I’ll keep this short, if you speak decently, have good evidence and make clear point, you’ll do well. Also if you try any games, don’t, I probably came up with whatever you’re going to try.

Background:

I did Congress for four years at Ursuline HS in Youngstown, Ohio. I was a four-time state and NSDA qualifier in Congress (plus a meme NSDA qualification in IX my senior year), won the 2017 Ohio state tournament, was runner-up the following two years, and was an NSDA House finalist in 2018. I've remotely coached MS and HS Congress at John F. Kennedy in Warren, Ohio for four years. Outside of debate, I'm in graduate school at MIT pursuing a PhD in chemical engineering.

Congress Paradigm:

Sparknotes version: I'm content > presentation, but both are important by the nature of the event. Give compelling speeches with clear argumentation that advance the debate, and make sure you (and others!) have fun.

As a baseline, I look for all of the following: intro connected to topic, clear warrants/analyses/impacts, high-quality evidence, clash/refutation in every speech after the first affirmative, zero rehash, clear overall speech structure (especially if deviating from two contentions), mostly extemporaneous speaking, clear delivery (whatever that looks like for you), questioning activity throughout session

More niche stuff I particularly like: unique/off-the-wall contentions that show deep research into a topic (don't be afraid to give new arguments late in debates!), humanized and quantitative impacts when possible, clever rhetoric and turns of phrase related to topic, humor when appropriate, high-quality sponsorships that set up the debate well, different types of speeches over the course of the session/round (assuming you can given P/R position and/or having me as a parli)

Pet peeves: super canned intros and rhetoric, fake clash/namedropping, being arrogant, rude, and/or patronizing

Speech count philosophy: I value quality > quantity with speeches. Don't feel the need to give an extra speech just to have more than the rest of the chamber. If it's a good speech, it'll help (if it's better than your previous one(s)), and if it's a bad speech, it'll hurt, but the extra speech itself is irrelevant.

POs: I like to rank POs high. Efficiency is key for me, because extra speeches equals more debate, but speed isn't an excuse for frequent errors. My tolerance for mistakes is inversely related to the stakes of the round.

Fairness/equity: I expect all competitors to be included and respected in discussions concerning POs, legislation, and general chamber activity. This is non-negotiable for me.

Fun: Competition can be intense, but it's easier to watch (and compete in!) a round that everyone is enjoying. I'm also probably more likely to remember someone who's having a good time.

My best advice: If you have any questions, please ask! It's a lot easier to give a helpful paradigm in person, especially in response to pointed questions.

(The above is a distilled version of my previous paradigm, which was a lot more detailed, so for those who want a deeper dive into my judging philosophy, here's a link: https://tinyurl.com/ADSparadigm)