As a judge, I am personally very big on delivery and the style in which the presentation is done. I am a strong believer that a passionate, engaging form of delivery is crucial for any successful speech. I like to see active participation and I also like when competitors avoid direct-reading like the plague!
I’ve been judging both speech and congress for over 5 years and can say that the experience has been great!

I am a first year judge. I debated in high school and am currently a senior in college. Good debate, in my opinion, involves a thorough understanding of the opposition--no straw man arguments!

I am a parent of a congressional debater. When judging, i look for clarity in your arguments backed by strong evidence and sources. Delivery is important to me, hand gestures, eye contact, and strong arguments all go hand in hand. Good luck everyone.

My Email: isaacappelbaum404@gmail.com

Origin Story:

Hi! I'm Isaac. I am a rising sophomore at George Washington University in D.C. and I competed in Congressional Debate for four years as a student at Pennsbury High School in Pennsylvania. I competed extensively on the national circuit, obtaining 11 bids to the TOC and I was lucky enough to place/final at tournaments like Harvard, Princeton, Sunvite, Blue Key, Emory, Durham, UPenn, and Villiger.

Now that I've given some of my background as a competitor I can discuss what that means in terms of what I like to see as a judge. In my opinion, this can best be summarized like this;

Congress:

stick to 2 points

don't speak too fast

try to get to 2:50-3 minutes

arguments flow in linear way and flow broad to narrow with a terminalized impact (human beings should be your impact)

use refutation after 1st cycle

I like well developed arguments

Stick to legislation what does the legislation do

LD:

Don't spread

cite good sources

present links clearly

PF:

Don’t spread

use good sources

arguments flow in linear fashion

give me a human reason to vote for your side

no theory please

For Congressional Debate, my primary focus is on logical arguments that are well-constructed with quality evidence to support your claims. I appreciate rhetoric and impacts, but I will discount scores if these replace analysis and evidence. Refutations are essential to a strong score but require more than just a claim – give me the analysis and back it up with evidence.

I highly respect constitutional arguments and discount for affirmations of an unconstitutional bill.

It is essential to me that competitors remain in the role of a congressperson, showing respect to the chamber and following proper parliamentary procedure. I encourage everyone to remember to address their colleagues with the proper honorarium (Representative/Senator) at all times, and to avoid using Mr./Ms. personal titles as they both assume gender identity and may be considered dismissive at times.

I respect competitors who are active in the chamber and strongly disagree with the trend of some competitors to press for a base-2 model. Finally, while our U.S. congresspeople may lack persuasive speaking skills, I highly value presentation skills in congressional debate.

As a parliamentarian, I value a presiding officer who is, of course, familiar with both Roberts Rules and the rules set forth by the tournament. However, I do not mind if the PO asks questions to confirm procedures or tournament preferences. The PO should always strive to run a fast and fair chamber to allow everyone opportunities to speak. I prefer to remain as quiet as possible giving the PO the control of the chamber. I will intervene only if the PO makes an incorrect ruling that will impact the results of the session, makes an error in precedence/recency (though I will certainly give the chamber a chance to catch this first), or to insure fairness to everyone in the chamber. I encourage the PO to take charge of the chamber, to rule motions dilatory when appropriate, and to remind the congresspeople of proper procedures when needed. However, I do believe these corrections can be done with respect and kindness.

Though I strive to allow the chamber to function without my input, I will step in if I suspect there is bullying in play, or if I sense discrimination within the chamber, either intentional or unintentional.

Congress

4 years of debate at Bronx Science. Every good rap reference gets you up a rank (but it’s gotta be good).

PF/POLICY

If you call me “my lord/liege” or “your royal majesty” I’ll give you an extra speaker point. Bonus points if you can throw in a kanye reference.

ask me any questions you have before the round

My judging philosophy is that of any good judge. It's about analyzing the argumentation and tools of persuasion whilst removing initial biases. In argumentation, I'm looking particularly for a coherent train of thought, and connecting individual points to the overall argument. This means explaining what you intend to prove, and then in a clear manner go about doing so. It also means looking for flow of argumentation. One’s points need to connect and relate to each other through the different rounds. In tools of persuasion, I find a diverse skill set most compelling. This could be backing up your argument with empirical data, invoking an emotional appeal, or simply building credibility. These different tools should be woven into the overall argument, so that one’s argumentation is effective and precise. In terms of removing initial biases, I never intend on benefiting the side assigned the belief I originally believed to be accurate. However, should I have prior knowledge of the subject, I may apply it in a responsible manner without participating in the actual debate.

This is not a total lay round, but I am definitely on the less experienced side of the judging spectrum. I can follow fast paced arguments, but I am not a huge fan of spreading. I also have a harder time following Kritiks and sometimes theory arguments. If you approach the debate this way, you're going to have to explain things clearly to me, because I will not be able to figure out your argument for you. Otherwise, I am pretty flexible and can likely follow your argument competently.

speech and debate coach at wichita southeast

ad astra debate 

please add me to the email chain: kaylab222@gmail.com

how to win my ballot:

I am a big fan of teams that engage in clash and warranted analysis. Nothing annoys me more is when teams merely extend claims, and do not go in depth as to why that claim is true and what impact it has in this round. I also am a big fan of when teams do big picture analysis, especially in the rebuttals. Framing the debate and telling me which arguments to evaluate helps make my decision a lot easier. I am mainly policy centric (with minimal k background) so please don't assume that I know all the in's and out's of your k. You can read a k in front of me, but please give some additional analysis as to how the k operates and functions (I have pretty good background knowledge about cap, security, and fem so I don't need as much explanation as to how it functions). I also reward teams that I can tell are having fun in round. Make jokes, read arguments you enjoy, and be nice to your opponents and judges. Debate is a fun activity. Last thing is in an online environment please slow down a tad. You can still spread, but don't go as fast as you would in round, especially on analytics that are not typed in the doc. Below is just a more detailed analysis as to how I evaluate certain arguments, but feel free to email me or ask me questions before the round about any of this information.

T

I think T debates are often underutilized in policy debates; it can be a strategic off case argument if executed properly. I usually default to competing interps; however, I am willing to vote on reasonability. Other things I like to see in T debates is, case lists, tva's, in-round abuse, etc. If you are wanting me to vote on T it has to be the entire 2NR.

da’s

they are cool, but they must have a comprehensive story. I am more willing to vote on a specific link rather than a generic one. A good way to win this flow is to have a clear story and provide examples as to how the disad interacts with the case. Also, impact calc is important, esp in the 2NR.

cp's

I'm fine with almost every type of CP (not a fan of plan plus CP's), and I'm open to listen to any theory argument you may have on why that CP is a bad model of debate. If you don't have a clear net ben, I probably won't vote for the CP. I would also prefer if your planks had some sort of a solvency advocate.

k’s

I have run kritiks in the past, however I am not that familiar with a large majority of K lit. I am most comfortable with K’s such as cap/neolib and security, please don’t assume I know all of the mechanics of your K because I probably don’t. Feel free to read your K in front of me; however, there needs to be extensive analysis as to how the alt solves and how the aff links. Alt solvency in my mind is one of the most important components of the K. Blippy extensions of Alt don’t fly for me. Framework is important to a good K debate. And just like a da there needs to be a clear story that stays consistent throughout the round.

theory

condo is almost always good, unless you can justify in-round abuse.

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 debate parent and first year judge.

RESPECTFUL discourse during rounds is expected.

For LD rounds: Prefer to have the LD elements (Values, Criterion, Contentions, etc.) organized and clearly stated in the round.

For all events: Spreading is HIGHLY frowned upon. Concept cluster-bombing as fast as you can is a skill, but not an effective one for debate. Present the case well and decisions related to the resolution will be definitive, please do not continually state how I should vote. Make sure you practice your timing - speed is only good if you speak clearly and persuasively. If you have to take a deep breath after every sentence, you are most likely speaking too fast.

Please keep off time road maps to a minimum. If constructive and evidence is on the computer - make sure you have it in a font that you can actually refer to and present effectively.

HAVE FUN!

I have coached and judged public forum debate for over 10 years. I teach high school history, including various AP courses, and I have master's degrees in History and Education Administration. That being said, I am well versed in most topics. I can handle speed, but prioritize clarity, especially when it comes to speaker points.

The style of argumentation I teach in my classroom focuses on the Toulmin Model of Argumentation. Claims/contentions should be supported by grounds and evidence. Warrants should be used to validate evidence and impacts should be used to weigh arguments. I am not opposed to other styles of organization, that is just what I teach in my classroom.

Courtesy to your opponents is highly appreciated. Make sure you do not contradict yourself or your partner. Rebuttals should attack all your opponents' contentions and framework, addressing flaws in their logic and outweighing their evidence.

Off time roadmaps are acceptable as long as they are brief and succinct. A well organized rebuttal that attacks your opponent's arguments in order shows your skills as a debater.

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'm a parent judge and have been judging over the last 2 years. I have judged district level, regional and national level events. I judge both public forum and Congress.I will flow and am comfortable if you spread to an extent. Main considerations :

1. I don't mind if you sit or stand, I want you to be comfortable and enjoy the debate

2. I don't care if a coach, teammate, or family member observes the round, as long as other teams have no objections.

3. Tech over truth

4. I try to minimize intervening (unless necessary) and will not ask for evidences(even if you cite 'The Onion'). It is opposing teams job to do so.

5. You can assume that i have good understanding about the topic (not because i am super smart, but because my daughter debates :-)) but i try to be free of any prejudices about the topic and will let the opposing team verify any evidences.

6. Very important that you treat your opponents with respect! I dont mind people who are assertive or have voice modulation, but any kind of dis-respect towards opponents and it will likely affect your speak points and outcome.

As someone who has competed in numerous public speaking events, most notably Congressional Debate, I typically favor those competitors who have a solid grasp on their style, have comprehensive research, fluidly weave in refutations throughout their speeches, and have a mature understanding of the topic at hand.

I usually mark down competitors who forgo using rhetoric as a means of persuasion; however, I also think that impact-based speeches lack substance. It's imperative to find a middle ground between the two in order to craft an effective speech.

As a parliamentarian, I want to see the chamber run fairly and efficiently by the Presiding Officer. The chamber should consistently maintain decorum and be active. I highly discourage one-sided debate especially at tournaments that allow internet access.

Most importantly, I enjoy hearing speakers who are passionate and are having fun:)

I primarily judge Congress. I am impressed by participants who treat rounds like actual debates on the floor of Congress. That means your speech should take into account arguments that were made before and make reference to what other Representatives/Senators said. If you're going to repeat an argument, you should at least say, "As Representative X said previously..." before making the argument. My number one pet peeve is asking long questions during Cross-Ex that take up most of the time allotted for the speaker to respond. I grade harshly for this behavior. I also downgrade for leading "questions" that are really statements posed in question form. Cross-Ex is supposed to be for asking tough questions and giving the speaker a chance to respond. Other than that, I look for good arguments, persuasively delivered, and backed by evidence. Good luck!

My name is WK (they/them).

I have 10 years of competitive and coaching experience. 3 years of mediocrity in novice/JV PF 2012-2015, and then as a senior in 2015-2016 I got 1 bid (Penn), 2nd at NY States, and Semis at NCFLs in Congress. Did 2 years of Parli in college to minimal competitive success, but did attend 2018 WUDC. I have coached pretty much all events since graduating HS in 2016, and have been a teacher since graduating college in 2020. In my current position, I teach debate full time to grades 5-12. I am also pursuing an MA in political science.

I mostly judge PF and Congress these days, so extensive paradigms follow for those two events, respectively. If anything below, for either event, doesn't make sense, ask me before the round! We are all here to learn and grow together.

PUBLIC FORUM

Yes, please put me on the email chain (wkay@berkeleycarroll.org)

Speed: speed is mostly fine but if I signal to slow down (either a hand wave or a verbal “clear”) then slow down. 2 signals and then I stop flowing. Share speech docs if you’re worried about how speedy you are (again, wkay@berkeleycarroll.org).

Evidence: I know what cards are really garbage and/or dishonest since I am coaching every topic and judging most of the time (Example: Don't read O'Toole in the HSR topic, or Chinese state media about BRI). That said, I am as non-interventionist as possible. I am pretty straightforward and flow centric: if you say it, it’s on my flow, if you don’t say it, it doesn’t exist in the world of the debate. I will stop writing at the time limit of the speech, you will see me put my pen down and you should know to stop, in addition to the fact of your and, likely, your opponents' timers going off. Author or Publication and Date is sufficient in speeches (and is the bare minimum by NSDA rules), and just author and/or publication after the first mention (and year if the author/publication is a repeat). If your evidence sounds sus, I will make note of that, but won't drop you unless it's challenged. It will probably hurt your speaks, though. I expect honesty and integrity in rounds. Evidence ethics in PF is really really messy right now, so I'll appreciate well-cited cases (but cards are not the same as warrants. You should know that, but still).

Framework debate: Try your best to engage with the other side’s framework, as that to me is fundamental to any debate and I have decided many rounds on it: it frames the round for a reason. Don’t just say it because it’s traditional/you’re expected to and then not engage with it or believe in it. If both teams present framework, you have to tell me why to prefer yours; if you do and they don't extend it, and that can help me clarify voters later. If both sides read FW but then no one extends/interacts, I'm just not gonna consider it in my RFD. If you read framework, I better hear how your impacts specifically link to it; that should happen in case, but if you need to clean up your mess later that's possible. If you can win your case and link into your opponent's FW and then weigh, you've got a pretty good shot of picking up my ballot.

Rebuttals: Frontlining needs to happen in rebuttals. IMO Second Rebuttal is the hardest speech in a PF round, and so I need you to leave yourself time to frontline or else they're gonna kill you in Summary (or at least they should, and I probably won't look favorably upon lots of unresponded to ink on the flow coming out of Rebuttals). Defense in rebuttal isn't sticky. I'm also a fan of concessions/self kick-outs when done well, but use the extra time to start weighing early on top of dumping responses/frontlines on whatever you are covering. That said, you'll probably get higher speaks if you do all the things on all the points.

Summary: defense in rebuttal isn't sticky, extend it if you want me to adjudicate based off of it. I like when summaries give me a good notion of the voting issues in the round, ideally with a clear collapse on one or two key points of clash. If you can sufficiently tell me what the voting issues are and how you won them, you have a real strong chance of winning the round. In so doing, you should be weighing against your opponent’s voting issues/best case (see above) and extending frontlining if you can (hence why it has to happen). If I have to figure out what the voting issues are and, in cases where teams present different voting issues, weigh each side's against the other's, I may have to intervene more in interpreting what the round was about rather than you defining what the round was about, which I don't want to do. Weigh for me, my intervening is bad. Comparative weighing, please. In both backhalf speeches, I want really good and clear analytics on top of techy structure and cards.

Final Focus: reminder that defense isn't sticky so extend as much as you can when you need to. Final should then respond to anything new in summary and then write my ballot for me based on the voters/collapses in Summary. I am going to ignore any new arguments in your Final Focus. You know what you should be doing in that speech: a solid crystallization of the round with deference to clearing up my ballot. Final Focuses have won rounds before, don't look at it like a throwaway.

Signposting/Flow: I can flow 250-300 WPM if you want me to, but for the love of all things holy, sign post, like slow down for the tag even. I write as much as I can hear, and am adept at flowing, and I'll even look at the speech doc if you send it (and you probably should as a principle if you're speaking this quickly), but you should make my life as easy as possible so I can spend more time thinking about your arguments. Always make your judges' lives as easy as you can.

Speaker points: unless tab gives me a specific set of criteria to follow, I generally follow the traditional “30 means I think you’re the platonic ideal of the debater, 29 means you are one of the best debaters I have seen, etc…” In novice/JV rounds, this is a bit less true: I generally give speaks based on the round’s quality in the context of the level at which you’re competing. If you are an insolent jerk, I will drop your speaks no matter how good you are. Insolence runs the gamut from personal put-downs of your opponent(s) to outright bigotry. If I am ever allowed to do so again, I have no issue with low point wins. Sus-sounding evidence will also drop your speaks.

T/Theory/K/Prog: This is a paradigm that I have rewritten at the start of the 2022 season (and have updated regularly since) after seeing some of the most egregious judging of my life at a regional tournament, where ostensible preferences for lay debate were used as an excuse for blatant judge intervention and dog whistling of problematic worldviews. Given this, I have recently become way more open to T/Theory/K/Prog. Let me be specific: if you can run any T/theory/prog/Ks that sufficiently criticizes competitive debate as an institution (fem K, tournament K, team K, SV, etc.), I am more open to it than I am to other T/Theory/K/Prog (as long as you read/provide real warrants and not just pre-written docs you don't understand from camp/your expensive private coach). Additionally, I think paraphrasing is bad for debate and am also very open to paraphrasing theory, but be specific when reading the violation: if you don't prove there was a violation (or worse, there isn't really one at all and the other side gets up and tells me that, as happened in a round I judged in 2023), then I can't vote for you on theory no matter how good of a shell you read. On a different note, if you read any theory that has anything to do with discourse, my threshold for voting against you drops a lot at the point at which your opponent says anything close to "running theory isn't good for discourse." These are the kinds of theory I am most open to/familiar with in either direction, though I can adjudicate other kinds decently enough. All that said, I am simply not as adept at adjudicating T/Theory/K/Prog as I am substance. If you care enough/run enough T/Theory/K/Prog to read this much about it in my paradigm, you'll probably think I'm not tech-y enough of judge in a T/Theory/K/Prog round for you. If you're not sure about what I might think about the theory you wanna run, feel free to ask me before round. In short, as long as the theory/K is executed well, meaning you actually link in and your impacts are very very well warranted, you should be fine. Prog is not an excuse to be blippy.

Equity: Though it should go without saying, I will make myself clear: I have a zero tolerance policy for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and all other forms of bigotry, prejudice, hatred, and intolerance. You are smart enough to find impacts for the most esoteric and outlandish of arguments, I am certain you are aware of the impact of your words and actions on other people. Simply put: respect each other. We are all here to learn and grow together.

If you have any questions that haven't been answered here, feel free to ask them before the start of the round.

Have fun, learn something, and respect one another. Good luck, and I look forward to your round!

CONGRESS

A PRIORI: I WILL BUMP YOU UP AT LEAST ONE FULL RANK IF YOU DO NOT READ OFF OF A FULLY PRE-WRITTEN SPEECH

I am a bit old school insofar as I believe Congress is very much a hybrid between speech and debate events: of course I want the good arguments, but you should sound and act like a member of Congress. The performative element of the event matters very much to me. Be respectful of everyone in the room and be sure that your arguments are not predicated on the derogation or belittlement of others (see the last paragraph of this paradigm for more on respect and its impact on my judging).

Your speeches are obviously most important, assuming you're not POing. I'm looking for solid and logical warranting (cards are important but not a replacement for warranting, especially in a more rhetorically oriented event like Congress), unique impacts (especially to specific constituencies) and strong rhetoric. Your argumentation should leave no big gaps in the link chains, and should follow a clear structure. Arguments that are interdependent obviously need that linkage to be strong. Obviously, avoid rehash. Good extensions, meaning those that introduce meaningully new evidence/context or novel impacts, are some of my favorite speeches to hear. I also value a real strong crystal more than a lot of judges, so if you're good at it, do it.

I also give great weight to your legislative engagement. Ask questions, make motions, call points of order when appropriate. If you're good at this, I will remember it in your ranking. The same goes if you're not good at it. I have no bright-line for the right/wrong amount of this: engage appropriately and correctly and it will serve you well. Sitting there with your hands folded the entire session when you're not giving a speech will hurt you.

I highly value the role of the PO, which is to say that a great PO can and will get my 1. A great PO makes no procedural errors, provides coherent and correct explanations when wrongly challenged, runs a quick-moving and efficient chamber, and displays a command of decorum and proper etiquette. Short of greatness, any PO who falls anywhere on the spectrum of good to adequate will get a rank from me, commensurate with the quality of their performance. Like any other Congressperson, you will receive a detailed explanation for why you were ranked where you were based on your performance. While you may not get the 1 if you are perfect but also frequently turning to the Parli to confirm your decisions, I would rather you check in than get it wrong and be corrected; you'll still get ranked, but perhaps not as highly. The only way I do not rank a PO is if they make repeated, frequent mistakes in procedure: calling on the wrong speaker when recency is established, demonstrating a lack of procedural knowledge and/or lack of decorum, et cetera.

My standards are the same when I Parli as when i judge, the only difference being I will be comparing POs and speakers across the day, so POing one session does not guarantee a rank on my Parli sheet, since it is an evaluation of your performance across all sessions of the tournament. When I am Parli, I keep the tournament guidelines on me at all times, in case there are any regional/league-based disparities in our expectations of procedure/rules.

Above all else, everyone should respect one another. If you are an insolent jerk, I will not rank you no matter how good you are. Insolence runs the gamut from personal put-downs of your fellow Congressmembers to outright bigotry. Though it should go without saying, I will make myself clear: I have a zero tolerance policy for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and all other forms of bigotry, prejudice, hatred, and intolerance. You are smart enough to find impacts for the most esoteric and outlandish of policy decisions and their related arguments, so I am certain you are aware of the impact of your words and actions on other people. Simply put: respect each other. We are all here to learn and grow together.

Have fun, learn something, and respect one another. Good luck, and I look forward to your round!

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!

A former coach of mine, Chase Williams, has developed a paradigm that he uses that I have always used for PF as well. It is as follows:

Paradigm

You can ask me specific questions if you have them...but my paradigm is pretty simple - answer these three questions in the round - and answer them better than your opponent, and you're going to win my ballot:

1. Where am I voting?

2. How can I vote for you there?

3. Why am I voting there and not somewhere else?

I'm not going to do work for you. Don't try to go for everything. Make sure you weigh. Both sides are going to be winning some sort of argument - you're going to need to tell me why what you're winning is more important and enough to win my ballot.

If you are racist, homophobic, nativist, sexist, or pretty much any version of "ist" in the round - I will drop you. There's no place for any of that in debate.

I won't vote for theory. Don't try it - it has no place in PF. Also, I am skeptical of critical arguments. If they link to the resolution, I'll listen - but I don't think pre-fiat is something that belongs in PF. If you plan on running arguments like that, it might be worth asking me more about my belief first - or striking me.

Be simple, understandable and make legitimate arguments please. Don't be rude to each other either, it is not a fight. I like good arguments and good rebuttals so use time wisely.

Updated for Fall 2019.- Yes, include me on any email chain. jessemeyer@gmail.com

I am currently an assistant PF debate coach at Iowa City West HS. I am also under contract by the NSDA to produce topic analysis packets and advanced briefs for LD, PF, and Biq Questions. I am also an instructor with Global Academy Commons, an organization that has partnered with NSDA China to bring speech and debate education, public speaking, and topic prep to students in East Asia. In my free time, I play Magic: The Gathering and tab debate tournaments freelance. I am the recipient of the Donald Crabtree Service Award, 2 diamond coach (pending April 2020), and was the state of Iowa's Coach of the Year in 2015.

I say all of this not to impress people. I'm way too old to care about that. I say this to point out one thing: I've dedicated my life to speech and debate. Since I was 14, this activity was a place where I could go to find people that cared about the same things as me and who were like me. No matter how bad of a day I was having, I could go to practice and everything would be ok. This is what debate is to me, and this is what I have worked towards since I became a coach. So it upsets and angers me when I see people that try to win debate rounds by making the world a worst place for others. There is a difference between being competitive and being a jerk. I've had to sit with students who were in tears because they were mistreated because they were women, I've had people quit the team because they were harassed because of their religion, and I've had to ask competitors to not use racial slurs in round. And to be honest, I am tired of it. So if your All Star Tournament Champion strategy revolves around how unconformable you can make your opponent, strike me.

With that being stated, here is how I view arguments.

In LD, I prefer a value and criterion, even if you are going non traditional in your case structure. I don't care if you are traditional, progressive, critical, or performative. I've judges and coached all types and I've voted for all types too. What I care about more is the topic hook you use to get your arguments to the relationship of the topic. If I can't find a clear link, if one isn't established, or if you can't articulate one, I'm going to have a really hard time voting for you.

I weight impacts. This is a holdover from my old college policy days. Clearly extend impacts and weight them. I view the value and criterion as lens for which I prioritize types of impacts. Just winning a value isn't enough to wind the round if you don't have anything that impacts back to it.

If you run a CP, the aff should perm. Perms are tests of competition. Most will still link to the DA so the neg should make that arg. The more unique the CP, the better. CP's should solve at least some impacts of the aff.

If you run a K, throwing around buzz words like "discourse, praxis, holistic, traversing X, or anything specific to the K" without explaining what those mean in the round will lower your speaker points. To me, you are just reading what the cards you found in the policy backfile said. Also, finding unique links to more generic K's, like cap or biopower, will be beneficial in how I view the round. But also note that on some topics, the K you love just might not work. Don't try to force it. A good aff needs to perm. Perm's on K debates tend to solve their offense. I do not like links of omission.

Case debate- Love it.

Theory- Do not love it. When I was in my 20's, I didn't mind theory, but now, the thought of people speed reading or even normal reading theory shells at each other makes me fear for my 50 minutes in round. If theory is justified, I will vote on it but there is a big barrier to what I count as justified. I need to see clear in round abuse. In lue of that, the potential abuse story needs to be absolutely 100% on point. This means that a theory shell that is zipped through in 10 seconds will not be getting my vote. No questions asked. Do the work because I don't do the work for you. Oh, I will not vote on disclosure theory. Disclosing probably is good but I do not require it and unless the tournament does, I don't see a reason to punish the debaters for not doing this.

Reformative arguments- I coached kids on these arguments and I've voted for them too. The thing is that because I don't see them often I have the reputation of not liking them. This creates a negative feedback loop so I never see them and so on... I'll vote for them but you need to have a topic hook and some justification or solvency mech for your performance. I will also be 100% honest because I owe it to the debaters who do this style of debate and who have put in so much time to get it right, I'm probably a midrange judge on this. At large bid tournaments there are probably judges that are better versed in the lit base who can give you more beneficial pointers.

PF Debate

Unless told otherwise, I use the pilot rules as established by the NSDA.

I hold evidence to a high standard. I love paraphrasing but if called out, you better be able to justify what you said.

If I call for a card, don't hand me a pdf that is 40 pages long. I will not look for it. I want it found for me. If you expect me to find it, I will drop the card.

I am still getting on board with pf disclosure. I am not the biggest fan as of now. I can see the educational arguments for it but it also runs counter to the basis for the event. I do not require teams to share cases before round and arguments in round as to why not sharing put you at a disadvantage won't get you ground.

I appreciate unique frameworks.

This event is not policy. I don't drop teams for speed or reading card after card after card but I will dock speaker points.

I weight impacts. But with this stipulation; I am not a fan of extinction impacts in pf. I think it goes a bit too far to the policy side of things. Use your framework to tell me how to prioritize the impacts.

Treat others with respect. I will drop people for being intentionally horrible to your opponents in round. Remember, there is a way to be competitive without being a jerk.

Should also go without saying but be nice to your partner too. Treat them as an equal. They get the W the same as you.

Policy- Honestly, I kind of used the majority of what I wanted to say in the LD section since they are so similar nowadays.

T- Love it. Won most of my college neg rounds on it. Be very clear on the interp and standards. If you go for it, only go for it. Should be the only argument in the 2NR.

I competed in Congress throughout HS. I know the event well and look for evidence-backed arguments above all else. That being said, competitors should ensure they engage in their fellow competitors' arguments and further the debate with arguments building on what has already been said. Arguments should not rehash what has already been said.

In addition to well-evidenced arguments, I want to hear why your argument matters and outweighs what has already been said. This should be clearly articulated.

Finally, I look for arguments that show a mastery understanding of the piece of legislation up for debate. These arguments are not only about the surface level topic of the legislation but show an understanding of the underlying topics that are inextricably linked as well.

Me
I am a ninth year debate teacher and coach for the nationally ranked Cypress Bay High School 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.

I have been a coach for 4 years. Debates are about persuasion and communication, not cramming the most arguments into a time span. Treat me like a lay judge...explain all of your arguments with a minimum of jargon, spell out your analyses. If I am not flowing you, I can’t judge you, so while you can speak at a relatively fast pace, please do not spread. I have the most experience with LD and PFD. For CX, I vote on stock issues. PFD Crossfire should be disciplined about asking and answering questions, not arguing back and forth. I value civility and respect in debates.

I am a judge for Chapel Hill, North Carolina. I debated in high school and I have been judging for the past two years. To begin with I can flow at an average speed, not particularly fast. Therefore anyone presenting an argument should not worry about speaking to quickly as long as they are clear and articulate about their contentions. The two most important factors for me, as with most judges in determining a winner are your evidence and impacts. First, evidence should be cited to make it clear where it derives and the validity of it. I will be skeptical of all pieces of evidence, so please make it clear where it comes from. Furthermore evidence must be made clear in how it relates to the argument, do not just throw random numbers at me. Second, please be clear in your impacts, telling me why your points matter and are more valid than the opposing points. I know that it is very basic, but impacts are going to be the meat of your argument, and thus they should reflect that with significant focus. Other than that, I am a pretty standard judge. Please just give me clear arguments and a strong debate.

With Lincoln-Douglas Debate, I am an "old school" judge. Value / Criteria are paramount in upholding moral, or non-moral, obligations within the topic. I view philosophical ground to be an important part in the round.

I do not vote on solvency. To me, solvency does not belong in L-D. I do not like progressive cases. I do not like speed; debate is effective & persuasive communication. I prefer line by line clash, though I can view a big picture.

In all debate events, especially Congress, I highly value clash. Please make sure that you are staying respectful, but that your argumentation is warrant-level rather than claim-level -- do not name drop. Please have sound structure and don't be afraid to show personality in your speeches. As per delivery, since we are now using an online format, do not read off of your computer for your whole speech. Otherwise, just adapt to the round and have a fun time.

In speech events, please make sure that you balance your content with your delivery. I am a 50/50 judge. Otherwise, have fun with your speeches and don't be afraid to drop in a joke or two.

Congress:

My experience is being a parent of a Congressional debater. My ranking system is based predominantly on content, and I will be flowing clash on both sides. That being said, I value clash significantly, and is a factor that I take into account when ranking (Don't worry if you are giving the first few speeches; I understand that clash isn't possible in the beginning). Overall participation is key, and I will be paying attention to the most detailed questions in cross-examination. Parliamentary procedure is not much of an issue for me. I couldn't care less about it, and not everyone is familiar with all procedure, so I won't rank off of it. Although I value content in the speech, I still look at the basic requirements of delivery. All I am looking for is that you enunciate and project, while remaining confident and limiting speaking speed to a normal or just above normal pace.

Just to be sure, please don't use language or actions that are disrespectful to others in the round.

Most importantly, HAVE FUN

Hi!

I debated PF all four years of high school so I am a flow judge but I value pretty speaking as well. Sneak in some clean rhetoric that'll make the speech more enjoyable and I'll award good speaks. I love listening to rhetoric lol but don't fill up your entire speech with it. (you can still get 30 speaks w/o rhetoric so dw)

I hate theories and any style of debate that extends out of the normal scope of PF, I prefer to hear a normal debate. If you read theories, Ks, or anything like that with me, I am likely to down you. I despise spreading more than anything. If I can't understand you, I can't up you. I also flow all rounds so make sure you are signposting.

Rebuttals can either be line by line or grouped - if you are grouping just say what you're grouping. Both summaries have to mention and extend cards from rebuttal if you want to use them in ff. If they are not mentioned I will not flow them and they will be dropped in ff.

Weighing and impact calc are super important. Show me why I should vote for you and explain why your impact is more important than the other team's. Give me clear voters.

also make sure to crystallize starting in summary; it'll make it easier for me to evaluate the arguments that you believe matter in the round and gives you more time to flesh out those arguments.

If you guys want to share evidence in the middle of round, set it up before round - I'll look at cards at the end of the round if you ask me to. I'll probably give oral critiques if time permits and disclose at the end of the round.

also time yourselves and time your own prep. I won't be doing any of that.

P.S. no disclosure theory plz

For Public Forum:

I will flow the round to the best of my ability, but I can't write that fast -- so if you spread, I may not catch everything.

I'm skeptical of evidence that defies common sense -- if you claim an impact of, say, 100 million deaths from something, it should be plausible and derived from a reputable source of evidence.

In summaries and final focus, I'm looking more for the forest than the trees. If you drop or don't sufficiently engage with an opponent's major argument, that'll definitely be a voting issue -- but in general, I'd rather hear you offer a compelling overall framework into which you fit the major points of contention in the round than a rapid-fire list of points that lack prioritization or context.

For Congressional debate:

I'm a fan of both rhetorical competence and common-sense arguments -- a unique or unusual argument is great, but only to the extent that it's also plausible/reasonable (although I might make an exception for an implausible argument that's delivered with sufficient rhetorical verve).

The longer the round goes on, the more heavily I'll weight direct engagement with the major arguments of prior speakers on *both* sides of the topic (don't neglect your own side's best arguments even if they didn't originate with you).

My default is to be generous in ranking P.O.'s who do the job well.

For Lincoln-Douglas:

I did a lot of L-D debate (and some policy) in the 1980's - but modern L-D bears very little resemblance to the 1980's version, and in the handful of rounds I've watched since 2016, I'm frequently bewildered by what's going on.

If you have the misfortune of drawing me as an L-D judge, please do not spread, as I not only can't flow it, I find it emotionally unsettling to witness.

That said, I'm willing to entertain almost any variety of argument, as long as you can explain it to me like you'd explain it to your grandparent.

I competed for 4 years in Congress for Newton South HS in Newton, MA, graduating in 2018. I also competed in Extemp, Public Forum, and World Schools at different times.

Worlds Schools Paradigm (Specific to 2020 Nationals)

I only competed in Worlds a couple times, and I mostly forget what it's like. I have far more experience with Parli, particularly APDA format, and I'm probably going to judge the rounds similar to how I judge APDA. This means that I am going to flow the round, decide who wins, and figure out speaker points accordingly after.

Worlds is supposed to be about "big ideas," while other forms of debate are about "winning on the flow." The judge guide tells me that it's okay for me to not "vote on arguments [I] think are poorly explained/justified or wildly implausible even if the other team doesn’t explicitly respond to them."

I remember a lot of frustration with judge inconsistency when I competed at 2018 Nationals, so I want to try to be somewhat clear how I view the WSD method of judging not directly off the flow. I will try my best to vote off of "big ideas" as opposed to dropped minor arguments, but it would take an extreme circumstance for me to intervene in the round and reject a main argument. For example, I will not heavily weigh an argument because Opp didn't respond to 1 Prop warrant in the opening speech that was dropped throughout the round, if Opp adequately engaged with the argument holistically. That being said, I can't imagine a (not offensive) contention that I would drop off the flow if a team was winning it, because I thought it was poorly warranted/explained/justified.

Things you SHOULD do in WSD:

--Above all else: WEIGH in the 4th speech (and throughout the round). Highly unlikely that I would vote off any argument not clearly weighed in the 4th speech. I am a pragmatic leaning guy - you want me to vote off of a principle argument, you need to explain and weigh it well in the context of the round.

--Signposting: tell me where to flow things.

--Extending major arguments through the round. Any constructive argument that you want me to vote off of to be substantively discussed (and weighed) in all 3 speeches (or 2nd and 3rd if you introduce it in the second speech). If the other team totally drops your argument just mention it again and you can weigh it. What I will NOT vote off of is if you go for two random bad warrants from your first speech that no one addresses throughout the round (because this is worlds, not parli).

--Model: Gov should give me a clear model that's both reasonable and strategic, and include clear burdens, and should be prepared to defend their model; Opp should contest the model if need be.

Things you should NOT to do in WSD:

--Off time road maps. If it's so important, use your time for it.

--Do not try to distract the other team's speaker by rising for a million POIs. I remember this from when I competed and it sucked. Also, I probably won't flow your POI, only the response from the speaker to it, so if you bring something up in a POI you need to mention it in your speech. Also there is no need for you use a POI to just remind me of the main argument in your speech because I flowed it.

--Don't be a terrible person: racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic etc

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Congress Paradigm

I'm looking for legislators who will advance debate. This means (generally in order of importance):

ABOVE ALL ELSE:

--Know your place in the round! Early speeches should focus on constructive arguments, mid-round speeches should focus on refutation and extending arguments, and late round speeches should crystalize and weigh the debate. Do not give me a 2 point constructive in the 8th cycle. Even though I ask for clash below, don’t be afraid of speaking early - I expect less clash and I understand the important role you’re playing in the debate. This is very important and something I've found the majority of competitors are not doing in prelims at nationals. If you don't reference other speakers' arguments in the 3th cycle or later, you are almost certainly not going to be ranked.

EVERYTHING ELSE IMPORTANT:

--Clash! Starting with the first negative, every speech should be refuting and building off of previous speeches. If you don't reference other speakers sometime after the third cycle, you will almost certainly not be ranked. It's not enough to contradict someone, say their name, and then say you're right. I need you to briefly explain the aspect of the argument, and then explain why it's wrong (actually clash).

-- Interpret the bill correctly: Way too many kids debate the bill based on the title, not the text of the bill (which is written incorrectly by the author), or misconstrue the bill to make it easier to debate. Often times everyone in the room accepts the misreading because it makes the debate easier. Don't do this! If you think people are reading the bill incorrectly, point this out! I'm talking blatant mischaracterizations - obviously, there are some cases where the bill is vague and you can and should make arguments as to why your interpretation is correct.

--Clear Warrants! You need to explain the link chain behind your evidence/argument and why it's true. This advances debate because it makes it easier for other legislators to engage with your arguments, which helps you. The best debaters can simplify complex arguments and explain them powerfully, clearly, and concisely.

--Impacts! Be detailed. Explain to me how the U.S. will be better if we vote on your side of the debate. Ideally quantified (dependent on bill topic). Over the top rhetoric is wasting your time, not a substitute for logic and evidence.

--Evidence! Your evidence should actually support your argument, not tangentially related prep from a bill you debated last year.

Other Things:

--Speaking Speed:

For normal in person, I'm fine with very fast speaking, provided that: 1) You enunciate well and are understandable. 2) Speed isn't your way of getting around having bad word economy. 3) You don't start yelling whenever you speed up. On Zoom, speak slowly.

--Sponsorships: I rank sponsorships very highly if they're actually a sponsorship style speech (ie. background information to introduce bill, explain problem, how bill solves, impacts), and I'll have lower expectations if no one wants to give it. I will not rank a typical affirmative constructive highly even if no one else volunteered to give it.

--Presiding: I presided a lot during my career — I'll rank you very very highly if you do a good job but I also know when you mess up.

--Ask Questions! Not gonna lie I'm usually focusing on writing speech feedback during questioning, so with indirect questioning, I care more about how the speaker answers than how you questioner asks, but I'll notice over time who is asking good questions and staying engaged.

--Decorum: Call out the PO if they mess up, but be nice about it. The PO is doing his/her best and I likely already noticed the error. Sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. comments to legislators or arguments in round will not be tolerated.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PF Paradigm

Assume that I am up to date on widely-covered current events, but know nothing specific about the resolution.

Evidence isn't enough - explain it and give clear warrants. I'd rather a lot of good logical warranting than a card you don't explain well.

I don't care if you respond to first rebuttal in second rebuttal or if you do it in summary - just whenever you do it, signpost it clearly.

WEIGH!! - Summary and focus need weighing. Write my RFD. If no one weighs I will be very unhappy. Good weighing wins rounds and bad weighing usually beats no weighing.

Speed - fine with however fast you want as long as you enunciate and signpost.

Cross examination - don't be afraid to (politely) cut your opponent off if they're clearly spewing bs or trying to waste time, I will know they are too and be cool with it. Grand cross, don't speak over your partner.

Don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic etc

I did Congress all 4 years of high school with some Worlds towards the end of my senior year. Here's the stuff to keep in mind if I'm judging you:

1. Avoid prog arguments
I'm not automatically handing Ls to the teams that run them, but keep in mind that I'm more experienced with traditional debate (if you'd call Congress that). Regardless, I *can* follow a prog debate and this is more so a fair warning to anyone that really wants to engage in one: I probably won't care that much about your argument

2. Be careful with wonky arguments
I'll always keep an open mind and I'm not gonna knock your args off the flow if they aren't refuted
BUT
If you run something that is really out there or really abstract, it will not take much for the other team to convince me that your argument doesn't carry weight on the flow. Still, whether or not I buy it, any arg with appropriate warranting/evidence is gonna be on my flow until it gets refuted
I'm not interested in fairness args unless your opponent is being genuinely abusive

3. Don't spread
Please, just don't

4. Be clear
This is kind of an extension of the spreading note; structure your args in a way that makes them easy to flow and always extend stuff that you think you're winning
Use clear tags and don't just identify arguments by authors
Also, if something cool happens in cross, I'll be listening but I won't be flowing. Bring it up in your next speech
Last note on clarity, I appreciate frameworks (not necessary and not as appreciated if in summary, but preferred nonetheless). If only one side explicitly gives me one, that's probably how I'm going to weigh

5. Time yourself
I'll time but I won't stop you if you go over (I'll just stop listening)

6. Don't do anything racist, sexist, or otherwise stupid
You will lose

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).

Hi, I'm Devon Shewell, and my pronouns are he/him/his.

I debated for four years in Missouri (Near Kanas City), and my main focus was on Congress and LD, but I am also quite experienced in PF and Extemp. I go to Vanderbilt now and study Philosophy and Communication Studies.

Some general stuff - regardless of the type of event, use good evidence if it's needed, use organization in your speeches, and don't be a bad person. Please don't waste my time, your time, or your opponent's time. I high-key like voting issues (in congress make them to your colleagues, in LD/PF/Policy make them to me).

Adding this cause it hasn't happened much - please give me weighing mechanisms and tell me how to evaluate the round.

PF

Give me weighing mechanisms/framework. Focus on strong internal structure within your speeches and give me lots of signposting. I look for each speech to serve a purpose towards the round, and for teams to be strategic in how they choose to extend arguments and which arguments slip out of the debate. Don't feel like you need to hit every single point in the round during every speech, some stuff won't be relevant and that's okay - just don't bring something up in the constructive and then never talk about it again until the FF. I will be flowing the rounds, and if you want something to be in the last row of my flow (FF), it needs to be extended. Please give me some voting issues and try to "write my ballot" for me towards the end of the round.

LD

In LD, I am open to just about anything. That being said, I come from a relatively traditional LD Debate Background. I try to come to every round as an entirely blank slate that will mold to the round. I will judge you off the flow, but I am not opposed to people stepping out of the line-by-line norm. The round, although judging from the flow, is like a story. If you can tell the story better, I am inclined to vote for you. Of course, be sure that your evidence is good - if you are paraphrasing evidence, summarizing evidence, or doing the "reading bolded sections thing," you should make that clear, especially when sharing evidence. If you send me a card that is two pages long but only selectively reads two sentences, I'm going to think that's pretty suspect. Other than that, I am open to watching debates as they unfold - ask questions if you have them before the round.

If you are going to read Philosophy style frameworks it better make sense. Just cause you say Util is the framework doesn't mean I will accept it (unless your opp does too). You need to explain why frameworks are optimal, not just that you have one.

If you are wondering what my LD Style/Background is like, I come from the Heart of America District where I was a national qualifier - check out either of the wonderful debaters from the 2017 NSDA National Championship (shoutout Natalie and Nathan) or the 2019 NSDA Championship (shoutout Grace) to see what that debate looks like.

Virtually - Please include me on the email chain if necessary.

Please don't go crazy with speed. I can flow it, but if I can't understand or comprehend the argument in time, I don't think it helps you.

I really enjoy a good theoretical argument.

Good structure within speeches, both for the speech itself and within arguments, is great.

Speaker points will be high if you are clear, nice, insightful/witty, and signpost well. I also really appreciate it if you are not reading off blocks and prewritten responses to the entire debate. If you are funny, it's a plus, but not everyone can be funny (sorry), so if you aren't funny, don't worry about it. Generally, everyone gets pretty good speaker points. You can swear if you want to, I don't care - don't be mean though.

Give me good evidence - I love academia

Don't be a bad person (Racism, homophobia, hateful, etc.)

Congress

Things I Really Don't Like (I'll probably drop you).

- In House recess to prep speeches - it's your obligation to prep before a tournament; if you are the PO, I think you should rule the motion dilatory. Don't waste everyone's time.

- Asking about the "split." Debate on the side of the legislation you believe in. Flipping sides and making arguments you don't care about is quite potentially the silliest thing I have ever seen.

- Not using evidence and not knowing what your evidence actually says.

- Not being willing to solve problems/address the issues.

- Reading Speeches

- Going overtime - you have 3 minutes.

- Having Stale Debate (It's okay to not speak on every bill. You have lots of legislation, if stuff is boring, move on)

- Being a bad person

My first and primary focus is on quality argumentation - it's a debate. I want quality evidence; however, there is no need for you to read card after card after card - give me analysis from the evidence. If you are giving a later speech, clash is expected. Please try to contextualize your arguments and humanize your impacts. Debate in what you believe in - debate the issues for the sake of debating the issues (not to have an "even split"). I won't mark down any particular arguments, but I have a bias towards arguments that makes the lives of human beings better (particularly on economic and foreign policy.)

Delivery and style do matter, but you don't win from it! If you can't persuasively explain your argument, it's hard for me to buy it. I'm not a big fan of the quirky congress rhetoric; I would much prefer you simply explain your argument. Structure your speeches clearly and signpost within them. Don't be afraid to give an early speech. I think a good constructive explains what the legislation does (references legislation) and doesn't get caught up in nuances. Make sure you know what type of speech you are giving. i.e.) if it is six speeches deep on a topic, don't give a constructive speech. I have no preference for when you speak. However, if it is a longer round, and you have the chance to speak multiple times, it would benefit you to showcase different skills by giving different types of speeches.

I have a lot of respect for people who make arguments which they believe in. If you debate what you believe in, it should reward you. I also really respect people who give a speech when the chamber needs a speech; the most frustrating thing to me is taking a recess to prep a speech. If you give a totally extemporaneous speech because nobody else in the chamber is willing to speak, you will be looked at favorably.

Presiding Officer - I will hold you to a very high standard. Maintain order and keep track of everything (I will as well). Enforce time limits on speeches and questioning. Tell me about your procedures before the round starts. I also understand that in the virtual setting, some things are exceptionally difficult; if you prioritize fairness, you should be good. I am more than happy to give the PO a 1.

If you are a real nerd, you can see what I like as a PO (cause it's what I did) by finding my time as PO in the Nats final from 2018.

Other Notes on Ballots - High speech scores on your ballot do not directly lead to the best rankings. Everything will be put in the context of the round. I will try my best to give comments that actually help you improve. For so many of these rounds, everyone is very talented, ballots in those round may come across as critical of very small things, but that's how the decisions are made when everyone is good.

If you have any questions, my email is devonshewell@me.com

Amanda Soczynski’s Judge Philosophy

A little about myself; I have been involved with forensics for 18 years as a student, judge, and coach. I am currently in my 7th 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. I have been judging debate for the last 12 years, in all categories. I judged CX for the beginning years and the last 5 in LD, PF and Congress. I graduated with a Mass Comm 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! 

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

Congress Paradigm:

General:

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

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

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

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

Impacting:

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

Questioning:

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

Participation in Round:

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

PO:

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

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

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

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

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

CX/LD/PF Paradigm

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am an inexperienced judge, so please expect results to take time.

As a former debate captain, I enjoy hearing well thought out arguments. I expect the debaters to run the debate through consensus. I will only participate if asked to rule on a question

Ultimately, the quality of your logic and evidence will win out over strictest pedantry. Please speak clearly and concisely. Speed is fine and you must time yourselves.

Coarse language and discussions of sensitive topics are acceptable if it is appropriate to the debate. Do not engage in personal attacks.

Discrimination and cruelty will automatically lose you the round. I do not tolerate it.

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 am a parent of a debate student. Please speak slowly, clearly and be respectful toward your opponent. Presentation and delivery of your argument is important to me.

• About me: 2018 NSDA National Champion: Congressional Debate - Senate. 2019 USA Debate Team Member. Currently the Assistant Coach of Congressional Debate at Taipei American School. he/him

  Congress Paradigm:

  • Tl;dr don’t try to “adapt” to me as a judge because I see value in all styles of Congress. The best part about Congress is that there are a myriad of ways to be successful in the event. I can appreciate all speaking and argumentation styles - just give the best speech in the round. I do not care if you speak early, mid-round, or late.

  • You have to give the speech that is appropriate for when you are speaking in order to get me to rank you. By this, I mean that if you give a constructive speech when you should be crystallizing or give an authorship that doesn't sufficiently explain the legislation and the main impetus for the legislation's creation, then I will not rank you. Adaptation is the name of the game in Congress.

  • PLEASE weigh! Weighing (to varying extents) should happen at every stage of the debate.

  • Name-dropping a bunch of people and half-way refuting their claim is not nearly as impressive to me as picking the most strategic argument and thoroughly refuting it (i.e. show why the warrant is untrue instead of just saying "X said this bill decreases jobs. Well, here's a statistic that says it increases jobs!)

  • Presentation vs. argumentation balance: Congress is a debate event. This means that I will prefer competitors with the best arguments. Speaking/rhetoric is a tie-breaker between students with arguments of equal quality. Obviously, if your presentation is so poor that it detracts from your argumentation then I cannot credit you for that argumentation. This means that at high-level debates (e.g. semis-bid final rounds) odds are that argumentation will be the most important thing because almost everyone will meet my bar for being a solid speaker. Rhetoric/speaking then will likely be the tie-breaker between first and second between the competitors with the smartest/most strategic arguments.

  • My biggest pet peeve is having a one-sided debate. I’d prefer you just call for the previous question and move to the next item on the agenda.

  • I’ve been in the game for awhile now, so I know all the canned intros and impacts. You should avoid using them when I’m judging you because I will notice that your content is not original. And please have the decency to not use rhetoric/intros that I came-up with. You’d be surprised how often this happens, and it is a good way for me to drop you.

  • The struggle of historically marginalized groups is not a tool for you to weaponize to win a debate trophy. If you slap on "also this helps *insert historically marginalized group here*" as an impact at the end of your point without sufficiently explaining the context and warrant, then you are guaranteed to be at the bottom of my ballot. Just be tactful and respectful and you will be fine.

  • I don’t mind if you have an untraditional speech structure as long as it is easy to follow.

  • If you’re rude I will not rank you.

  • POs: I see the value in presiding, as I know it is necessary for the event to function. Thus, if the PO does a solid job, then I am likely to rank them.

I am currently the Assistant Coach for East Ridge High School in Woodbury, Minnesota. I coach Congressional Debate and Public Forum.

Background:

High School Debate (Iowa): Public Forum Debate, Congressional Debate, and Speech

College Debate (Loyola U): Parliamentary Debate

Coach/Mentoring: The Chicago Debate League, MN Urban Debate League

Retired Attorney – Business Law for pay and Constitutional Law for fun.

Congressional Debate:

-Congressional Debate is not a Speech event; I am looking for argumentation skills that further the debate.

-I encourage signposting, great intros, and a quick summary conclusion. When appropriate, a joke or pun is always welcome.

-I expect clash, cited evidence, and rebuttal.

-I also appreciate students who immerse themselves in the debate and act as if their votes have importance to their constituents back home.

-The authorship or sponsorship speech should address the status quo, lay out the problem(s), and explain with specificity how the legislation solves it. The first con should be equally as strong. Second-round speeches and beyond should advance the debate – offer something new, clarify something that has been said, or refute something proffered.

-If you are speaking near the end of the debate, then a top-notch, crystallization speech is in order and very much enjoyed when done well.

-One amazing speech will always beat out three mediocre speeches.

-No same-sided questions...it does not further debate.

-Don't break the cycle of debate; either flip sides or give a speech on another piece of legislation.

-Refrain from the three Rs: Repeat, Rehash, Recycle.

-Make your arguments stronger, not louder.

-I expect you to treat your colleagues with respect and civility. Shouting, pointing fingers (literally), and being downright rude in questioning will drop you quickly. I like questions that further debate and shore up the arguments. I frown upon unsportsmanlike shenanigans – no “gotcha” or snarky questions. My frown will extend to chamber rankings.

Presiding Officer: Please consider the job of PO ONLY if you are comfortable with Parliamentary Procedure, keeping track of recency and precedence, and running a controlled chamber. If you are a presiding officer, I want it to run so smoothly and fairly that I never have to step in. I do not mind some levity, but this is also a competition. As PO, please explain your gaveling procedure, your understanding of recency and precedence, and how you call on representatives for questioning. Please do not call for "orders of the day" in front of me. Y'all are using it wrong to give your stats from the round.

Public Forum Debate:

>>>SPEED: I am a Coach, but I still can't write as fast as I hear you. You never said if it does not make it to my flow.

Clear signposting.

Off-time roadmaps work for me.

I am a fan of clear and smart frameworks.

Don't cherry-pick your evidence.

I want to hear debate on the NSDA PF resolution only. Run anything else at your own risk!

I really need narrative and great warranting - please extend them through the flow. Quantitative impacts mean nothing to me if I don't know how to weigh them.

Are you still terminally impacting to Nuclear War in 2023? If so, use caution because the probability is about 1%. I know that, you know that, and the academic literature states that.

I prefer line-by-line rebuttals.

Collapse as necessary to keep the debate sharp.

Please weigh in summary and final focus. If you want something to be a voting issue, put it in both the summary and final focus. If you don't weigh the round for me, I will, and I will use criteria that will definitely frustrate at least 50% of competitors in the round.

I am a sophomore at Florida State University majoring in Marketing and Management.

I competed in high school PF, including being undefeated my entire senior year.

Things I want to see in Congress Debate:

- following rules of debate

- make your arguments clear as well as your proof and reasoning

- claim, warrant, and impact need to be present and clear

A quick note about myself:

Hi. My name is Jackson. I competed for Northland Christian School in Houston for four years. I have an extensive background in congress. It was my primary event. I competed in nat circuit tournaments like Berkeley, Emory, TOC, Sunvite, and others.

Congress:

-Before reading into this: don't feel like you need to change yourself as a debater. I understand people have different styles and techniques. I will equitably evaluate all of these.

- Facts first. You aren't making this activity educational by making things up.

- Relevant and captivating introductions will get even the most experienced judge's attention.

- I like hearing direct lines and quotations from your evidence. Sometimes paraphrasing is necessary. Use good judgment here.

- Cite your evidence to the full extent that you can (don't leave out author, date, etc. when that info is made available in the book or article). Make it easy for me to find your evidence!

- Think about the kind of speech you are about to give. Is it a constructive AFF/NEG, Rebuttal, Crystallization, Refutation, Combination? Remember that this is a debate event. Just as LD or PF starts the round with constructive speeches to set that debater's position, the first few aff/negs in congress do the same. As you get further along in an item, the speeches should be getting more conclusive/overviewing.

- Be careful about tautological arguments.

- As the PO, you will start at 1 and can move down with errors. Please be efficient. I'm not asking you to abbreviate parliamentary procedure but think about your word economy when calling for speakers and questioners. This could make the difference between a few more speeches happening or not. If you run against someone to get to the seat, I will expect more from you.

LD, PF, & Policy:

If you get me for these, don't spread. It would be best for you to stay topical, but if you decide to take the theory route, I will listen.

Everyone:

- Have fun :)

- Be respectful, civil, and kind

- Think of what you are about to say. Is it problematic and potentially harmful to someone? If you don't know, think of something else to say!

Background:  I did LD for four years at Bronx Science and was the captain during my senior year. We were old school. We stood up and looked at the judge when we spoke. We spoke at normal speaking speeds. We snickered when we faced debaters who presented plans and argued "their's would never work."

Overall Philosophy: I am open to all arguments. including plan based cases as well as K affs. Just make sure by your final rebuttal, you have clearly identified the big picture rather than counter each and every point on the flow. 

Paradigm: Although I have my personal worldviews particularly regarding individual rights and agency, I will always vote on the best-argued rationale.

Theory: The debate should have as much clash as possible and I like to give arguments the opportunity to prove their validity than to toss them out altogether. However, if you prove your opponent doesn't offer a fair debate due to theory, it will heavily influence how I vote. 

RVi: If I vote for you, it’s because of your superior arguments, not some technicality. 

Kritikal Arguments: I'm an old school values debater, so yeah, I like these cases. 

Impact Calculus: Convince me with superior rationale rather than pure stats as I generally think you can find evidence to support anything. If you are running plans, help me understand the difference in impact yours has verses your opponent's. However, I don't like tenuous connections, but reward creativity. 

Overall: Debate and public speaking are valuable skillsets. Skillsets that will help you in every part of your life (except your personal life, which debate will absolutely ruin because your future partner "is always right"). Given that, your speaking skills, your powers of persuasion should be paramount. I have never thought Policy debate prepares their participants to be persuasive public speakers. I hope I don't have to say the same about LD.

Lay parent judge. Please speak very slowly and clearly and persuasively explain why you won in your last speech. Refrain from using debate and resolution terminology without explaining. No progressive arguments. I do not disclose my decision.