I like to see direct clash (they say this, we say that), analysis with warrants (prefer our argument, because…), impact/implications (what the world looks like if we don’t do x), warrants for why your impact(s) hold(s) greater significance/is more likely/is the reason I should vote.

Make it clear to me, essentially writing the ballot for me will get you the win.

Ok with speed just be clear. Will put down my pen and stop flowing if you are going to fast.

Please be respectful during cross.

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.

Congress:

Clear points including cited evidence.

Want to see advancement of the bill.

Your speech should stand up to questioning.

Introduction

Tayo (She/Her)

Hi, my name is Ibitayo but everyone calls me Tayo (pronounced Thai-yo), only my parents say Ibitayo. I did Forensics and Debate for four years at Bentonville West High School (2016-2020) and I’m currently a freshman in Academy of Art University. I was extemp co captain my junior year and Speaking captain my senior year in high school.I did a wide array of events from HI to Extemp to BQ to Congressional Debate. My favorite event however is definitely Congressional Debate (I’m that kid that brings their own gavel *smh) I strive for everyone to be comfortable and have fun.

Congressional Debate I love-

-When you have evidence for every single point and citing them correctly

-Addressing the other representatives appropriately (don’t be calling people by they first name in round)

-Extensive knowledge of Parliamentary Procedure

-Actually using the knowledge of Parliamentary Procedure to help the round move along

-Speaking clearly

-Make points that are realistic to the current political situation. If you are going to talk about immagration you better not act like covid-19 doesn’t exist rn.

I really dislike-

-Disrespect. I expect everyone to act more like adults than the actual senate okay.

-Spreading this is congress

-Wasting time. Pointless motions, going way over time, making points on a bill/resolution and not adding any more points or evidence to the subject matter. Wasting time is not a good look for me

-Softball questions, asking questions that are not constructive and are not going to challenge anything. Not answering the question is also very annoying

Debate(PF/BQ/LD) I love-

• Clash. Really utilizing the CX time to make the points stronger

• Arguments that are constructive and flow really well

• Being able to speak in rebuttals really confidently and really explaining why the opponents points are inferior

I really dislike-

• When competitors don’t use up all of the time they have. If you have four minutes to speak, use it.

• Disrespect

THE WORST THING YOU COULD DO IN ANY DEBATE STYLE:

If you are speaking on the behalf of another group of people (another race, religion, gender, ect.)and you don't have evidence supporting that, my respect drops immediately. I would rather the evidence be from someone that is actually of that group as well. There have been so many instances where people just make stuff up about another religion or something with nothing to back up their statement. If you do this in congress, you'll get the lowest speech score from me. In any other debate style, its going to be very hard to gain my respect as a judge back.

If you ever have any questions let me know here: Ibitayo.L.Babatunde@gmail.com

I've done congress throughout high school at Harker, and am now back working as a coach while I'm an undergrad at the University of Michigan. If you manage to subtly include the phrase "go blue" in your speech, you'll probably get the win from me.

However, if multiple people are able to accomplish this task, or none at all, I will rank competitors in the round based on the following criteria:

1. Giving the right content at the right time.

This is extremely important for me. It means that if you're one of the first few people to speak, I would like to see fresh new arguments that can set the stage for the debate. Strong impact analysis matters too. Try not to spend more than a minute refuting in an early speech, just because many arguments you refute may never even come up later in the debate, and I don't want you to waste your speaking time.

If you're speaking after the first 2 cycles, you'll want to shift to refutation-based speeches. These should continue on until the last 1 or 2 cycles. I need to see clash. I need to see some amount of impact weighing. I need to see actual debate. I especially like arguments that show the unintended (helpful or harmful) consequences of the bill.

Finally, the last couple of speeches should be well-planned crystal speeches. Give me a summary of a couple points from your side of the debate that I should care about, and refute the strongest standing arguments from the other side. Tell me why your side wins.

2. Speaking clearly and succinctly.

Personally, speaking isn't too important for me. If you want to separate yourself from the crowd, speaking is a great and memorable way to do it. Having a unique and energizing speech can only make a good speech even better. In this category, I care most about how clear your delivery is in terms of speed (speak at a reasonable pace, don't make me feel rushed), and continuous flow (think about what you're going to say next so you don't trip up over your words).

PO'ing: if no one else wants to PO, and you choose to step up and volunteer, I'll be considering that positively while I rank you. If you do enter an election for PO, I expect you to do a damn good job and have at most 1 or 2 small mistakes. That being said, PO'ing is difficult, and you will almost always get ranked as a PO. Speak loudly, evoke a sense of confidence, maintain communication with judges as appropriate, and keep speeches going efficiently.

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 flow pretty intensively, but I prefer to vote off of voting issues (a larger analysis of multiple points) than just one card.

I'm open and appreciate well articulated philosophical positions (Ks included), and I'll listen to anything but obscene worldviews such as evolutionary justifications for racism and what not.

I can vote off of theory, but no one has fun when the violations are frivolous. As such, I'm very persuaded to make theory an RVI to deter bad theory. If you plan on running a shell, go all in and articulate every section with logical justifications. The violation should be very specific, and the standard or standards should be fleshed out. At the end fo the day, it's a value debate like everything else in LD, so you are unlikely to persuade anyone by just shouting one liners.

Having done events outside of LD, I appreciate great presentations skills. They mostly affect speaker points, not the outcome of the round. I will give a 30 to a strong presenter. This means that even though I'm fine with speaking quickly, clarity is really important.

Lastly on the subject of speed, I really encourage both debaters to weigh arguments as opposed to trying to out-spread each other. Deep thoughtful analysis of core issues is more important than underscoring concessions. To that end, framework debate plays a huge role in the round.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me know if you have any questions! :)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Be polite!

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

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

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

Congress

I will evaluate you off of evidence, logic, and fluency. It is important to me that you do not repeat arguments that other debaters have made in the round. If your speech and arguments cannot withstand reasonable questions (including context of the round,) this will impact you negatively. If your argument is not relevant to the text of the bill or you do not provide impacts, you will be penalized. I’ll reward you in ranks for active participation with high-quality questions.

Don’t be offensive or abrasive.

World Schools

After winning NSDA Nationals in World Schools in 2019, I competed for USA Debate for the 2019-2020 season.

If you have questions about my paradigm or comments I've given you in round, please email me at cassandraleeberlin@gmail.com.

There are a few things in World Schools that are easy to miss, but in my opinion can alter the course of a round, drastically.

1. Paint a very, very clear picture of exactly what your opp or prop world looks like. Most good debaters do this, but take it a step further. I want solid grounding for each of these characterizations. Even this basic visualization of your world requires warranting.
2. This is similar to the first, but very crucial: TELL ME— WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE TO YOUR SIDE? Why is it so much worse?
3. We underutilize incentive analyses in rounds. If you disagree about what a particular actor is going to do, or how an actor will respond, tell me why this person is going to take the particular action. It can be because there are different pressures on certain sides, etc.
4. In constructive, feel free to set up some sort of “even if” structure. Though it might not be present in every round, you’ve likely been told to answer the best version of your opponents argument. The best teams always make an effort to do this. Good constructives can prepare for this with scenario argumentation. This might look like… “in order to make up for some deficit, a politician will likely respond in 2-3 ways.” Make sure you’re talking about the incentives of the actors, and note that sometimes the warranting is similar for the two scenarios.
5. Interact with each other. Engage. That is what debate, especially WS, is about.

My pronouns are he/him.

Saint Louis UDL policy debater in high school (2015-2018). Former president of NPDA parli debate at Tulane (graduating Dec '21). I began judging LD and PF in 2018. I now work full time as a housing specialist for a Permanent Supportive Housing program.

Email chain: liv.berry014@gmail.com (also email me here if you have any questions or accessibility needs)

If you feel unsafe at any point in a round or during a tournament, let me know (either in person or via email) and I will do everything I can to get you out of the situation and get the issue handled w tab/equity office/tournament directors etc. Your safety comes first, always

I clap at the end of rounds

Please put cards in docs instead of the body of the email. I don't care if it's just one card - I want a doc.

Spring 2023 Update:

- I no longer think it is particularly useful to list all of my thoughts and preferences on specific arguments and debate styles in my paradigm. It shouldn't matter to you or affect the way you choose to debate. You should debate in a way that feels fun, educational, and authentic to you. I will judge the debate in front of me.

- I am not as involved in debate as I once was. Judging is now a special treat that requires taking off work. This could be good for you or it could be bad for you. Either way, it means I'm genuinely thrilled to be here.

- Be mindful when it comes to speed and jargon. I don't know the all the acronyms or buzzwords and I don't know community consensus or trends when it comes to things like counterplans or topicality.

Some general thoughts:

- TLDR: Read what you like and have fun with it! Whether you're reading a rage aff without a plan text or nine off in the 1NC, if you're into it, I'm into it.

- The best part of debate is the people. Be kind.

- I see my role as a judge as an educator first and foremost

- The best way to win my ballot is to filter arguments through impact framing. Why is your model/disadvantage/advocacy/etc more important? What does it mean to mitigate/solve these impacts in the context of the debate? Why is the ballot important or not important?

- Every speech is a performance. How you choose to perform is up to you, but be prepared to defend every aspect of your performance, including your advocacy, evidence, arguments, positions, and representations

- Tell me why stuff matters! Tell me what I should care about and why!

- If you are a jerk to novices or inexperienced debaters, I will tank your speaks. This is an educational activity. Don't be a jerk

LD SPECIFIC:

- I don't know what "tricks" or "spikes" are. I judged a round that I'm told had both of these things, and it made me cry (and I sat). Beyond that, I've judged lots of traditional, kritikal, and plan rounds and feel comfortable there.

GOOD LUCK, HAVE FUN, LEARN THINGS

Spreading is fine, but if you go so fast I stop writing, that's because I can't understand you. Your points cannot be added to the flow if I do not understand them. This will not happen often, but if you see me put the pen down, you are going too fast.

Please refrain from abusing theory until it drops dead and needs its corpse moved around on a marionette. You will be penalized for shameless abuse of debate.

I did LD, some Policy/CX, and Congress in high school.

Policy Debate Paradigm:

Overview:

The things you are probably looking for:

Speed: I’m fine with whatever you are comfortable with--no need to try to impress me.

Performance: I do not mind a performance but make sure the performance is tied directly to the case and purpose of the debate. I am NOT some old fart, but I am a bit old school with a blend of progressive ideology.

Pre-dispositions: Please do not make arguments that you do not understand/cannot explain in order to fill the time or to confuse the opponent—I will definitely take notice and probably will not vote for you. Keep things well researched and logical and everything should be fine.

Sportsmanship: Please always be respectful of your opponents. Mean-spiritedness is not a way to show me you’re winning. Even though I will always vote for the better arguments, if you display signs of cruelty towards your opponent, your speaker points will suffer.

****Make sure you have great links…nothing worse than sitting through a round where no one understands how any of the arguments relate to the topic*********

Specifics:

Disadvantages: Unless if your strategy is extremely sophisticated/well thought out/well-rehearsed (I have encountered quite a few when I competed), I think you should always run at least 1 DA.

· The Counterplan: If done well, and the strategy around them is logical and thought-out, these are generally winners. If done poorly and you just inserted one to fill the time, I will be sad and bored.

· Procedurals/Topicality: I love a good meta-debate, and I am open to these if you guys have a solid strategy around these arguments (for example: if your opponents are illogical/made mistakes, point that out to me). However, I usually see T’s used as generic fillers, and I will not vote for a generic filler.

· The Kritik: Love Ks if done well and showcases your knowledge of the topic and argument. However, if I can sense that you don’t know what you’re talking about, running a K might hurt you.

Overall, have fun ( I understand how stressful this event can be), show me you're prepared, and always try to learn something.

Lincoln-Douglas, Big Questions Debate, and Public Forum Debate Paradigm:

My job as a judge is to be a blank slate; your job as a debater is to tell me how and why to vote and decide what the resolution/debate means to you. This includes not just topic analysis but also types of arguments and the rules of debate if you would like. If you do not provide me with voters and impacts I will use my own reasoning. I'm open all arguments but they need to be well explained.

My preference is for debates with a warranted, clearly explained analysis. I do not think tagline extensions or simply reading a card is an argument that will win you the debate. In the last speech, make it easy for me to vote for you by giving and clearly weighing voting issues- these are summaries of the debate, not simply repeating your contentions! You will have the most impact with me if you discuss magnitude, scope, etc. and also tell me why I look to your voting issues before your opponents. In terms of case debate, please consider how your two cases interact with each other to create more class; I find turns especially effective. I do listen closely during cross (even if I don't flow), so that is a place to make attacks, but if you want them to be fully considered please include them during your speeches.

Hello There! If you are reading this page before the round I would ask that you please adhere to the things I have listed below. As a former debater I am familiar with most events (with a couple of exceptions) so if you are not respectful of the rules for the event or for your fellow competitors you will be downranked. Also - I do not discriminate on basis of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. I employ a zero tolerance policy for discriminatory and/or disparaging conduct. Such language or actions will result in a ranking of last and a note on your ballot. I will sort my paradigms by event below starting with Interp/Speech events.

Interp/Speech:

Default time signals are 3 down & fist. Just have fun and be yourself!

Extemp:

This is simple - Follow the Unified Analysis Format and you will be fine!

LD/PF:

I prefer traditional debate, so please follow the traditional debate structure. Don't cut off your opponents during questioning (unless they're rambling.) Give them an opportunity to answer the question. I generally don't flow questioning, so bring up the point in your speech. Please go a little slower during your speeches. If I can't understand you, I will say "clear." If I can't understand you after that, I won't be able to flow the rest of your speech.

Congress:

A disclaimer - I was a two-time national qualifier in Congress, so I know this event very well. Watch where in the round you place your speeches. If you are rebutting an argument in your speech, make sure you also introduce a new argument. Just rehashing old arguments does not contribute meaningfully to the debate. I give POs a fair bit of leeway to run things, but if you're egregiously breaking the rules or the chamber is in chaos, that will reflect poorly on you.

In closing, I judge fairly based on the merits of everyone's performance. If you have any questions for me don't hesitate to ask.

I am a judge reasonably experienced at judging tournaments. I have 2 kids and both are in debate and speech each.

Here are few insights on how I judge:

1. Speak at whatever pace you feel most comfortable. I can keep up with your pace.

2. I do take notes. Let me know where you are in your arguments. I appreciate the source citation. I like clear, clean lines of logical thinking.

3. Engage with the round, have refutations and ask questions

4. Be respectful to everyone and have fun

About me:

Hi! I'm a very experienced parliamentarian.

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

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

Prelims:

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

Content:

☐ Good arguments & avoid rehash

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

☐ Signposting your arguments/clear taglines

☐ Ability to refute

☐ Ability to crystalize

☐ Strong analysis

☐ Strong questioning

☐ Strong introductions

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

☐ Rhetoric & humor

☐ Appeals to pathos

Delivery:

☐ Effective hand gestures

☐ Eye contact (especially during your introduction)

☐ Volume/presence

☐ Passion, not aggression

☐ Vocal variation (tone & volume & speed)

☐ Fluency of speech

☐ Walking on points

☐ Conversational pace

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

Style:

☐ Leadership/influence in the chamber

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

☐ Decorum

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

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

Elimination rounds:

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

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

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

☐ Outstanding intros & conclusions

☐ Clear signposting & structure

☐ Authentic rhetoric & pathos

☐ Advanced argumentation & synthesis

☐ Conversational pace & stellar eye contact

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

A note on presiding:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally:

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

About me:

I'm a college Junior, and did debate all throughout my high school career and am currently attempting to start a debate team at my college campus. The forms of debate I did include CX, LD, PF, and World Schools, however I was the LD Captain for my debate team and primarily focused on LD and CX.

With that being said, I am fine with spreading as long as you are clear. Slow down for signposts and include me in the email chain and I will be happy.

I do not care if you stand or sit during CX, as it literally doesn't make a difference to me. If you ask me this question I will know you didn't read this paradigm.

Things I will not tolerate:

1. Sexism.

2. Racism.

3. Homophobia.

4. Any other prejudice or offensive behavior.

Some general judging comments on forms of argumentation.

Plans/CP's:

I dislike plans and counterplans in LD. LD is intended to be a moral debate ("ought"), therefore I find non-topical plans and CP's to be out of the bounds of the event. I will vote on either if your opponent doesn't bring up a theory/framework argument to counter your P/CP, but if they happen to successfully drop topicality or theory on you for running such arguments, they will get the ballot.

Theory:

I hate theory. I will very rarely vote off of theory, even in CX. If your strat is to drop all on-case arguments in favor of bad theory argument(s), you will either lose or you will win with smaller speaker points. The only time theory should ever be run is if your opponent is clearly being abusive in some way during the round. That is it. If you actually debate instead of intentionally running bad theory, you won't have any issues.

Topicality:

I care less about this than theory, but the same concept: Just be a good person and don't abuse pre-flow arguments.

D/A's:

I'm fine with DA's. No preferences.

Framework:

Please have a basic value and standard that you can link to, or at least state that you are going to extend your opponent's value and standard. Other than that, I'll evaluate framework based off of justifications and clash that happens on the flow.

Kritiks:

I'm fine with K's, just be sure to clearly explain the K in round and during CX. I love meta-ethical conversations and all forms of critical theory.

What I care about when evaluating the round:

I generally evaluate the round in this order:

1. Theory/Topicality - If there is actual abuse that is proven in round, this generally determines the winner.

2. Offense / Defense.

3. Final speech(es) and primary focus of round.

I will never vote off of Cross-Examination arguments if you never bring it up within one of your primary speeches.

Heyoo and Howdy, Its Jomi,

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

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

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

Logic without evidence

Quality of evidence

Speaking and execution of rhetoric

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

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

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

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

Hello

I have been judging for the last 3 years mostly congress. I am a parent judge

What I like are good facts and figures. How you can reach out and convince novice/common people with your speech matters most to me. Be yourself and give your best with your own style.

About me: She/her pronouns. I did Congress (and some PF) for three years with Desert Vista High School, competed nationally a few times in that period.

Congress Paradigm:

- Congress is debate, and your speeches should follow debate flow. Don't give authorship speeches at the end of a round, don't try to crystalize after two speeches. If you did your research, you should be able to adapt and give a great speech no matter when you speak in the round.

- On that note, if a bill/res is super one-sided, or has few arguments, PLEASE drop it. I'd rather move on in the agenda than let stale debate continue for another hour.

- On presentation: I think the beauty of Congress is that you can give beautiful speeches and still have powerful debate at the same time!! That being said, I'll take a strong, clear argument over flowery-but-empty rhetoric any day of the week.

- Remember that even though this is make-believe congress, your words absolutely still have meaning and you can't just throw issues and impacts around like they're not real: every speech you give is an opportunity to use your platform and speak some good into the world, or whatever. Make your speeches meaningful, be creative, and be kind to others, and have fun!

- Oh also I'm not afraid to rank POs. Good POs deserve good ranks.

•Encourage clash

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

•Synthesis of prior speakers as debate rounds ensue

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

Please use Credible Evidence and speak clearly and slowly. Use of logical deduction based reasoning will help achieve higher scores. Your talk should reflect the amount of research that has been put in for the prep and help you score higher.

Background:

While during my four years competing in high school, my main event was Congressional Debate. However, I competed in Public Forum all four years in my home district of Arizona and some national tournaments and spent some years in Extemp. I was a Nationals and TOC kid. Currently, I am studying to be a Chemical Engineer who specializes in energy, sustainability, and climate change(you can take that into account on topics of similarity).

Congressional Debate

-Do not bring the same points up again if you do not impact differently or use it in crystallization(weighing)

-You need to refute(especially starting 4 speeches in)

-The point is to push the debate forward by weighing, refuting, and showing what is most important in the debate.

-Please have a structure and possibly taglines.

-Do not use personal examples as the bedrock of your argument and cite your sources.

-Speed is fine just be clear.

-Act as a Congressmember. Think of your constituents. It is okay to be loud and passionate but make sure you do not cross the line in questioning for slanderous speech or being rude/scaring younger debaters.

Public Forum

-I can handle speed but realize it is your job to be coherent enough for me as a judge to understand and your competitors. Remember poor internet quality can cause more of your speech to be cut out.

-I am a flow judge. Do not flow through red ink or drop a point and pick it up in your last speech of the round.

-I do not flow cross-ex but I am listening. If something integral is brought up, please speak of it in your speech.

-I could not care less if you are standing, sitting, or leaning but remember to be professional

-Please do not use heavy rhetoric

-Most important speech for me is the rebuttal followed by the summary. Please go down the entire follow and spend most of your time/responses on the most important points. Clearly either delink or shift the debate.

-Impact analysis/calc and weight are how I end up deciding my ballot. If you use key voters, that would be great.

-If you use a framework, use it consistently(do not use it if you end up dropping it).

-Please cross-time each other.

-Obviously, be cordial but I understand that passion can take over

-Signposting is dope.

-Make sure you understand your argument and have fun.

TOC 2024: I have mostly judged nat circuit Policy this year (and especially this semester), so I have not judged on this current topic and have not judged circuit LD this year. As such, I am not the most in touch with circuit LD norms. That said, I did judge some high-level varsity LD tournaments first semester. Additionally, I have coached and debated on a lot of foreign policy topics over the years and have a personal interest in Middle East politics (ie I read about it in my free time). So make of all that what you will when filling out prefs.

For circuit tournaments:I expect teams to disclose promptly after pairings come out. Don't show up to the room 1 minute before the round starts and then finally disclose the aff (especially if it's not on the wiki). I consider this the same as not disclosing at all and thus am ok with your opponents running disclosure on you.

The brief rundown of whatever event I am judging this weekend is below, but here's the full breakdown of how I feel about various arguments as well as my paradigm for other events. I even used the google docs outline to save you time in finding what you need: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KwX4hdsnKCzHLYa5dMR_0IoJAkq4SKgy-N-Yud6o8iY/edit?usp=sharing

PGP: they/them

I don't care what you call me as long as you don't call me broke (jk, I am a teacher so you can also call me that ig)

Email chain: Yes, I do want to be on the email chain (saves time): learnthenouns[at]the-google-owned-one.

Head coach at Lincoln East (10-ish years), 7 years of debating in high school (LD, Policy and Congress) and college (NFA-LD and NPDA/NPTE Parli)

Overview for all events

• Debate is both educational and a game. I believe the education comes from ideas engaging with one another and students finding their voice. The "game" element functions as a test of your effectiveness in presenting and defending your personal beliefs and advocacies. Thus, I consider myself a games player as it is a necessary component of the educational experience.

• A major exception: I will not listen to you promote any kind of advocacy that says oppression good or structural violence denial (ie claiming anti-white racism is real). They are an auto-ballot against you regardless of whether your opponent points it out or not.

• I flow internal warrants and tags more often than author names so don’t rely on me knowing what “extend Smith #3 in 2k12” means in the grand scheme of the debate and, similarly, don’t power tag or plan to mumble your way through cards because I’m listening and will call you on it. I am more interested in the content of your arguments than the names of the people that you are citing.

• On that note, I want the speech doc so that I can check your evidence and appreciate analytics being included when the debate is online.

Delivery: I'm approaching 20 years in the game at this point so I've started to get more picky about delivery stuff, especially with speed.

• In-person: speed is fine in everything except congress. I watch NDT rounds for fun, so I can handle it. But I do expect clarity in all events. I will yell "clear" once or twice if you're mumbling, and after that I reduce speaks. Enunciation should be a baseline in debate, not a bonus.

• Online: if you are extremely fast, slow it down a little bit (but not a ton) when online, especially if you have a bad mic. The unfortunate reality is most people's set ups can't handle top policy speeds. On that note, I strongly encourage you to include analytics in the doc when online in case audio cuts out or there are other tech issues!
  

• Slow down a bit for your analytics and tags darn it. I am not a machine, I cannot flow your analytics when you're going 400wpm.

LD

Argument ratings

• K debate (pomo or ID tix): 10 out of 10

• Performance: 10 out of 10

• T/theory (when run correctly): 8.5 out of 10

• LARP/plan-focus: 8 out of 10

• Phil (aka trad): 7 out of 10

• T/theory (when blipped out and poorly argued): 5 out of 10

• Tricks: 0 out of 10 (boooo boooooo!!!)

These are just preferences though. I have and will vote for anything (even tricks, unfortunately, but my threshold is extremely high)

Speed (for context, conversational is like a 3 or 4 out of 10)

• Speed in person: 8.5/10

• Speed online: 6 or 7/10 (depends on mic quality)

The most important specifics:

• (This has increasingly become an issue in LD so I am moving it up to the top) Mumbling through a bunch of cards with no clear breaks before tags or variance of pace is not good or effective. A lot of LDers I have seen don't seem to understand that speed should never come at the expense of clarity. I judge policy most weekends. I can handle speed. No one can understand your mumbling.

• That said, I generally feel that disclosure is good and spreading is fine (even an equalizer in some ways). However, there is a lot of debate to be had here (especially when topics like opacity and the surveillance of non-white debaters or ableism get raised), and I have voted for both sides of each issue multiple times.

• I consider myself a games player, so I primarily am looking to evaluate what 'wins out' in terms of argumentation in the debate.

• I love creativity and being intellectually engaged, so I’m a good person to run your Kritik/project/performance/non-topical aff/art case in front of. Of course, I still need you to make it an argument if you want me to vote for you (singing a song isn't an auto-win, especially if you sing it poorly), but otherwise, fire away.

• Strike me if you have to use tricks or similar bad strategies (i.e. blippy and arbitrary theory spikes/shells/tricks such as "aff only gets 2 contentions" or "aff auto wins for talking" or "neg doesn't get any arguments") to win rounds. They are not debating in any sense of the word, and I cannot think of any educational or competitive value that can be derived from promoting them. If you decide to ignore this, I will likely gut your speaks (ie a 26 or maybe lower).

• If you want to win a theory debate, warrant your arguments in every speech. Really, I guess that's true of all arguments, but it's most frequently a problem on theory. Don't just say "limits key to competitive equity, vote on fairness" and call it a day. I'm a T hack when it's run well, but most people don't like to take time to run it well.

• Beyond that, I like just about every style of LD (again, other than tricks). I have greatly enjoyed judging everything from hyper-traditional to extremely fast and critical. I don't see any type as being inherently 'superior' to the others, so do what you do and I'll listen, just justify it well.

• For your reference in terms of what I am most familiar with arguments wise, I coach a team that has typically run more critical and identity lit (po-mo, anti-blackness, Anzaldua, D&G, cap, fem, neolib, Judith Butler etc) and often plays around with what some might call "nontraditional strategies." Though we often run more traditional philosophy (typically Levinas, Kant, util, or Rawls) and plan-text style cases as topics warrant.

How I resolve debates if you do not tell me otherwise:

**Note: this is all assuming that no other debate happens to establish specific burdens or about the importance of any particular level of the debate. In other words, I am willing to rearrange the order I evaluate things in if you win that I should.

In short:

ROB/ROJ/Pre-fiat Burdens > Procedurals (T/thoery) > Framing (value/crit) > Impacts

Not so short:

-First, the role of the ballot, the role of the judge, and the burdens of each side are up for debate in front of me (and I actually enjoy hearing these debates). I tend to believe that these are a priori considerations (though that is up for debate as well) and thus are my first consideration when evaluating the round.

- Next, I will resolve any procedurals (i.e. topicality, theory shells, etc) that have been raised. I will typically give greater weight to in-depth, comparative analysis and well-developed arguments rather than tagline extensions/shells. If you're going to run one of these, it needs to actually be an argument, not just a sentence or two thrown in at the end of your case (again, no "tricks").

-Absent a ROTB/ROJ or procedural debate I next look to the value/crit/standard, so you should either A) clearly delineate a bright-line and reason to prefer your framework over your opponent's (not just the obnoxious 'mine comes first' debate please) or B) clearly show how your case/impacts/advocacy achieves your opponent's framework better (or both if you want to make me really happy….)

-After framework (or in the absence of a clear way to evaluate the FW) I finally look to impacts. Clear impact analysis and weighing will always get preference over blippy extensions (you might be sensing a theme here).

-For a more detailed breakdown of how I judge certain arguments, please see "argument specifics" in my policy paradigm below. The only major difference is that I do think aff RVI's are semi-legit in LD because of time limits.

Policy

In super-brief (or T/L as the cool kids call it):

See below for in-depth on different arguments

• Great for: Ks; T; K affs in the direction of the topic; unique and well-warranted plan affs; soft left affs; framework; performance args; most things that deal with critical lit (especially love Deleuze tbh)

• Ok for: blippy/big stick plan text affs; K affs with zero topic links; DAs with strong links; valid procedurals (ie vagueness, condo); basic CP debates; Baudrillard

• I would rather not judge (but have definitely still voted for): CP debates that get heavily into CP theory; generic DAs with minimal links, frivolous theory (ie inherency procedural, arbitrary spec shells, etc); most speed ks (unless they are grounded in something like ableism); orientalist China bashing

• Various things I especially appreciate: clash, debating and extending warrants, in-depth case debate, impacting T properly, an organized flow, prompt pre-round disclosure and open sourcing, creative arguments, sending analytics in the doc when debating online

• Various things I especially dislike: rudeness, not kicking things properly, mumbling when speed reading, disorganized flows, debaters who show up late to rounds and then ask us to wait while they pre-flow, extending author names or tags instead of warrants and impacts

Other basics:

• I am mostly down for whatever, but I prefer in-depth debate over blippy extensions. I am ultimately a games player though, so you do you.

• I want teams to engage with each other's arguments (including T, framework, and case). Debating off scripted blocks for the whole round isn't really debating and sort of makes me wonder if we even needed to have the round.

• I will evaluate things however they are framed in the round. That said, if there is no explicit framing, then I usually default to believing that real-world impacts are of more importance than imaginary impacts. Real-world impacts can come from policymaking cases and T as much as K debates. However, if you frame it otherwise and win that framing then I will evaluate the round accordingly.

• Weighing your impacts and warranting your solvency throughout the whole round (not just the rebuttals) is a quick way to win my ballot. Otherwise, I vote off the flow/what I’m told to vote for.

Argument specifics:

Kritiks/K Affs/performance/ID tix/whatever:

I’m a good person to run your critical case in front of. I love K’s/critical/performance/id tix/new debate/most things nontraditional.

• I'm familiar with a lot of the lit and ran a lot of these arguments myself.

• I do not believe that the aff needs to act through the USFG to be topical and, in fact, engaging with the res in other ways (personal advocacy, genealogy, micropolitics, deconstruction etc) can be reasonably topical and often can provide better education and personal empowerment.

• For clarity, as long as you are engaging with a general premise or an interpretation of the resolution then I believe the aff can claim reasonable topicality.

• That being said, to be an effective advocate for these things in the real world, you have to be able to justify your method and forum, so framework/T are good neg strats and an important test of the aff.

• I am increasingly persuaded by the argument that if you are going to be expressly nontopical on the aff (as in advocating for something with no relation to the topic and zero attempts to engage the resolution), then you need to be prepared with a reason for not discussing the res.

Trad/policy-maker/stock issues debate:

• Most of the circuits I debated in have leaned much more traditional so I am extremely familiar with both how to win with and how to beat a topical aff strat.

• My top varsity team the last few years have tended to run trad as much or maybe more than critical, but historically I've coached more K teams.

• I'm totally down to judge a topical debate but you shouldn't assume that I already know the nuances of how a specific DA or CP works without a little explanation as our local circuit is K-heavy and I only recently started coaching more trad teams.

Framework and theory:

• I love: debate about the forum, method, role of the judge/ballot, and impact calc. Making the other team justify their method is almost always a good thing.

• I strongly dislike: generic fw, arbitrary spec shells, K's are cheating args, and most debate theory arguments that ask me to outright dismiss your opponent for some silly reason.

• Real talk, almost none of us are going to be future policymakers (meaning alternative ways of engaging the topic are valuable), and wiki disclosure/pre-round prep checks most abuse.

• In short, I want you to engage with your opponent's case, not be lazy by reading a shell that hasn't been updated since 2010.

• Of course, as with most things though, I will vote for it if you justify it and win the flow (you might be sensing a theme here....).

Topicality:

I L-O-V-E a good T debate. Here are a few specifics to keep in mind:

• By "good" I mean that the neg needs to have a full shell with a clear interp, violation, reasons to prefer/standards and voters.

• Conversely, a good aff response to T would include a we meet, a counter definition, standards and reasons why not to vote on T.

• Since T shells are almost totally analytic, I would also suggest slowing down a bit when reading the shell, especially the violations or we meets.

• I usually consider T to be an a priori issue though I am open to the aff weighing real-world impacts against the voters (kritikal affs, in particular, are good for this though moral imperative arguments work well too).

• Reasonability vs competing interps: absent any debate on the issue I tend to default to reasonability in a K round and competing-interps in a policy round. However, this is a 51/49 issue for me so I would encourage engaging in this debate.

• There does not need to be demonstrated in-round abuse (unless you provide an argument as to why I should) for me to vote on T but it does help, especially if you're kicking arguments.

• Aff RVI's on T are almost always silly. K's of T are ok though the aff should be prepared to resolve the issue of whether there is a topical version of the aff and why rejecting the argument and not the team does not solve the k.

• One caveat: in a round where the aff openly admits to not trying to defend the resolution, I would urge a bit more caution with T, especially of USFG, as I find the turns the aff can generate off of that to be fairly persuasive. See the sections on K's and framework for what I consider to be a more strategic procedural in these situations.

• This is mentioned above but applies here as well, please remember that I do not think an aff must roleplay as the USFG to be topical. Advocating for the resolution can (and should) take many forms. Most of us will never have a direct role in policymaking, but hopefully, most of us will take the opportunity to advocate our beliefs in other types of forums such as activism, academia, and community organizing. Thus, I do not buy that the only real topic-specific education comes from a USFG plan aff.

Counterplans:

• I like the idea of the CP debate but I'm honestly not well versed in it (I probably closed on a CP twice in 7 years of debate). My kids have been running them a lot more recently though so I am getting more competent at assessing them ????

• Basically, I understand the fundamentals quite well but will admit to lacking some knowledge of the deeper theoretical and 'techy' aspects of the CP.

• So feel free to run them but if you are going to get into super tech-heavy CP debate then be warned that you will need to explain things well or risk losing me.

Speed and delivery:

As mentioned above, fine in-person. Mostly fine online unless you are super fast. Also, I really want clarity when speaking even more than I care about speed.

Slow down for analytics and tags. Especially analytics on things like T, theory of framework. These are the most important things for me to get down, so be aware of your pacing when you get to these parts if you want me to flow them.

Pet peeve: speed=/=clear. "Speed" is for how fast you are going. "Clear" is for mumbling. I can handle pretty fast speeds, I can't handle a lack of clarity. I will usually give you one warning, two if I am feeling generous (or if you request it), and then will start docking speaks. I am also good with you going slow. Though since I can handle very fast speeds, I would suggest you give some impacted out reasons for going slow so as to avoid being spread out of the round.

PF

Theory (since this will probably impact your strikes the most, I will start here)

In short, I think theory has an important role to play in PF as we develop clearer, nationwide norms for the event. When it's necessary and/or run well, I dig it.

I have sat through enough painful evidence exchanges and caught enough teams misrepresenting their evidence that I would prefer teams to have "cut cards" cases and exchange them by the start of their speech (preferably earlier). If one side elects not to do this, I am willing to vote on theory regarding evidence ethics (assuming it's argued and extended properly). Questions about this? Email me in advance (my email is up top).

To clarify/elaborate on the above: I am very much down for disclosure theory and paraphrasing theory in PF. Irl I think both are true and good arguments. If you don't want to disclose or you refuse to run cut card cases rather than paraphrased cases, you should strike me.

I am not quite as keen on other types of theory in PF, but given how quickly my attitude was changed on paraphrasing, I am very much open to having my mind changed.

Overview for PF

Generally speaking, I see PF as a more topic-centric policy round where the resolution acts as the plan text. This, of course, depends on the topic, but this view seems to generally provide for a consistent and fair means to evaluate the round.

Truth vs tech:

While my default in other events is tech over truth, I find that PF tends to lend itself to a balance of tech and truth due to the fact that teams are rarely able to respond to every argument on the flow. "Truth" to me is determined by warranting and explanation (so still tied to an extent to tech). As such, better-warranted arguments will get more weight over blippy or poorly explained arguments.

Speed:

I can handle pretty much any speed however, if you're going fast, your analysis better be more in-depth as a result. In other words, speed for depth is good, speed for breadth (ie more blippy arguments) is bad. A final word of caution on speed is that PFers often suck at proper speed reading in that they lack any semblance of clarity. So be clear if you go fast.

Other PF specifics:

I tend to prefer the final focus to be more focused on framing, impact weighing, and round story; and less focused on line-by-line. Though again, given my experience in LD and Policy, I can definitely handle line-by-line, just don't forget to warrant things out.

All evidence used in the round should be accessible for both sides and the judge. Failure to provide evidence in a timely manner when requested will result in either reduced speaker points or an auto loss (depending on the severity of the offense). I also reserve the right to start a team's prep time up if they are taking an excessively long time to share their stuff.

On that note, I will call for evidence and I appreciate it when teams help me know what to call for. I know that paraphrasing is the norm at this point but I do not love it as it leads to a lot of teams that excessively spin or outright lie about evidence. Tell me to call for it if it's junk evidence and I'll do so. I will apply the NSDA guidelines regarding paraphrasing when it is justified, so make sure you are familiar with those rules so that you can avoid doing it and know to call your opponents out when they slip up.

I hate bullying in crossfire. I dock speaker points for people that act like jerks.

(not sure this is still a thing anywhere but just in case....) The team that speaks first does not need to extend their own case in their first rebuttal since nothing has been said against it yet. In fact, I prefer they don't as it decreases clash and takes the only advantage they have from speaking first.

Bio (not sure anyone reads these but whatever): I have competed in or coached almost everything and I am currently the head coach at Lincoln East. I’ve spent over half my life in this activity (16 years coaching, 7 years competing). My goal is to be the best judge possible for every debater. As such, please read my feedback as me being invested in your success. Also, if you have any questions at all I would rather you ask them than be confused, so using post-round questions as a chance to clarify your confusion is encouraged (just don't be a jerk please).

Nebraska only: I expect you to share your evidence and cases with your opponents and me. It can be paper or digital, but all parties participating in the debate need to have access to the evidence read in rounds. This is because NSDA requires it, because it promotes good evidence ethics in debate, and because hoarding evidence makes debate even more unfair for small programs who have fewer debaters and coaches. Not sure why we're still having this discussion in 2023.

To be clear, if you don't provide both sides with copies of your evidence and cases, then I will be open to your opponent making that an independent voting issue. I might just vote you down immediately if I feel it's especially egregious.Oh and I'll gut speaks for not sharing cases.

Congressional Debate

Content/trigger warnings: when using content/trigger warnings, contestants should ask why they need one in the first place. Rather than using graphic imagery to describe traumatizing issues, it is far more meaningful for contestants to explain the scope and scale of the impact of the root causes of the problem and how the legislation will either remediate or exacerbate the problem and its causes; that approach provides a safer space for all participants in the chamber. That said, any participant in a chamber should feel free to excuse themselves at any time if they are feeling unsafe or emotionally traumatized – without any judgment.

The nature of Congressional Debate is an intellectual exercise in analyzing an issue from a multitude of perspectives, which are threaded together through the clash of ideas, and moderated by parliamentary procedure. While its discourse intellectually functions as debate, it operates with sectioning chambers and comparatively evaluating students in the same manner as interscholastic speech rather than the binary nature of head-to-head debate entries. Of all the speech and debate events, it models a real world process as a way for students to engage one another in a truly authentic and dynamic manner. As someone who has been a part of shaping rules and standards in Congressional Debate for over two decades, I understand how comparative ranking allows me to take the full picture of how a student contributes both to the intellectual richness of debate, as well as the circumstances by which debate happens – parliamentary procedure. Hence, the focal point of arguments should be on how people are affected by potential passage or defeat of legislation.

Role playing is a mindset that goes beyond simply "playing a part" as a member of Congress. Debaters should understand how issues impact constituents, citizens, residents, and the global community alike, and who and what should be prioritized at any given time and why. Members of Congress represent demographically and geographically diverse constituents as well as serve our country at-large. Therefore, debaters should consider how they frametheir advocacy and avoid such possessive phrasing as "our low-income Americans" to make blanket statements about entire groups of people, rather than describing circumstances for which they do not have personal experience (see first section, above). I highly recommend the Conscious Style Guide for guidance on appropriate language when discussing marginalized communities, and that debaters consider their own privilege when they address the nuanced issues in constituencies most vulnerable within problems addressed by legislation.

Organization and clarity: contestants should briefly seize attention in a memorable and meaningful way by connecting to the issue at-hand without trivializing it. Previews are inconsequential and waste time in a brief, 3-minute speech; rather, points should be signposted, and connect to a central, unifying thesis beyond just "supporting" or "opposing" the legislation at-hand. Speeches should be easy to follow, articulately crisp, and plainly explained, without needless jargon. Contestants should be concise, dynamic, and nimble with their language, and not repeat the same filler phrases and "debate-speak." Effective clarity also means avoiding unnecessary delving into "debate-speak," where a student uses such filler language as "take you at your highest ground," rather saying, "if your central intention is..." Other examples of concision alternatives filler phrases:
• Say "argued" instead of "came up here and said"
• Say "consider" instead of "we can look to"
• See "understanding" instead of "seeing as how"
• Omit "we can see that"
Finally, be elegant. Say "defeat" a bill instead of "fail.""Move the previous question, don't "motion to the previous question." Correct phrasing goes a long way toward demonstrating command of language in a linguistic activity utilizing the framework of parliamentary procedure.

Evidence: contestants should support arguments with cited, credible sources warranted to their own analysis. They should indicate a firm analytical understanding of the legislative/policymaking process, and the efficacy and jurisdiction of government agencies in addressing issues.

Impacts: speeches should explain how people are affected by policies and positions. Practical application and pragmatic interpretation is much more relevant that theoretical musings on an issue. Rhetoric should show sensitivity to people whose identities may differ from their own; a speech may address issues that impact real people, and shouldn't conjecture lived experiences for which the legislator may not have a personal frame of reference. Contestants should avoid overusing terms like "constituents," and consider as a national-level legislator, how policies impact both their own theoretical constituents, residents throughout the United States for whom their policies will impact, and for international relations – global citizens beyond the U.S.

Advancing debate: each speech should exhibit how it fits within the flow of debate on given legislation:

Authorship/sponsorship speeches should outline the problem, its causes, and why the legislation at-hand solves or mitigates the problem and its causes. The background is more important than the legislation itself, as we can all read the bill. I want to know the why behind the solvency.

First negative speeches should establish ground for the opposition to the legislation: why it exacerbates the problem and its causes, fails to address them effectively, or creates new or worse conditions.

Constructive speeches, often the first 4-6 speeches in a debate, should indicate a sound understanding of how legislation is introduced to solve/address a problem and its causes, deeply investigating important issues with detailed evidence.

Rebuttal speeches should defend a legislator's advocacy, extend complementary arguments by colleagues, and/or refute the opposition – acknowledging how those arguments are being built upon or fall short. As debate on legislation moves forward, there will be more extension and refutation and fewer constructive arguments. This is where a contestant can be nuanced with their advocacy, connecting arguments that respond to others with their own, unique ideas.

Crystallization speeches should come at the end of debate on legislation and summarize and weigh impacts to distill the debate to central voting issues and why one side wins over the others, and subsequent speeches on the same side should either explain why a preceding crystallization was premature/incomplete, or advance it further in a more sophisticated manner. Crystallizing prematurely, at best shows a lack of restraint and understanding of the "big picture" of the issue; at worst, it shows an impatient desire to weigh the debate before all the elements have had time to be explored rhetorically.

Questions should be substantive and carefully selected to help advance debate beyond superficial questions that are mere "gotchas." The dynamism of Congressional Debate requires legislators to respond within the flow of debate, so all speeches after the authorship/sponsorship speech introducing legislation should be more extemporaneous/spontaneous in nature. Exchanges should be a courteous give-and-take.

When to quit: it is entirely unimportant to me whether each contestant in a room speaks on each legislation; I'd rather debate stay fresh and dynamic than to get stale and mired in rehash because there's nothing new to say (and rehashing thoroughly debated arguments will negatively impact your ranking severely). I also place a higher premium on quality over quantity of speeches given -- as long as a contestant still stays active in questioning and other facets of a round.

Delivery: given the dynamic nature of exchange of myriad perspectives in Congressional Debate, debaters – especially those after the author/sponsor and first negative – should be more extemporaneous and spontaneous in their delivery, referring more to bulleted notes and their flow of the debate than reciting from a word-for-word manuscript. I don't care if a student transitionally walks between points (obviously, that doesn't/didn't happen in online debate and it's certainly not real-world); what matters to me is that the student engages their peers and judges through an appropriate projection of their voice, dynamic intonation and pause to convey meaning, meaningful eye contact, vivid facial expression, and natural gestures for emphasis.

Parliamentary procedure: rules of order exist to provide fairness and an opportunity for participation in sharing ideas before majority rules. Through a lens of accessibility and inclusivity, procedure should never be used by legislators to manipulate for personal advantage; rather, those students who advocate for fairness to others demonstrate the spirit of fostering involvement by others. This applies to all students in the room, and how they utilize procedure within a round, and includes decorum of using honorifics, third person references to others, and professional courtesy over snarky demeanor. This is especially important during questioning periods. Also, remember: recesses are a temporary reprieve from active debate, but the round is still happening.

Presiding officers: a PO whose priority is uplifting others in a fair, efficient, and transparent manner exhibits the values expressed in the "parliamentary procedure" section above. They are mindful of different schools and regions and do whatever they can to share and balance recognition, beyond those with whom they are most closely associated. I really appreciate when POs share some type of live document that shows how they are tracking precedence and recency of both speeches and questions. Effective POs should avoid needless phrases, such as "seeing as how..." and instead simply say, "those opposed (or 'in favor'), please raise your placards." Further, such elegant language shows command of procedure, such as "the ayes have it and the motion (or bill) carries," or "the noes have it and the motion (or bill) is defeated."

For Congress, I care most about content of a speech. Too many debaters have unclear or missing links. If you don’t follow a link chain through, it will be very hard for me to see your argument as good or thoughtful. I don’t care about a base system- if you want to try for a third speech when everyone else is getting two, I will not penalize you, but an extra speech will only place you above someone if I’m struggling to decide who did better. For speaking style, I don’t judge off of how you sound, but detest rudeness and like professionalism. The real US Congress doesn’t start a speech with a joke or trite phrase, so neither should you. IF YOU USE A CANNED INTRO OR PHRASE I WILL NOTICE AND BE UPSET. Also, I don’t think any news site is good evidence and prefer you use actual research- not just reporting. 9 time out of 10, a news source will cite something else, and it's lazy citationing on your part to not cite the original source.

When you clash- you cannot just tell someone that they're wrong. You have to either weigh your impacts against theirs and tell the chamber why your impact is preferable, or prove their link chain is incorrect. The latter your speech is, the more clash I expect to see. If you're giving constructive speeches late into a round, I will not rank you well, if at all.

For POs- I want to interject as little as possible (someone asking for tournament rules, like about hard stops, does not hurt you). How smoothly the round runs is your main job and will reflect on your rank. If there are a lot of recesses for people to write because they are not prepared, then you will do worse. You should manage the round and that includes making sure people will have future speeches.

Thanks for your hard work. I appreciate the opportunity to judge what you will do today. How I grade should not discourage you from working harder and pursuing your goals. Winning or losing here, as cliché as it may sound, will not determine your chances of being a "better" (whatever that means) citizen of the world. I am not perfect and neither are you. Have fun. I am going to have fun, hope you also will.

Now, if you are reading a speech, I can tell and anyone can tell that you are doing so. This is a speech and debate competition, so speak and debate - don't just regurgitate. It takes away your credibility and ability to persuade, and if you just read, you will be marked down.

Generally, people listen to us if we add value, and not essentially repeat someone's argument with a minor variation. Try not be a what I and some would call a "parrot".

Don't be shy about bringing your own angle, your point of view about a topic. It may not be the consensus, but if it adds diversity to the discussion, it certainly adds value to the debate and everyone benefits. Think about the title of the radio show "All Things Considered".

So, how do I see you adding value?

1. Were you consistent in your line of reasoning?

2. Did you use "good" logic?

3. Did you take your source's information and weigh in if it carries credibility? Have you taken into account the source's objectivity? Is there a weakness or strength when taking that objectivity into account?

Keep in mind that "pathos", "logos" and "ethos", in no particular order, are of supreme importance.

Good luck. Remember that what you do here is valued, even if you are not in first place.

Sincerely,

Jacques Kaiser

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!

I’m a parent judge. Please be clear with your arguments. Signposting is helpful.

I am a debate coach at Little Rock Central. Please put both on the email chain: jkieklak@gmail.com; lrchdebatedocs@gmail.com

General

You do you. Let it rip. Seriously. A judge does not exist without the debaters, and I view my role as a public servant necessary only to resolve arguments in a round to help empower young people to engage in meaningful discourse. I believe that it is important for me to be honest about the specific things I believe about common debate arguments, but also I find it more important to ensure I am prepared for debaters to persuade me away from those beliefs/biases. Specifically, I believe that my role is to listen, flow, and weigh the arguments offered in the round how I am persuaded to weigh them by each team. I will listen to and evaluate any argument. It is unacceptable to do anything that is: ableist, anti-feminist, anti-queer, racist, or violent.

I think debates have the lowest access to education when the judge must intervene. I can intervene as little as possible if you:

1) Weigh your impacts and your opponents' access to risk/impacts in the debate. One team probably is not most persuasive/ahead of the other team on every single argument. That needs to be viewed as a strength rather than a point of anxiety in the round. Do not be afraid to explain why you don't actually need to win certain arguments/impacts in lieu of "going for" the most persuasive arguments that resolve the most persuasive/riskiest impacts.

2) Actively listen and use your time wisely. Debaters miss each other when distracted/not flowing or listening. This seems to make these teams more prone to missing/mishandling arguments by saying things like, "'x' disad, they dropped it. Extend ____ it means ____;" yet, in reality, the other team actually answered the argument through embedded clash in the overview or answered it in a way that is unorthodox but also still responsive/persuasive.

3) Compare evidence and continuously cite/extend your warrants in your explanations/refutation/overall argumentation. Responses in cross that cite an individual warrant or interrogate their opponents' warrants are good ethos builders and are just in general more persuasive, same in speeches.

Policy Affirmatives

Go for it. Your pathway to solving a significant harm that is inherent to the status quo with some advantageous, topical plan action is entirely up to you. There are persuasive arguments about why it is good to discuss hypothetical plan implementation. I do not have specific preferences about this, but I am specifically not persuaded when a 2a pivot undercovers/drops the framework debate in an attempt to weigh case/extend portions of case that aren't relevant unless the aff wins framework. I have not noticed any specific thresholds about neg strats against policy affs.

Kritikal Affirmatives

Go for it. Your pathway/relationship to the resolution is entirely up to you. I think it’s important for any kritikal affirmative (including embedded critiques of debate) to wins its method and theory of power, and be able to defend that the method and advocacy ameliorates some impactful harm. I think it’s important for kritkal affirmatives (when asked) to be able to articulate how the negative side could engage with them; explain the role of the negative in the debate as it comes up, and, if applicable, win framework or a methods debate. I don't track any specific preferences. Note: Almost all time that I am using to write arguments and coach students is to prepare for heg/policy debates; I understand if you prefer someone in the back of the room that spends a majority of their time either writing kritikal arguments or coaching kritikal debate.

Framework

This is all up to how it develops in round. I figure that this often starts as a question of what is good for debate through considerations of education, fairness, and/or how a method leads to an acquisition/development of portable skills. It doesn't have to start or end in any particular place. The internal link and impact are up to you. If the framework debate becomes a question of fairness, then it's up to you to tell me what kind of fairness I should prioritize and why your method does or does not access it/preserve it/improve it. I vote for and against framework, and I haven't tracked any specific preferences or noticed anything in framework debate that particularly persuades me.

Off

Overall, I think that most neg strats benefit from quality over quantity. I find strategies that are specific to an aff are particularly persuasive (beyond just specific to the overall resolution, but also specific to the affirmative and specific cites/authors/ev). In general, I feel pretty middle of the road when it comes to thresholds. I value organization and utilization of turns, weighing impacts, and answering arguments effectively in overviews/l-b-l.

Other Specifics and Thresholds, Theory

• Perms: Be ready to explain how the perm works (more than repeating "it's perm do 'X'"). Why does the perm resolve the impacts? Why doesn't the perm link to a disad?

• T: Normal threshold if the topicality impacts are about the implications for future debates/in-round standards. High threshold for affs being too specific and being bad for debate because neg doesn't have case debate. If I am in your LD pool and you read Nebel, then you're giving me time to answer my texts, update a list of luxury items I one day hope to acquire, or simply anything to remind myself that your bare plurals argument isn't 'prolific.'

• Case Debate: I am particularly persuaded by effective case debate so far this year on the redistribution topic. Case debate seems underutilized from an "find an easy way to the ballot" perspective.

• Disclosure is generally good, and also it's ok to break a new aff as long as the aff is straight up in doing so. There are right and wrong ways to break new. Debates about this persuade me most when located in questions about education.

• Limited conditionality feels right, but really I am most interested in how these theory arguments develop in round and who wins them based on the fairness/education debate and tech.

• Please do not drop condo or some other well-extended/warranted theory argument on either side of the debate. Also, choosing not to engage and rely on the ethos of extending the aff is not a persuasive way to handle 2NRs all in on theory.

TOC Requested Update for Congress (April 2023)

General

Be your best self. My ranks reflect who I believe did the best debating in the round (and in all prelims when I parli).

The best debaters are the ones that offer a speech that is appropriately contextualized into the debate the body is having about a motion. For sponsors/first negs, this means the introduction of framing and appropriate impacts so that the aff/neg speakers can build/extend specific impact scenarios that outweigh the opposing side's impacts. Speeches 3-10 or 3-12 (depending on the round) should be focused on introducing/weighing impacts (based on where you are in the round and where your side is on impact weighing) and refutations (with use of framing) on a warrant/impact level. I value structured refutations like turns, disadvantages, presumption, PICs (amendments), no solvency/risk, etc. The final two speeches should crystallize the round by offering a clear picture as to why the aff/neg speakers have been most persuasive and why the motion should carry or fail.

The round should feel like a debate in that each speaker shall introduce, refute, and/or weigh the core of the affirmative and negative arguments to persuade all other speakers on how they should vote on a pending motion.

Other TOC Requested Congress Specifics/Randoms

• Arguments are claim, warrant, impact/justification and data when necessary. Speeches with arguments lacking one or more of these will not ever be rewarded highly, no matter how eloquent the speech. It is always almost more persuasive to provide data to support a warrant.

• Impacts should be specific and never implied.

• Presiding officers should ensure as many speeches as possible. The best presiding officers are direct, succinct, courteous, organized, and transparent. Presiding officers shall always be considered for ranks, but ineffective presiding is the quickest way to a rank 9 (or lower).

• More floor debaters are experimenting with parliamentary procedure. Love it, but debaters will be penalized for misapplications of the tournament's bylaws and whichever parliamentary guide is the back up.

• Nothing is worse in floor debate than repetition, which is different than extending/weighing.

• Decorum should reflect effective communication. Effective communication in debate often includes an assertive tone, but read: folx should always treat each other with dignity and respect.

Arkansas Debate

Woo Pig. I am not here to force you to capitulate a paradigm that you find in someway oppressive to what your coach is teaching you to do. I will drop you for clipping/cheating, and I do not reward (and will rank low in congress) bad/no arguments even if they sound as rhetorically smooth as Terry Rose and Gary Klaff singing "Oh, Arkansas."

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

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

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

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

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

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

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

also PLEASE refute oml

Hi all, I’m a retired debater: I competed for Southlake Carroll in Congress & graduated in 2017. I’m now an undergrad @ Harvard doing a double Philosophy & Mathematics concentration, a secondary/minor in Economics, and a Mandarin language citation.

CONGRESSIONAL JUDGING

In terms of judging, I hold a lot of classic experienced Congress judge values. We typically look for debaters who can show excellence in multiple competencies (argument organization, clarity, impact calculation, refutation, insightful questions, ect.) Any skill you would need as a Congressional debater…try to show off as many of those as possible. It's probably best that you give a mix of early & late-round speeches to show some variety. I tend to rank decent POs highly enough to break, but not highly enough to podium in final rounds (you'd have to do a phenomenal job as PO and frankly in 8 years of debate I've maybe encountered 2 phenomenal PO performances).

Have a few personal caveats:

- Interaction: Personally, interaction is a crucial metric for my judging — I don’t want to hear you read a speech word-for-word that you wrote last night. Show that you’ve been paying attention to what other people are saying by refuting them, building off their impacts, otherwise incorporating arguments already on the table. Just interact with your peers, please.

- Please debate the LEGISLATION, not the CONCEPT of the legislation.

- Reasonable Impacts: Pet peeve of mine is when debaters have perfectly good, important arguments, but they feel the need to enormously exaggerate the impact. You don’t need an existential, do-or-die impact for the argument to matter. Use reasonable impacts so that I can take what you’re saying seriously.

- Unique/Detailed Arguments: I look highly upon arguments that I haven't heard before or that contain interesting implementation details. It shows that you researched this bill specifically and didn't just dust off an old speech to reuse.

I’m super excited to be here, and just want everyone to be the best version of themselves!

Tanya Mahadwar

Coach, Dougherty Valley HS, San Ramon CA

Coached Congress & Extemp: 4 years

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

General Debate Paradigm:

Background:

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

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

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

Congress:

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

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

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

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

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.

When judging speeches, I am looking for a balance of clear concise speaking, impactful rhetoric, and critical analysis and refutation. I believe it is important to reference at least 2-3 previous speakers (unless you are the first aff/neg) and directly weave in your refutations into your critical analysis. Please reference previous speakers politely and correctly, as in Mr./Ms./Rep./Sen/ "Last Name". I am not a fan of early crystal and rebuttal speeches, as they should be saved for the end of the legislation's debate.

Speeches should have 4-8 sources and they should be cited completely.

I judge mostly speech and congress.

If I'm judging debate, make sure to slow down and clearly explain your arguments. I don't like speed or technical terms.

ABOUT ME -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUDGING HISTORY-

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

- Sunvite 2021

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

- Florida Sunshine District Tournament 12/5

- FGCCFL December Tournament

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

- FGCCFL November Tournament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

Undergraduate:

- MBBS, University of Medicine, Yangon, Myanmar.

Post graduate:

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

- MSc. Computer Science, Western Illinois University

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

I am looking for a balance between quality of the speech itself and your delivery.

For the speech:

-Creativity- please bring your own personality into these speeches--begin with an interesting hook, use metaphors, and make your argument engaging

- Clear reasoning and argumentation--show Claim Vs Warrant Vs Impact

-Organization-sign post when possible and with your conclusion, highlight your key contentions

- Demonstrate research! Show that you have investigated this topic so that you can speak authoritatively and show clear evidence

- Be polite and demonstrate respect when addressesing the other competitors--don't be rude or condescending

-Context--I like to see that you are listening to other speakers, so you gain points with me by referencing previous arguments to build your case as well as rebutting previous arguments to strengthen your case

On Delivery:

- Speed for the sake of speed is big no. If your audience can't follow what you're saying, the impact of your speech is lost.

- Speak with energy and passion that shows your engagement with the topic.

-Show good eye-contact

- Speak clearly with a confident volume and avoid filler words

Have fun! Enjoy the process and really engage as a creative participant.

I am a lay judge so make sure you don't speak too fast but I still deeply value good argumentation and logical reasoning. As long as the teams can make arguments that make sense and respond to their opponents case while defending their position is what I am mainly looking for and how confidently they present their case.

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

tldr: I am a traditional judge. It is probably in your best interest to run a traditional case. But if you feel the need to run something non-traditional I will do my best to keep up (especially if I'm the only judge on your panel who prefers traditional).

-----

I was the assistant speech and debate coach at Pennsbury HS in Pennsylvania from 2018-2020, and I am currently a freelance judge when needed. I'm also on the Board of Directors for the Bulgarian English Speech and Debate Tournament (BEST) Foundation. I competed primarily in Congressional Debate and Extemporaneous Speaking. I was a 3x NSDA qualifier in the Congressional Debate.

First and foremost, know that I am not usually a debate judge. I've judged my share of PF and LD, and I have a general understanding of how to judge both events (so I'm not a lay judge insofar as I do have an idea of what I'm doing). For that reason, I prefer traditional arguments, but I can deal with progressive cases if you have an interesting perspective (but I would definitely lean on the side of traditional). I'm also okay with counterplans (in LD), but I will caution that I am almost always on the lookout for a mutual exclusivity argument from Aff when I hear counterplanning from the Neg. So if you're going to run one on Neg, be absolutely certain that what you're proposing cannot exist in an Aff world. If it can, and Aff points it out, my ballot is almost always decided then and there.

I can deal with K's, theory, phil etc. But please explain some of terms you're using if you can - I don't know all of the acronyms and me being confused is probably not good for you. Err on the side of traditional if you can, as that's what I'm best equipped to judge. But if I'm the only judge on your panel with these preferences, run your progressive case - I'll try and keep up.

-----

Because I enjoy a good debate, here are my preferences:

- Come prepared with all of your cards organized. I don't want to sit there and waste time while you fish around to find a specific card.

- Speed: Spreading will make it so that I can't include as much info on the flow - my typing is not super fast. In terms of speed, I suggest that you speak quickly but don't spread.

- Please signpost and lay out a roadmap, ESPECIALLY in your rebuttal speeches. I'm cool with off-time roadmaps (in fact, I encourage it).

- I will time you, but I expect you to time yourself and your opponents - I will stop flowing if you go over time.

- I appreciate a good clash over a good point. It makes filling out my ballot much easier when I can link arguments together.

- PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE weigh the round. I cannot stress how important it is for you to lay this out in your rebuttal speeches.

My email is morgan.elizabeth.rowe@gmail.com if you have any more questions.

Wendy Rubas, (@hlawtech)

I've been a practicing attorney for 20+ years and have judged several competitions of Congressional Debate. I am always so impressed with all of you, and it is pleasure and privilege to judge these competitions! Every round is different, but over time, I've learned what makes a great debater.

- Preparation. Your preparation is more obvious than you realize. Good preparation affords you the ability to be nimble, to pivot, to respond to the room. Only through research and preparation can you get to the level of understanding to be able to respond to the room and deepen the debate.

- Evidence. Now more than ever before, it is important to base your positions on credible evidence and to tell the judges your source. It is always preferable to use a primary sources (law, regulation, or administrative manual) than an article in Business Insider. In addition, it is powerful to hear how various proposals worked in the real world examples (as in "see they tried it and it worked ").

- Style. Being persuasive counts even in real life. Don't be afraid of a well placed pause. A little flair - some drama. Your tone and pacing can be useful to judges - to help them catch up. Read the room. Judges see a lot of things happening - how people are responding to you. If you aren't looking up- you will miss this.

- Stay present. It is easy to get distracted during a round and this is more true now in the online competitions. One thing to know, judges can tell when you are not paying attention. Stay present in the room, use the Q/A section - pay attention to others.

Good luck to you!

For Congressional Debate I'm mainly looking for vast knowledge behind the topic with organized thoughts and how you are able to communicate them. I should be able to understand what is going on in the debate. I also place heavy emphasis on strong questioning and how clear and direct you respond to them.

Speaker must have a well constructed, well flowing case/argument.

Presentation must be concise, and clear.

Refutation shows thought = points.

Good research of course.

Debated Congress and PF in high school. A few things:

1. Respect is a must. "Zingers" and one liners are fun, but not at the expense of a good debate or your opponent.

2. Cross-fire is apart of the debate. I do not want new arguments in cross, but please use your questions productively. Attack weak analysis, set up weighing, issue burdens etc.

3. Clarity is important but speaking style is not. Being a good orator is nice, but being a good orator comes in many shapes and forms. For example, stuttering, having a quiet voice, or having an accent that is different than mine will not be causes for lower speaker points or bad marks on clarity. Slurred/lazy words, failure to enunciate, unorganized speeches and reading with no emotions or passion will.

4. Signpost.

5. If your opponents logic is dubious, point it out (even if briefly). I will not count a weak argument against them if you do not tell me to. This makes it fair so that you are debating each other rather than me simply putting my own opinions or thoughts into if an argument good or not.

6. Have cards ready. This is a personal pet peeve. Do not delay the round because your sources are not organized.

Have fun. I enjoy judging because of how much you all enjoy debating.

I am an experienced coach and judge. I have competed, coached and judged in all areas of speech & debate.

I am a 'tabula rasa' judge, which for me means that I will listen to any reasonable argument. I am always interested in hearing creative approaches to any resolution. However, I fully support the format, style and philosophy of each debate and speech event.

I am not adverse to rapid speaking, because debate time is limited. BUT I will not condone 'spreading' as a tactic. If you insist you win because the opponent did not address all of your issues, I may or may not accept your premise.

Evidence is primary to any good argument. You should be able to coherently present your evidence with citation in every instance. Referencing 'cards' in a case is ambiguous, since I will not have your case in front of me.

In all Cross Ex portions, LISTEN to your opponent. Address their concerns and their rationale for opposing you. Be civil and understand they have as much a right to be here as you do.

I will not make your case for you. I may be very familiar with the resolution, strategy and line of reasoning you are using, but I will not assume you even know what you are talking about. You have to know your case and be able to defend it.

In Congress, competitors must listen to the line of argument and offer unique and relevant arguments. Repeating points or delivering a prepared speech that does not advance the debate is poor practice and means you do not know the bill. Logic and analysis are fine, but a warrantless argument will not have a very big impact.

I do not rank POs particularly high. A competent PO will score near the middle of a typical Congress round.

In Extemp, I want to learn new things, hear unique ideas and understand my world better.

In LD, I am neither a traditionalist or progressive; I want to hear a values-based argument founded on a good philosophical framework. Values are precursors to behaviors, so there is no solving of problems or plans of action.

I've been judging for over 8 years, primarily in Congressional debate. Here are some things I watch out for:

- Delivery: Body language, eye contact, voice modulation, confidence

- Clarity: Are your arguments and impacts broken down in an easy to understand and logical manner

- Content: Are you bringing unique insights to the table and furthering the debate, or simply rehashing what has already been discussed.

- Creativity: Give me a reason to rank you higher by using beautiful rhetoric or witty humor

Hi, I'm Isaac, I competed congress for three years and extemp for one year at Evanston Township High School. I'm currently taking a gap year working for an environmental organization in Missoula, Montana.

I was a national finalist in 2019. In the 2019-20 season, I accumulated 6 bids, including two top 6 finishes on the national circuit. So yeah, I'm a debate judge, and no, great fluency and pretty rhetoric will not win you rounds with me :)

Online, almost everyone has good fluency, especially in outrounds. To compensate for this, I'd say my paradigm is 85% argumentation and 15% speaking, although I do appreciate folks using good vocal variation to highlight the most important parts of their argument.

Y'all also gotta impact, omfg. In my experience as a judge this year and competitor at the end of last year, people use their computers as teleprompters to conclude arguments with flowery lines of rhetoric, rehearsed with perfect inflection. That is not debate! That is not engaging in the round! Don't give me cute rhetoric if you can't back it up with a human/ecological/real impact.

Finally, everyone, ESPECIALLY MALE DEBATERS need to read this HuffPost article about sexism, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and a lack of accountability in high school debate. Just because you don't see sexual assault and harassment in debate doesn't mean it's not there. Not having the tools to recognize it is the first step in being complicit.

Good luck y'all, be the best you can be. And remember, it ain't that deep.

I was a congressional debater with some experience on the national circuit. I have a degree in Political Science and Russian and Eastern European Studies. When judging, I care most about the quality of your reasoning and the sophistication of your argument. I want to see that you have put in the effort to attain a good grasp of the bill and its implications. I also have a finely calibrated bs-detector, so don't make up or misrepresent any evidence, or I will fact-check you. With the shift to debating at home, the content of your argument takes on a greater share of your score, as there is less room for panache, although I hope to be pleasantly surprised in this regard. Remember that your goal is to persuade, and the best debater is whoever most persuasively argues that their side of the bill should become law.

Other notes:

1. Refute often and well. Don't straw-man. Steel-man instead. The better the argument is that you are refuting, the better it reflects on you.

2. Have unique and interesting arguments. No one wants to hear the same argument multiple times. Show me you have a strong grasp of the bill, both in its context and implications. The chamber can follow complicated arguments, but it's up to you to present it so that it makes sense.

3. Your presentation of your source should be such that I can easily look it up. Stats are preferred. Exemplary logical analysis from first principles can substitute for a source in some instances.

4. CX is great. Ask good questions that further debate and show both you and the speaker know your stuff. Keep questions to the point; it is the speaker's time.

5. Be a respectful and active member of the chamber. Pretty basic, just remember that it reflects poorly on you if you come across as a jerk.

6. Don't hesitate to bring up any technical issues you may be experiencing, though refrain from doing so during a speech.

7. Have fun!

I have been judging Debate for 7 years. Coaching for 4. So consider me new-ish/old-ish.

Flow

I consider myself a “semi-flow” judge. Watch your speed, if you are too fast I won’t bother to write. Makes the decision a lot more challenging, for you. Make contentions and sub contentions clear.

Evidence

Include at the minimum the year of the evidence in your case. Paraphrasing is okay, but please do not misrepresent the evidence. If your opponent calls for a card it should say what you say it does. Further, if they call for a card, you should be able to find it quickly. It is your evidence, isn’t it?

Summary and Final Focus

Be clear in why you “won”. Make the voting issues clear and concise. If something important isn't in the summary, I'm not voting on it in final focus. Also, weighing is probably a good idea as well.

Cross

I will not be judging cross so if it's important bring it up in your speech. Speak up for yourself in cross. Do NOT take over the questioning it should be a back and forth.

Aggressive Debate does NOT equal Obnoxious Debate

Be aggressive, but not obnoxious. Be firm in your contentions and the entire case have passion in your voice but don’t be mean or rude. Do not roll your eyes at, talk down to, be rude to, or personally attack your opponent.

Prep TIME

USE IT ALL!

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

So please call out people who just make things up.

Also important:

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

* Quotations always beat paraphrase.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

For PF: Speaks capped at 27.5 if you don't read cut cards (with tags) and send speech docs via email chain prior to your speech of cards to be read (in constructives, rebuttal, summary, or any speech where you have a new card to read). I'm done with paraphrasing and pf rounds taking almost as long as my policy rounds to complete. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that do read cut cards and do send speech docs via email chain prior to speech. In elims, since I can't give points, it will be a overall tiebreaker.

For Policy: Speaks capped at 28 if I don't understand each and every word you say while spreading (including cards read). I will not follow along on the speech doc, I will not read cards after the debate (unless contested or required to render a decision), and, thus, I will not reconstruct the debate for you but will just go off my flow. I can handle speed, but I need clarity not a speechdoc to understand warrants. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that are completely flowable. I'd say about 85% of debaters have been able to meet this paradigm.

I'd also mostly focus on the style section and bold parts of other sections.

---

2018 update: College policy debaters should look to who I judged at my last college judging spree (69th National Debate Tournament in Iowa) to get a feeling of who will and will not pref me. I also like Buntin's new judge philosophy (agree roughly 90%).

It's Fall 2015. I judge all types of debate, from policy-v-policy to non-policy-v-non-policy. I think what separates me as a judge is style, not substance.

I debated for Texas for 5 years (2003-2008), 4 years in Texas during high school (1999-2003). I was twice a top 20 speaker at the NDT. I've coached on and off for highschool and college teams during that time and since. I've ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some favorite memories include "china is evil and that outweighs the security k", to "human extinction is good", to "predictions must specify strong data", to "let's consult the chinese, china is awesome", to "housing discrimination based on race causes school segregation based on race", to "factory farms are biopolitical murder", to “free trade good performance”, to "let's reg. neg. the plan to make businesses confident", to “CO2 fertilization, SO2 Screw, or Ice Age DAs”, to "let the Makah whale", etc. Basically, I've been around.

After it was pointed out that I don't do a great job delineating debatable versus non-debatable preferences, I've decided to style-code bold all parts of my philosophy that are not up for debate. Everything else is merely a preference, and can be debated.

Style/Big Picture:

• I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author+claim + warrant + data+impact" model) over breadth (the "author+claim + impact" model) any day.

• When evaluating probabilistic predictions, I start from the assumption everyone begins at 0%, and you persuade me to increase that number (w/ claims + warrants + data). Rarely do teams get me past 5%. A conceeded claim (or even claim + another claim disguised as the warrant) will not start at 100%, but remains at 0%.

• Combining those first two essential stylistic criteria means, in practice, many times I discount entirely even conceded, well impacted claims because the debaters failed to provide a warrant and/or data to support their claim. It's analogous to failing a basic "laugh" test. I may not be perfect at this rubric yet, but I still think it's better than the alternative (e.g. rebuttals filled with 20+ uses of the word “conceded” and a stack of 60 cards).

• I'll try to minimize the amount of evidence I read to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). In short: don't let the evidence do the debating for you.

• Humor is also well rewarded, and it is hard (but not impossible) to offend me.

• I'd also strongly prefer if teams would slow down 15-20% so that I can hear and understand every word you say (including cards read). While I won't explicitly punish you if you don't, it does go a mile to have me already understand the evidence while you're debating so I don't have to sort through it at the end (especially since I likely won't call for that card anyway).

• Defense can win a debate (there is such as thing as a 100% no link), but offense helps more times than not.

• I'm a big believer in open disclosure practices, and would vote on reasoned arguments about poor disclosure practices. In the perfect world, everything would be open-source (including highlighting and analytics, including 2NR/2AR blocks), and all teams would ultimately share one evidence set. You could cut new evidence, but once read, everyone would have it. We're nowhere near that world. Some performance teams think a few half-citations work when it makes up at best 45 seconds of a 9 minute speech. Some policy teams think offering cards without highlighting for only the first constructive works. I don't think either model works, and would be happy to vote to encourage more open disclosure practices. It's hard to be angry that the other side doesn't engage you when, pre-round, you didn't offer them anything to engage.

• You (or your partner) must physically mark cards if you do not finish them. Orally saying "mark here" (and expecting your opponents or the judge to do it for you) doesn't count. After your speech (and before cross-ex), you should resend a marked copy to the other team. If pointed out by the other team, failure to do means you must mark prior to cross-ex. I will count it as prep time times two to deter sloppy debate.

• By default, I will not “follow along” and read evidence during a debate. I find that it incentivizes unclear and shallow debates. However, I realize that some people are better visual than auditory learners and I would classify myself as strongly visual. If both teams would prefer and communicate to me that preference before the round, I will “follow along” and read evidence during the debate speeches, cross-exs, and maybe even prep.

Topicality:

• I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.

• Abuse makes it all the better, but is not required (doesn't unpredictability inherently abuse?).

• Treat it like a disad, and go from there. In my opinion, topicality is a dying art, so I'll be sure to reward debaters that show talent.

• For the aff – think offense/defense and weigh the standards you're winning against what you're losing rather than say "at least we're reasonable". You'll sound way better.

Framework:

• The exception to the above is the "framework debate". I find it to be an uphill battle for the neg in these debates (usually because that's the only thing the aff has blocked out for 5 minutes, and they debate it 3 out of 4 aff rounds).

• If you want to win framework in front of me, spent time delineating your interpretation of debate in a way that doesn't make it seem arbitrary. For example "they're not policy debate" begs the question what exactly policy debate is. I'm not Justice Steward, and this isn't pornography. I don't know when I've seen it. I'm old school in that I conceptualize framework along “predictability”; "topic education", “policymaking education”, and “aff education” (topical version, switch sides, etc) lines.

• “We're in the direction of the topic” or “we discuss the topic rather than a topical discussion” is a pretty laughable counter-interpretation.

• For the aff, "we agree with the neg's interp of framework but still get to weigh our case" borders on incomprehensible if the framework is the least bit not arbitrary.

Case Debate

• Depth in explanation over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant will do more damage to the 1AR than 5 cards that say the same claim.

• Well-developed impact calculus must begin no later than the 1AR for the Aff and Negative Block for the Neg.

• I enjoy large indepth case debates. I was 2A who wrote my own community unique affs usually with only 1 advantage and no external add-ons. These type of debates, if properly researched and executed, can be quite fun for all parties.

Disads

• Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments are less so.

• From an offense/defense paradigm, conceded uniqueness can control the direction of the link. Conceded links can control the direction of uniqueness. The in round application of "why" is important.

• A story / spin is usually more important (and harder for the 1AR to deal with) than 5 cards that say the same thing.

Counterplan Competition:

• I generally prefer functionally competitive counterplans with solvency advocates delineating the counterplan versus the plan (or close) (as opposed to the counterplan versus the topic), but a good case for textual competition can be made with a language K netbenefit.

• Conditionality (1 CP, SQ, and 1 K) is a fact of life, and anything less is the negative feeling sorry for you (or themselves). However, I do not like 2NR conditionality (i.e., “judge kick”) ever. Make a decision.

• Perms and theory always remain a test of competition (and not a voter) until proven otherwise by the negative by argument (see above), a near impossible standard for arguments that don't interfere substantially with other parts of the debate (e.g. conditionality).

• Perm "do the aff" is not a perm. Debatable perms are "do both" and "do cp/alt"(and "do aff and part of the CP" for multi-plank CPs). Others are usually intrinsic.

Critiques:

• I think of the critique as a (usually linear) disad and the alt as a cp.

• Be sure to clearly impact your critique in the context of what it means/does to the aff case (does the alt solve it, does the critique turn it, make harms inevitable, does it disprove their solvency). Latch on to an external impact (be it "ethics", or biopower causes super-viruses), and weigh it against case.

• Use your alternative to either "fiat uniqueness" or create a rubric by which I don't evaluate uniqueness, and to solve case in other ways.

• I will say upfront the two types of critique routes I find least persuasive are simplistic versions of "economics", "science", and "militarism" bad (mostly because I have an econ degree and am part of an extensive military family). While good critiques exist out there of both, most of what debaters use are not that, so plan accordingly.

• For the aff, figure out how to solve your case absent fiat (education about aff good?), and weigh it against the alternative, which you should reduce to as close as the status quo as possible. Make uniqueness indicts to control the direction of link, and question the timeframe/inevitability/plausability of their impacts.

• Perms generally check clearly uncompetitive alternative jive, but don't work too well against "vote neg". A good link turn generally does way more than “perm solves the link”.

• Aff Framework doesn't ever make the critique disappear, it just changes how I evaluate/weigh the alternative.

• Role of the Ballot - I vote for the team that did the better debating. What is "better" is based on my stylistic criteria. End of story. Don't let "Role of the Ballot" be used as an excuse to avoid impact calculus.

Performance (the other critique):

• Empirically, I do judge these debate and end up about 50-50 on them. I neither bandwagon around nor discount the validity of arguments critical of the pedagogy of debate. I'll let you make the case or defense (preferably with data). The team that usually wins my ballot is the team that made an effort to intelligently clash with the other team (whether it's aff or neg) and meet my stylistic criteria. To me, it's just another form of debate.

• However, I do have some trouble in some of these debates in that I feel most of what is said is usually non-falsifiable, a little too personal for comfort, and devolves 2 out of 3 times into a chest-beating contest with competition limited to some archaic version of "plan-plan". I do recognize that this isn't always the case, but if you find yourselves banking on "the counterplan/critique doesn't solve" because "you did it first", or "it's not genuine", or "their skin is white"; you're already on the path to a loss.

• If you are debating performance teams, the two main takeaways are that you'll probably lose framework unless you win topical version, and I hate judging "X" identity outweighs "Y" identity debates. I suggest, empirically, a critique of their identity politics coupled with some specific case cards is more likely to get my ballot than a strategy based around "Framework" and the "Rev". Not saying it's the only way, just offering some empirical observations of how I vote.

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

General Info:

Call me Vega!

SHE/THEY

Proud Boriqua Educator and Artist

Middle-School Debate Coach at John D. Wells, MS. 50

Full time Paraprofessional in Brooklyn, NYC

Debate Career:

ACORN Community High School 2012-16: Policy Debate

Coached Leon M. Goldstien from 2016-17

Judging Policy and Public Forum from 2015- Present

Judging LD from 2018- Present

Judging Congressional and Speech from 2019- Present

For the majority of my debate career I was double 2s, and later became 2N, 1A.

Overall Rules and Expectations:

I do not count sharing evidence as prep unless you take a century.

I believe that judges are NOT supposed to intervene in round under any circumstances, unless in the case of an extreme emergency.

I shouldn't have to tell you be respectful or to not use hateful, racist, ableist, sexist, or homophobic language. If I hear it, I will automatically give the ballot to the other team. ABSOLUTELY NOT TOLERATED.

Some may think petty debaters or debaters with attitudes are amusing or cute, I don't. Treat your competitors with respect or it will affect your speaker points.

Judge Philosophy:

I believe that it is my responsibility as the judge of the round to remove any pre-existing notions or biases from my mind on whatever topic you chose to debate over, and act as an objective observer who decides whether or not the AFF is a good idea. Unless told otherwise in the round, this is the perspective I default to.

Minimal expectations are the following: If the NEG does not provide any DAs to voting AFF then I will vote AFF. If the AFF does not prove that the AFF is better than the status quo and has an actual solvency method, then I will vote NEG.

It is in your best interest (speaker points) to go far beyond these basic debate expectations. I'm generous with speaker points if you keep me engaged and make sure I understand you, they usually range from 27-29.5

I don't have any specific preference when it comes to argumentation and I will vote on virtually anything you want me to if explained well, but DO NOT assume I know anything.

I’m currently a first-year student at Duke and I competed mainly in Congressional Debate during high school and have had experience in Public Forum.

In Congress - I will be looking at strong link chains in your argument. Everything has to make sense if you want to be scored well. Argumentation will be valued over presentation (probably around 75% argumentation 25% presentation). Make sure you are respectful to your fellow competitors. I want to see a lot of clash and no rehashed arguments. If you can pull off a strong refutation/crystalization speech that will be scored better than bringing up two new points towards the end of the debate. Make sure you ask lots of good questions and are attentive throughout the debate. POs should be fair, respectful, and efficient. If I consider your behavior or your arguments as anything remotely sexist, racist, homophobic, or along the same lines of offensive will be immediately dropped.

In PF - Please no spreading or talking obnoxiously loud just to talk over your competitors. Make sure your link chains are strong and everything is as clear as possible. I'll want to see you cite from strong sources and are well prepared. If you want me to vote on your side I'll have to see a humanized impact (human reason). Presentation doesn't really matter to me I'll look at your argumentation and how you respond to your opponents mainly. If I consider your behavior or your arguments as anything remotely sexist, racist, homophobic, or along the same lines of offensive will be immediately dropped.

Here are my paradigms for various events. If you have any questions feel free to ask for clarification in round.

PF paradigm

I am a former PFer and so I am familiar with the event. I competed for 4 years and I am pretty easy going as for judge preferences. I flow the round, but I do really like to see weighing, sign posting throughout the round and voters in the summary and final focus. I am okay with some speed, but this is not policy or LD so don't go over the top.

Congress Paradigm

I competed a bit in Congress in high school and am familiar with the event. I also have 2 years organizing a youth congress program in Iowa. I am looking for organization in speeches, and also prefer if you speak with limited notes rather than read word for word.

LD Paradigm

I have judged some LD and competed about 2-3 times in high school, but I still consider to be a lay judge. I do flow though, but please provide clear extensions.

Speech Paradigm

For Public Address/ Limited Prep speeches, I like seeing organization in the speeches, and for events such as oratory a clear argument

For Interp. I prefer seeing clear character pops and smooth transitions between characters.

Tell me which time signals you want otherwise I will typically give just 2 down for interp/ public address events and then 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 in extemp.