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. I support the NSDA's position that every student deserves a caring and welcoming environment—one that is committed to conditions of fairness, fosters inclusion, affirms identity, celebrates lived experiences, and protects from harassment and discrimination.

I think Congress is truly the most dynamic debate in the number of elements needed to be successful. Merely being a good speaker isn't good enough to be successful at Congress, but neither is just having good content. Good legislators know how to integrate the two and persuade the chamber to vote with their side.

A key part of Congress that is often ignored on local and state levels is giving the right type of speech at the right time. Early speeches should set up the framework of the debate as a constructive. Speeches toward the middle of the debate should be extensions and rebuttals that add to previous speeches. Late round speeches should be crystals or half-refutations that summarize the debate and add new analysis. Weighing the impacts of the affirmation vs. the negation is also very important in late-round speeches.

Delivery is also a very important part of being a persuasive speaker. That means having good eye contact, tonal variations, and being more emphatic at the right times. Don't just be loud for your whole speech - doing so loses the impact of your loudness. Instead, using volume and tone to emphasize certain parts of your speech is an important part of your delivery. Adding to this, your intros and conclusions are very important to how I evaluate your delivery, so please make sure to have attention-grabbing or profound intros and conclusions. Please always memorize your intros and conclusions.

Although I believe both content and delivery are important, I will weigh your content more heavily (around an 80/20 split for content vs. delivery). However, do keep in mind that I can't understand your content if your delivery is subpar or confusing.

For presiding, POs generally start around a 3 on my ballot and can move up or down based on their performance in the chamber. Having a PO is crucial to running a successful chamber, so POs who sacrifice their ability to speak, especially when others aren't willing, will get a lot more leniency. POs will generally be ranked unless they completely lost control of the chamber or were inexcusably rude or out of line.

Finally, and most importantly, Congress isn't a speaking event - it's a debating event. The most important thing on my ballot will be how your arguments interact with the other arguments in the round. Please don't give a 3-minute speech that you wrote out and memorized the week before! Make sure to modify your speeches as the round progresses to actually debate what the other side has to say.

Don't forget to enjoy the experience and have fun in the process!

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:)

Qualifications:

Competed on the nat circuit in Congressional Debate for 4 years - earned 3 bids, finalled at GMU and 2nd place at Columbia. Won multiple state and local competitions. I am also currently the President of the Jefferson Literary and Debating Society at UVA.

Congressional Debate:

I will rank based on who I think is the best legislator - not the best or most convincing speaker. I believe that Congress is specifically designed to be a laypersons' debate. This means that words like "inherency" or "solvency" have no place in Congress. While they may sound intriguing, you would never catch Mitch McConnell or Nancy Pelosi using them - and you shouldn't either. That doesn't mean you shouldn't bring up what those concepts mean. You should explain the inherency and solvency behind a bill without using those terms - instead, just tell me what the problem is and how the bill solves it.

Very Important: Your speech must/should be extemped. Reading off your pad will lose you a lot of points from me.

Your speech should contain a mixture of impactful rhetoric and meaningful evidence (quantitative > qualitative), and lots of clash (I cannot emphasize this enough!!!). Attention Grabbing Device's (AGD's) in your intro and conclusion can be helpful, but make sure they are relevant. I'm unlikely to be impressed by a catchy intro that has nothing to do with the topic.

Your sourcing is also important, especially in early-round speeches. Beware, if I hear you say something I think is wrong I will attempt to find the source you cited. If it turns out you're making up sources or that you're taking things out of context I will be extremely unlikely to rank you.

I believe questioning is a huge part of being a good legislator. Make sure your questions are insightful - no softballs! I do believe it's possible to be too rude or aggressive in questioning, but my tolerance is very high. I would rather you interrupt an opponent during a direct questioning block than let them filibuster for 20 seconds. Important: I will take ranks away from you if your questioning is bad. I am not the kind of judge that is impressed by someone asking a lot of simple/easy questions. I expect you to press the speaker and make them struggle to defend their arguments (especially in direct questioning). In my mind, asking bad questions is as bad as asking no questions + you deprive someone else of the chance to ask good questions.

I will rank good PO's highly, and I'm not picky about how you use your gavel or your particular style of PO'ing.

I understand that online tournaments are new for all of us, and can present a lot of problems for Congress. I will be very flexible in adapting to online tournaments and I won't dock ranks for mistakes you make because it's an online format (ex: muting yourself, not digitally raising your hand, etc).

If you find me sometime after round I can definitely give you feedback on the spot. Alternatively, you can email me at: ak6xkt@virginia.edu for feedback or if anything I wrote on your ballot confused you.

Competed in Congress for six years, won NSDA Senate in 2020 and won TOC on the PO track in 2020, competed in World Schools debate with the NSDA USA Dev Team. Competing in the style you're most comfortable in is what will win over any judge - all parts of the debate have value, its a matter of how you execute your speeches based on the context of the round. POs also do well as long as they're confident, accurate, and fair.