a debater who makes great arguments that I personally don't believe in. I will not rank a debater who has a poorly designed argument, even if I love the idea.

4) Engagement. One expectation of congressional debaters is engagement with the room. When refuting or extending upon previous speakers you should make eye contact and face them. During questioning do not give a miniature version of your speech or ask questions completely unrelated. You need to show me that you are engaged in their argument and how it relates to the scope of the whole round. Being passionate in questioning is great, so long as you are allowing the speaker to answer. I understand this is challenging with an online format, but I will still expect debaters to be engaging to the extent it is possible.

5) Speaking style. I don't have a strong preference for jokes versus serious speakers. I do, however, care that you are expressing yourself (while role-playing a member of congress) in your speech. Have passion and be genuinely invested in your arguments. If you are a funny person, crack a joke, in a respectful manner. If not, totally fine as well. I'm not judging you on your personality but no one likes a boor.

6) Moving the chamber along. If the bill is ready to move to previous question and there are five more speakers who will continue what is already stale rehash, it is not insensitive to call for the motion. Unless you are very intentionally screwing over an individual debater, I will not hold calling motions (whether they pass or not) against you.

7) For POs: Run the room. POs, I expect that you keep order in the chamber. Debaters cannot have group conversations unless they are in a recess; don't let them start negotiating sides in the round between speeches. As long as you are being fair, sticking to procedure, and reminding the chamber if they are not, I will reward your sacrifice to preside. I care quite a bit about following proper procedure so if you don’t actually know how to PO don’t expect me to rank you as a PO.

8) Flipping/recess. If you flip sides to save the round and need a recess, I'm totally for it. Adaptability is crucial for a debater. I've been in that position before and understand the pressure. For recesses in general, figuring out splits and avoiding this situation is ideal, but I know that it isn't always realistic. I'd prefer to take the recess and have a debater flip than prematurely move a bill to previous question when there is still valid debate to be had.

9) Have fun! I did congressional debate for four years (and keep coaching now) because I love it! Tournaments are stressful but they are also great places to make friends from around the country and voice your opinions on real-world issues. It isn't hard to tell which debaters love to be in round, even if they are stressed, and which are terrified. I encourage all of my students to let go of the tension and let the moment of their speech absorb them. You are always performing better than you think and I swear judges are not out to get you. Debaters who let loose and have fun are the ones who break to out rounds and feel good about their performance! I love judging because you are all such talented individuals and being part of your competitive experience brings me so much joy.

10) During rounds, I will write detailed feedback on your ballots. That being said, if you ever want more feedback or have questions at the end of a round, I am happy to talk. Just let me know and we can chat about the round and your performance.

Best of Luck! Sorry for the long paradigm but I know I always wished judges were explicit with what they wanted!

Hi there,

My name is Alex Gordon -- I competed in Congressional Debate for 4 years at the Dreyfoos School of the Arts in West Palm Beach, FL. I debated a decent amount nationally, placing 3rd in Senate at NSDA Nationals my senior year, and ranked well at a few other tournaments over the years. I am now a sophomore at Yale University, where I compete in parliamentary debate.

I judge congress rounds holistically, preferring the best overall legislator over the best orator, best debater, etc. That said, here are a few things you may want to consider in reference to how I evaluate speakers:

1. If you are disrespectful, rude, or violate decorum, I will refuse to rank you, no matter how good your speeches are.

2. Feel free to use humor, but always make sure you are taking the competition seriously and with respect.

3. Don't be afraid to take risks. I reward creativity and unique argumentation and styles.

4. I am fine with speed, but some judges are not, so check their paradigms, too. Also, make sure your computer can handle speed through Zoom, too. The last thing I want is to not understand what you are saying as a result of the technology

5. Every speech after the first affirmative should have refutation. There is no excuse not to, because that just shows you are not listening to your fellow representatives.

6. Please have warrants! I should not be left asking "Why" or "How" after you make your argument. Also, please do not rehash.

7. Please do not say, "According to the New York Times" and move on. Provide a name and/or date with sources, if possible.

8. Be passionate. Show me why I should not only care about your side of the debate, but about your particular argument and why it is the most important in the round. Connect to the humanity of debate -- paint a narrative of what will or will not happen as a result of the vote. Make me want to vote for you and your side.

9. Have fun. Show off your personality.

As a final note, I want to say how inspiring it is to see you all still dedicated to the activity and willing to put the time into competing this weekend. I know there is a lot going on in people's lives, and debate can oftentimes be a stress-inducing activity. If at any point you just need a break, or need to leave and get a glass of water, always feel free to take care of yourself first.

Be well, and be kind to one another.

Alex

Please feel free to contact me at alexgordon003@gmail.com with any questions.

General Judging Philosophy

• Speed: I'm usually okay with speed, so I'm okay with you spreading, but you need to articulate. I will yell, "Clear!" as necessary, but not repeatedly.
• Flowing: I have no problem with this, but it would be helpful if you emphasized your tag lines so that I can clearly delineate your arguments. Also, it helps if you pause between the end of your card and the beginning of your own analysis so that I know where your source's words end and yours begin.
• Topicality: I will accept topicality arguments only if there's (1) clear abuse established and (2) it's presented as a clear RFD in the 2NR in Policy or the NR in LD.
• Kritiks: I hate kritiks. Please don't run them.
• Research Burden: I despise the argument that, because it's hard to do research, you shouldn't be expected to be prepared on the AFF case. It's a waste of my time and your opponent's. You will lose if you seriously push this argument.
• Rebuttals: The 2NR and 2AR in Policy, the NR and 2AR in LD, and the Final Focuses in PF need to have clearly delineated voting issues.
• Off-Case/Disadvantages: These are fine only if they are presented clearly and are related directly to the topic and/or AFF case; I will not necessarily accept them as prima facie voters.
• Jargon: Shouldn't be an issue, but it might behoove you to lay our your argument with as little as possible.
• Cross-Ex/Crossfire: Please use cross-examination time to set yourself up for arguments in future speeches, and not to make stump speeches of your own. Please also avoid using prep time before cross-examination. I will not penalize you for failing to do these things, but you will make me much happier if you do.

Policy Debate Judging Philosophy

• Criteria: Stock issues. The AFF needs to identify: (1) inherency, or, that a problem exists in the status quo; (2) significance, or, that the problem inherent in the status quo warrants action by the United States federal government; (3) solvency, or, that the proposed plan solves the significantly inherent problem; and, (4) desirability, or, that the proposed plan is the most desirable means of solving the significantly inherent problem. The NEG may attack any and/or all of these, but need only win one in order to win the round.

L-D Judging Philosophy

• Criteria: Framework. The AFF needs to define key terms in the resolution and have a clearly established, well-warranted framework, with contentions that advance that framework, in order to win. If the AFF shows that its framework best encapsulates the issues implicated by the resolution - more so than the NEG's counter-value - then the AFF wins the debate.

PF Judging Philosophy

I was around when Public Forum was first invented, and perhaps it is for that reason that I consider myself an "old school" PF judge. I don't even feel like I should have to spell out a PF judging philosophy.

I frown on the use of a Policy/LD style framework in PF cases. Ultimately, my PF judging philosophy is similar to the question that the NFL proposes that judges use in evaluating PF rounds: "If I had no prior beliefs about this resolution, would the round as a whole have made me more likely to believe the resolution was true or not true?" Historically, I have found that the answer to that question typically rests on one argument that is primarily contested throughout the debate.

Basically, treat the round as PF was intended: communicate your arguments in a manner persuasive to the non-specialist or "citizen judge," i.e. a member of an American jury. If you think that you could persuade a lay judge with your case, then you'll persuade me.

Student Congress Judging Philosophy

Again, this is an event for which I don't feel as though a judging philosophy should be necessary. This is a mixed speech and debate event, and I therefore place equal emphasis on the speech and debate portions of the event.

In terms of the speech aspects, I am looking for, e.g., eye contact, facial expressions, body language, variation of tone and pitch - really, all of the hallmarks of a good orator.

For the debate aspects, I understand the purpose and nature of constructive, refutation/rebuttal, extension, and crystallization speeches, and expect you to fulfill your intended purpose(s). As noted in my "General" comments above, speakers best use their questioning time to set themselves up for a future speech, and not to make stump speeches or score points of their own.

For presiding officers, I truly appreciate how difficult this role is, so an able performance is guaranteed a spot on my rankings. In determining where on my ballot, I measure the P.O.'s value in the round against the contribution of the speaker to the round; if the P.O.'s value outweighs that of the given speaker, then I rank the P.O. higher than that speaker.

Basically, there's nothing here that you should surprise you if you read other judges' Student Congress paradigms. If you know how this event is supposed to work, and conduct yourself accordingly, then I'm sure you'll be fine as far as I'm concerned.

About Me

_____Professional Experience_____

• Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York, New York
  Principal Appellate Court Attorney, November 2021 - Present
  Senior Appellate Court Attorney, May 2018 - November 2021
• Hausman & Pendzick, Harrison, New York
  Associate, February 2015 - May 2018
  Law Clerk, December 2014 - February 2015

_____Education_____

• Juris Doctor, 2014, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, New York, New York
  Concentrations in Constitutional Law & Rights, General Litigation, and Criminal Law & Procedure
• Bachelor of Arts cum laude, 2011 Florida Atlantic University, Harriet L. Wilkes Honors College, Jupiter, Florida
  Concentrations in Law & Society and Spanish
• High School & International Baccalaureate Diplomas, Eastside High School, Gainesville, Florida

_____Debate Background_____

__________Professionally__________

• Professional Speech & Debate Association (Professional Division)
• Prepared Debate - First Place (Season 3, Qualifier 1)
• Spontaneous Debate - Fourth Place (Season 3, Qualifier 1), Third Place (Season 1, Qualifiers 1 and 3; Season 2, Qualifier 3), Second Place (Season 1, Qualifiers 2 and 5, and Championship; Season 2, Qualifier 1 and 4), and First Place (Season 1, Qualifier 4; Season 2, Qualifier 2 and 5, and Championship)
• Prepared Speech - Third Place (Season 1, Qualifiers 1 and 2, and Championship; Season 2, Championship), Second Place (Season 1, Qualifiers 3, 4, and 5), and First Place (Season 2, Qualifier 2, 3, 4, and 5)
• Spontaneous Speech - Third Place (Season 1, Championship; Season 3, Qualifier 1), Second Place (Season 1, Qualifiers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; Season 2, Qualifier 3), and First Place (Season 2, Qualifier 1, 4 and 5, and Championship)
• Prepared Acting - Third Place (Season 1, Qualifier 4, and Championship; Season 2, Qualifier 1), Second Place (Season 1, Qualifier 3; Season 2, Qualifier 2, and Championship) and First Place (Season 1, Qualifiers 2 and 5)
• Toastmasters International - District 46
• Goodwill Toastmasters Club (Rotary-Toastmasters Alliance) (member since March 1, 2022; Vice President Education, July 2022 - June 2023): Presentation Mastery Level 3
• La Voz Latina Toastmasters Club (Bilingual English/Spanish Club) (member since July 1, 2022)
• Advanced Debaters Toastmasters Club (advanced Toastmasters Club, specializing in debate) (member since July 1, 2022)

__________Law School__________

• Competitions Editor (2013-2014), Moot Court Honor Society (2012-2014), Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, New York, New York

_______________Moot Court_______________

• Quarterfinalist and Second Place Brief, Jerome Prince Memorial Evidence Competition, Brooklyn Law School, Brooklyn, New York, March 2014
• Second Place, Appellate Lawyers Association National Moot Court Competition, Chicago, Illinois, November 2013
• Second Place and Second Place Oralist, Appellate Lawyers Association National Moot Court Competition, Chicago, Illinois, November 2012

__________College__________

• Founder and President (2007-2011), Debate Team, Florida Atlantic University, Harriet L. Wilkes Honors College, Jupiter, Florida

_______________Parliamentary Debate_______________

• Semifinalist and Runner-Up Speaker, Florida Intercollegiate Forensics Association State Championship, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, February 2011
• Champion and Champion Speaker, Marks Invitational, University of West Florida, Pensacola, Florida, January 2011
• Champion and 5th Place Speaker, Star Invitational, Florida State College at Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida, November 2010
• Runner-Up Speaker, Florida Intercollegiate Forensics Association State Championship, Florida Atlantic University, Jupiter, Florida, February 2010
• Semifinalist and Champion Speaker, Marks Invitational, University of West Florida, Pensacola, Florida, January 2010
• State Champion and State Champion Speaker, Florida Intercollegiate Forensics Association State Championship, Florida Southern College, Lakeland, Florida, February 2009
• Octafinalist and National Champion Speaker, Novice National Championship, University of West Florida, Pensacola, Florida, March 2008
• Runner-Up and Runner-Up Speaker, DSR-TKA National Championship, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, March 2008
• Runner-Up Speaker, Florida Intercollegiate Forensics Association State Championship, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, February 2008
• Runner-Up Speaker, Star Invitational, Florida Community College at Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida, November 2007

_______________NFA Lincoln-Douglas Debate (not the same as high school L-D!)_______________

• Champion and Champion Speaker, Florida Intercollegiate Forensics Association State Championship, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, February 2011
• Champion and Champion Speaker, Star Invitational, Florida State College at Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida, November 2010
• Champion, Florida Intercollegiate Forensics Association State Championship, Florida Atlantic University, Jupiter, Florida, February 2010
• Champion and Champion Speaker, Florida Intercollegiate Forensics Association State Championship, Florida Southern College, Lakeland, Florida February 2009

__________High School__________

• Captain (2006-2007), Webmaster (2005-2007), PowerPoint Producer (2004-2006), Forensics (Speech & Debate) Team, Eastside High School, Gainesville, Florida

_______________Student Congress (selected)_______________

• Finalist, National Catholic Forensic League Grand National Championship, Houston, Texas, May 2007
• Fifth Place, Florida Forensic League Varsity State Championship, Niceville High School, Niceville, Florida, March 2007
• Second Place, Crestian Classic, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, January 2007
• Seventh Place and Best Preliminary Presiding Officer, Florida Blue Key Speech & Debate Tournament, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, October 2006
• Fourth Place, Winter Springs Invitational, Winter Springs, Florida, September 2006
• Semifinalist, Florida Forensic League Varsity State Championship, Western High School, Davie, Florida, March 2006

I did 4 years of congress and a little bit of extemp at Hawken and debated a lot nationally. I am a 2018 grad. I was pretty meh(made TOC and nats senior year and some out rounds at circuit tournaments). I'm a Senior econ major with math and public policy minors at Carleton College. I was very tech for a congress debater and I judge whatever debate event Hawken needs judges for so I got some experience in everything (Including Middle School Big Questions, it was epic) but policy.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TOPIC IS BUT I PROBABLY KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT IT BECAUSE I CASUALLY READ NYT AND RANDOM ECON PAPERS.

Email: griffina2@carleton.edu

PF:

TLDR: I was not bad at national circuit debate. I'm a lay judge who tries to vote off the flow. PLEASE WEIGH AND SIGNPOST. Have fun. Risk-taking will be rewarded. Good nuanced argumentation. Got any questions please ask before the round starts

If you have had any Hawken judges before who are either coaches or ex-competitors I probably have a pretty similar paradigm and will vote similarly. Some of these I have taken straight from them.

1. I'm not that great at flowing. Sorry, I didn't do PF and I have slow handwriting. That being said I do flow to the best of my ability and I vote based on the flow I have created throughout the round. I am fine with speed but please NO SPREADING. I can understand and follow it but my slow handwriting might mean that it might not be super detailed on my flow. You can go just as fast as you want but just understand that when I look back at flows in the end I might miss some of the intricacies. So slower is probably better and I tend to believe that quality is better than quantity. .Because of this, I don't really flow card names (sorry I think your analysis is more important) so if I ask what a name is a reference too after a speech this me just trying to clarify and make sure the round stays fair. Calling the card by the stat/number/analysis is just a little easier for me to follow but not as efficient for yall.

2. In crossfire, if you say something that seems important or tell me that you will mention it in a later speech I will flow it. Otherwise, I will just sit and listen.

3. The best way to convince me to vote for you is by telling the most convincing arguments. I think the best tech arguments are the ones that are also true. I really enjoy unique and nuanced arguments and would encourage teams to run things that are not just stock. However, do not be ridiculous with what you run. It must be based in reality, this is not a policy where everything leads to nuke war. I would encourage arguments that bitcoin ruins the environment, we should fear the rocketship lobby because they will weaken regulation or other arguments that are kinda funky, out there, and super cool. Long link chains are fine but just keep it real.

4. Please Weigh. if you didn't you probably lost and I thought what the other team said was more important.

5. Theory and Ks are fine but I think disclosure theory is a bit silly so I probably won't vote for it. I did congress so beware that I have little experience with theory so explain it to me like you would a novice and tell me how to weigh it. Ultimately it is up to you to decide what arguments to run and not my job as a judge to decide if you can run it. That being said I don't have a lot of experience with progressive debate and I think we are here to debate the resolution, not the rules of debate, so I would prefer normal debate.

6. Humor, wit, puns, making me laugh, banter, and pop culture references are encouraged and will earn you extra speaks. Debate is for a bunch of nerds but let's not be super uptight and have a good time as you do it. Have some flair

7. Please Signpost because it really helps me flow. Tell me where on my flow the response should go like on the second warrant, or the link to the impact, or this piece of evidence, ETC. Also, number your responses or tell me how many you are going to make in a particular spot, I think it helps everyone keep track of where you are. In late speeches tell me where to vote, how to vote, and why to vote there and I will follow you. Makes my decision super easy. Literally say "you vote here on____ for ____ because" or " do not vote here on ___ for ___ because".

8. Logic > evidence. I am under the belief that you can find a card for almost anything so the important part is the warranting and analysis. Anyone can just read cards. The challenge of debate is building a narrative and effectively communicating why the matter and why I should believe them. Tell me why cards are true. If you just card dump I probably won't vote you up. I will call for cards if you tell me to or if I find them important to my decision(I really should not have to do this, if I do the round is probably a mess). Since I should be on the email chain, I will try to read anything that gets sent through there.

9. Y'all know the topic better than I do so it's up to you what your frontline second rebuttal is. You know what the best responses are so frontline those first. I think turns tend to be pretty powerful so just generally frontlining those is a good idea, but if they are then spend your time somewhere else.

10. Anything in the final should be summary and most stuff from summary should be in rebuttal. No new response in final focus, that's pretty squirrely, especially in the second final. Adding new stuff in summary is fine if you didn't get to it in rebuttal or are frontlining responses in the second rebuttal but for the most part, it should be clarifying the round and weighing.

Congress:

TLDR: I was not bad at national circuit debate. Have fun. Risk-taking will be rewarded. Good nuanced argumentation. Got any questions please ask before the round starts

I did 4 years of congress at Hawken and debate a lot nationally. I was pretty meh. I'm a sophomore econ major with math and public policy minors at Carleton College.

1. Have fun and be yourself. Enjoy yourself I feel like oftentimes people take this event too seriously and its 20 miserable people sitting in a room. We all know what's that like and none of us want that to happen. At the end of the day when I am doing ranks, the people that are the most memorable will probably be towards the top. The best way to do that is to have some witty banter and make me laugh.

2. Argumentation > presentation. I don't care if you give the most eloquent speech of all time, if you don't add anything new, say anything relevant, or you don't make sense, then I will be bored and cranky. No one wants that. explain everything thoroughly, weigh, refute, no glaring holes, and make sure as a judge I am not asking myself a ton of questions when you finish speaking.

3. PLEASE WEIGH EVEN IF ITS A FIRST AFF. As an aspiring economist, I have learned the job of research is just to spit out the numbers. it is your job to tell me why they matter and what they mean.

4. Be risky and not stock. I hate rehash tell me something I don't know, please. My favorite argument of all time is bitcoin killing the environment. Spicy stuff like that will make you memorable but don't overdo it. Policyesque arguments about everything creating nuke is ridiculous. Be bold but believable.

LD:

If you seem like you are having fun and not making the round a terrible place to be, I will listen to pretty much any argument that isn't intentionally obnoxious or repugnant (death good, racial equity bad, etc.). I prefer lines of argument that don't rely on nuclear war or extinction, but if your case is strong, go for it. Creativity and experimental arguments are awesome. Please run them.

Clash and analysis are key. Use your case to analyze and refute your opponent's arguments. Don't just toss out cards; explain WHY and HOW. If your logic/reasoning is sound, you don't need to extend every card to win. I prefer strategic condensing over shallow line by line rebuttal.

Fairness - Theory arguments about fairness in LD are, by and large, arguments debaters fall back on when they don't know their opponent's literature well enough to engage with it. Running fairness while spreading or engaging in other behaviors that exclude people from debate is unlikely to get my ballot.

K's - I thoroughly enjoy critical debate. It fits very well with the intent of LD and forces debaters to examine assumptions. Logic must be sound and you should make a concerted effort to use the conceptual framework of your K as the basis for your argumentation (i.e. don't read "We can't draw conceptual lines between people," and then respond to case with arguments that draw lines between peoples). I have a pretty high threshold for what is topical so be prepared to engage with your opponent's lit. I don't enjoy rounds that devolve to T.

Phil - Critical arguments are based on differing philosophical views of the world. The phil authors we roll our eyes at today were often the radicals of their times. I find the debate community's distinction between Phil & K debate silly to the point of absurd and based on an incredibly reductive idea of who counts as a philosopher.

Performance - Go ahead, just make sure you have clear link stories.

Make sure you weigh your impacts for me. I may have a different perspective so if you don't make the weighing explicit, you are leaving it up to my interpretation. This includes ROBs, etc.

I expect timers and flashing to work without much delay. Having issues more than once in a round will lose speaks.

My speaks start at 28 for circuit tournaments. I'll dock a varsity debater more often for nonsense or rudeness than a JV debater. Making me laugh is a good way to bump up your points a few tenths. Enunciation is also a bonus.

I studied linguistics. If you are going to talk about plurals and indefinite articles, please have read more of the article than just the card you are citing.

CX is important and clarifies for me how well you understand your own arguments. I will dock points for badgering novices. Kindness is never the wrong move.

**Virtual debate notes: WiFi strength is not universal. Audio lags make it CRUCIAL that you speak clearly and don't talk over each other.

Speed/Spread:

I don't mind speed, as long as you are clear. I will only call "clear" twice in a varsity round. Taglines, authors, and card interp should be noticeably slower. It is up to the speaker to communicate their arguments and be aware of the audience's attention level. Language has a natural rhythm. Using that to assist you will make you easier to understand than cutting all the linking words out of your cards.

**Virtual debate notes: if I can't follow your speed on a video chat, getting those extra two cards in doesn't matter. Strategy has to adapt to the medium.

Congress:

I evaluate the full participation of the chamber, from docket maneuvers to quality and variety of questions. Successful legislators are those who drive the debate, present new/unique arguments, extend/refute/deepen previous arguments, choose sources carefully, and use parliamentary procedure appropriately. Debate on the merits/flaws of the specific legislation is given more weight than general issue arguments. Delivery style can enhance the persuasiveness of your analysis, but will not make up for canned speeches, poor supporting materials, or rehashed arguments.

POs are an essential part of the chamber. They set the mood, pace, and attitude of the chamber. It is a risk, and that is taken to account when I score. POs with a good pace and no major errors are very likely to be ranked.

Note on authorships/first pros: The price for establishing recency is that your speech must provide some background for the debate and at least one reason why this legislation in particular is/is not the answer.

Evidence

The purpose of evidence in all forms of debate is to support your arguments with expert testimony, not to BE your arguments. I will only ask for cards if something sounds exceptionally wonky. Have some understanding of the bias of your sources (Are they all from conservative think tanks?, etc.). It is generally up to your opponent(s) to point out blatantly wrong evidence, but I will dock for egregious offenses.

I am the current director of speech and debate at the Milwaukee School of Languages.

From 1997-2004, I competed in LD, Congress, Policy, and most speech events in high school and college. Since then, I have coached all events at one time or another.

I will not vote for debaters who physically threaten or verbally abuse their partners or opponents; if you offend your opponent in some way, an authentic apology and reckoning is generally your best option to continue the round.

I would like to be on the email chain (hannanja@milwaukee.k12.wi.us), but only for reference after the round; I will not read along as a substitute for clarity. I will say clear twice if I can't understand you because of enunciation, but then you're probably on your own. If you spread theory blocks/underviews, I can't understand you and I won't be able to flow it.

I will make decisions that are good if:

you explain things to me; you establish a clear standard, role of the ballot, value, or other mechanism and explain to me how I can use that to make my decision; you compare or weigh offense and explain how it is linked to a standard.

I will make decisions that are bad if:

you expect me to do work for you on the flow or among your arguments; you assume I know more than I do.

I will listen to and attempt to flow any speed, but I strongly believe that the faster you go, the less I or any judge will understand. I am reading every week to better understand all sorts of critical theory, but dense stuff delivered at speed is going to be tough for me; ditto for theory/underview/analytic blocks that are a series of two-sentence claims delivered in three second bursts.

I probably will not vote for theory without a clearly explained abuse/harm story and an indication of how the ballot will remedy or prevent that abuse/harm.

I don't think I have any other ideological preferences for argument types or structure; within the constraints listed above, do whatever you'd like and explain to me why it merits my ballot.

PF: if it's in the final focus, it needs to have been in the summary. A complete extension has a link and an impact, preferably with evidence for each. I prefer to make decisions based on clean flow-work; lacking a clean story on the flow, I will occasionally call for evidence to help resolve an issue; I often find myself assessing the 'risk of offense' at the end of rounds based on flow work, evidence quality, consistency of the story between summary and final focus, and the degree of opposition the argument received.

Congress: I care deeply about inclusion and equity, especially in moments where students can have direct influence on which voices are heard. Please work to include everyone in all aspects of procedure and debate.

Any other specifics, please ask.

Speaker Points: I find that a lot of paradigms have speaker point sections that sound like "30 - you're going to win the tournament", and I think that's not helpful (it doesn't really tell the student how to obtain better speaker points) and maybe also actively bad (if you can only get a 30 if the judge thinks you can win the tournament, it means debaters need rep to earn speaker points). So I will try to give you some specific criteria to keep in mind for speaker points in front of me; I'll also probably adjust these criteria and speaker point values over time, and for tournaments that have different speaker point norms.

A top-level speaker (29.5-30) will: demonstrate a strong commitment to explanation, argument comparison, and persuasion; enunciate clearly and consistently; treat their opponent with respect and empathy.

A second-tier speaker (29-29.5) will enunciate clearly and treat their opponent with respect; they will explain arguments well, but generally not do a superior job of comparing/weighing arguments or persuading me of their position's value or truth.

A third-tier speaker (28.5-29) will enunciate clearly and treat their opponent with respect; they will explain their arguments, but may not compare arguments or make an attempt to persuade me.

A fourth-tier speaker (28-28.5) will treat their opponent with respect but may have some clarity issues; they will explain their arguments but could do a better job with the explanation.

A fifth-tier speaker (27.5-28) will not treat their opponent with respect (they may be condescending, or mean, or dismissive, etc) and/or may have clarity issues; they typically do not explain their arguments.

Below a 27.5 would require a confluence of the issues described above.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

As a congress judge I like to see each student add something to the debate. If you don't have something new or unique to add to the debate and are simply rehashing what previous speakers have said you will not get a good score from me. Please directly refute what other speakers have said and explain why the previous speaker is right or wrong, don't simply say that you disagree with them, I need an explanation. To receive a good speech score from me I expect to hear unique arguments, with cited sources to back them up and lots of analysis. You will not get ranked in my chamber if you simply give one or two very polished speeches, I expect chamber participation which includes asking great questions and making relevant motions!

LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE

I have been judging LD debate on and off for almost 15 years. I judge mostly at local Ohio tournaments. I have a very open mind when it comes to arguments that can be presented in an LD debate. With my policy competition background I like to hear a good impact analysis, but don't let your framework get lost in the round. Every argument you make should link back to and support your framework. At the end of the round make sure you are telling me why you win the round! Not why your opponent is losing but why YOU WIN the round.

I am a former congressional debater so I have 2 things and 2 things only. Be respectful and do not re-hash. Do those things and you will be golden.

I have been coaching debate since 1980. I was a policy debater in high school. I have coached policy debate, Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Big Question and World Schools debate. I am also a congressional debate coach and speech coach.

LD-

It comes as no surprise based on my experience and age, that I am a traditional judge. I do keep up on current theory and practice, but do not agree with all of it. I am a traditional judge who believes that LDers need to present a value to support based in the resolution. A criterion is helpful if you want me to weigh the round in a certain way. Telling me you won your criterion so your opponent loses doesn't work for me, since I believe you win the round based on your value being upheld by voting affirmative or negative on the resolution. Telling me to weigh the round though using your criterion makes me very happy.

Voting Issues- I need these. I think debaters ought to tell me what to write on my flow and on my ballot.

Not a fan of K's, performance cases, counter plans, or DA's in LD. I know the reasons people do it. I don't think it belongs in this type of debate. I know debate is ever-evolving, but I believe we have different styles of debate and these don't belong here.

Flow: I was a policy debater. I flow most everything in the round.

Speed- The older I get the less I like speed. You will know if you are going too fast --- unless your head is buried in your laptop and you are not paying any attention to me. If I can't hear/understand it, I can't flow it. If I don't flow it, it doesn't count in the round.

Oral Comments- I don't give them.

Public Forum-

I have coached Public Forum since it began. I have seen it change a bit, but I still believe it is rooted in discussion that includes evidence and clear points.

Flow: I flow.

Public forum is about finding the 2 or 3 major arguments that are supported in the round with evidence. The two final focus speeches should explain why your side is superior in the round.

I am not a fan of speed in the round. This is not policy-light. I do not listen to the poor arguments moving into the PF world.

In Congressional Debate, sources are important (date and source name; author if necessary). Analysis is important. Introducing new ideas to the debate are also important (NO REHASH). I will primarily be paying attention to these things. Participating in CX is important to show consistent engagement and should especially be used to add on to your arguments presented in round! Lastly, I am always in favor of quality > quantity. That is if Senator A has given 2 great speeches and a 1 terrible speech while Senator B has given two excellent speeches, I will most likely prefer Senator B.

Hey y’all! My name is Trent Kannegieter (he/him/his), and this is my paradigm for the 2020 Tournament of Champions. Congratulations to everyone who made it! I’m excited to see some great rounds.

Briefly about me:

I am a junior in college studying history and human rights. I competed nationally for Bayside Academy (in Daphne, Alabama) from late 2015 to early 2017. While Congressional Debate was my main event, I also competed briefly in Extemp, PF, and LD, qualifying for national championship tournaments in each. I currently compete in parliamentary debate and continue my engagement with high school speech & debate through the Yale Invitational, which I co-directed in 2019.

When I’m judging a round:

The best debater in any given cycle is the one who wins the judges’ support for their side of the legislation through their unique contributions to the round. My ratings in any given round are a function of which debaters, on aggregate, were most “persuasive” as measured by this standard. This paradigm means that I’m primarily an “argument-driven” Congress judge, especially relative to some other judges. Early speeches, even if they cover what some may call “stock” points, can win rounds. But smooth presentation, while important, is insufficient to carry my ballot. They only matter insofar as they push the judge toward your side of the legislation. (Thus, the benefit of speaking first is getting the first crack at selecting and explaining these key issues. The tricky part is anticipating where the rest of the round will go and not allowing later speakers to make render contributions irrelevant.) There are many ways to convince a judge, from compelling data to inventive warranting and deep impacting. However, at the Tournament of Champions especially, many of you will likely do this. In light of this talented pool, refutation and engagement of other speakers is at an even higher premium than normal. That is, lots of you will probably be convincing. Prove to me why your stuff is more important than the stuff others bring to the table. Quality wins my ballot over quantity.

I check my biases at the door. That means that you don’t have to worry about running any type of argument in front of me because it seems “conservative” or “progressive.”

Relatedly, this also means that I’m not going to fill in any blanks in your argument for you. If you’re going to make an argument that seems “intuitive,” I still expect you to prove that point to me. (Put in the way I would explain it when coaching, your claim is only as strong as your warranting, data, and impacts.) Be aware of this while competing in front of me. An earlier speaker might make a claim, but not warrant or impact the point sufficiently (or provide good enough data) for the point to stand. Depending on how the round shakes out, this means you can still be the debater who “wins” a point whose claim was first introduced by an earlier speaker. Don’t dogmatically fear being tagged as “rehash” if you do this well. (This is of course distinct from making the exact same point with similar warranting and impacting as earlier speakers did. That’s rehash. Don’t do that.)

I care about questioning blocks! If questions weren’t supposed to factor into ranks, we wouldn’t have them at all. Good engagement, both as questioner and respondent, will be rewarded. Bad engagement will be noted. Respectful exchange (I.e. keeping questions short; not cutting people off) is a must.

Things you can assume:

You can assume that I know a bit about the world, but no more than information that would be on the front page of a paper like The New York Times. Anything else needs to be explained to me. (Don't just say terms like "contact theory" or "stagflation," explain what they are and why they matter.)

You can assume that I'm rational. If you make an argument based on a logical fallacy (such as ad hominem or is/ought), I won't pick it up.

You can assume that, like most people, I tend to be more skeptical of evidence from sources that aren't either peer reviewed or well-respected publications. If your data is from a source that isn't intuitively "trustworthy," it's your responsibility to explain why I should trust it.

On Presiding Officers:

Good (and impartial) presiding is imperative to the integrity of Congressional Debate. I am also aware that presiding in this format presents a unique challenge. Here, as with anywhere else, good presiding should be rewarded. My ballots reflect this belief. That said, presiding does not automatically earn you a place on my ballot. (No funny business. I used to preside frequently in high school, and I’m stuck at home right now and myself school just went to Universal Pass/Fail grading for the semester, so I’ve been spending some time with my old copy of Robert’s Rules of Order.)

That’s it! Best of luck this weekend and beyond!

I did PF, LD, and Congress for 4 years at Liberty North High School in Liberty, Missouri. I graduated from Western Kentucky University in 2021 and competed in NFA-LD (one person policy), impromptu, and extemp. I was also a Debate Coach at Ridge High School during while at WKU.

Add me on the email chain - isaackeller7@gmail.com.

If you use speechdrop.net, send me the code.

Also, please disclose aff and neg on the WIKI.

I will vote on the flow every round. It's your job to execute the line by line just as it is my job to evaluate it fairly. The paradigm below should tell you just about everything you need to know, but feel free to ask me anything before the round.

Overview:

College LD has converted me into a tech over truth debater. I'll evaluate just about any argument that isn't blatantly offensive (sexist, racist, etc.). That includes impact turns. However, if it is a little harder to believe, or a little more out there, then there's a higher threshold on supporting warrants and evidence. I give a lot of weight to conceded arguments, even if they suck. If it's a back and forth wash, I'll prioritize the debater with deeper analysis and higher quality arguments - just win truth and tech to be safe.

Good debate requires extensive research, preparation, organization, and good communication skills. I appreciate successful in-round execution and strategy. I will reward newer and better quality evidence, organized citations, and clear speakers with high speaks and a tie-breaker. Evidence should always include the date published, author, author quals, and source - you should treat evidence in debate like you would a research paper. However, all you need to do is say the author last name and year in round.

Extend warrants and give a detailed explanation/analysis of the argument. Extending through ink is pretty much only good if the argument extended is conceded; however, I'll give more credence/vote on it if you spend some time on it.

I'm very unlikely to vote on defense. You need offense in the round to be a winner.

Speed: You can go as fast as you want, but don't sacrifice clarity for speed. I'll clear you as many times as needed until I can understand you. If I need to do it more than 3 times in a speech, I'lll be annoyed, and your speaks may be in danger. I'll reward proper enunciation, slowing on tags, and slowing on author/publication.

If you aren't spreading, I'll likely flow on my computer. If you are, I'll flow on paper. Never worry about me not looking up, it's just because I'm focused on the flow. I'll pay attention to CX, but you need to keep all arguments that you want me to flow and evaluate within speeches as well. Perceptional dominance in CX will only get you so far. However, I am paying attention and won't tolerate flip flopping as CX is binding.

RFD: Debate is an educational activity. I will give an RFD after the round and welcome any questions you may have to try and clear up confusion or defend my decision.

To be straight with you, you're in charge of whether you receive my ballot or not. I really don't want to intervene, that's more work for me, I prefer to judge a debate where I can be as hands off as possible. Weigh arguments and use ballot directing language - you can do this with an overview in the last speech that tells me how you win or with voters, I really don't care. Don't leave me with a ton of different unresolved impacts on each side where I have to decide whether I want extinction from nuclear war or extinction from pandemics. I'll always default to the team that maps a clear route to the ballot over the team with a shotgun strat.

Please debate the topic. It's both a question of fairness and a question of education. I have voted for performative arguments that ignore the topic before but will give a lot of leeway to framework. Critical arguments are fine as long as they clearly have something to do with the resolution and are explained well.

Speaks are determined by efficiency, smart choices, and persuasive/clean delivery.

Policy:

Read the overview above for general questions about my paradigm.

Knowledge: I never did policy in HS and rarely judge/coach it now. My flaw as a judge is my lack of knowledge on particular strategies and details within the event (what speech to stop reading cards, what a nicely executed block looks like, dividing the flow in speeches, etc.). I've got a decent understanding of the event from following the NDT/CEDA in college. In terms of argumentation, college LD isn't much different.

Pref: I prefer judging traditional policy debate. Specifically, CP/DA/Case debate. Big fan of policy affs and neg positions with big impacts. It's not that I'll drop you if you run critical arguments or theory, I just rarely go for those positions in college and thus have a worse understanding of how to evaluate those positions compared to traditional policy. I also just enjoy judging/watching policy oriented debates more.

Kritk Aff: Please in some way adhere to the resolution. There are some persuasive fairness and education arguments I can vote on if you don't.

Case: I love well researched, in-depth rounds, and that requires deep case debate. Specifically, less debaters are focusing on method/solvency spec take outs, which is a bummer because that's where a lot of education/research comes to play. Offense on case is strategic, especially with strats lacking a CP.

Kritik: If you choose to go the K route, I'll evaluate it to the best of my ability. I'm comfortable/familiar with Set Col and Cap, anything else will require you to explain it super well to get my ballot. This means devoting enough time to overviews and framing claims than you would otherwise. There are a lot of reasons that I think K debaters have the burden of explaining the K well - just know that I expect to be able to understand the position by the end of the debate. I can't vote for something if I don't know what it does/what I am endorsing.

DA: I understand, as any policy judge should. Love myself a Tix DA (agenda and elections) - pretty much all I go for in college. I appreciate topic DAs, econ DAs, and fism. Please collapse, whether that be Case/DA or Case/DA/CP. The DA should blow up in the 2N - I want a thorough line by line with an overview, extensions, and impact calc. If aff only puts defense on the DA, and it serves as a net-benefit to a CP or there's risk of offense on case, probably not good for the aff.

CP: It only needs to sufficiently solve the affs offense with a net-benefit to get my vote. I'm a big fan of states and clever, well researched, adv counterplans. The counterplan should have a similar evidence burden as the aff; it needs to at least say the method proposed through the counterplan solves. Aff should always perm, but I do debate, so I understand that the CP is competitive if it has a net-benefit (states with agenda tix, conceded perm on states means nothing without terminal D or offense on agenda). Make sure you explain the perm well if you go for it. As for consult CPs and other non-competitive CPs, - they are trash and I am easily persuaded by the perm.

AR Theory: I prefer to avoid AR theory, but tbh, I become sympathetic to the aff if neg reads more than 2 CPs. However, this changes if the aff has an illogical amount of advantages. I'll vote on condo/pics bad if it's all aff goes for in the 2A, but it's definitely an uphill battle for you if it isn't conceded and neg reads less than 3 CPs.

Imp turns: Talked about this in the overview above. I'll vote on it. Pref not seeing back files though.

T: I default to competing interps but will let you debate out standards and education/fairness. Go all in, otherwise I probably won't vote on it unless aff really messed up. Procedurals are strategic - you'll never be punished for reading one without going for it. Won't listen to RVIs.

Theory: Positions like vagueness, minor repair, etc. are not reasons for me to drop the debater. I don't want to see weird blipy theoretical arguments and am 99% sure I won't vote on them.

Congress:

Although not directly applicable, you can read the overview above for general questions about my paradigm. To a degree, I will evaluate your speech with some of the perceptions/preferences I have listed in the overview.

Knowledge: I did congress all 4 years of HS and have coached/judged it for the last 3 years. Just like any other form of debate, I think congress judges should reward students that have clearly worked hard and have thoroughly researched the legislation. That being said, beyond outstanding communication skills and argumentation, I look for unique, well researched points when evaluating the content within a congress speech. Congress can become repetitive very quickly, so it's important to avoid stock debate if you're not giving the authorship or the first couple of aff/neg speeches.

PO: Go for it if you think you can do it well. I'll reward the PO if they do a good job and keep the room running effectively. I can assure you I will not forget to rank the PO.

Delivery: Congress is more performative than the other debate events. It should include the following:

A clean/funny/entertaining/relevant attention getting device

A speech outline/road map (pass/fail this for reason 1, 2 and 3)

References to sections or purposes of the bill

Data/evidence to support your arguments/claims

Transitions in-between points

A conclusion that is linked to your introduction

Time: Congress functions a lot like extemp in the field of time. You should not go over or under and should aim to end your speech at 2:55-3:05.

Evidence/Data: I pay a lot of attention to evidence/data when deciding how to rank speakers. You should list the author/organization, qualifications, and publication date when referring/paraphrasing evidence. I will reward the use of academic papers, more recent publications, and high quality evidence (where it can be directly quoted not paraphrased). Empirical/quantitate evidence with stats, polling, etc. has a stronger backing than qualitative evidence. Just like any other debate, I would like to hear good explanations from both the evidence and the debater. Don't get caught up in 3 mins of reading someone else's work.

Debate/Questioning: Okay, this is how you achieve my 1st ranking. Ask incredible, gotchya questions in questioning or strategic preemptive questions for your speech. This is some of the only debate in the event, so you really need to exploit it to impress judges who usually judge PF/LD/CX. While I will obviously evaluate your speech, I will also evaluate the questions you ask and the answers you give when deciding your score. Furthermore, if you're not giving the first speech, you need to make refs to previous speakers to get my 1. This is congressional debate, you are not suppose to read off a pre-written flow pad - there needs to be analysis generated in the round that you present as well.

Authorship: If you give the authorship, you are giving up the ability to refute in speech. It is your job to prempt arguments from the negative and address those arguments within your speech. You should also describe the problem the bill addresses and why your bill is uniquely important.

Please don't role play. It won't effect my voting, but it quickly turns congressional debate into mock government, and I think the time in your speech can be better spent.

I am a college professor (media and journalism studies) at Cuyahoga Community College. BA Wabash College. MA The Ohio State University. Ed.S. Kent State University. I've been coaching HS debate and speech since 2008 at two Ohio high schools, and in both my first students to "break" beyond preliminaries in State Finals did so in Congressional Debate.

CONGESS

Long before beginning my coaching career I worked in the U.S. Senate, where I ghost-wrote numerous speeches and op-eds for my Senator. I became a HS debate/speech coach in 2008. In that time, I've coached dozens of Congress competitors, including at least a dozen to Ohio's OSDA State Finals, and eight to the NSDA National Tournament. I've judged HS/MS Congress at Nationals on and off going back to 2016 (Salt Lake City).

In judging, I use the NSDA rubric and also look hard for what I call "excellent sewing." If you employ a strong opening story or example, make sure the "threads" of it extend well to your key points, the warrants you utilize, and the impacts you present. Stitch it perfectly! If you are the 4th, 5th, or 6th speaker for or against a bill, I expect clash and/or new insight in what you say. If you simply repeat previous warrants and use already-cited warrants, don't expect a high score. If you crystallize, make 100% sure you correctly cover points and speakers for both sides. If you create clash and/or provide a fresh approach for or against a bill/resolution, you have much better odds of a top score.

I've judged Congress many times and places than I can remember, and served as a parliamentarian at NSDA Nationals and at Princeton. Won't bore you with the specifics.

PUBLIC FORUM

A + R + E = decisions.

A = Argumentation. How well are developed is your constructive?

R = Rebuild/Refute -- How well do you attack your opponent's constructive? Using what? How well to you rebuild your own arguments (when attacked)? With what?

E = Evidence. -- Looking at quality, quantity, and how well you use the evidence yo present.

Speak as fast or as slow as you like. As long as I can understand your arguments, you're fine.

Cross X -- be purposeful, and make your purpose plain as the round develops.

Summary -- only new arguments I'll entertain is if the previous speaker (other side) presented something which needs an answer or a refutation.

Final focus -- never introduce new arguments.

Hi! My name is Kate. I'm a former debater myself; I competed extensively on the NJ and national circuits in Congressional debate from 2012-2016. When I was on the circuit I championed a number of tournaments including Yale, the TOC, NJ states, the NYC invitational, GMU Patriot Games, and more. I also gained some experience in Extemp and PF, but my main focus competitively was definitively in Congress, so I come from a background where speaking style and argumentation are both important (although, depending upon the event, this will not always impact the way that I judge.)

Regardless of the event that I'm judging, I really prioritize good, clean competition. It is extremely important to me that competitors display respect for their opponents at all times. This means using legitimate evidence, refraining from laughing or eye-rolling, listening to and engaging with your opponents' arguments, and carrying yourself with dignity. Be respectful, and be kind!!!!

PF paradigm

-My goal in judging a PF round is to intervene as little as possible in order to let you speak uninterrupted. I will involve myself only if a rule is obviously broken or if a piece of evidence seems so obviously out of line that I feel it warrants card-calling, and other than that, I will be flowing the round and focusing on your argumentation.

-Frameworks are important. Don't skip them!

-Evidence matters. Make evidence challenges if something seems off, and perform evidence comparisons whenever and wherever they are relevant.

-Throughout the round, clash is good and weighing is your friend. Remind me of why your arguments have been the most important ones raised, and specifically outline why they should win you the debate.

-Use the summary to respond to your opponent's rebuttal, but remember to focus on the strengths of your own arguments as well. Bring your strongest arguments back into play here, and make sure that you prove why they are stronger or more relevant than whatever your opponent has brought to the table.

-In the final focus, it is incredibly important to crystallize. Crystallization provides an opportunity to remind us of what's happened in the round, weigh your arguments against your opponent's, and clearly illustrate why yours come out on top.

Hello, I'm Julie and I've judged Policy, Congress, PF, Speech etc. at the TOC, national qualifiers and at the Massachusetts state and local level for a decade.

Policy: If you are amazing at spreading, I have a hard time understanding at the highest velocity, so try to remember to slow it down. I'm willing to have a debater persuade me of a technical violation, but it's not of default focus for me, so articulate it clearly.

Congress: I highly value mutual respect for one another in my chambers, so please be persuasive while also being respectful. Argue the issues, not the people. I immensely dislike rudeness as I think it's a malady of the times.

Thanks,

I did Congress for four years at Dreyfoos School of the Arts in South Florida (C/O 2018), was good at it, and I now study linguistics and political science at the University of Florida and coach/judge (often) for Bronx Science in NYC.

I love POs and am looking for a reason to rank the PO high. If you mess up recency/precedence once it's not going to kill you, but if it's a consistent issue, or you mess up parliamentary procedure, you'll fall pretty quickly down my ballot.

Don't be cocky or rude (poking fun and jokes are totally cool and make things interesting). Make good arguments; if you don't have an impact, which means explaining the effect of the legislation and why it's good/bad, it doesn't count, no matter how pretty you sound. Just as importantly, you need to care about what you're saying. Finally, there needs to be some sort of clear speech structure. I'm totally cool with, and actually a fan of, speeches with alternative structures from the typical speech with two points, but you need to make that structure clear through signposting.

The most common feedback I give is about evidence. Remember, your job is to prove why a certain piece of legislation will do good or bad things for the world, so you not only need credible, relevant, and (ideally) recent data, but that data MUST be comprised of fact. Facts, as opposed to opinions, are a qualitative or quantitative assessment of either an ongoing process or something that happened. Facts may include numbers and statistics found in research, descriptions of an event or system/process, statements made by relevant government officials or organization leaders, existing/former laws or court decisions, etc. Facts are not unquantified descriptions of a numeric value; for example, statements saying something saw a "substantial increase" or was "significantly harmed" are relative and not factual. Those statements are an analysis of data rather than the data itself. If your whole speech is based on expert opinions and non-factual statements, I am left with no metric to actually weigh the importance of your impacts against those of other speakers.

Speaking well matters on my ballot, but only to the point that your presentation isn't distracting. I weigh speaking this way because a lot of metrics we traditionally use to assess speaking are pretty ableist and/or difficult for students for whom English isn't their first language or who use non-"standard" dialects.

If you say something blatantly problematic or harmful to any marginalized community, purposefully misgender someone (or continuously call them Mr./Ms. after being asked to not do so), or, as PO, clearly show bias toward any one group of people (that includes geographic prioritization, or prioritization of people from your school/district), you will be dropped.

also PLEASE refute oml

Parent judge here - I look for clear links between arguments and for competitors to fully explain what the legislation will accomplish. I look for good presentation and preparation from all competitors.

I’m the Director of Speech and Debate at American Heritage Schools, Palm Beach Campus (since 2018). Formerly, I competed for Suncoast High School in Congress and Extemp, coached at multiple schools in Florida, and worked at summer institutes. I teach all events, except LD and Policy, and primarily coach Congress, Extemp, Oratory, and Info.

Congress

I’m “old fashioned” when it comes to Congress. I like solid argumentation (read: have warrants and impacts) and clash. I expect every speaker after the author/sponsor to refute. As the debate progresses, the pendulum should swing from mostly new arguments in speeches to mostly refutation in speeches. Congress is not designed to be a “fully prepared beforehand speech” event; you MUST react to what’s happening in the debate. In terms of speaking, I’m open to a variety of styles ranging from faster/more aggressive debate-y speakers to more oratorical speakers. I tend to prioritize content over speaking. The PO usually makes my top 6 and, on occasion, gets the 1.

Speech

Speech students rarely read paradigms, so I’ll keep this brief. In Extemp, Oratory, and Info, I will flow your content and will reward speakers with sound structure and clarity of thought. In the Interp events, I look for a storyline, blocking, and characterization. In all IE events, I always rank speakers who are genuine, confident, and showcase true emotion over those who are fake, overly practiced/scripted, and uncertain.

PF

I don’t judge a lot of PF, but you need not be scared if you see me in the back of a PF round. I teach PF all the time and have judged many, many rounds. I do my best to flow all speeches in the round (not CF), but only if I can understand what you’re saying. I can handle a little speed, but not a lot (I will motion for you to slow down if you’re going too fast). It will work in your favor to signpost contentions and sub points. I like line-by-line Rebuttals that clearly line up with the opponent’s Constructive. You should collapse in the Summary and weigh in the Final Focus. A few general guidelines: 1) PF is an evidence-based event, 2) don’t drop arguments, 3) don’t say outlandish things like “my opponent dropped all our arguments” when they didn’t, etc. I will always disclose unless the tournament has a strict policy against it.

LD/Policy

It’s HIGHLY unlikely (I can count on 1 hand the number of LD and Policy rounds I’ve judged in the past 11 years) that you’ll see me in an LD or Policy judge pool.

**Updated November 2021**

I am a parent judge from Torrey Pines High School in San Diego, California.

I have previously judged tournaments for the Congressional event in Harvard invitation. I also have previously judged for the PF, LD events.

I prefer speakers to have appropriate voices and moderate speed to ensure a clear delivery to all audiences.

I do not judge a speech by my personal opinion over the topic. I am looking for speech with factual evidence, quotes from creditable resources to back up your contentions. I also will take into note of who stands for his/her arguments better.

Tanya Mahadwar

Coach, Dougherty Valley HS, San Ramon CA

Coached Congress & Extemp: 4 years

Add me to the email chain --> mahadwart@gmail.com

General Debate Paradigm:

Background:

1. I evaluate debate on frameworks. I just find it really easy to weigh differing arguments both teams present if there's some standard to consider for the round. Do some weighing, because that shows you understand the opposing team's arguments and are able to critically respond to and interact with them. The more impact calculus you do, the better.

2. Generally, my norm for speaker points is a 28.5. I'll drop you if I feel you're not responsive to the other team's arguments, fluency is bad to the point where I don't know what you're saying, or if you're being disrespectful. I'll give you more if I think you're presenting your case well and fluency is good. You can speak fast, just slow down for the tags. If you start spreading I may not be able to keep up - I'll yell clear if I think it's getting to that point.

3. I am a very traditional flow judge. Feel free to run theory/Ks, just please make sure you explain things well if you choose to.

Congress:

1. Adaptability is important. If you have a mix of parents and flow judges on your panel, you need to be flexible. This means dropping the jargon, explaining the link chain well, and using language to tell a story. In the same vein, adaptability also means rigorous in-round interaction. Are you questioning people on relevant blocks? Are you incorporating refutation into your mid-cycle speeches? Are you crystallizing in your late-round speeches? These are important questions to consider when writing/delivering your arguments.

2. Evidence. Generally, if you're using blocks to refute someone else's evidence, it needs to be from (at most) the last 2 years. However, if you're simply using evidence to explain a definition/phenomenon, further back is fine. If there are refutations on competing evidence (i.e. "Senator X said this isn't true, however, according to...") I'm going to defer to the better-established link chain. I'm judging not on who has the better evidence, but on who uses their evidence better to build a link chain. I'm going to check any biases, so feel free to run whatever kind of argument you want (barring anything sexist/racist/ableist/classist/homophobic, etc.)

3. Talk about the bill!!! I feel like this gets lost in a lot of rounds these days, and it's super important to bring in the legislation whenever possible. You're not debating the idea of something, but rather the specific implementation of that policy. Talk about the funding/enforcement mechanism, pull apart the bill's faulty definitions, tell me why this specific legislation is (un)ideal for whatever reality you're fighting for.

Finally, I know these are incredibly challenging and stressful times. I respect all of you for taking the time to compete this weekend. If you need any accommodations (within reason), please feel free to ask! We are here to support you however you need. Good luck!

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!

About me: I am a Ph.D. candidate in political science at Duke University. My research interests include incarceration, democratic theory, and representation. I hold a B.A. from Colorado College and graduated from Denver East High School (CO), where I was the 2011 NFL national champion in congressional debate (Senate). I occasionally judge congressional debate and have also served on the TOC Board of Legislative Drafters since 2014. I'm really looking forward to judging the TOC this year.

My paradigm for debaters: Overall, congressional debate is a debate activity. I look for the legislator who engages best with the debate as a whole. Some qualities I value:

- A debater who effectively delivers different types of speeches (constructive speeches, rebuttal speeches, extension speeches, and crystallization speeches);

- A debater who asks concise and insightful questions which cut to the heart of an argument;

- A debater who takes risks;

- A debater who speaks extemporaneously, engaging with their peers;

- A debater who uses questioning and parliamentary procedure to advance their policy goals (this is less important than the other criteria).

My paradigm for POs: For presiding officers, I value clarity, mastery of parliamentary procedure and tournament rules, and equity. Good presiding officers enhance the debating experience for everyone, and I will highly rank effective POs.

Hi!

I started competing in Arkansas my sophomore year before competing nationally during my junior year of high school, and am now a first-year at Yale University. I placed 3rd at this tournament last year and am super excited to be involved in judging this time around. I’ll throw out some particular preferences I have below in case it helps — in the round I judge and (hopefully) others as well!

1. Your evidence is of paramount importance. You are competing against the best ~150 debaters in the country; all of you are amazing speakers with excellent argumentation. It is far more likely that you wow me with impeccable evidence than with having slightly better style/rhetoric than the other great speakers in the room. I think this is even more pertinent in outrounds.

1. Cite journal articles, think tanks, and respected publications. If your article is from a random source, try to qualify/justify the source or the article — if it can’t be qualified, think about if it should really be worthy of being flowed in the round.

2. Do not cite by saying “According to Harvard Law School in 2017,” or even by saying “According to the Washington Post.” The former method became increasingly common last year for whatever reason, and it makes the source unsearchable. If it is a law review article, say that, and say the author; if it is a press release, say that. The latter issue seems much more common and can be fixed with just an author and date.

3. If your evidence is exaggerated, I (and your other judges) will probably take note — I’ll definitely be willing to look up a source, just like I did when I was in the round as a debater, if something seems particularly off.

4. How you use your evidence is just as important. Always weigh, especially in a later speech, and emphasize why your evidence is so effective given the flow of the round. But you all know this by now — you're here!

2. Presentation — energy, fluency, rhetoric, and style — is essential. Be compelling and be passionate, and show us why we should care! Have solid intros, have eye contact, vary your tone/inflection.

3. Be kind. I doubt this happens, but if you are rude — ad hominem attacks, insults, disrespectful comments, etc. — you will be dropped. Do not, however, be afraid to be aggressive; we know the difference.

4. Refutations are the backbone of this event. But do not make the mistake of thinking a one-liner without a source is an effective rebuttal of another speaker (unless they made a ridiculous claim that you can easily reject). If someone cites compelling evidence from a law review article / respected paper, and you try to spend five/ten seconds quickly (without sources) “rebutting” this argument, it is extremely likely you have not rebutted it.

5. Similarly, in crystallization speeches, do not try to go through every opposing argument and throw out one-liners in response to them. This is extremely common but bad for debate. Thematically assess what is and is not important in that given round and use compelling arguments/evidence to show why, on those larger points, your side won and the other lost.

6. Don’t rehash. I know it is tempting; I know it is easy. It comes with a cost. If your sources have all been used and you cannot find good evidence in time, then weigh other arguments / refute or find new arguments within your evidence.

If you have any questions, or for any judging needs, feel free to reach out at alex.martin@yale.edu. Also, I will be flowing your speeches and making notes; if you want to see my flow or my notes on you, then please just shoot me an email. If you are from a smaller school, or do not have a program where you are receiving much support for this, or just want any advice on debate, I would love to help with any free time I have this year or next.

I am the assistant debate coach at Taylor High School and was the Mayde Creek Coach for many years in Houston, TX. Although I have coached and judged on the National Circuit, it is not something I regularly do or particularly enjoy. I was a policy debater in high school and college, but that was along time ago. My experience is primarily congress and LD. In the past several years I have been running tab rooms in the Houston area. That said, here are a few things you may want to know:

Congress

I am fairly flexible in Congress. I like smart, creative speeches. I rate a good passionate persuasive speech over a speech with tons of evidence. Use logos, pathos, and ethos. Clash is good. I think it is good to act like a member of Congress, but not in an over the top way. Questions and answers are very important to me and make the difference in rank. Ask smart questions that advance the debate. Standing up to just ask a dumb question to “participate “ hurts you. I don’t like pointless parliamentary games (who does?). I like a P.O. who is fair and efficient. The P.O. almost always makes my ballot unless they make several big mistakes and or are unfair. (Not calling on a competitor, playing favorites etc.) . If you think your P.O is not being fair, call them on it politely. Be polite and civil, there is a line between attacking arguments and attacking competitors. Stay on the right side of it.

LD & Policy

Civility: I believe we have a real problem in our activity with the lack of civility (and occasional lack of basic human decency). I believe it is discouraging people from participating. Do not make personal attacks or references. Be polite in CX. Forget anything you have ever learned about "perceptual dominance." This is no longer just a loss of speaker points. I will drop you on rudeness alone, regardless of the flow.

Speed: I used to say you could go 6-7 on a 10 point scale... don't. Make it a 3-4 or I will miss that critical analytical warrant you are trying to extend through ink. I am warning you this is not just a stylistic preference. I work tab a lot more than I judge rounds, and do not have the ear that I had when I was judging fast rounds all the time. Run the short version of your cases in front of me. This is particularly true of non-stock, critical positions or multiple short points.

Evidence: I think the way we cut and paraphrase cards is problematic. This is closely related to speed. I would prefer to be able to follow the round and analyze a card without having to read it after it is emailed to me (or call for it after the round). That said, if you feel you have to go fast for strategic reasons, then include me on the chain. I will ignore your spreading and read your case. However, be aware if I have to read your case/evidence, I will. I will read the entire card, not just the highlighted portion. If I think the parts left out or put in 4 point font change the meaning of the argument, or do not support your tag, I will disregard your evidence, regardless of what the opponent says in round. So either go slow or have good, solid evidence.

Theory: I will vote on theory where there is clear abuse. I prefer reasonability as opposed to competing interpretations. Running theory against a stock case for purely competitive advantage annoys me. Argue the case. I don't need a comprehensive theory shell and counter interpretations, and I do not want to see frivolous violations. See my assumptions below.

Assumptions: I believe that debate should be fair and definitions and framework should be interpreted so that both sides have ground and it is possible for either side to win. Morality exists, Justice is not indeterminate, Genocide is bad. I prefer a slower debate focusing on the standard, with well constructed arguments with clash on both sides of the flow. Fewer better arguments are better than lots of bad ones. I am biased towards true arguments. Three sentences of postmodern gibberish cut out of context is not persuasive. Finally, I think the affirmative should be trying to prove the entire resolution true and the negative proves it is not true. (a normative evaluation). You would need to justify your parametric with a warrant other than "so I can win."

Progressive stuff: I will not absolutely rule it out or vote against you, but you need to sell it and explain it. Why is a narrative useful and why should I vote for it? A K better link hard to the opponents case and be based on topical research not just a generic K that has been run on any topic/debater. If you can not explain the alternative or the function of the K in CX in a way that makes sense, I won't vote for it. I am not sure why you need a plan in LD, or why the affirmative links to a Disad. I am not sure how fiat is supposed to work in LD. I do not see why either side has to defend the status quo.

Conclusion: If you want to have a fun TOC style debate with tons of critical positions going really fast, preference a different judge. (Hey, I am not blaming you, some of my debaters loved that sort of thing cough-Jeremey / Valentina / Alec/ Claudia -cough, It is just that I don't).

Me
I have been teaching and coaching speech and debate for 13 years, and I currently help coach the AHS/SILSA Speech & Debate team. I am a lover of the written and spoken word who fell hard for forensics. I received my BA in English from Florida Atlantic University, and have judged local and national debate tournaments including out-rounds at Harvard, The Glenbrooks, Emory, The Tradition, Bronx, Sunvite and The Cal Invitational (Mostly LD, but also scores of speech and other debate event rounds).

General Paradigm
I am open to whatever kind of position you would like to run, but clarity and weighing is essential in fleshing-out arguments and my decision-making process. That being said, I do appreciate when debaters explain complex theory arguments. I grasp and enjoy K debate. I also do not retain details of all the obscure literature I've heard about. Just because it is a commonly used concept in competitive debate, don't assume that I understand how it interacts with your position. Explain stuff!!!

Speed/Delivery
I can follow most speeds.
I flow. Please slow down on authors and tags.

Speaker Points
I think that speaker points are unnecessarily arbitrary; I also know that giving every debater in a round 30s skews results. As such, I use speaker points as a rank. If you are the best debater in the round, you will get 29 points(30 will be reserved for a truly stunning performance), second best, 28.5 points, etc. I will only give you below a 26 in a round if I am offended about an argument or action in the round.

Policy Debate: I have only judged a handful of national policy tournaments. I understand the structure and basic principles, but much of the jargon is foreign to me, and explanation may be necessary to obtain my ballot.

Some background on myself - My experience in debate historically has been with congressional debate. However, I have coached PF before and have familiarity with the structure and find it to be a particularly exciting style of debate to watch and judge!

PUBLIC FORUM

There is no value in a debate where I cannot understand either debater.

Please speak so that the average listener can understand you. That does not mean you have to speak slowly. You just need to be clear. Slowing down to emphasize clear points/sub-points is always a good idea throughout your speech. 

I flow. I attempt to be non-interventionist. I will likely only call a card if the interpretation of that card is at significant dispute during the round. I advise debaters to read their cards carefully - many times, a debate can be lost because a team inaccurately cites evidence that is crucial to their argument. Including the year and source for evidence is necessary for me to accept them as credible.  

Having a framework is always helpful. By the end of the constructive speeches, I do not want to hear any new arguments raised. Impacts need to logically flow from the warrants. Do not exaggerate them. 

It is important to try and rebut all arguments, but prioritize the most crucial ones. A weak argument that is dropped is less likely to be a convincing voting issue than a strong argument that went dropped. However, do not spend too much time on a single argument if your opponent mentioned multiple other ones. Also, try to extend your arguments and do some basic weighing here as well, but do not do so at the expense of rebuttal.

As the debate progresses, it crucial that you weigh and summarize the main voting issues, or reasons that I should vote for or against a particular side. In the summary speech, convince me why you won or your opponent lost the round. If an argument is not weighed by either side, I will not consider it. The summary speech is not for new arguments.

A final focus should not include any argument not referenced in the summary speech. I do not flow the final focus - I just listen. Normally, that speech can make or break a close round.

In crossfire, I listen and you can persuade me. However, crossfire is not flowed, so you need to incorporate any findings from crossfire into your speeches for me to consider it. It is more likely that you can exploit flaws in an opponent's argument during crossfire than it is likely for you to advance your own argument. That is true for your opponent as well. Therefore, it would likely be unnecessary to incorporate entirely new cards into your cross questions/responses. Do not interrupt one another or engage in a screaming match. Again, there is no value in a debate where I cannot understand either debater.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

I have developed a rubric that clearly outlines my paradigm for judging Congressional Debate. Granted, not all speeches or rounds can be categorized the same. Consider this paradigm, therefore, a general, albeit not perfect, guide for how I approach Congressional Debate rounds when judging:

Speakers will be considerably penalized for speaking on less bills than they should given the allotted time of the session. Usually sessions allow for two speeches. Depending on size and time this could differ.

If a speaker intended to speak on the bills but was unable to due to poor recency, they will NOT be penalized under this system.

----NOTE: If the chamber comes to a base-x bill agreement, I frown upon those who agree to it before the debate starts, and then proceed to abuse it. This activity was not intended to encourage deceptive legislative tactics. Such an action is not, however, against the formal NSDA rules. Thus, I will hear the speech with no penalty, but may deduct Parliamentary Points for poor legislative practice.

NOTE ABOUT RUBRIC – failure to execute criterion effectively counts as having not done it at all

e.g. – an impact that does not make sense based on the argument provided is as good as a failure to provide an impact

TOC-SPECIFIC NOTE – all morning session speeches on local issues will be treated in my system as authorships.

ORIGINALITY OF THOUGHT

8 –

AUTHORSHIP - the speaker focuses their speech on introducing the Congress to a specific serious problem and its impacts, and explains how their bill effectively solves that problem…the speaker discusses the entire scope of the bill accurately…the speaker introduces arguments so impactful that the negation must refute effectively in order to win the debate

1STNEG - the speaker focuses the speech on how Congress could make a specific problem worse, not solve the problem at all or create other net harms not related to the problems (ideally, this should refer to the authorship speech) … the speaker discusses troubling elements of the bill in a way that is specific and compelling… the speaker introduces arguments so impactful that the affirmation must refute in order to win the debate, as they have muddied the foundation of debate set by the authorship

REFUTATION – the speaker discusses the strongest arguments that came up on the opposing side of debate, correctly mentions all who brought up that argument and effectively refutes them, advancing the debate, in a way that uniquely adds to the debate either by providing interesting new logic, evidence or context…the speaker presents strong impacts in extension of their claims

EXTENSION – the speaker expands upon old arguments by presenting new evidence, logic and, most importantly, new impacts that strengthen preexisting claims from speakers on the side of that speaker and accurately frames how the point has been been discussed before by the senators who stated that point (the specific names of senators who used these arguments should be mentioned in the speech) …they should be able to clearly explain how their information made the claim stronger or establish new/stronger impacts about that claim

CRYSTALLIZATION – the speaker weighs the debate, stating the main arguments of the affirmation AND negation and clearly explaining why a particular side won without adding new points…the speaker explains what voting issues the congressional representatives should consider in their vote, and why based on those issues and the information presented in the debate, their side wins…the speaker presents strong impacts in extension of their claims

6 –

AUTHORSHIP – the speaker effectively explains the net benefits of the legislation…the speaker discusses the most important portions of the bill accurately, but alludes to the bill rather than referring to specific sections… the speaker introduces arguments with few strong impacts

1STNEG – the speaker focuses the speech on the bad elements of the bill, but fails to weigh those impacts against those in the authorship effectively…the speaker discusses troubling elements of the bill in a way that is general and accurate… the speaker introduces arguments with few strong impacts

REFUTATION – the speaker discusses some of the strongest arguments that came up on the opposing side of debate, correctly mentions all who brought up that argument and effectively refutes them, advancing the debate, in a way that uniquely adds to the debate either by providing interesting new logic, evidence or context...the speaker presents few strong impacts in extension of their claims

(5 – the speaker refutes to one strong argument in the debate and effectively refutes it, in a way that uniquely adds to the debate either by providing interesting new logic, evidence or context)

EXTENSION – the speaker expands upon old arguments by presenting new evidence and logic strengthen preexisting claims from speakers on the side of that speaker and accurately frames how the point has been discussed before by the senators who stated that point (the specific names of senators who used these arguments should be mentioned in the speech) … they should have at least few strong impacts, even if they are not completely different but should be explained more effectively/clearly than prior speakers

(5 – all of the criteria above, but lacks strong impacts)

CRYSTALLIZATION – the speaker weighs the debate, stating the main arguments of the affirmation AND negation and explains why a particular side won the debate …the speaker presents few strong impacts in extension of their claims

4 –

AUTHORSHIP – the speaker refers to the net benefits of legislation that acts similarly to the one in question, but does not consider the specific details of the legislation being debated…the speaker talks about the bill generally, rather than what the specific legislation does… the speaker provides no strong impacts

1STNEG – the speaker refers to the net harms of legislation that acts similarly to the one in question, but does not consider the specific details of the legislation being debated…the speaker refers to what bills similar to the one in question do, rather than what it does specifically… the speaker provides no strong impacts

REFUTATION - the speaker discusses some of the arguments that came up on the opposing side of debate, correctly mentions all who brought up that argument and effectively refutes them, in a way that uniquely adds to the debate either by providing interesting new logic, evidence or context…the speaker provides no strong impacts

(3 – the speaker refers to the strongest arguments in the debate and attempts to refute them, but fails to do so effectively, in a way that uniquely adds to the debate either by providing interesting new logic, evidence or context…a speaker earning this score may give strong refutation points, but fails to successfully and effectively clash with what was said in the room)

EXTENSION – the speaker tries to expand upon old arguments by presenting new evidence and logic strengthen preexisting claims from speakers on the side of that speaker and accurately frames how the point has been discussed before by the senators who stated that point (the specific names of senators who used these arguments should be mentioned in the speech) … no strong impacts are given and the speaker fails to explain how their new information strengthen the debate

(3 – the speaker provides new evidence and logic but it fails to truly enhance the debate, or is only tangentially related to the claims of the speakers being referenced…a speaker may give a strong extension speech…a speaker earning this score may give strong extension points, but fails to successfully and effectively clash with what was said in the room)

CRYSTALLIZATION – the speaker attempts to weigh the debate, and while they may be able to explain compelling net benefits or harms brought up by their side, they fail to effectively

2 –

AUTHORSHIP – the speaker refers to an unclear problem OR the solutions of the speaker weakly works towards solving a problem… the speaker talks about the bill as if they only read the title and seems unaware of the bill’s specifics… none of the speaker’s arguments advance debate

1STNEG – the speaker refers to unclear net harms OR does not sufficiently explain how it makes the problem worse… the speaker talks about the bill as if they only read the title and seems unaware of the bill’s specifics… none of the speaker’s arguments advance debate

REFUTATION - the speaker discusses the weaker arguments or just tries to debate the rhetoric that came up on the opposing side of debate and does so ineffectively, in a way that uniquely adds to the debate either by providing interesting new logic, evidence or context

(1 – rehash of other speakers’ refutation arguments without providing new logic/impacts that change the debate)

EXPANSION – the speaker primarily rehashes old arguments, but there are moments of the speech in which they successfully add some new interesting evidence, logic or impacts to the debate, but not enough to constitute a successful expansion speech…

(1 – the speaker rehashes, rather than expands, old arguments…they add no new information to the debate)

DELIVERY

8 - the speaker demands the attention of the room through using effective eye contact and vocal variation...the speech is clear and delivered with compelling and demanding authority/confidence

6 - the speaker speaks clearly and makes sufficient eye contact with the audience

4 - the speaker makes poor eye contact with the audience but doesn’t look at their pad excessively ...the speaker uses no vocal variety, is purely monotone

2 - the speaker looks at their pad a bit too much...the speaker’s rate of speech at times is difficult to follow...the speaker stumbles so much that it disrupts the flow of their speech at times
1 - the speaker only looks at the pad...the speakers rate of speech is impossible to follow...the speaker stumbles so much that the flow of the speech is nonexistent (if a speaker receives this score, they can never rank in a room - this score reflects an inability on my part to understand the speaker

EVIDENCE AND LOGIC
8 - the speaker uses logic to support their claims that is clear, compelling, well organized and most importantly valid...the reasoning considerably sways the debate to strengthen the side of the speaker...all claims requiring additional support (which is not all but probably most) should have strong well-sourced evidence defending them

6 - the speaker used logic to support their claims that is mostly valid...all claims requiring additional support (which is not all but probably most) should have strong well-sourced evidence defending them

4 - the speaker indirectly connects all claims with prerequisite evidence or strands of logic that support it, even if they fail to connect them clearly...all claims requiring additional support have some evidence defending them, but possibly not enough to really support the claim

2 - the speaker makes considerable logical flaws in defending their claims...the speaker fails to use evidence to defend their claims that require support
1 - the speaker provides no component of logic that adds to the debate in a way that is compelling

ORGANIZATION
8 - the speaker organizes their speech with an interesting intro that introduces the audience to the overarching themes/arguments of their speech, body consisting of usually at least two well-developed arguments (this can be in the form of introducing new arguments, refutations, extensions, or crystallizations -just don’t rest your entire argument on one contention unless you can definitively prove that it’s impacts alone are enough to sway the debate), and a conclusion that cleverly ties into the intro...the transitions are natural, allow the speech to make sense as a cohesive whole and each element of the speech works in combination with each other

6 - he speaker organizes their speech with an interesting intro that introduces the audience to the overarching themes/arguments of their speech and a body consisting of usually at least two well-developed arguments (this can be in the form of introducing new arguments, refutations, extensions, or crystallizations -just don’t rest your entire argument on one contention unless you can definitively prove that it’s impacts alone are enough to sway the debate)...the speaker has clear, albeit boring, transitions between the various aspects of their speech

4 - a body consisting of usually at least two well-developed arguments (this can be in the form of introducing new arguments, refutations, extensions, or crystallizations -just don’t rest your entire argument on one contention unless you can definitively prove that it’s impacts alone are enough to sway the debate)...the speaker has boring and at times unclear transitions between the various aspects of their speech

2 - the speaker presents a speech that is all over the place and difficult to follow...the speaker presents two arguments in their body but the organization of the logic makes it tough to follow their argument...the speaker lacks transitions between the various aspects of their speech causing the speech to lack cohesion

[NOTE – three points will be deducted from this category for speeches that go less than 15 seconds before the speech’s time limit or more than 10 seconds over the time limit…e.g. standard 3:00 speeches should be between 2:45-3:10]

ANSWERING QUESTIONS
4 - the speaker answers questions with clarity and confidence...the speaker stays on message and prevents questioners from deterring them
2 - the speaker answers at least half of their questions with clarity and confidence...the speaker stays on message and prevents questioners from deterring them for at least half of the questions
0 - the speaker answers no questions with clarity and confidence...the questioners successfully point out major holes in the arguments of the speaker

Presiding Officers will be addressed on a similar scale based on different criteria…this ensures they can be ranked as high as any speaker in the room – PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE (the explanation, knowledge and effective execution of parliamentary procedures); RECOGNITION (fair and efficient in recognizing speakers – follows speaker precedence and recency and avoids implicit/explicit bias based on race, gender, school, preexisting relationships, ethnicity, sexuality, etc.); CONTROL (leads in difficult situations, maintains decorum of delegates in chamber, uses good judgment in evaluating motions to ensure chamber efficiency); COMMUNICATION (explains rulings concisely and clearly); DECORUM (maintains a respectful precense in the room – this is only ranked on the scale of 0-4, but, as is the case for speakers, exceptionally bad decorum will result in reduction of Parliamentary Points)

To assess the abilities of competitors of legislators I have a category in my system called Parliamentary Points. These are usually 0-1 points that I either add or detract at a time based on how well legislators participate in the chamber outside of their designated speaking time through solving problems in the chamber, raising motions and asking questions.

TL;DR:

· Make it clear and easy for me to see why you won and you'll probably win.

With More Words:

I've judged and coached extensively across events but at this point spend more time on the tab side of tournaments than judging.

If you want the ballot, make clear, compelling, and warranted arguments for why you should win. If you don’t provide any framework, I will assume util = trutil. If there is an alternate framework I should be using, explain it, warrant it, contextualize it, extend it.

Generally Tech>Truth but I also appreciate rounds where I don’t hate myself for voting for you. That being said, I firmly believe that debate is an educational activity and that rounds should be accessible. I will not vote for arguments that are intentionally misrepresenting evidence or creating an environment that is hostile or harmful.

I am open to pretty much anything you want to read but, in the interest of full disclosure, I think that tricks set bad communication norms within debate.

General Stuff:

Most of this is standard but I'll say it anyways: Don’t extend through ink and pretend they "didn't respond". In the back half of the debate, make sure your extensions are responsive to the arguments made, not just rereading your cards. If they say something in cross that it is important enough for me to evaluate, make sure you say it in a speech. Line by line is important but being able to step back and explain the narrative/ doing the comparative analysis makes it easier to vote for you.

Weighing is important and the earlier you set it up, the better. Quality over quantity when it comes to evidence-- particularly in later speeches in the round, I'd rather slightly fewer cards with more analysis about what the evidence uniquely means in this specific round. Also, for the love of all that is good and holy, give a roadmap before you start/sign post as you are going. I will be happier; you will be happier; the world will be a better place.

Speed is fine but clarity is essential. Even if I have a speech doc, you'd do best to slow down on tags and analytics. Your speaks will be a reflection of your strategic choices, overall decorum, and how clean your speeches are.

Evidence (PF):

Having evidence ethics is a thing. As a general rule, I prefer that your cards have both authors and dates. Paraphrasing makes me sad. Exchanges where you need to spend more than a minute pulling up a card make me rethink the choices in my life that led me to this round. Generally speaking, I think that judges calling for cards at the end of the round leads to judge intervention. This is a test of your rhetorical skills, not my ability to read and analyze what the author is saying. However, if there is a piece of evidence that is being contested that you want me to read and you ask me to in a speech, I will. Just be sure to contextualize what that piece of evidence means to the round.

A Final Note:

This is a debate round, not a divorce court and your participation in the round should match accordingly. If we are going to spend as many hours as we do at a tournament, we might as well not make it miserable.

Sure, I'd Love to be on the Email Chain: AMurphy4n6@gmail.com

Fourth-year assistant coach at Ridge High School.

I teach AP Government, Politics, & Economics, Global History, and AP Euro there as well. I will be able to follow any content/current event information you include.

I've coached and judged all major debate topics. I work most closely with our Congressional debate team, but also have experience judging PF, LD, and Parli.

PF: I think it's important for you to remember the goal of the event. Anyone should be able to walk into your round and follow the debate. With that said, I do flow and will try to give tech feedback as well as general commentary. I think some speed is ok in PF, but I think spreading absolutely does not belong.

LD: I am not a former debater myself; I really struggle to follow theory debate, K's, and spreading in general. I've learned a little about it over the past few years, but if you are a tech/theory/spreading team you should probably strike me (just being honest!). For all other levels--I will flow both framework and case and have voted on both. Try to be concrete in connecting your evidence to your claims. I've found that LD debaters can sometimes get carried away with "debater math"...and no, not everything can lead to nuke war. I am partial to probability arguments--I'm a realist at heart :)

Congress: As a teacher of Government & Politics, I really enjoy this event. You should always be roleplaying being an actual representative/senator. What would your constituents think about your speech? Why is your advocacy in their interest? I really like constitutionality arguments--we have a federal system, and sometimes bills being debated are directly in violation of those principles. Feel free to cite those Supreme Court cases all day. As you get later into the round, I will be highly critical if you are just repeating points from previous speeches. I want to see crystal/ref speeches later on--as do your fellow competitors, I'd presume.

If you are reading this you have already taken a step in the right direction. I am a current law student at the University of Tennessee Knoxville. I have experience in every form of debate except CX, however, I am familiar with a fair amount of policy/CX jargon. I competed in college IPDA for four years at the University of Central Arkansas and ended as a varsity national semi-finalist. In high school, I finished as a national quarterfinalist in Domestic Extemp and competed all around the country in LD, PF, and Congressional debate as well. Going on Year 9 of speech and debate involvement, I hope to provide constructive feedback that represents a variety of philosophies so you can adapt to whatever circuit you find yourself in.

For all events, I will not flow spreading. I don't mind a fast-paced round but know your limits.

IPDA
- Using blatantly abusive definitions will result in a loss. However, I do not want to see either side hinge the round on the definitions, as that gets repetitive and boring. If you have a problem with definitions, challenge them, provide your own, and then focus your time on the substance of the issue.

- Don't cite evidence you have no context for. IPDA is built on a foundation of quality argumentation that is occasionally supported by well-flushed-out evidentiary support. If you just start dropping statistics with no understanding or explanation for the relevance, it gets you nowhere.

PF
-Focus on the impacts of your arguments, and make sure to signpost your cards using the standard form of Last Name and Date. I will ask to see evidence if it is obvious that there is an evidence violation.

LD
-The entire debate needs to be based on your values, as that is how I judge LD. Your arguments need to convince me why we should use your value over the opponents, as dropping the value makes your case null.

Policy
-If you are going to run progressive arguments such as a K or a T-charge, then you need to fully develop it and give me some justification of why I should even consider it when filling out my ballot.

Big Question
-Follow the rule book, and make your arguments understandable for the common man. I am not a scientist, therefore you should avoid scientific jargon that is undefined or confuses me.

World Schools
-This debate style is like no other, so it should not resemble any other form of debate. It should be at a slower pace than other forms of debate and should focus more on rhetoric and big-picture argumentation rather than line-by-line evidence-based refutation. Use points of information strategically. You should not just use them to interrupt the opposing speaker.

I know my paradigm is unnecessarily long, but if you have any questions at all after the round, feel free to reach out to me at cjparrish46@gmail.com.

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

I am the Director of Forensics and head LD coach at Cary Academy. I would describe myself as a neo-traditionalist. I follow a traditional approach to LD with some notable exceptions. I am a typical traditionalist in that I prefer a debate centered on a common sense, reasonable, good faith interpretation of the resolution; and I believe speakers should emphasize effective communication and practice the habits of fine public speaking during the debate. I differ from many traditionalists in that I am not a fan of the value premise and criterion, and that I do not believe that LD arguments have to be based on broad philosophical concepts, but rather should be as specific to the particular resolution as possible. If you want to win my ballot you should focus on developing a clear position and showing how it is superior to the position put forth by your opponent. You should not attempt to make more arguments than your opponent can respond to so that you can extend them in rebuttal. In my opinion most rounds are not resolved by appeals to authority. The original analysis and synthesis of the debater is vastly more important to me than cards. For further insight on my views please consult these following articles I have written for the Rostrum:

http://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/ld%20Pellicciotta0202.pdf,

https://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/Luong%20RJ%20PresumptionNov'00.pdf

General overview:

I was a high school and college debater and have been an active high school coach ever since. I am chair of my state league as well as an NSDA District Chair. Dating back to high school, I have over 35 years of experience in the activity. However, please don't consider me as "old school" or a strict traditionalist. Like any activity, speech and debate is constantly evolving and I am open to and embrace most changes. You'll clearly understand all of the rare exceptions to that as you read my paradigm.

It is very important to remember that debate is a communication activity. As such, I expect clear communication. Well articulated, supported and defended arguments, regardless of quantity, are far more important to me than who has the most cards that they can spout out in a speech. While I'm okay with a limited amount of speed, excessive speed beyond what you would use in the "real world" is not effective communication in my mind. Communicate to me effectively with well reasoned and fully supported arguments at a reasonable pace and you will win my ballot. I don't accept the "they dropped the argument so I automatically win the argument" claim. You must tell me why the dropped argument was critical in the first place and convince me that it mattered. I look at who had the most compelling arguments on balance and successfully defended them throughout the round while refuting the opponent's arguments on balance in making my decision.

Things to keep in mind about the various events I judge:

Policy debate is about policy. It has a plan. Plans have advantages and disadvantages as well as solvency or the lack thereof. Some plans also might warrant a counterplan from the negative if it is good, nontopical, and can gain solvency better than the affirmative plan. I am not a fan of "circuit style" policy debate and greatly prefer good and clear communication.

Lincoln Douglas Debate is about values. I am interested much more in values in this type of debate than any sort of policy. However, I'm not a strict traditionalist in that I don't require both a value premise and a value criterion that is explicitly stated. But I do want to hear a value debate. That said, I also want to hear some pragmatic examples of how your value structure plays out within the context of the resolution. All in all, I balance my decision between the philosophical and the pragmatic. Persuade me of your position. However, please don't present a plan or counterplan. Switch to policy debate if you want to do that. Bottom line: debate the resolution and don't stray from it.

Public Forum Debate is about current events and was intended for the lay judge. Don't give me policy or LD arguments. Clear communication is important in all forms of debate, but is the most important in this one. I am not open to rapid fire spreading. That's not communication. Please don't give me a formal plan or counterplan. Again, reserve that for policy debate. Communicate and persuade with arguments backed up by solid research and your own analysis and do this better than your opponents and you will win my PF ballot. It's that simple. Debate the resolution without straying from it in a good communicative style where you defend your arguments and attack your opponent's and do this better than they do it. Then you win. Persuade me. I am also not a fan of "circuit style" Public Forum that seems to be increasingly popular. Communicate as if I am a layperson (even though I'm not), as that is what PF was intended to be.

Congress Paradigm: (I'll be honest. It's my favorite event.)
Congressional Debate is designed to be like the real Congress when it functions as it was intended. Decorum is absolutely critical. While humor may have its place in this event, you should not do or say anything that a United States congressperson of integrity would not do or say. You should also follow Congressional decorum rules and address fellow competitors with their proper titles. When judging congress, I want to see clash/refutation of previous speakers (unless, of course, you are giving the first speech of the topic). Try to avoid "canned" speeches that are largely prewritten. This is not dueling oratories. It is still debate. I look for a combination of new arguments and clash/refutation of arguments already made. I do not like rehash. If it's been said already, don't say it unless you have a uniquely fresh perspective. I am not impressed by those who jump up to make the first obvious motion for previous question or for recess. Obvious motions score no points with me, as they are obvious and can be made by anyone. It's not a race to see who can be seen the most. I am, however, impressed by those who make great speeches, regularly ask strong cross examination questions and show true leadership in the chamber. Simply making great speeches alone is not enough. If you give three perfect speeches but never really ask good cross examination questions or rarely participate proceduraly in the chamber, you might not get the ranking you were hoping for. Although speeches are very important and a major factor in my decision, they are not the complete package that I expect from a competitor. I'm looking at your total constructive participation in the chamber (in a productive sense, not a "just to be seen" sense). Finally, to reiterate what I said at the beginning, I take decorum very seriously. You should too.

Congress Presiding Officers: Keep your wording as brief and concise as possible. Avoid the obvious. Please don't use phrases like "Seeing as how that was a negative speech, we are now in line for an affirmative speech." Here is a MUCH better option: "Affirmative speakers please rise" or "We are now in line for an affirmative speech." There is no need to tell anyone that the previous speech was negative. We should know that already. Just immediately call on the next side. It is acceptable and advisable to also very quickly give the time of the previous speech for the reference of the judges, but we do not need to be reminded of what side the previous speech was on. The phrase I dislike the most in Congress is "seeing as how . . ." So how do I judge you as a P.O. in relation to the speakers in the chamber? Most (but not all) presiding officers will make my top eight ballot if they are good with no major flaws. But how do you move up the ballot to get in "break" range? I place a great deal of weight on fairness and decorum, knowledge of parliamentary procedure and the efficiency in which the chamber is conducted. I reward presiding officers who are precise and have minimal downtime. And, as mentioned earlier, it does not require a great deal of language (especially jargon and phraseology) to be an excellent presiding officer. I'm not judging you on how much I hear you speak. I'm judging you on how efficient the chamber ran under your leadership. An excellent P.O. can run a highly efficient chamber without having to say much. Keep order, know and enforce the rules, and be respected by your peers. That said, you should also be prepared to step in and be assertive anytime the chamber or decorum gets out of hand. In fact, you should step in assertively at the first minute sign of it. Finally, while it is often difficult for a P.O. to be first on the ballot, it is also not impossible if your excellence is evident. And as a side note, while this is not a voting issue for me, it is worth noting. When giving your nomination speech, you don't need to tell me (or the rest of the chamber) that you will be "fast and efficient." That phrase is overused and heard from almost every candidate I've ever seen nominated. Everyone makes that claim, but a surprising number don't actually follow through on it. Come up with original (but relevant) reasons that you should be elected.

Things to avoid in any event I judge:

"Spreading" or rapid fire delivery. Just don't.

Ad Hominem attacks of any kind. Stick to the issues, not the person. This is the first thing that will alienate me regardless of your position.

Kritiks - You must be extremely persuasive if you run them. I'll consider them and vote for them if they are excellent, but I'd rather hear other arguments. Very few kritiks are in that "excellent" category I just mentioned. These are mainly only appropriate for Policy debate. I'll reluctantly consider them in LD, but never in PF.

Debate that strays outside the resolutional area. Stick to the topic.

Lack of respect for your opponent or anyone else in the room. Disagreement and debate over that disagreement is great. That's what this activity is about. But we must always do it respectfully.

Lack of respect for public figures. It's perfectly fine to disagree with the position of anyone you quote. However, negativity toward the person is not acceptable.

Condescending tone or delivery. Don't even try it with me. Trust me, I'll hear a condescending tone/delivery much louder than any argument you make, no matter how good the argument is. I'll make a condescending tone a voting issue that does not play in your favor. You don't want that.

I am currently a J.D. student. I was a four-year Congressional Debate competitor from 2014-2019. I also did Model UN.

I have different standards for each event that I judge. While I do take into account what is typically rewarded in these events competitively, some things stand out to me as a judge.

1) Effective communication. Do the words that you are saying make sense? Give me the BLUF: bottom line up front. I'm looking for clear, concise communication suitable for executive delivery - if you're not willing to say it to a CEO, you shouldn't be saying it in round.

2) Thorough and logical argumentation. Do your sentences connect? Does the evidence actually support what you are saying? Do I believe in the integrity of your evidence? Did you make your argument matter to me? Did you address weaknesses and counterarguments?

3) Engagement. This looks different from event to event, but I expect competitors to be good listeners and show an active, mindful presence in-round.

Congress-Specific Paradigm (does not apply for Policy, LD, PF, etc.)

I want to see good evidence and I want to see it explained. I want your argument to make sense. I want it to be based off more than a random line you pulled out of an article from The Guardian. Give me the links.

NEGATION SPEECHES MUST SHOW HARMS! If you're speaking on the negation, and you give a nonunique impact in your first contention, your second contention BETTER follow up with an active harm! If your main line of argumentation on the neg is "this won't work" with no harms, the affirmation ALWAYS wins, because they can say "well then it can't hurt to try"!

I like to see well-constructed, direct refutation. I want to hear "Representative X said Y, here's why it's wrong/ less important/ etc" not "X is wrong". Every speech after the 1st NEG should contain refutation. If you're weighing impacts, ref should also be substantiated, whether that's with new cards or with other representatives' arguments on your side.

I will rank up debaters that utilize good round strategy. If you sponsor the first bill and go within the first four speeches of the next bill, I will be very confused. (Stepping up to take one for the team when there are no speeches is an exception to that.) If you have recency, use it wisely! Not all Congress skills can be displayed effectively in every stage of the round. Sponsorships and extension speeches and crystals all happen at different stages for a reason.

Word choice and rhetoric are important. Don't shove stolen rhetoric at the end of a contention. It always sounds cheesy and bad. Rhetoric should be unique and make sense and feel natural. Honestly, I'd rather see no rhetoric than bad rhetoric.

Also, don't use debate words. I hate debate words. This is Congress. I don't want to hear burden, I don't want to hear impact, I don't want to hear link or link turn, etc. etc. unless those words are being used in the same context a normal, non-debater would use them ("The burden of the affirmation" = bad. "The burden on low income americans" = fine.)

My most important things for delivery are fluency, speed and engagement. I was fast. I know it's hard. But slow down. Be conversational. If I zone out, you're not a compelling orator.

Remember, at the end of the day, you're trying to pass (or fail) policy and protect people. Show me that. Show me emotion and passion and that you care. And good luck!

(any pronouns).

Hello! I am currently a student at UT Austin and a former debater at Plano West Senior HS. I have competed and judged rounds of Public Forum, Congress, and Extemp. Please feel free to contact me with any questions at rishikaprakash@gmail.com.

PF/Congressional Debate Paradigm:

1. Argumentation: I am most focused on the logic and content of your speeches. As a judge, the easier it is for me to understand your arguments and their clash, the easier it is for me to evaluate your performance. Evaluate the larger context of your arguments and weigh impacts. I appreciate a good argument whether I support it or not, as a judge, I try my best to stay unbiased. I will not rank debaters that fail to support and strengthen arguments with evidence. And please weigh as much as you can.

2. Content (rebutting and extending): I expect refutations to be strong and supported by both logic and evidence (if necessary). If you are expanding on a previous speaker’s arguments try to highlight how you are furthering their contention. I do not find it necessary for later speakers to say the names of previous speakers, but if it helps to clarify the evidence or arguments you are referring to, I would recommend doing so. Do not restate previous speakers’ arguments as your own, that is not extending and will not help you. I expect speakers to have rebuttals and responses in the round that are backed by logic or evidence. If you do not fully explain the links in your refutation argument then it is not possible to weigh it.

3. Participation: Be an active member in the round with strong questions in cx and make your speeches relevant. Congress is a participation event, and failing to participate (speaking or questioning) will hurt your ranking. Do not use cx as a time to seem like you are participating in the round with fluff questions. I will only take note of strong questioning which requires paying attention. Make motions when necessary and try not to waste time.

4. Speaking: I appreciate a good and clear speaker, but pretty speaking isn’t enough to be successful in the round. Try your best to weigh and refute clearly and explain everything thoroughly. As a judge, I do not want to focus on your speaking style so try your best to have a speaking personality that isn’t a distraction but rather a strength.

I highly value respect for one another in congress rounds, so please remember that a strong debater is not a rude one.

Let’s have some fun, I can’t wait to see what y'all come up with. Good luck!

I can’t follow you/hear everything if you don't speak succinctly & enunciate. I prefer evidence for your stance & logical counters to your opponent’s views. I’m mostly conservative BUT I am not afraid to live outside the box!! Find an example of your substantive points and show me it is in use in the real world. I am not in need of 'off time roadmaps' I will listen to what you say.

Mr. P. J. Samorian
Mr. Samorian is the Communications Department Chair at American Heritage Schools Palm Beach Campus. His teams compete in Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Congressional Debate and Individual Speech Events, Worlds School Debate with possible Policy Debate addition. AH Achievements: LD State Champion, Declamation State Champion, Sunvite PF Champion, Emory PF Champion, NSDA/NCFL Finalists in IE and Congress, Grapevine PF Champions, Bronx Congress RR Champion, Blue Key PF and LD Champions, GMU Congress Champion, Blue Key 3rd Place Sweepstakes, NSDA district champions. He is the former Director of Forensics at New Trier High School in Winnetka, Illinois. He was the Director of Forensics at Loyola Academy in Wilmette, Illinois for 18 years and before that was an Assistant IE Coach at Glenbrook South High School in Glenview, Illinois under the direction of William (Mark) Ferguson. He coached the NFL Poetry Reading National Champion (1993), NFL Congress(Senate) Runner-Up (2000), ICDA State Congress Champions (2000), IHSA State Congressional Debate Runner-Up (2008), and his team won one of five NCFL Eleanor E. Wright Debate Awards (2009). He has coached finalists and champions at Wake Forest, Grapevine, The Glenbrooks, Blue Key, The Barkley Forum, U.C.Berkeley, Sunvite and Harvard. Mr. Samorian is an NSDA Triple Diamond coach. He holds a B.A. from Northern Illinois University and a M.Ed. from Loyola University Chicago. He attended Glenbrook North High School in Northbrook, Illinois where he was involved with drama and music. He was involved with hosting five NCFL National Tournaments in Chicago, and was the President of the Chicago Catholic Forensic League and has served on both the Northern Illinois NFL District Committee as well as the IHSA State Debate Committee. He was the director of public forum for Millennial Speech and Debate (Georgetown and Boston College) and was the Co-Director for Public Forum Debate at the Harvard Summer Workshop. He has hosted NSDA webinars on different aspects of congressional debate. He has been the director of public forum at Georgetown as well as teaching and directing programs in Business, Stem, and Debate for Capitol Debate at Notre Dame Baltimore, American University Washington DC, Yale University, Babson College, Dartmouth College, The Hun School. He is currently the PBMSFL Treasurer and serves on the congress TOC advisory committee.

FOR ALL DEBATE EVENTS, the flow is so important. You have to listen and make note of what your opponents are saying. I am flowing, so you should be as well. Then it is important that you DO something with that information.

I am open to any argument you may make and then ask that you support that idea.

If you are going to spread, please sign post and accent key terms you want me to get down on my flow.

I work hard to not let any of my personal opinions have any place in the round.

I prefer that debaters be strong in their conviction but not be abusive in their treatment of others.
I also require you to be truthful. Present accurate evidence. I have been witness to false information and it really bothers me that you would just present it as though it is true and keep going until someone questions it.

Persuade me that you are right and your opponents are not.

I DO NOT SHAKE HANDS AT THE END OF A ROUND (Obviously in person debate) This was posted BEFORE Covid and still applies now.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS
I prefer that contestants stick to the philosophical arguments in the round. It bothers me when LD turns to a plan of action. (With exception of a topic that requires a plan...) While topics are sometimes hard, I am looking for the theory that is supporting what you are saying. To this end, you may consider me "old school" when it comes to LD. Yes, I do think that Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and others should provide foundation for the direction you are going. That doesn't mean I am not open to other theories and philosophies, however if you do run theory or other arguments, know why you are running them. Please don't run them because you do that at every tournament so you don't have to prep each topic!!! An entire round of arguments not related to the topic will not win my ballot. Ignoring a judge who says "clear" when you are spreading, will not win my ballot. Clear, persuasive arguments will win my ballot. Arguments that are constructed and carried through the debate will win my ballot. Weighing at the end or your final rebuttal could win my ballot. 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 have been extremely bothered in the past few years with students who are falsifying evidence. I judged a semi-final where one team built an entire case around one key piece of evidence. Their opponents called for the evidence during the round, but it was never produced. The judge next to me called for the evidence after the round and sure enough, they were blatantly misquoting the evidence. I have also researched evidence that simply does not exist. Have some integrity. Do the work needed to prepare yourself for the topic. I do not shake hands at the end of a round.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE
Yes, I was around when the event was called Student Congress and it has been an honor to have been a part of the evolution of the activity. I think there are many roles that congressional debaters play. To that end, there are many styles of speeches that I enjoy when judging a congress round. The authorship should explain the legislation and set the tone and standard for the round. The first con should be equally as strong. Both should have strong supportive evidence and equally strong explanations. Every speech after that should further debate with new evidence and should also extend or refute previous speakers. For me, politics are a waste of time. That being said, I also don't like it to be a speech competition. It should be a series of debate speeches on both sides so that at the end of debate on each piece of legislation, I have a better idea of the issues and in a sense; I have been persuaded to one side or the other. If you are speaking near the end of the debate, then a top-notch crystallization is in order and very much enjoyed when done well. If you are a presiding officer, I want it to run so smoothly and fairly that I never have to step in. A good PO brings energy to the room and fosters an atmosphere of healthy debate. I enjoy students who have their own unique style and don't just copy what everyone else is doing and saying. Play to your strengths. Recent developments in more complicated scenarios have been interesting as has the development of 30 second questioning periods (direct questioning). Traditional questioning is one question one person, it should not be called indirect questioning.... Congressional Debate is still evolving and I think we should enjoy the growth. Some styles work better than others, but I am not convinced there is just one way to speak or preside. I enjoy some of the regional and league differences. I serve on the TOC Congressional Debate Advisory Committee. I do not shake hands at the end of a round. Can we please put an end to frowning chairs? Congress does not have an equal number of speeches for or against a piece of legislation so why should we. It is natural that one side will have more than the other. So stop frowning. If you cannot extend, refute, or produce new arguments, then don't rehash, vote to move on to the next legislation and speak early on that. EVERYONE SHOULD BE PREPARED ON BOTH SIDES. Then strategically you should choose which side will benefit you the best and speak on that side.

INDIVIDUAL EVENTS
I don't think anyone checks the wiki for IE philosophy. LOL I mean, its not like you could change your cutting of speech because I am in the back of the room. IE was my first love and passion. Do well in performance. Be honest and true and you will win me every round. I often write an IE ballot as though I am coaching you. So, if I give you ideas and then see you a month later and have to just write the same exact ballot again, what did you learn and do my notes even matter at that point. IE students often try to read the judge. You can't really read me. I may be writing feverishly to give you as many suggestions for improvement as possible, I may be writing how much I am enjoying every moment, or a may stop writing because I don't have much to say because you are so amazing. I also rank as I go so there is no advantage or disadvantage to your speaking order.

ONLINE SPEECH AND DEBATE - At first, I had enjoyed moving to online speech and debate. I was involved in rules development, ideas for communicating online and framing ideas. I worked all summer with online speech and debate and so understand glitching etc but you also need to make sure no other devices in your home are on and that your framing doesn't include anything moving, like a ceiling fan, as they will detract from the strength of your signal. FOR DEBATE EVENTS, I prefer that you present your speech seated. I think in person standing is fine, but when you stand online we often lose facial expression, gestures are hard to see, walking off camera isn't good, and your voice may drop off. FOR SPEECH EVENTS-For many, ok, most, events you must stand and that is perfectly fine. Have fun and enjoy that we are still able to keep our activity vibrant and growing. 2022 Update - I am tired of being online and I am crossing fingers we will soon return to in person speech and debate. I AM IN FAVOR of students who are finding creative ways to perform online and I am not in favor or adults making new online rules that limit creativity. (Ex: Moving toward or away from the camera for emphasis)

quest.sandel@ascendspeech.org for any and all questions. Please CC your coach if you reach out with a question. This paradigm is written for Congressional Debate.

Hey,

I am the Founder/Camp Director/Co-Owner at Ascend Speech & Debate, Director of Congressional Debate at James Logan High School, and former Director of Speech and Debate at John F. Kennedy High School in Sacramento, California.

First off, I believe this is a debate event before anything. That means you should be adapting to the round as it goes. Everyone from the sponsor to the closer has an equal shot at my one as long as they do their job. The job for the sponsor and first negative speaker is to set up the round for strong debate. The sponsor should state the problem, how this bill fixes the problem, give one or two impacts from solving it, and if you're a superstar give me a framework for the round moving forward. The first negative should give us the main idea of what we should expect from a strong negation argument. This should take the problem the sponsor laid out and then give us the negative thought process on whether or not this legislation fixes it. After that I should see an increasing amount of refutations mixed with original arguments as to why this legislation is good or bad. Once we are 3/4 of the way through I should be seeing a lot of extensions as the debate is coming to an end. Still give an original POV but keep it within the frame of the debate. At the end, I should see nothing but refutation and crystalized speeches. Once again I want your own original analysis but use it to end the debate through a refutation of the other side instead of individuals. No matter where you speak I want to see your personality/style shine through. Take risks and you'll likely be rewarded.

All effective argumentation is based around a solid understanding of the status quo. If you cant properly depict the status quo then I cant buy an argument from you. What's happening right now? Is the effect that this legislation has on it good or bad? How well you answer these questions will dictate your ranking from me.

Effective cross examination is when you attack the flaws in your opponents argument or set up refutations for your own. As long as you have a clear goal for your cross examination period, I'll appreciate your time. Overall, I tune out when both sides start over talking each other and I prefer a calmer style of cross x.

When it comes to speaking I don't have a preferred style. I can respect all styles as long as it suits you. Picking a speaking style is like picking a baseball batting stance in that there isn't a wrong way as long as you're doing what is best for you based on your natural voice, range, and variation. If you stick to that then I'll probably think you're a great speaker. DONT BE AFRAID TO TAKE RISKS.

I do rank presiding officers pretty well as a scorer and if I'm a parli it can serve as a tie breaker between two debaters. If you do it well then I'll boost you but if you don't then I'll drop you pretty far.

This next part should go without saying but your arguments need to be backed by evidence at all times and have clear logic behind them. Remember that your logic creates the argument then the evidence backs it up. Your evidence isn't your argument.

Lastly, be respectful and have fun. If you aren't having fun then you're doing this activity wrong. Best of luck!

I appreciate debate that is intellectually charged with substance and evidence from multiple viewpoints (social, economic, political, international, etc.). Most issues are multidimensional and I appreciate arguments that integrate more than one viewpoint. I also pay attention to your news sources when I think through where your argument is coming from.

I also appreciate it when debaters respond to points made by those who have come before them (e.g. refuting/clash). At the same time, rehash frustrates me, while crystallization helps me sort through the nuance of an argument at the end of a round.

Thank you, remember to have fun and I'm excited to help provide constructive feedback on your performances!

I am the head debate coach at James Madison Memorial HS (2002 - present)
I am the head debate coach at Madison West HS (2014 - present)
I was formerly an assistant at Appleton East (1999-2002)
I competed for 3 years (2 in LD) at Appleton East (1993-1996)

I am a plaintiff's employment/civil rights lawyer in real life. I coach (or coached, depending on the year) every event in both debate and IE, with most of my recent focus on PF, Congress, and Extemp. Politically I'm pretty close to what you'd presume about someone from Madison, WI.

Congress at the bottom.

PF

(For online touraments) Send me case/speech docs at the start please (timscheff@aol.com) email or sharing a google doc is fine, I don't much care if I don't have access to it after the round if you delink me or if you ask me to delete it from my inbox. I have a little trouble picking up finer details in rounds where connections are fuzzy and would rather not have to ask mid round to finish my flow.
(WDCA if a team is uncomfortable sharing up front that's fine, but any called evidence should then be shared).

If your ev is misleading as cut/paraphrased or is cited contrary to the body of the evidence, I get unhappy. If I notice a problem independently there is a chance I will intervene and ignore the ev, even without an argument by your opponent. My first role has to be an educator maintaining academic honesty standards. You could still pick up if there is a path to a ballot elsewhere. If your opponents call it out and it's meaningful I will entertain voting for a theory type argument that justifies a ballot.

I prefer a team that continues to tell a consistent story/advocacy through the round. I do not believe a first speaking team's rebuttal needs to do more than refute the opposition's case and deal with framework issues. The second speaking team ideally should start to rebuild in the rebuttal; I don't hold it to be mandatory but I find it much harder to vote for a team that doesn't absent an incredible summary. What is near mandatory is that if you are going to go for it in the Final Focus, it should probably be extended in the Summary. I will give cross-x enough weight that if your opponents open the door to bringing the argument back in the grand cross, I'll still consider it.

Rate wise going quick is fine but there should be discernible variations in rate and/or tone to still emphasize the important things. If you plan on referring to arguments by author be very sure the citations are clear and articulated well enough for me to get it on my flow.

I'm a fairly staunch proponent of paraphrasing. It's an academically more realistic exercise. It also means you need to have put in the work to understand the source (hopefully) and have to be organized enough to pull it up on demand and show what you've analyzed (or else). A really good quotation used in full (or close to it) is still a great device to use. In my experience as a coach I've run into more evidence ethics, by far, with carded evidence, especially when teams only have a card, or they've done horrible Frankenstein chop-jobs on the evidence, forcing it into the quotation a team wants rather than what the author said. Carded evidence also seems to encourage increases in speed of delivery to get around the fact that an author with no page limit's argument is trying to be crammed into 4 min of speech time. Unless its an accommodation for a debater, if you need to share speech docs before a speech, something's probably gone a bit wrong with the world.
On this vein, I've developed a fairly keen annoyance with judges who outright say "no paraphrasing." It's simply not something any team can reasonably adapt to in the context of a tournament. I'm not sure how much the teams of the judges or coaches taking this position would be pleased with me saying I don't listen to cards or I won't listen to a card unless it's read 100% in full (If you line down anything, I call it invalid). It's the #1 thing where I'm getting tempted to pull the trigger on a reciprocity paradigm.

Exchange of evidence is not optional if it is asked for. I will follow the direction of a tournament on the exchange timing, however, absent knowledge of a specific rule, I will not run prep for either side when a reasonable number of sources are requested. Debaters can prep during this time as you should be able to produce sources in a reasonable amount of time and "not prepping" is a bit of a fiction and/or breaks up the flow of the round.

Citations should include a date when presented if that date will be important to the framing of the issue/solution, though it's not a bad practice to include them anyhow. More important, sources should be by author name if they are academic, or publication if journalistic (with the exception of columnists hired for their expertise). This means "Harvard says" is probably incorrect because it's doubtful the institution has an official position on the policy, similarly an academic journal/law review publishes the work of academics who own their advocacy, not the journal. I will usually ask for sources if during the course of the round the claims appear to be presented inconsistently to me or something doesn't sound right, regardless of a challenge, and if the evidence is not presented accurately, act on it.

Speaker points. Factors lending to increased points: Speaking with inflection to emphasize important things, clear organization, c-x used to create ground and/or focus the clash in the round, and telling a very clear story (or under/over view) that adapts to the actual arguments made. Factors leading to decreased points: unclear speaking, prep time theft (if you say end prep, that doesn't mean end prep and do another 10 seconds), making statements/answering answers in c-x, straw-man-ing opponents arguments, claiming opponent drops when answers were made, and, the fastest way for points to plummet, incivility during c-x. Because speaker points are meaningless in out rounds, the only way I can think of addressing incivility is to simply stop flowing the offending team(s) for the rest of the round.

Finally, I flow as completely as I can, generally in enough detail that I could debate with it. However, I'm continually temped to follow a "judge a team as they are judging yours" versus a "judge a team as you would want yours judged" rule. Particularly at high-stakes tournaments, including the TOC, I've had my teams judged by a judge who makes little or no effort to flow. I can't imagine any team at one of those tournaments happy with that type of experience yet those judges still represent them. I think lay-sourced judges and the adaptation required is a good skill and check on the event, but a minimum training and expectation of norms should be communicated to them with an attempt to comply with them. To a certain degree this problem creates a competitive inequity - other teams face the extreme randomness imposed by a judge who does not track arguments as they are made and answered - yet that judge's team avoids it. I've yet to hit the right confluence of events where I'd actually adopt "untrained lay" as a paradigm, but it may happen sometime. [UPDATE: I've gotten to do a few no-real-flow lay judging rounds this year thanks to the increase in lay judges at online tournaments]. Bottom line, if you are bringing judges that are lay, you should probably be debating as if they are your audience.

CONGRESS
The later in the cycle you speak, the more rebuttal your speech should include. Repeating the same points as a prior speaker is probably not your best use of time.

If you speak on a side, vote on that side if there wasn't an amendment. If you abstain, I should understand why you are abstaining (like a subsequent amendment contrary to your position).

I'm not opposed to hearing friendly questions in c-x as a way to advance your side's position if they are done smartly. If your compatriot handles it well, points to you both. If they fumble it, no harm to you and negative for them. C-x doesn't usually factor heavily into my rankings, often just being a tie breaker for people I see as roughly equal in their performance.

For the love of God, if it's not a scenario/morning hour/etc. where full participation on a single issue is expected, call to question already. With expanded questioning now standard, you don't need to speak on everything to stay on my mind. Late cycle speeches rarely offer something new and it's far more likely you will harm yourself with a late speech than help. If you are speaking on the same side in succession it's almost certain you will harm yourself, and opposing a motion to call to question to allow successive speeches on only one side will also reflect as a non-positive.

A good sponsorship speech, particularly one that clarifies vagueness and lays out solvency vs. vaguely talking about the general issue (because, yeah, we know climate change is bad, what about this bill helps fix it), is the easiest speech for me to score well. You have the power to frame the debate because you are establishing the legislative intent of the bill, sometimes in ways that actually move the debate away from people's initially prepped positions.

In a chamber where no one has wanted to sponsor or first negate a bill, especially given you all were able to set a docket, few things make me want to give a total round loss, than getting no speakers and someone moving for a prep-time recess. This happened in the TOC finals two years ago, on every bill. My top ranks went to the people who accepted the responsibility to the debate and their side to give those early speeches.

I am a head debate coach at East Ridge High School in Minnesota with 10 years of debate under my belt and 15+ years of speech coaching / judging experience as well. I love both activities, and I love seeing creative / unique approaches to them. I've sent several students to Nationals in both speech and debate categories for the past several years.

In 'real life' I'm an intellectual property attorney. I love good arguments in all types of debate. But I will NOT make logic jumps for you. You need to do the legwork and lay out the argument for me, step by step. I LOVE legal arguments, but most of all I love a good Story. Frame your arguments for me. Make the impacts CLEAR. (e.g. in PF / LD - WEIGH them.) Tell me how and why to write my ballot for you and I probably will!

Voting Values
I vote on topicality in any type of debate that I judge. If your arguments are non-topical, and you get called on it, they will be struck from my flow. Everyone got the same resolution / bills, that's what I want to hear arguments about.

I am NOT a fan of Kritiks - you got the resolution ahead of time. Debate it.

SPEED

THIS IS A COMMUNICATION ACTIVITY. Your goal is to effectively communicate your arguments to me. If you are talking too fast to be intelligible, you are not effectively communicating.

If you make my hand cramp taking notes, I'll be crabby. I am a visual person and my notes are how I will judge the round. If I miss an argument because you were talking at light speed, that's your fault, not mine! :)

Attitude / Aggressiveness

100%, above all, you are human beings and citizens of the world. I expect you to act like it. I HATE rudeness or offensive behavior in any debate format. Be kind, be inclusive. By all means, be aggressive, but don't be rude.

Public Forum: I am a huge framework fan. You have the evidence, frame the story for me. If you give me a framework and explain why, under that framework, your evidence means I vote for you, I will. Don't make me do summersaults to get to a decision. If only one team gives me a framework, that's what I'll use.

Re: Summary / FF - I expect the debate to condense in the summary / final focus - and I expect you to condense the story accordingly. Look for places to cross-apply. I do need arguments to extend through every speech to vote for them - but I do not expect you to reiterate all evidence / analysis. Summarizing and weighing is fine for me.
WEIGH arguments for me. Especially if we're talking apples and oranges - are we comparing money to lives? Is there a Risk-Magnitude question I should be considering?

Re: new arguments in GC/FF - I won't weigh new ARGUMENTS, but I will consider new EVIDENCE / extensions.

Re: Argument / Style - I'm here to weigh your arguments. Style is only important to the extent you are understandable.

I generally don't buy nuclear war arguments. I don't believe any rational actor gets to nuclear war. I'll give you nuclear miscalc or accident, but it's a HIGH burden to convince me two heads of state will launch multiple warheads on purpose.

Lincoln-Douglas: If you give me a V/C pairing, I expect you to tie your arguments back to them. If your arguments don't tie back to your own V/C, I won't understand their purpose. This is a values debate. Justify the value that you choose, and then explain why your points best support your value.

Congress: This is debate. Beautiful speeches, alone, belong in Speech categories. I expect to see that you can speak well, but I am not thrilled to listen to the same argument presented three times. I expect to see clash, I expect to see good Q&A. I love good rebuttal / crystallization speeches.

I DO rank successful POs - without good POs, there is no good Congressional Debate. If you PO well in front of me, you will be ranked well.

World Schools: This actually is my favorite form of debate. I want to see respectful debate, good use of POIs, and organized content. I've judge WSD at Nationals for the last several years and I do adhere to the WSD norms. Please do not give me "regular debate" speed - I want understandable, clear speeches.

Do not lie about or manipulate evidence. All arguments and rebuttals must be across my flow throughout the round. Do not make a point in rebuttal and drop it in summary and final. You must weight and you must link to impacts. I appreciate good speakers but will award low point wins in any round where the better speakers fail to cover the flow, weigh, link to impacts or address framework (when applicable).

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!

My primary coaching event is Congressional Debate. Don't freak out, I prefer the debate portion of the event as my high school background is in PF/LD.

For CD: I’ll always consider a balance of presentation, argumentation, and refutation. If you happen to drop the ball on one of those traits during a speech, it won’t ruin your rank on my ballot. I look for consistency across the board and most importantly: What is your speech doing for the debate? Speaking of which, pay attention to the round. If you're the third speaker in the row on the same side, your speech isn't doing anything for the debate. I definitely reward kids who will switch kids or speak before their ideal time for the sake of the debate, even if it's not the best speech in the world.

For both PF/LD: As long as you're clear/do the work for me, I have no preference for/against what you run/do in the round. I'll vote off of what you give me. With that, I really stress the latter portion of that paradigm, "I'll vote off of what you give me". I refuse to intervene on the flow, so if you're not doing the work for me, I'm gonna end up voting on the tiniest, ickiest place that I should not be voting off of. Please don't make me do that. Respect the flow and its links.

PF specific: I love theory. I don't prefer theory in PF, but again I'll vote off of where the round ends up...it'd be cool if it didn't head in that direction as a good majority of the time you can still engage in/ win the debate without it.

I don't time roadmaps, take a breather and get yourself together.

Speed isn't an issue for me in either event.

Avoid flex prep.

I prefer googledocs to email for evidence sharing (brittanystanchik@gmail.com).

Hi all- my name is Natalie Steinbrink and I am an assistant coach at Phoenix Country Day School, where I've been since 2015. I graduated from Arizona State University in 2018 with a degree in English Literature. I am primarily a speech coach, but I do enjoy coaching and watching Congress when I can. Here is what's important to me in a Congressional Debate round:

-Clear argumentation. Don't make me work to understand your argument. Your structure, evidence, links, and impacts should be clear and easy to understand. I can appreciate a complex argument, but if I'm still wondering what your point was by the time we've moved on to the next speech, you haven't done the job.

-Be INVOLVED in the session. Be an active listener and don't get wrapped up in your own speeches (i.e. please don't practice your speech while others are talking). Ask good, varied questions. Be a congressperson who's going to foster good debate in the round (the most fun part of congress!).

-Give me some genuine emotion! This may be the speech coach in me jumping out, but the bills you're debating impact real people in the world, and you should treat them as such. How is anyone going to believe in your argument if you don't act like you believe in it yourself?

-Good delivery is a must. Try to get away from your legal pad as much as possible.

-Be respectful. If you're rude or aggressive to other debaters, you'll be dropped. Plain and simple.

I'm excited to listen to you all, and I hope you're excited as well!

I participated in Speech and Debate all 4 years of High School. I competed in local tournaments in Arkansas and Missouri as well as competing at tournaments around the country. I am a two time National Qualifier once in LD the second time in WSD. I have competed in nearly every NSDA event. As a result, I appreciate things that differentiate them. I am not against any form of argumentation as long as you do the link work to make it make sense. I debate collegiately for Morehouse College and do Parli and BP Debate, so I have no issue with spreading. I am the current National Champion for the Social Justice Debates (SJD Style), so engaging your evidence rather than just throwing the last name of a card out is preferable.

NOTE: While I can flow high speeds, if you are unintelligible I will set my pen down and refuse to flow your speech. I do not accept having a case be sent to me, Debate is at its basis about oration and the ability to convince, it is not a writing contest.

I am not a fan of personal attacks or statements that generalize entire communities, while Debate is a forum for all ideas and those discussions can become heated, being civil is what differentiates debaters from politicians.

In terms of argumentation, I don't have a problem with niche discussions, but being squirrely and running from debates will not earn you any brownie points. Make sure your arguments always link back to the resolution at hand.

Last thing, have fun and be respectful it takes a lot of work to speak publically and we don't want to have anyone feeling as if they don't belong in this activity.

If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round begins.

I believe deabters are entitled to an RFD from judges, if you find the feedback on your ballot to be insufficient or want more clarity feel free to email me at caleb.strickland@morehouse.edu

Name: Jay Stubbs

School Affiliation: Bellaire High School

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: Since the event was introduced

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: PF did not exist when I competed

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 38 years

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: High School and College

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? Public Forum, Congress, Extemp

What is your current occupation? Debate Coach

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery Clarity for understanding is most important

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) Line by line on most important issues along with big picture to guide the way the debaters want me to vote.

Role of the Final Focus Final resolution of key issues along with framing the decision for the judge.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches Essential for key arguments in the round.

Topicality Can be run if there are blatant violations…anything can be found to be non-topical via definition…that is a waste of time.

Plans This is a function of the wording of the resolution. Acceptable when the resolution suggests a specific action.

Kritiks Are not going to persuade me.

Flowing/note-taking Is a function of the clarity of debaters in the round. Clarity makes it much easier to keep all issues organized on the flow.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Clarity is most important to me. Just because a debater makes an argument doesn’t mean that I understand it or know how to weigh it in relation to other arguments without intervention. Clarity brings meaning to important arguments…clarity explains how to weigh arguments against other issues. Providing clarity early in the round is essential when it comes to evaluating arguments as the evolve throughout the round. Waiting until the end of the round to provide clarity can be too late.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Yes

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No…new arguments should have been introduced earlier in the round. An extension of a key argument is a part of argument evolution.

Congress

I evaluate your arguments in a Congress session in relation to your effectiveness in delivering them. An effective Congressional Debater is one who is committed to making sure that the judge understands the arguments and information they are presenting. When a debater's commitment is limited to getting information into the debate they are assuming that I will gain the same understanding of the information that they have.

Introductions should be creative when possible. Generic intros are frowned upon greatly.

Good arguments should contain both evidence from qualified sources AND analysis.

Devoting time to the summary/conclusion is very important.

Ending speeches at 3:00 is very important. Speeches ending at 3:10 show a lack of discipline and preparation.

Questioning should be focused on exposing weaknesses in opponent's arguments. Questions that cause little to no damage are of marginal value. There should never be a time when the questioner and respondent are both talking at the same time for more than a brief moment.

Respondents should view questioning as an opportunity not an adversarial activity. Attitude and unnecessary aggression will be scored lower. "I don't know" is perfectly acceptable if there is no reasonable reason why you should know the answer. I would like to NEVER hear the answer "I am sure you could tell me." I can not tell you how much I really don't appreciate that response in a questioning period.

I competed in Speech & Debate for four academic years (2009-2014) during high school, and coached/judged on-and-off during college. I graduated from college in 2018 and now work in government relations. Full circle! Really excited to be judging this year.

While competing, I focused on Congressional Debate nationally, and dabbled in IX/DX locally. On to the paradigm.

At the end of the day, we call it Congressional Debate for a reason. Unless you're the author/sponsor, your speech should have refutation of some sort, from first NEG all the way down (especially at a place like the Tournament of Champions). If you're the author/sponsor, your speech should be near-flawless and exceedingly well evidenced. Alternately, if you're the last speaker of the round, I expect you to give me a new argument, or, at the very least, a very compelling few reasons as to why I should vote your side's way. Put simply: clear, cogent, reasonable, well-sourced arguments will move you to the top of my ballot.

A few other notes:

1. I don't necessarily mind speed, so long as your argument is fleshed out and you aren't talking fast for the sake of talking fast. If I can keep up and you're enunciating clearly, I won't hold it against you.

2. Your evidence should be fully cited and clear. If you cite a periodical, give me a date of publication. It is likely that the periodical did say what you're saying it said, but I want to be sure that you read the article and digested it. Books and academic articles encouraged, but make it clear that you actually read it.

3. If you refute someone else's evidence, you better have evidence supporting your refutation.

4. If you're making a constitutionality argument, I expect you to cite Supreme Court ruling supplemented by a legal/academic review. Legal professionals with years of experience have difficulty parsing case law, so it would behoove you to at least consider.

5. Make your impacts believable. If you have a "wow!" factor, make it clear how this will actually happen and isn't predicated on a number of tenuous"what if's."

6. It is okay, and even appropriate and fun, to make jokes, add your personal flair when speaking, etc., but make sure it is well-timed and doesn't blow up in your face. Put simply: the ToC might not be the best place to try out your new joke.

7. POs are neither to be seen nor heard. The less I notice you in the middle of the round, the better. Don't worry, I'll remember if you're incredible.

As much as I'd hate to read this from a judge paradigm, don't forget to have fun. You worked really hard to get here - enjoy it.

Overall:

-       I place an equal value on analysis, delivery and clash (when appropriate).

-       If I had to drill down on one aspect of analysis, it’s your impacting, and particularly weighing impacts. One aspect of delivery – it’s how well you comport yourself as an actual member of the House or Senate.

-       You need to play the game and you should conduct yourself with the decorum of a professional legislator.

Speaking:

-       I don’t mind speed as long as you are clear and understandable. Try to connect your speeches together from beginning to end.

o   You’re doing really well if I can trace the your narrative and advocacy throughout the entire speech.

-       Have clear, identifiable, topical sources.

-       It truly doesn’t matter when you speak in the round. Constructive, Rebuttal and Crystallization speakers have all won rounds with me.

-       Great delivery combined with really insightful, unique, and thought-provoking analysis that you highlight to me will always get you a higher ranking.

CX:

-       The best CX’ers are those who can set traps for the speakers and then link it into their own analysis later.

-       I also appreciate those who use CX to enhance the decorum of a legislative debate.

Presiding:

-       At national tournaments, presiding officers should generally be error free. More than one major error (recency, procedure, loss of decorum) will generally push you to the bottom of a Top 8 Ballot.

-       The best POs are the ones you can’t even tell they’re there because they are efficient in word economy and moving business along.

-       POs rarely win rounds with me, but can easily earn a 3rd or even 2nd place with a truly great performance.

-       As a Parli, barring major errors, POs will always rank highly on my cumulative ballot for their service.

Procedure:

-       There’s no such thing as a Point of Personal Privilege “to address the chamber.” This might be one of the worst decorum breaches – ever.

-       Just relax! If you’re prepared and rehearsed, you’ll do great! Good luck!

Primarily a Congress/Extemp/Worlds judge.

Worlds- strategy is a big part of the game: what are you arguing and why? Find a framework/voting issues/whatever you're calling it and link arguments into the framework. Many debates come down to what the topic actually means and what the framework issues are- so tackle these head on and link your arguments into the framework.

Do a bit of everything- show the logic, weigh the impacts, think about effective delivery. I prefer arguments that are rooted in reality more so than hyperbole. Structure and logic matter a lot- stay organized, hold my hand, walk me down the flow. I like a good line by line debate, but make sure you're linking into the bigger story your team is trying to sell.

In later speeches, think through cohesion. Third constructives with brand new arguments or logic not already laid out by their teammates are likely to do more harm than good for me. Same goes with new substantives in the second constructive: I like them, but leave yourself time to develop them and don't blip them at me with 30 seconds left on the clock.

I love a good POI, but make sure you're asking something that matters and answer the question you were asked. Quality over quantity rules the day in this regard. Speakers should expect to take some, and questioners should not pepper the speaker with requests. For online debates, I prefer verbal POIs and verbal responses to those POIs (whether you take them now, later, or dismiss them).

Congress- First and foremost, this is a debate event. There should be clash, weighing of arguments, and healthy discourse. Argumentation should be realistic with clear links to the legislation. The later in the debate we go, the more clash is expected. New arguments as the 4th advocacy speech will likely not earn you much headway with me. I am particularly impressed by debaters who can synthesize debate well.

Strategy is a big part of Congress. Giving only refutations or only sponsorships does not show your range as a legislator. Parliamentary procedure should be used to advance debate AND your own interests. Debaters should be prepared to argue both sides of legislation- debaters who do so will never find themselves shut out of debate. Think twice before you volunteer to be the second consecutive speech on a given side of a topic- you're likely doing yourself a disservice. I will notice if multiple opportunities go by for you to get a speech in and you choose not to take it.

Questioning- ask strategic questions. You should be soliciting something from the speaker you can use later on in the debate or to defend points you've already made on the topic. When responding, be brief- don't ramble for the sake of killing time. Avoid leading questions that start with "are you aware" and "did you know"- if you're asking a question you already know the answer to because its fact-based, save it for your speech.

POs- I'm a big fan of an efficient, affable PO. You can absolutely get a 1 from me as the PO. The less I/the parli has to intervene, the better. Be free from bias, keep the room moving, and watch your word economy. Do not be afraid to lead. Use consensus motions to save time (e.g. "seeing no objection, I'll open the floor for docket nominations.") Run the room, don't let the room run you. Feel free to hop into the debate and give a speech if tournament rules allow.

A note on language- this should feel like Congress. I've never heard Chuck Schumer say "I affirm the bill" or Kevin McCarthy say "I stand with the negation." Model congressional behavior, not high school debate norms.

LD/PF- Here are a few things you need to know about me that you're probably not used to:

1. All time counts. Either it's a speech or it's prep.
2. No, I don't want to be on the email chain.
3. This is an oral communication activity, not a read-along.
4. Don't waste time, just debate.
5. If I want to see the card, I'll ask for it. I probably won't ask for it.
6. No, I won't disclose. I wrote you a ballot for you and your coach to read.

I'll vote on anything if you give me a good reason, a clear framework, and weighable impacts. I'm not likely to vote on arguments spurious to the resolution, so please debate the topic as presented. I'm not particularly interested in debates outside the scope of the topic. I do believe strongly that debate should be publicly accessible- while I can handle most arguments, a general audience should be persuaded as well as I am. As much as the line by line matters, it is how you use it to build a compelling narrative to vote for your side that really counts.

Evidence- I'm not normal when it comes to evidence. Just because you have a card doesn't mean the card is gospel. Look for the warrants. Challenge the logic, whether it has cards or not. I do not flow author names- if you say "extend the Warren card", I will have no idea what you're talking about. I very rarely ask to read evidence after the round and I'm ok with paraphrasing evidence as long as the full text is available in round. I have zero tolerance for waiting for evidence to be exchanged- if you're going to use an email chain, use it. Have all of your evidence ready to exchange the moment it is asked for. All time counts- either it's speech time or it's prep time. There's no such thing as 'off time roadmaps' and 'waiting to see the card'.

Speed kills- don't spread. You can go faster than normal conversation, but not by much. This is a communication activity after all.

Extempers- answer the question. That's my primary consideration. Sources are your friend. They should be recent and relevant. Also answer the question. Delivery should be conversational and engaging- show us your personality. Also answer the question. Think about feasibility of arguments. Then answer the question. Don't just tell me that things happened, tell me why things happened. Have I mentioned you should answer the question? Use research that is specific to the topic and shows your ability to access resources- if it's an internet-prep tournament, I expect to hear more than just what a google search pops out as the first five links. Find the good research. Then answer the question.

OO/Info- same as extemp, except replace 'answer the question' with 'defend your thesis'. I prefer OOs with interesting angles on topics and a unique perspective. In Info, I want a 'need to know'- what do you expect me to do with this information? There's a big difference between informative and persuasive: Infos that have call to actions or are describing problems in huge detail implying we should solve them aren't infos. Visual aids in Info should contribute to the understanding of the concept- I don't like VAs that are just for fun/entertainment. Note: VAs are not in fact required. If you don't need them, don't use them.

Interp- crisp, clear characterization matters. I look for continuity/flow in the cutting, believability and relatability in the performance, and a variance in emotion as the piece/cutting builds. The introduction should say something and give me a reason to watch the performance- there should be social significance and an argument laid out. Particularly for POI and program cuttings in Poetry, I'm looking to see if you have an interesting argument and if the lit says what you say it says. I want to see characters that feel real and grow as the piece progresses. Less is more- use all your communicative skills to convey emotion. There are ways to show anger other than yelling, there are ways to show sadness other than screaming.

A Note on Time in Speech Events- prepared events should not require time signals (you should know roughly how long your speech is). I do not believe the grace period is an excuse to add 30 seconds to performances, especially in extemp. I'll give you a couple of seconds leeway as a benefit of the doubt, but if you are clearly abusing the grace period, I will have issues.

I am a former high school Congressional Debate competitor who attended and presided at many national tournaments, such as NFL & CFL Nationals, Florida State Championship, Harvard, and others. Currently an attorney working in Banking.

Congress

Here are some preferences:

- Deliver a speech. Do not read it to me.

- Unless sponsoring, save time to refute opposition points brought up. Have logical arguments why your side is right, but also why the other side is wrong.

- Do NOT NOT NOT be hateful and show decorum at all times. Focus on policies and actions (with specifics) and not on people. Do NOT make conclusions without facts. For example, I will frown upon somebody that says, "Trump is an idiot" or who says, "Pelosi is clueless" or "Republications are racists" or "Democrats are Socialists." Those are all stereotypes. Instead, say "President Trump was not accurate when he said XXX as disproved by an article in the Wall Street Journal" or "Speaker Pelosi said XXX which I fundamentally disagree with and believe it is bad for our country because YYY. . . " You get the idea. Use facts, not opinions on people.

- Ask questions. Be engaged. Have your questions be though provoking--not "soft balls." Keep questions brief and not long statements to full time (although a fact within your question is helpful, such as "does your argument hold up in light of a CNN/USA Today poll that shows that xx% believe something different")

- Don't just rehash old points. Continue to advance debate.

- Use facts and evidence. Make sure you are accurate. Don't try to make anything up.

- Debate is okay, but be respectful of others in the room. Ask tough questions. Point out flaws in somebody's speech or arguments. But, do so respectfully.

- Have fun!

- For Presiding Officers: Know parliamentary procedure. Know it well. Take control of your chamber. Be fair. Recognize people by name and/or school and/or state or other respectful way (i.e. the gentlelady from Kentucky; or the gentleman from Georgia; or Senator Smith). It is your job to make the chamber work well and your job to be in control of the chamber. Stop any horseplay immediately. Advance debate with encouragement (i.e. "We seem to be rehashing same arguments, I will now entertain a motion for the question . . . " For certain items, feel free to allow a voice vote, if allowed by procedure.

Yes to the email chain: hannah.wilson@harker.org

It's important to me that judges act like educators (and by that I mean that I understand it's about the debaters and not me + professional boundaries are important). Debate is hard and we're all learning. My goal is to help make the experience as educationally valuable and fun as possible.

My debate experience: I did one year of PF in high school, one year of policy in high school, and three years of policy in college (2 at Weber and 1 at Concordia). I was an assistant coach at Copper Hills High School for 2 years, and a speech/congress coach at The Harker School for 4 years. I am now the head of the middle school program at The Harker School, coaching all the speech and debate events.

Policy & LD:

-I'm a competent person, but don't assume I have deep topic knowledge (especially with LD topics changing so often!). Don't assume I know what an acronym means. Don't assume I already know the link chain for the generic topic args. Don't assume I know about your aff. Even if I already do know about all of the things already, I think good debate requires painting the picture every time instead of just jumping to the end.

-Speed: Slow down and be clear on your analytics!!!!!! It seems like judges are just flowing off of docs, which is incentivizing people to spread theory/t/framework to get through more, but I am not that judge. I haven't judged a debate yet where I felt someone went too fast in the cards for me to keep up and follow. It's the keeping that same speed throughout all your analytics + lack of clarity and emphasis on the things you think are important that becomes the problem.

-I think signposting is so important! I'd much prefer a speech that says things like "on the circumvention debate" "on the link debate" "they say x we say y" than speeches that read as one big essay/overview. I'll still flow it, but the chances I miss a little thing that you decide to blow up later go up when your signposting is poor.

-While I've coached and judged LD, I never did it so some of the quirks are still foreign. I've heard the word tricks, but don't know what that is. The brief explanations I've received have me skeptical, but I'll listen to any arg with warrants and an impact.

-Theory: I have a high threshold for theory. I'm fine with debates about debate, but I don't know if I've ever seen a theory speech that goes in depth enough to do that well. If your theory shell was a full and cohesive argument in the constructive (i.e. the violation was specific and clear + the impact was specific and clear) and it's conceded entirely I'll vote for it. If it's like a one sentence just incase thing in the constructive, I probably don't think it was a full argument so even if they conceded it I might not buy it. Condo will be hard to win. If they are really reading *that* many off case, those arguments are probably very underdeveloped and some could even be answered by a few reasonable analytics. Do not read disclosure theory in front of me if it's the first debate on a new topic. The theory I'm most likely to be persuaded by is perf con.

-Framework: I'll happily vote for framework. Be specific about what ground you've lost and why it matters. Education > Fairness impacts. Affs need to prove their reps are desirable before weighing extinction against Ks.

-Ks: Make sure your link is specific to the aff. Be specific about how and what your alt solves. If it's an epistemology alt that's fine, but I need you to do thorough explanation of why that's the preferable way to debate and a sufficient enough reason to get my ballot. Don't assume I have a background in your specific K.

-Disads: Got a soft spot for a good politics disad. I'd prefer to watch a debate with core topic disads and a strong link than a new disad that might have a weaker link. Will still vote on it if they don't have answers, but I prefer watching a debate with clash. Don't assume I have background on your disads. Explain the story clearly.

Public Forum:

-Y'all should just start sending all of your evidence. It's a waste of my time and yours to wait for evidence to be called to slowly send over things card by card. It will also hold everyone to higher evidence standards if the community starts evidence sharing and debates will get better.

-I know there is some division on this, but I do think the first rebuttal speech should still talk about their case. It's good to start filtering the debate through your impacts right away.

Congress:

Honestly, y'all don't need paradigms. This is a speech event and if you're thinking of it as a debate event you should reorient your strategy. That said, I know people want to read paradigms anyways so... I really value rebuttals. Constructives can do well in front of me, but if you give more than one speech in a round and both are constructives I'll feel like that's because you don't know how to be off script. Remember you are in a room with a bunch of other students... it's hard for your judges to remember all of you. Be an active participant in questioning and the house to help yourself stand out. Cheesy, but I think of the round in terms of who I would want to be my representative. Not necessarily because they agree with all the things I already think, but because they are actively engaged in questioning, are good at responding to opposing arguments, and have a nice balance between pathos and logos. Greatest speeches might not get my 1 if they are disengaged from every other part of the round.

IE Performances

Performance material should be literature that is compelling and unique. It should be evident that the story fits the performer. Organization of structure and character arc should be evident. Multiple characters are a plus for me but the most important aspect is that the character/s you create are believable. Strong choices but nothing for mere shock value. (Do not prefer cursing, cuss words...but will overlook if proven appropriate for the piece) Time should be used well. As an audience member you should be respectful and appropriate when watching other competitors- just as important. New material is a plus. Motivated blocking. Clean transitions, variation in tone and pacing. Clear articulation.

Speech Events: IX, DX, INFO, OO

Debate

Hello!

My name's Jake Zartman and I'm the Assistant Debate and Extemp Coach for Louisville HS in Ohio. I competed in Congressional Debate (and USX) from 2012 to 2016. Most of my experience comes from the Ohio circuit, though I had the chance to compete on the national circuit a number of times throughout those years. My pronouns are he/him/his.

World Schools, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, etc.:

I’m far from the most experienced tech judge in the world. Aside from a few rounds of Public Forum in high school and my having watched like a hundred rounds of Policy, my knowledge is reasonably limited.

That being said - I do understand argumentation, warranting, and impact analysis. A novel, well supported line of argumentation will always hold sway with me. I may not have hundreds of hours of experience line-by-line debating, but I know a weak argument when I hear one.

I am also well-versed enough to tell when debaters are acting in bad faith or debating abusively. So, for your sake and for the sake of the round itself, please debate fairly and respect your opponent at all times. Abusive or uncivil behavior is the only guaranteed way to lose my ballot.

***LD SPECIFIC***: Though I'm likely to favor the contention-level debate because of my background, I am also happy to vote on framework as necessary. I'm fairly comfortable with progressive debate, generally speaking, as long as you're willing to engage in good faith with an opponent running a more traditional case. Spread at your own risk, and only if your opponent is comfortable with it! (And if you can signpost clearly!)

WORLD SCHOOLS SPECIFIC: I will follow NSDA procedure and established WS norms to the absolute best of my ability. I expect to see clash, good argumentation, and human-centered impacts, but above all I expect you to debate your opponents fairly. If you can meet them at their highest ground and articulately present your case, I will ultimately vote for the team that most completely and persuasively argues their side. Also, I coach Extemp and so do appreciate extemporaneous speaking!

Congressional Debate

My overarching philosophy is pretty simple: Be an advocate. As a mock representative or senator, it's your job to be an advocate - for your constituents, for your communities, for the things you believe in. Each time you take the floor should be purposeful, instilled with a sense of passion and purpose.

There are three main ways to be a good advocate in a round.

The first is to engage your audience, competitors and judges alike, through effective presentation that is both clear and rhetorically sound. You can't bring attention to an issue or demand better for your constituents if no one wants to listen.

The second is to be unique in how you go about making your case. If I've heard the same points rehashed over and over again, I'm naturally going to assume that while it is important, your non debate-progressing information probably isn't. Novel argumentation wins!

The third and arguably most important way to be a good advocate is to put people first. Impacts are just as important in Congressional Debate rounds as in any other, possibly even more so because the role forces you to consider how the legislation will affect the people represent. That frame, that every action can be measured by how it affects the imaginary citizens of your districts, can be a powerful tool in a round - so use it! A bill might cause economic damage, it might help the environment, but those impacts mean nothing without considering how those changes will alter the lives of real people. Law isn’t written in a vacuum!

Hopefully this is at least somewhat illuminating, and good luck!

Email: jake.zartman@lepapps.org