Congressional Debate:

In short, I like to rank based off of how well-received I think your performance would be to sway the American public one way or another (not accounting for how many Americans agree/disagree with your position beforehand).

The most important thing about Congressional Debate, in my opinion, is sounding like an actual congressperson. That may seem intuitive, but it means assuming the audience is filled with average Americans. The average American will not be versed with complicated economic or debate jargon, etc. Your rhetoric should also be similar, make it relevant to the average person. By all means, try to simplify a complicated legal or economic concept for people without background in either field - it shows you know what you're talking about - as long as the explanation doesn't become the majority of your speech.

It's also important to contrast your views with the opposition. Good questioning is key to Congressional Debate. Congress is a debate event, not a speech event, so there needs to be a good back-and-forth to contrast your points. Building off of that, (except sponsorship/authorships) unless you are bringing up completely new points, I expect you to reference previous points of contention.

For POs: The best PO is unnoticeable. Making an error or two is fine, as long as you own up to your mistakes. I am not picky - you need to make sure you pave the way for debate instead of being a roadblock.

HAVE FUN! You are doing debate because you want to (I hope)!

Introduction

High school varsity debater in Congressional Debate, Public Forum, and Lincoln Douglas from the Commonwealth of Virginia.

I qualified for the State Competition during my Freshman year and was the 2022 Region 5 State Champion. Regarding my judging experience, I've served as a Parliamentarian for Congressional Debate and have judged Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas in the past.

To preface, I've divided my paradigm into three subsections: Congress, PF, and LD. If you have any questions regarding my paradigm please don't hesitate to ask.

Congressional Debate

Presiding Officer, maintain control over the chamber, this I cannot stress enough. Don't allow speakers to speak longer than they have to or questioners to question longer than they need to. Urge the chamber to keep questions and answers short but more importantly, to be concise. You must understand parliamentarian procedure especially if you're the presiding officer. If you use geography as a way to select speakers instead of precedence and recency I won't hesitate to drop you because the geography method often if not always, disadvantages competitors in the chamber. But the big thing is to maintain control.

For timing, I do highly recommend that you'll strictly use the Gavel Method but if you use a different method such as the Reflection Method, I will be docking points because that method focuses more on reflection instead of allowing speakers/Senators/Representatives to extemp or write rebuttals.

Speeches, Authorship and sponsorship speeches should be strong and prove solvency on why that legislation should be passed. The first negation should tackle points made by the authorship/sponsorship and why the legislation will damage the status quo instead of benefit it. After the authorship/sponsorship and first negation, I look for rebuttals that are made with confidence and sources. If you provide a crystalization speech then I look for it to be clear, concise, get to the point, but thorough, most of all, it must ensure that the legislation does have solvency if it's a crystal in the affirmation or why the legislation overall fails if it's a crystal in the negation.

Delivery, especially in Congress, it's often not solely based on what you say but how you say it. If you come off arrogant or ignorant then I'll most likely be harsher as a judge but I do want to make it clear that there is a distinct difference between being loud/aggressive and speaking with urgency. I do also look for good rhetoric and confidence in what you're saying but for rank scores, this won't be the deciding factor. Most of all, eye contact, don't give speeches that are too pre-written, think of your feet and adapt to your environment, or in this case, adapt to your chamber.

Questioning, I understand that some judges do prefer questioning to exploit flawed arguments but I often consider questioning to be a scholarly discussion. Don't ask to prove a point, ask to understand their side of the argument, and especially in direct questioning, most of all, you shouldn't be rebutting in questioning, that should be saved for your speech. For indirect questioning, don't ask filler questions and ask questions that would further the debate or questions that allow for more information to be presented.

Be polite, don't be aggressive, and when answering questions don't come off as arrogant or make a questioner feel embarrassed by their question.

Overall, please be respectful to everyone in the chamber. Make your impacts clear and provide unique arguments because I will drop those who give non-unique arguments or rehash. But the most important thing is to allow the debate to move forward. I will favor those more who make the effort to flip sides or take the initiative to speak if no one else chooses to.

Public Forum

I don't flow crossfire, the only instance in which I do is when it's brought up in a speech afterward.

Next, I'm going to quote my coach on something we both agree on being evidence. If you aren't able to produce a proper card or the article from which you base your evidence during the round then I won't flow it. I highly recommend all competitors to be organized to quickly pull up source info if it's requested or asked. I won't make you use prep time to find cards unless we get behind on time since it tends to be a stressful situation.

For speed, I'm a fast speaker myself but if you choose to spread I urge you to ensure that your opponents are also fine with that. With that in mind, fast doesn't correlate with strong arguments, if you can present strong arguments and impact them on why your arguments are stronger then I will flow your side.

When it comes to weighing, sticking the words "magnitude" and "scope" won't be enough to win my ballot. I urge you to weigh your arguments and the arguments made by your opponents in your speech and clearly explain why it's important to vote for your side, be detailed and clear.

Tech vs. Truth, in full honesty I'm more fond of tech but at the end of the day, please make sure you're not misconstruing evidence and are able to explain your arguments and warrants extremely well.

Finally, I'm not the biggest fan of single contention cases as they often lack persuasion and decimate the quality of debate but if you choose to run a single contention case, it should have subsections and thorough reasoning.

Overall, debate, especially in Public Forum, is meant to be inclusive for competitors to have fun and to be able to learn more about a topic so please don't be aggressive, rude, or offensive in a round, I do have an exception for cross-ex because I understand that there are times when it gets heated.

Lincoln Douglas

I have a preference for traditional LD debates but if you're a circuit debater up against a traditional debater then I urge you to not overwhelm them with rhetoric because that isn't fun for either the competitor or the judge since the debate will fail to move forward.

For larp, I do believe it promotes an educational debate and promotes strong clash but only if it's done well. If you can execute it and provide strong arguments, it would most likely be the best way to get my ballot.

Next, the philosophical element. As you should know, Lincoln Douglas is considered a mixture to some extent of philosophy and moral debate, I do appreciate philosophy but don't allow that to be your only factor and try to contribute clash to allow the debate to move forward. That being said, if your arguments mainly focus on philosophy, I urge you to be clear when explaining them and provide clear and concise links.

Kritik, not sure where to begin with this one... I enjoy judging Kritik and overall it's extremely useful unless they're pre-fiat so if you do run a Kritik, I urge you to be able to back it up and be detailed to sell it to me.

Now we have theory, often it's meant to be counter abuse and I don't find it beneficial in a round that allows the debate to be furthered, I'll flow it but it tends to get messy and no offense to those who do run theory, it's often meaningless and doesn't contribute much.

Next, we have my least favorite, Trix, I will flow it and I'll listen to your arguments but under no circumstance do I wish to hear arguments revolving around truth testing but if you do run Trix I will still consider your arguments but you must sell your arguments and show the impacts.

When it comes to spreading, I'm neutral on it and don't have any major opinions but on that note only spread if your opponent is also ok with you spreading.

Moving on to Framework and Impacts, in almost every round I will evaluate the debate under the strongest framework with the strongest and most impactful arguments. Please make sure and I cannot stress this enough that all impacts must be linked to the framework, that being said, impact calculus and comparative worlds are a fantastic way to weigh impacts. Except if your impact doesn't uphold the framework it will most likely be skipped over in my ballot; moreover, I do prefer value/value criterion but I'm open to a regular standard.

Overall, I'm looking for clear arguments, strong links, and confidence in what you're saying. Under no circumstance should you be abusive in the debate and I will dock points for being rude, offensive, hostile, and/or making the opposition uncomfortable but being slightly aggressive in cross-ex is fine cause that's common and I understand that cross-ex can get intense sometimes.

Conclusion

From my years participating on the Debate Team and competing in a variety of unique competitions, I have one overall piece of advice, no matter what competition you're attending, it'll always be a learning experience dedicated to honing your craft whether it's public speaking or analyzation. Have fun and don't waste these opportunities, you never know when you'll have another one.

With that being said, the purpose of debate is meant to be educational, and attempts to "exploit" the other debater doesn't achieve that under any circumstance unless there is a clear flaw.

Finally, in the words of one of the greatest debate coaches I've ever had, "Live in the moment, and Godspeed to you all. Oh yeah, remember that I will not be offended if you strike me as a judge. Just saying..."