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.

Background:

Judged 2016-2020

Lincoln-Douglass, Congressional Debate 2012-2016

he/him/his or they/them/theirs

(I'm not nonbinary. Normalize gender neutral language!)

‎

Universal expectations:

* Don't be disrespectful.

* Don't promote bigotry.

* Add me to the email chain: a.bissell.siders [at] gmail [dot] com

‎

Lincoln-Douglass paradigm:

I believe high-school debate should have three goals:

[1] Education to improve research skills (reading and understanding articles). Therefore:

* I generally prefer truth (evidence) over tech (theory).

* I generally prefer fewer but well-warranted claims over more but poorly-warranted claims.

* Quantitative evidence & impacts often beat qualitative evidence & impacts (unless you weigh them well!).

* [Research shows that empirical evidence does change people's minds (eg, Wood and Porter 2018). Bennyboi Shapiro ain't right about much, but he's right about "facts and logic".]

[2] Competition to improve communication skills (listening and speaking). Therefore:

* If you don't say it, I don't flow it. Guide me.

* I generally prefer fair-ish rounds with roughly equally accessible ground.

* I generally prefer clarity and concision over speed.

* [Non-debaters speak around 100-200wpm and comprehend 200-300 wpm. Aim below 300 wpm! Focus on compressing your sources rather than expanding your speaking rate!]

[3] Provide an accepting and enjoyable space. Bigotry has no room here. Don't attack your opponent, attack their arguments. Four-letter words are fine. Humor is wonderful. Be yourself. Relax, you'll do fine.

‎‎‎‎

Congress paradigm:

All speeches: Debate the bill!

* Stock bad: Debate about the bill! Don't give generic introductions. Don't give generic arguments.

* Link bill to impact: Don't just say "impact X is bad" or "X is good". Do provide evidence that "bill does Y and Y causes X".

* Weigh impacts: Do give impacts for each argument. Do weigh impacts against opposition's impacts.

Negative speeches: Demonstrate harm!

* Insufficiency is not a harm: Don't just say "bill is bad because it doesn't do X" unless you provide evidence that "bill is mutually exclusive with X".

* Complacency is usually not a harm: Don't say "bill is bad because it partially solves X, which makes people complacent about X" unless you provide evidence that "partially solving X makes people complacent about X".

First affirmative and first negative speech: Provide framework!

* Provide framework: Establish the framework to weigh impacts for the debate.

Later speeches: No rehash!

* No rehash: Don't make the same arguments unless you give new evidence.

* No rehash.

* No rehash.

Presiding Officer:

* I highly rank strong POs. Efficient, knows rules of order, commands chamber.

Background: Head Coach at Robbinsdale Armstrong and Robbinsdale Cooper HS in Minnesota. There I coach LD, PF and Congressional Debate.

Most Important: Debate should be about comparing and weighing arguments. In LD (and optional in PF) there should be a criterion (standard) which argument are weighed through. The purpose of the criterion is to filter out arguments. So simply winning the criterion does not mean you win the debate. You should have arguments that link to the winning criterion and those arguments should be weighed against any opposing/linking arguments. If the debaters do not weigh the arguments, then you force the judge to do that weighing for you and that is never good.

Overall: Debate should be inclusive and available to all people. If your goal is to speak as fast as possible and run the most obscure arguments ever to exclude people, then this isn't a winning strategy for you. My suggestion would be to run topical arguments at a pace that is inclusive to all students. Speed within limits is ok. The more obscure the argument the more time you should spend on explaining it. Don't just throw out random words and assume I'll fill in the blanks for you. No need to ask if I want to be on the email chain, job of debate is to communicate the evidence to me.

Congressional Debate: Read everything above because it is still valuable information. Congressional Debate is debate by nature. It is not a dueling oratory round. In general, the first cycle is there to set up arguments in the round. The author/sponsor speech should be polished. All other speeches should have elements of refutation to other students and arguments in the round. If you are giving a speech in the fourth cycle and never refer to another person's argument, you are not going to score well in front of me. Simply dropping a person's name isn't refutation. You should tell me why their argument is wrong. With evidence it is even better.

You should do everything in your power to not go back-to-back on the same side. I will flow little of a second speech back-to-back on the same side. If you are the third speaker on the same side in a row, I'm not flowing any of it. Debaters should be prepared to switch sides if necessary. Lastly, there is a trend for no one to give an author/sponsor speech as they are worried, they will not score well. That isn't true in front of me. All parts of the debate are important.

The questioning period is about defeating arguments not to make the person look good. Softball questions are not helpful to debate. Do it multiple times and expect your rank to go down. All aspects, your speech, the quality of sources, refutation and questioning all go into your final rank. Just because you speak the prettiest does not mean you are the champion. You should be able to author/sponsor, refute, crystalize, ask tough questions, and defend yourself in questioning throughout the debate. Do all in a session and you are in decent shape.

Presiding Officers (PO): The PO will start with a rank of six in all chambers for me. From there, you can work your way up or down based on your performance. PO's who are clearly favoring the same school or same circuit students will lose rank. A PO can absolutely receive the one in my ranks likewise they can be unranked if you make many errors.

The current trend is for "super wordy" PO's. You do not need to say things like "Thank you for that speech of 3:09. As this was the 3rd Affirmative Speech, we are in line for 1 minute block of questioning. All those who wish to ask a question, please indicate." If you add up the above through an entire session, that adds up to multiple speeches that were taken by the PO. Watch how many words you say between speeches, question blocks, etc. A great PO blends away in the room. Extra language like "The chair thanks you", "this is speech 22", etc. All of this is just filler words for the PO taking time away from the debate. Lastly, a "chair" doesn't have feelings. It is not rude to be efficient.

I track precedence/recency in all sessions. I keep a detailed flow in all rounds debate - Congress, LD and PF.

Disclosure: I typically do not give any oral critiques. All the information will be on the ballot.

My name is Diya (she/her and pronounced DEE-UH). I debated throughout high school and am currently a junior at Duke (make a reference and I'll smile). I don't debate anymore ... ie I'm out of touch with fast speaking, technical debate, and am coming into this topic with no background. I will vote off the flow.

Speak clearly! Please please please don't spread. Call me traditional (I was), but speaking quickly for the sake of it is not what debate is about

Don't be rude; be respectful (if you're rude, expect low speaker points)

Frame your arguments - I'll default to util if you don't provide a better framework. WEIGH

I appreciate frontlines in second rebuttal

Warrant statistics and evidence with logic. Your numbers mean literally nothing unless you can explain to me WHY they're relevant or actually make sense. That being said, very low chance I call for evidence... you should know how to read and correctly interpret data

What I'm looking for is a clear, concise argument. Humor is appreciated, but all jokes should be in good taste. I want to see good preparation from competitors as well asadaptability- if you don't have something written, and the splits are bad, switching sides shows dedication. Questioning is an essential part of debate, so you should do that. Zoning out and only speaking when necessary will not do you any favors. Decorum is also an essential part of debate. You should be not just courteous but kind to your competitors. PO's should not just be charismatic but quick as well. The most consistent issue I see across tournaments is PO's taking too long to find the next speaker, whether it be during questioning or actual speeches. Other than that, do your best and pay attention.

I am an LD coach in the CFL, but I have experience judging all debate events.

Value & Criterion - remember this is LD, not PF. Ultimately I am looking for you to tie all points in your case back to your value structure. Your value structure sets a standard for me to weigh the round. Be sure that your case upholds the standard established in your value structure.

Clarity, Logic, & IMPACT - Keep your arguments concise and to the point. Snowball effects and illogical conclusions will cause me to discount your arguments. I want to see impact!! Why is what you are arguing important? Why should I care? Evidence should be clear and concise, cited and applied correctly to your case.

Structure & Narrative: I like to see a clear narrative throughout your case. Why and how does your offense outweigh your opponents? I like you to give me clear voters that link back into the narrative of your offense.

QUALITY > Quantity - Speed does not win a round with me. Logical, original, well-thought out arguments will win your round. I will flow as you debate, and if I cannot understand you I can not flow your arguments. I can handle some speed, but if you spew out as many arguments as you can or barrel through reading your case, I will likely just drop my pen. A good debater can give clear, logical arguments in the time frame allotted without needing to speed read. Again, QUALITY is better than quantity.

Maturity & Civility - I will take points for arrogance, rudeness, or immaturity. There is never cause to be nasty or unkind to your opponent. If you cannot argue your side diplomatically and respectfully, your lack of professionalism will be reflected in speaker points.

A few notes on flowing....

If you call for a card in round, and then fail to bring it back up, I assume you conceded the point to your opponent. Depending on the specifics of the round I may dock points for this.

I do not flow the author's name of a card. If you continue to reference arguments by using the author's name as a tag, I won't know to which argument you are referring, and I won't be flowing it.

I do not flow CX but I am listening closely and I appreciate when you extend arguments or points from CX into rebuttal

I will use my flow in my decision making, but it will not be the only point of reference for my decision. There is something to be said for your style of communication and delivery as well as the arguments you make.

Hello competitor!

My name is Nathan Fair. I am a freshman in the honors program at the University of Colorado Colorado Springs majoring in International Business. I competed all four years of high school in congressional debate.

I founded and run Debating for America's Youth an educational Speech and Debate nonprofit. I have interviewed National Champions in every Speech and Debate event. I have an understanding of each event but if you are going to spread virtually, please share an email chain.

I look for a strong debate in debate events so make sure to have good clash (especially during questioning and cross).

Good luck!

I have two years of PFD experience, 1 year of Congress experience where I was a competitor at the NCFL Grand National Tournament for Cumberland International Early College along with other tournaments on the national circuit. I also competed on the North Carolina Worlds Schools Debate team at the National Speech and Debate Association National Tournament this past June. I am now a freshman in the Honors College at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill double majoring in political science and public policy.

I don't really flow in a traditional sense but I do keep track of everything being said so please do not have that dissuade you from getting out as much information as possible because I will be able to keep up. I am not a lay judge, rather I will probably be one of the tougher judges you have. I appreciate people who are able to talk fast and clearly but am not a fan of spreading so try to limit that.

Typically, I will vote off the point/points that the debate has focused on as most PFD rounds tend to narrow down to around one or two points. Knowing this, I do penalize teams when smaller points are dropped, even if the debate is centered on one thing do not forget to address smaller contentions or leave ends untied.

I value definitions and framework highly. Terminology is key to providing a strong framework and clarifying the resolution so these things go hand in hand. If your team does decide to agree on the opponent’s framework and with their definition keep in mind that I will then be weighing the round off of that framework......even if your team had the stronger arguments. Easiest way to put it is the first minute to minute and a half of your speech will weigh heavily in my vote.

Lastly, my biggest thing is sourcing. If something is said but a source is not clearly stated I will immediately drop the point. I often ask for sources within round so have sources readily available.

I will disclose who I feel won and why unless I am told by the tournament to do otherwise.

Outside of that I prefer a fun round and love to give feedback following rounds so please do not hesitate to approach me, I often would prefer that rather than writing comments.

If there are any questions about my paradigms feel free to ask me in round.

Hello!

I competed for four years in Congressional Debate for Asheville High School. I qualified for CFLS, reached the semifinal round in the Senate at NSDA Nationals in 2020, and have had a solid local career. I currently compete in British Parliamentary Debate for the University of Edinburgh Debates Union. Additionally, I was the co-captain of my team and have recently worked with novices, therefore, I know what a quality speech looks like.

Here is what I value most when judging a round:

I was a presiding officer throughout all four years of competing, and I recognize and appreciate its value. Therefore, I highly consider presiding officers when looking at rankings. If you preside well, I will likely rank you in my top 8.

I appreciate funny intros, but make sure they’re topical. It's important to not use "canned" intros, or intros that you can pull out at any time that apply to any topic. An example would be the quote "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." We’ve all heard it before, please don’t make me hear it again.

Keep in mind that Congressional Debate is just that - debate. While I do appreciate and consider fancy rhetoric and fluent speaking, I will rank someone who makes clear and valid points over someone whose speech sounds pretty, and I will rank someone who does both of those things along with solid refutation above anyone else. I will also value quality of speeches over quantity. If you are passed over on a bill in some way, you will still be considered with everyone who gave a speech on that bill. Please make sure to be interactive with the chamber, though. I will be looking at engagement with the chamber in my rankings. With that in mind, please do not be afraid of moving to previous question if the debate has become rehashy. I can promise that I will like your speech more if it's an early round, unique speech on the next bill than if it's the fourth affirmation speech in a row. Again, Congress is debate, and when the debate has ended, previous question should be called.

Speaking of, there is a difference between refuting speakers and simply name-dropping them. Refutation is legitimately engaging with the material in someone else's speech. For example, saying “Rep. X said this, but my two pieces of evidence prove why they’re wrong,” is refutation. Meanwhile, saying "Rep. X’s point was non-unique so their point falls,” is not refutation. Furthermore, nothing makes it more obvious that you haven’t been listening to the round than saying “representatives on the negation have brought up [blank].” It’s always more impactful to bring up a specific competitor, but make sure you’re bringing them up for a reason and not just because they were on the opposite side and you need to refute someone.

Nothing is more important to me than equity. Inequitable structures and behavior are a huge problem in the debate community, and as a judge, I will take action to ensure that all chambers that I judge are as fair as possible. With that in mind, if you make an outwardly racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or ableist comment, I will drop you. I don’t care how well you were doing otherwise, there is no excuse for that behavior. In that same vein, I know that we all love a good, aggressive questioning session, but do make sure that you aren’t speaking over another person. That isn’t fun for the judges to listen to, and it’s not fun for competitors to interact with.

Additionally, when addressing other competitors, make sure to address them as “Representative” or “Senator.” Too many times in this event, I’ve seen men be acknowledged by one of those titles, while women are addressed as “Miss.” I won’t dock points if you forget whether you’re in the Senate or the House, but please address everyone by either “Representative” or “Senator” to ensure equality in the chamber.

Please let me know if you have questions. After a round, feel free to get in contact with me for any additional advice you may want or questions you may have. Good luck!

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.

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.

I am a parent judge, and this is my 3rd year judging debate.

When I judge a round, I look for the following:

1. If you don't connect your evidence to your overall argument, I will not be convinced.

2. Do not spread--I value quality and connectivity over quantity.

3. I value strong cross examination skills--being able to think on your feet and attack an opponent's case will help you win the round.

4. Be confident but courteous in the round.

I competed from 7th grade thur college - I was a Policy Debater.

I have been coaching for 20 + years. I am not a fan of the direction that most debate is going.

Don't waste my time with obscure arguments. Bonaparte once said that "Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever."

You need to extend BOTH the warrant AND impact of your argument(s) in later speeches if you're serious about finessing my ballot. PS...make sure you have a warrant and impact...

If your flow and delivery are clear - SPEED isn't a problem, but if it sounds like you are having a spiritual moment while you are running your case - I am not impressed. Spitting is just rude. Work harder - no-one cares.

Loud isn't an emotion. No Bullies aloud/allowed 20L is in your future.

I am okay with offtime roadmaps - if it's really a roadmap and not trying to sink the other team...

Signposting is fine - I am an English teacher.

Use author qualifications when first citing a piece of evidence (for extensions last name will suffice).

I like good solid evidence, clear debate, and solid connections.

Debate is hard but it's not personal. Have fun - be kind - play fair and tell great stories.

I love powerful words and phrases.

CX can be the root of the best conversations.

I am a head coach and have been coaching for thirteen years. I thoroughly enjoy all of the events that our organization sponsors and deeply appreciate the critical thinking and communication skills they promote. For debate, I can appreciate a range of styles and approaches. While I don't mind a brisk speed when it is necessary to incorporate a variety of legitimate arguments in case or rebuttal, when it is used primarily as a weapon to overwhelm an opponent with accusations of dropped cards (in particular), I admit my patience can grow thin. You also don't have to win every bit of the flow (or pretend to) to win a round for me. You may even honestly concede minor points and cards/warrants. The important thing is to win the main arguments, wherever they happen to occur in the flow. Therefore, your job is to help me weigh what the most essential arguments are towards the end of the round. That is not to say that I don't value line-by-line coverage of the flow in rebuttal, and that dropped points are of no concern. And it is possible that accidentally dropping major points (usually by poor time distribution) could result in a fairly automatic loss. It's just that all things being equal, I value winning the major points of the debate over thoroughness of coverage.

Director of Speech and Debate at Lake Highland Prep - Orlando, FL

Email chain info: njohnston@lhps.org

The Paradigm:
Debate is meant to be a fun activity! I think you should do whatever you need to do to ride your own personal happiness train. So have a good time in our rounds. That said, remember that riding your happiness train shouldn't limit someone else's ability to ride their's. So be kind. Have fun, learn stuff, don't be a jerk though.

I've been around debate for over 15 years. You can read whatever arguments in front of me and I'm happy to evaluate them. I'm fine if you want to LARP, read Ks, be a phil debater, do more trad stuff, or whatever else. I'm good with theory as long as you're generating genuine, in-round abuse stories. Frivolous theory and tricks are not something I'm interested in listening to. If I'm judging you online, go like 50% of your max spreading because hearing online is difficult. I'd like to be on email chains, but we all should accept that SpeechDrop is better and use it more. Otherwise, do whatever you want.

Rankings:
K - 1
Phil - 2
Policy - 1
High theory - 2.5 (it'll be ok but I'm going to need you to help me understand if its too far off the wall)
Theory - 1 (but the good kind), 4 (for the bad, friv kind)
Tricks - you should probably strike me

The Feels:
I'm somewhat ideologically opposed to judge prefs. As someone who values the educative nature of our events, I think judge adaptation is important. To that end, I see judge paradigms as a good way for you to know how to adapt to any given judge in any given round. Thus, in theory, you would think that I am a fan of judge paradigms. My concern with them arises when we are no longer using them to allow students the opportunity to adapt to their judges, but rather they exist to exclude members from the potential audience that a competitor may have to perform in front of (granted I think there is real value in strikes and conflicts for a whole host of reasons, but prefs certainly feed into the aforementioned problem). I'm not sure this little rant has anything to do with how you should pref/strike me, view my paradigm, etc. It kind of makes me not want to post anything here, but I feel like my obligation as a potential educator for anyone that wants to voice an argument in front of me outweighs my concerns with our MPJ system. I just think it is something important and a conversation we should be having. This is my way of helping the subject not be invisible.

I have judged in several regional and national tournaments. I would love to see good constructive arguments to advance the debate with clear evidence and compelling impacts. Be respectful in the chamber and have healthy competition. I will drop you for any rude and snarky comments. Have fun!

Events Coached: PF, LD, Congress, Speech
Competed In: Policy, Speech - Decades Ago!

Years Judging LD: 12

Years Judging Overall: 12

Delivery Rate: 5

(1 = Slow … 7 = Fast)

Delivery Heavily Weighs: 5
In my decision, the VALUE is: 2

(1 = is very important … 7 = is rarely a factor)

In my decision, the CRITERION is: 2

(1 = is very important … 7 = is rarely a factor)
Final rebuttals should have: voting issues only ****
Jargon during rebuttals: 2

(1 = use frequently … 7 = use sparingly)
Evidence (analytical and empirical): 3

(1 = always necessary .... 7 = not necessary)

Decide Winner: Key Arguments

During round, my note taking is: Rigorous Flow

Comments:

On Speed/Spreading: If I cannot understand you, you cannot win.
V/VC is important to win but must have solid contentions to support your case.
****Final rebuttal - OK to make clarifying comments responding to an issue that you feel opponent misconstrued or misunderstood. Focus on KVI - Tell me why you won the round.

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

Fourth-year assistant coach at Ridge High School.

I teach AP Government, Politics, & Economics, Global History, and AP Euro there as well. I will be able to follow any content/current event information you include.

I've coached and judged all major debate topics. I work most closely with our Congressional debate team, but also have experience judging PF, LD, and Parli.

PF: I think it's important for you to remember the goal of the event. Anyone should be able to walk into your round and follow the debate. With that said, I do flow and will try to give tech feedback as well as general commentary. I think some speed is ok in PF, but I think spreading absolutely does not belong.

LD: I am not a former debater myself; I really struggle to follow theory debate, K's, and spreading in general. I've learned a little about it over the past few years, but if you are a tech/theory/spreading team you should probably strike me (just being honest!). For all other levels--I will flow both framework and case and have voted on both. Try to be concrete in connecting your evidence to your claims. I've found that LD debaters can sometimes get carried away with "debater math"...and no, not everything can lead to nuke war. I am partial to probability arguments--I'm a realist at heart :)

Congress: As a teacher of Government & Politics, I really enjoy this event. You should always be roleplaying being an actual representative/senator. What would your constituents think about your speech? Why is your advocacy in their interest? I really like constitutionality arguments--we have a federal system, and sometimes bills being debated are directly in violation of those principles. Feel free to cite those Supreme Court cases all day. As you get later into the round, I will be highly critical if you are just repeating points from previous speeches. I want to see crystal/ref speeches later on--as do your fellow competitors, I'd presume.

The following paradigm was written a couple years ago but still rings true, however I want to preface that I've been out of the loop since 2019, so if there are any new catch-words or jargon I may not be completely on top of that, just so you know!

Former Debater, 4 years, am familiar with both lay and circuit styles of PuFo and LD, and I prefer a style that lies somewhere in the middle (probably a little closer to lay, if I'm being honest). If you construct a superior logical and rhetorical argument than your opponent and effectively communicate that to me, you're going to win the debate. I weight framework heavily, especially in LD. Tie everything back to what you're asking me to weigh the round on for the best results.

I'll be flowing the debate but don't expect me to weigh the debate on an issue if you don't touch on that issue during your final speech. Use the first three speeches to win the debate, use the last speech to tell me WHY you won the debate.

Hello!

I'm Rohan Ray, a former competitor in Congress for 4 years in high school that's had a lot of experience in competing at tournaments all over the country, including TOC and NSDA Nationals and have had a fair bit of experience in coaching other students. My paradigm will be guided towards my expectations when it comes to a round of Congress and your specific role as a speaker in a round that I will be basing my ranks off of.

Firstly, Congress is an event that relies a lot on argumentation. The most important factor for me when evaluating your rank in a chamber is your argumentation and the logical flow of your argument. It's very easy to tie random arguments to a bill in this event, but finding the arguments that actually impact the flow of a round (your arguments prove to me why your side outweighs the opposition) are the ones that will get the highest rank. That being said, your role in the round also depends on where you speak.

If you are giving an authorship/sponsorship speech, I expect you to set the standard for the affirmative and introduce the specifics of the bill as far as it pertains to the mechanisms of the bill (explain what each section means for the people it will be affecting), and if you're giving an early constructive speech, set the framework for the round. If that means setting a literal framework for what needs to be proven from each said (Aff needs to prove xyz, Neg needs to prove abc), that's fine, but make sure you actually hold people accountable for it during cross-ex. Finally, crystallization/refutation speeches are all I want to hear after the 3rd or 4th cycle of debate. I really enjoy listening to crystallization speeches (ones that weigh the arguments of a round from both sides and make me understand why I should be inclined to vote for one side over the other) as they require a deeper level of understanding the bill and how the world works overall to interpret them. Refutation speeches and clash in general are extremely important to me. Refutation is a subtle art and needs to be done carefully in order to successfully disprove another person's arguments, but if you can give evidence as to why someone's argument is wrong (especially key arguments that haven't been disproven in a round yet), you will have gained a huge advantage for yourself in the round.

Questioning is where the good/great debaters stand out from mediocre ones. If you are successfully able to punch a hole in the person you are cross-examining's argument, and aren't just speaking loudly over them, you will have gained a point in my book. Conversely, if you are effective at responding to tough questions with substantive material from your speech, you will have also gained a point. I really enjoy listening to cross-ex periods, but please try to keep your cool during this period, as screaming over each other doesn't really help anyone evaluate how a questioning period is going, and I'll have gained nothing to evaluate you off of.

I enjoy listening to people with empassioned speaking styles, but if that's just not your style, I wouldn't fault you for it. The most important aspects to a great speech are in your argumentation and the impact your speech has on the round (weighing the round), but different speaking styles or anything that would make you stand out from the rest of your fellow competitors would definitely help me understand your strengths.

I value the role that presiding officers play in a round, so they do play a part in my rankings. If you are fluent in the general proceedings of a Congress round, and are able to successfully keep order in a round, you'll have done a good job. Keep good track of precedence and recency (if it's required by the tournament), as I will also be keeping track of it myself.

This event entertained me for 4 years in high school, and I hope all of you enjoy the highs and lows of competing in speech and debate. Be respectful of other's opinions, even if you may disagree with them, and most importantly, be fair to your peers in round. Even if you get dropped to the last speech on a bill, it's not the end of the world. Adapt to the circumstances that you face in the round, and you'll do well. I look forward to seeing y'all in rounds!

Congressional Debate Paradigm

Intro: This year is the start of my 8th year as a parent judge. I have judged every Debate event and most Speech events, but I have the most experience with PF, Congress, Impromptu, Extemp, and LD. Of these, Congress is my favorite!

Expectations:

- be professional and courteous to others at all times

- play the part, and enjoy it

- speak in a way that allows me to understand you - not too fast, and assume that I don't know abbreviations and "lingo" related to the legislation

How I judge/rank/assign points:

- quality of speech and quality of answers to questions: relevant, moves the debate, concise, original, organized, logical, supports your position or refutes the opposing position, demonstrates knowledge of the legislation, reliable evidence, persuasive

- delivery: mostly extemporaneous, poised, confident, mostly correct sentence structure & grammar, clear transitions with signposting

- use of time: use all, or at least the majority, of the time allotted for your speech

- demeanor: respectful, professional, personable & memorable (you need to make yourself stand out from the others), be an active participant

Have fun and impress me!!

I am a fairly new judge and consider myself a lay judge. I do not understand spreading or progressive arguments.

When judging I value these the most:

1. Clear and confident speech. What ever the topic be, I expect contestants to be confident in the stand they take. I don't want contestants to rush their speech.

2. Topics to be explained as part of the speech. I might or might not know all the topics that are being discussed, so it is the contestant's responsibility to make it clear to me what the topic is being discussed and what stand they are taking.

3. Clear evidence with links to data.

4. I believe in "Give Respect and take Respect". I discourage extreme offensive language and rudeness to either the judges or competitors.

5. Have fun and enjoy the debate.

I am a parent judge. I prefer clear and logical speech. Make sure you explain your argument very clearly. Respect your opponents. Please do not interrupt your opponents during crossfire.

Sophomore at Duke, I debated ld and pf in high school.

general stuff:

Please no progressive arguments or spreading, I will drop you.

I highly prefer debaters who have clear pace. I don't mind if you go a bit fast, but make sure to emphasize important points and arguments.

I also like to see impact weighing, original analysis, and voter issues. Arguments with insufficient evidence or analysis will not be evaluated at the same level as arguments backed by solid evidence.

Please be respectful to each other in the round.

for ld:

Remember, speak clearly, warrant your arguments, warrant your value structure, signpost as you go along, and GIVE VOTERS at the end of your last speech (2AR or 2NR).

for pf:

have a clear narrative and find the easiest path to the ballot.

Hello!

My name's Jake Zartman and I'm the Assistant Debate and Extemp Coach for Louisville HS in Ohio. I competed in Congressional Debate (and USX) from 2012 to 2016. Most of my experience comes from the Ohio circuit, though I had the chance to compete on the national circuit a number of times throughout those years. My pronouns are he/him/his.

World Schools, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, etc.:

I’m far from the most experienced tech judge in the world. Aside from a few rounds of Public Forum in high school and my having watched like a hundred rounds of Policy, my knowledge is reasonably limited.

That being said - I do understand argumentation, warranting, and impact analysis. A novel, well supported line of argumentation will always hold sway with me. I may not have hundreds of hours of experience line-by-line debating, but I know a weak argument when I hear one.

I am also well-versed enough to tell when debaters are acting in bad faith or debating abusively. So, for your sake and for the sake of the round itself, please debate fairly and respect your opponent at all times. Abusive or uncivil behavior is the only guaranteed way to lose my ballot.

***LD SPECIFIC***: Though I'm likely to favor the contention-level debate because of my background, I am also happy to vote on framework as necessary. I'm fairly comfortable with progressive debate, generally speaking, as long as you're willing to engage in good faith with an opponent running a more traditional case. Spread at your own risk, and only if your opponent is comfortable with it! (And if you can signpost clearly!)

WORLD SCHOOLS SPECIFIC: I will follow NSDA procedure and established WS norms to the absolute best of my ability. I expect to see clash, good argumentation, and human-centered impacts, but above all I expect you to debate your opponents fairly. If you can meet them at their highest ground and articulately present your case, I will ultimately vote for the team that most completely and persuasively argues their side. Also, I coach Extemp and so do appreciate extemporaneous speaking!

Congressional Debate

My overarching philosophy is pretty simple: Be an advocate. As a mock representative or senator, it's your job to be an advocate - for your constituents, for your communities, for the things you believe in. Each time you take the floor should be purposeful, instilled with a sense of passion and purpose.

There are three main ways to be a good advocate in a round.

The first is to engage your audience, competitors and judges alike, through effective presentation that is both clear and rhetorically sound. You can't bring attention to an issue or demand better for your constituents if no one wants to listen.

The second is to be unique in how you go about making your case. If I've heard the same points rehashed over and over again, I'm naturally going to assume that while it is important, your non debate-progressing information probably isn't. Novel argumentation wins!

The third and arguably most important way to be a good advocate is to put people first. Impacts are just as important in Congressional Debate rounds as in any other, possibly even more so because the role forces you to consider how the legislation will affect the people represent. That frame, that every action can be measured by how it affects the imaginary citizens of your districts, can be a powerful tool in a round - so use it! A bill might cause economic damage, it might help the environment, but those impacts mean nothing without considering how those changes will alter the lives of real people. Law isn’t written in a vacuum!

Hopefully this is at least somewhat illuminating, and good luck!

Email: jake.zartman@lepapps.org