Parent judge, keep things simple, and do not go too fast.

Online Adaptions: CONGRESS- If you do not have a webcam at all I understand entirely and will not penalize you. However, if you do have a webcam and it is not on during the round I will assume that you are no longer in the round i.e. gone to the restroom, went to go grab a snack, face-timing a friend, etc.. You do not need to move for point of personal privilege please just turn your camera off and go do what you need to do.

Online Adaptions: SPEECH- It is to my understanding that many speech rounds will be asynchronous this semester so my only online request would be to double-check your prerecording before you submit it to make sure that your video didn't cut off before you were finished performing and that your audio is clear enough for me to understand.

Congress- I have no preference when it comes to arguments because of the fact that Congressional debaters aren't able to pref judges the same way other events can. As long as your arguments are structured in a way that is cohesive and clear I will be happy. I do prefer that debaters give roadmaps at the beginning of their speeches because of the fact that transitions can be less clear over zoom. I love clash if you aren't addressing things other speakers have said that contradicts what you have said you are doing congress wrong. Congress isn't just about the speeches that you give that is usually only 10 min of the 3 hour long round it is also about your presence in the round. I will largely take into account how involved you were throughout the round and how much you contributed to the quality of the debate.

K.Bennett Judging Paradigms:

LD:

General:

Flex Prep is fine if all debaters agree

Roadmaps are preferred at the beginning of the speeches. I will not start your time until after the roadmap.

I place a high value on framing arguments.

You should do what you do best and in return I will do my best to adapt to your style and give the best decision I can at the end of the round. Remember this is your debate and you should do what you are most comfortable with.

Speed:

I prefer a slower round but if you spread do not sacrifice speed for clarity. I know spreading will happen so to ensure you get your speaker points slow down on taglines, authors, and provide summaries of your cards after you read them. If I cannot understand you, I cannot flow your argument. I will say “clear” two times before I stop flowing the argument. PLEASE SIGNPOST!!

Theory:

I prefer substance to theory unless there is clear abuse in the round

Kritiks:

In my opinion a K debate is good when it is well explained and contextualized. I catch on pretty quickly when arguments are explained well. Your arguments need to be coherent and well-reasoned. I like a K that has specific link arguments. I cannot vote on a K if I cannot understand the link arguments. Do not assume I am well versed in the literature/theory you are using.

Framework:

Framework is a great way to contextualize the round. Please explain your framework. Traditional framework cases should have a value and a value criterion/standard to weigh the value. I like cases that have a very strong link between the warrants, impacts, value and value criterion/standard. Highlight the impact and link back to the value structure and/or provide a clear weighing mechanism for the round. I prefer real clash to unwarranted ideas or ill linked impacts.

Arguments:

I am fine with most arguments as long as they are properly presented and explained, unless they are racist, sexist, heteronormative etc.

How I vote:

NR and the 2AR are the main speeches on how I decide my vote. Only give voting issues that have been extended through all speeches in the round and please be comparative. How does this outweigh the other side? Please use big picture voters. I will vote on the most weighted offense linking back to a pragmatic framework.

I am not big on technical wins. Just because your opponent drops an argument doesn’t mean you win the round.

Congress:

I like creative speeches. I rate good passionate persuasive speeches over a speech with tons of evidence. Please engage in the debate rather than reading another speech that presents points that have already been brought up by other students. I think it is good to act like a member of Congress, but not in an obnoxious way. Questions and answers are very important to me. Ask smart questions that advance the debate. Standing up to just ask a question just to participate will hurt you. I would rather you ask a few really good questions than a lot of mediocre questions. I like a P.O. who is fair and efficient. The P.O. has a very high chance of making my ballot unless they make several big mistakes and/or are unfair. The P.O. must keep a clear precedence list. If you think the P.O is not being fair, call them on it. The P.O. must have the basic knowledge of parliamentary procedures to run the chamber. If the P.O. is not qualified to run the chamber, they will not make the ballot.

PF/LD Paradigms

I’m first and foremost an interp coach. Treat me like a lay judge who happens to know the rules (and yes- I know the rules). No spreading, clash is fine. If you really want to pick up my ballot, be sure to focus on cross-examination. I find that a strong, quality CX can illustrate your ability to communicate, prove your points, illustrate your knowledge and understanding of the debate and show your best engaged debate skills. Anyone can read a prepared card. Show me you know what to do with it.

On an aside, I do like debaters to keep it professional. I like it when people stand for cross-examination and are polite and supportive to their opponents before and after the round. I like it when I feel the teams are focused and paying attention not only to their opponents' speeches but also to their team member's speeches.

Congress Paradigms

I look for competitors who are prepared to speak on any topic - especially if they have prepared to speak on both sides of the topic. I look for quality speeches that add value to the debate; if we're four cycles in and you aren't bringing new information, crystallizing information we've heard, or providing a new rebuttal then it's easy for your speech to get lost amongst the masses. Activity in the chamber is good - I'm looking for you to be engaged in listening to other speeches, asking valuable questions, and working together to run a fair and efficient chamber.

Interp Paradigms

I was a high school competitor all four years - competing in all Interp events (DI, HI, OO, prose, poetry, Duo, Duet) and Congressional Debate. I competed on the Texas and National Circuits. Here's the big thing to know - you should never change your style, material, or story to try to get my 1. I will always respect the stories you choose to tell, the performance you're developing, and your courage to be you and share messages important to you. Just be you. My ballots may sound tough, but it comes out of a desire to help you improve. I've provided insight into what I'm looking for but none of it should force you to change your content.

For Interp Events, I'm looking for honest storytelling (talk to me like a person) and tech that helps enhance your story and not detract from it. I'm looking for clear, well-developed characters. I'm looking for an excellent intro that provides meaning and importance for your piece. I'm looking for excellent execution of pacing and incorporation of levels. Draw me into your story and leave me with something to take away. In addition, for all binder events, I'm a stickler for binder etiquette.

For Public Speaking Events (OO and INFO), I'm looking for topics that you are personally invested in. I'm looking for an engaging AGD, a clear vehicle, and well-defined points supported by a balance of ethos, pathos, and logos. Share your heart story and be honest with it. Most importantly, these are two events where you can really be yourself. Be your best self, sure. But don't feel like you have to put on a whole song and dance to get my one. I'm looking for an inspirational, conversational tone. INFO - I'm looking for creative visuals that are well-executed and add value to your speech without being a distraction.

For Extemp, I'm looking for a clear understanding of the question and a definitive answer with supporting analysis (cite those sources guys). Two points or three points are fine, depending on the question and your approach to answering the question. I just want your speech to have a clear sense of structure and organization. I'm also looking for strong presentation skills. Have vocal variety, adopt a conversational tone, know how to present in a way that is approachable for all audience types and not just those well-versed in current events and extemp. Don't be afraid to crack a joke, but don't rely purely on humor. Fluency breaks, circular speech (rehashing points and repeating yourself), and poor time management could affect your rank in round.

General note for everyone - I have a really bad thinking face and I'm going to look confused and upset. I'm not - don't take it personally! It's just my face and I don't really have a whole lot of control over that. Plenty of times I've had my own students tell me they were sure I hated what they were doing and then I was very complimentary of their work. So I promise you my face has nothing against you! It's just a grumpy face.

Background: I graduated from William Jewell College in 2020, where I studied Institutions and Policy and am now a Northwestern Pritzker Law 1st year student. I competed in LD and USX in high school (2X national qualifier in the latter) and competed in parliamentary (NPDA) debate in college. I am familiar with all events and mainly judge Extemp, LD, and Policy.

Debate Paradigm: I flow every round and render my decision solely on the flow (absent abuse or rule-breaking). I have no preference as to specific arguments I want to hear. Analytical, clear argumentation wins every time. Be sure to make the debate smaller in your final speeches. By that, I mean identify the few key arguments in the debate and explain why they matter the most and why you win on them. A line-by-line final speech is rarely helpful.

(NON-NFA) LD Paradigm: The Value/VC debate is incredibly important and should be present at every point in the debate. Personally, I feel that the loss of philosophy in LD is incredibly sad but that does not influence my decision-making.

NFA-LD Paradigm: I follow all rules set by the NFA governing documents. I especially recognize that spreading is antithetical to the debate. I will vote on stock issues and when the debate comes down to solvency I will evaluate the debate based on impact calculus so I encourage debaters to argue impacts. In the final speeches, I expect debaters to make the debate smaller. By this I mean to crystallize the few key arguments and explain why these should ultimately decide the winner of the debate. I have no preference for argument types but am willing to listen to Ks, topicality, and traditional policy arguments. No particular style will give you an advantage, I will decide the debate based on the flow.

Policy/CX Paradigm: Although I didn't do Policy in high school, my time in Parli made me intimately familiar with the structure of this format of debate. Feel free to run any form argument in front of me (e.g., critical, case, disad, counterpart, anything) but I truly have no preference so you get no bonus points just by debating a certain type of way. At the end of the day, you must win the flow and give me key, crystallized arguments explaining why the arguments you are winning are the most important. Speed is fine so long as it is clear. Assume I am an educated citizen when it comes to explaining arguments.

TFA Congress Paradigm: I place a strong emphasis on the originality of ideas and the logical structure of the speech. Questions and answers should be meaningful and succinct. Grandstanding when asking a question is strongly looked down upon. I expect the presiding officer to accurately track precedence and keep their colleagues to the time limits. I did not compete in Congress often in high school, but I always did at least two tournaments a year and was often the presiding officer. While I do not automatically give the presiding officer a high ranking or great scores, I do find their job to be difficult and think judges often don't appreciate their duties.

Email chain please: columbus.debate.team@gmail.com

PF:

PLEASE DO NOT PARAPHRASE YOUR CASE OR MISCUT EVIDENCE

PF/LD

1. CLARITY IS KEY!! That applies to speech, organization, signposting, etc.

2. Please warrant your claims and evidence once brought up, not later in the round or next speech (see point 1)

3. Speed is fine, I only judge what I can flow however, so I cannot say I am going to get everything down if you are spreading. I definitely prefer slower more traditional rounds. With that said, if you want to spread make sure your opponent is okay with it. You shouldn't spread/speed in PF, it's in the rules and norms of the event. It is called PUBLIC forum for a reason.

4. I studied philosophy during my time in university. Please do not throw out theory or K's without having done the necessary background research to really know what you are talking about. The round will be messy because of it, which takes us back to point 1 on clarity.

WORLD SCHOOLS:

1. Slow down, this isn't policy. You not only need to argue effectively, you need to persuade.

2. Principled arguments > specific examples and evidence. Not to say you shouldn't have specific evidence, but often the more philosophical grounds of reasoning get left out in favor of, basically, carded evidence

3. New arguments in the back half of the debate are unadvisable and don't allow the other side enough time to have a developed response.

4. Keep your eye aware for POI's, if you see one but are choosing to ignore it, indicate verbally or with a hand motion.

Congress-I used to be a Congress debater, so I am very focused on both the way you communicate your arguments as well as the arguments themself. If you are a good speaker with no clash and non-unique arguments, you will not be ranked over others who have more wholesome arguments. Additionally, I do focus on Parliamentary Procedure, and this can make or break a round. Bad control of the room is reflected on my ballots. Finally, quality is always better than quantity. Just remember, if I don’t notice you in the room, it will be difficult for me to compare you to other debaters.

Debates-I enjoy a good flow of debate, and I must be able to recognize what is being argued. A lack of clear articulation of case arguments will hurt your debate as a whole. Additionally, I am open anything during the round, but be clear when you intend on introducing an obscure aspect to your roadmap. Signposting is not necessary if I am sent your case.

Speaking-I will focus on clarity and articulation of arguments in your speech, as well as your arguments themself. All arguments should work with each other to express one clear idea, and a failure to connect each argument to the topic of your speech will yield to a lower overall ranking.

Congress Judge-I want to hear evidence in your speech. Your opinion does not usually impact the speech very much. Try to address issues brought up by other members of the chamber. Try to avoid rehashing positions unless you are giving very late speeches. I am fairly hard on the PO. I expect them to know the procedures and pay attention. Slowing the chamber down a bit to avoid mistakes is better than going quickly and making errors that get called out.

Speech Events-I am not a speech judge normally. I will fill in for OO, Info, and Extemporaneous Rounds as needed. Anything beyond these speech events, I have not judged or have less than 3 rounds total in my life. I will look towards the piece as a whole. A typical selection that is POI, HI, DI, or Duo/Duet will mean very little to me as I really do not have the background to judge if a piece is a great standard. As such, I will be looking for pieces that make me feel like the performance was a selection or segment of the real life situation that is unfolding. I have watched a few pieces performed that were so real, the actor could have been the author of the selection.

I judge Congress often and am always looking for excellent delivery, effective eye contact, and original thinking/clash that will set the speaker apart from the pack. I really search for the speakers who really make me want to listen to them. Speakers need to ask relevant questions, answer questions quickly and completely, and be respectful of the rest of the room. I expect the PO to run a tight ship and keep tabs on speaker order and frivolous questions. POs can be ranked first in the room, depending on the quality of speakers and PO. Evidence is crucial, but a clear speaking voice with passion, wit, and grace goes just as far.

I was a competitor in Importmu, Extemp, and Congressional Debate for my last two years of high school; I qualified to States twice and to Nats, and semi/final-ed at multiple national tournaments.

When judging debates, I appreciate careful and reasonably-paced speaking, good evidence, and knowledge of your sources. Please be honest with your evidence and remember that your source does matter. I dislike repetitive arguments in round, and systematic analysis is appreciated- guide me through, don't assume I know. Warrants and the big picture are what I'm listening for. Please be civil and courteous, don't hog crossfire, and be mindful if that you don't speak clearly but quickly, I'm lost. Give me a reason to vote for you - your final focus should write my RFD for me.

I don't tolerate racist, homophobic, xenophobic, or discriminatory content.

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.

Things I look for in Congress:

1. Clear, confident speaking with few fluency breaks.

2. Consistent presence in the round through asking questions and staying engaged.

3. Strong use of evidence from scholarly sources.

4. Simple, easy-to-understand arguments.

5. Clash and interaction with other arguments.

6. Humor is always appreciated, although I may not understand your pop culture references.

In a presiding officer:

Speed is your utmost priority. Go fast and don't make errors.

Email: notwyattlayland@gmail.com

Background

University of Reno, Nevada 2023
He/Him/His

Speech Paradigm (Also applies to all debate)

Please do your best to speak loudly, steadily, and fluently. I am sympathetic to fluency breaks caused by stress or general nervousness, so if you need a second to collect your thoughts I will not reprimand you. Besides that, I value organization and conciseness--I want to feel like you've put thought into what you're saying, why you're saying it, and even how you say it

Congress Paradigm

+ Unless I indicate otherwise, assume I'm always ready. I typically write down my comments during the cross-ex period, and by the time the period has elapsed I'm pretty much done and ready to listen to the next speech. I also keep my own time of all speeches and write down the times on your ballots for future reference

+ Roleplaying GOOD. Refer to your opponents as Representatives/Senators. I'm not one of those judges, however, who ranks competitors if they "act like legislators" by helping set the docket or resolve procedural conflicts. Just don't speak out of order and don't attempt to step over the PO or Parli

+ RHETORIC. I enjoy unique rhetoric and purposeful speaking, so please go beyond the forensic grain when delivering your speeches. If you REALLY want to rock my ballot, a strong hook or extended metaphor in your speech and altogether sturdy rhetoric will expedite your path to a higher rank. Hearing debate jargon in this event (e.g., "contention", "block", etc.) tends to be a pet peeve of mine, so best rely on standard words and phrases

+ Maximum points for sophisticated, structured speeches. On GOD. If you warrant your claims and support them with reliable evidence, and on top of that impact your arguments to a broader context, and do all of this without filler or awkward digressions that interrupt the focus of your speech, I will rank you. Plus I want to hear your speech provide at least two distinct contentions (ik I said no debate jargon but whatever) so that your arguments don't blend into one-another

+ CLASH ON REBUTTAL SPEECHES. After the second or third cycle of speeches I expect that you spend your time speaking off the cuff and refuting/crystalizing the speakers before you. If you're called up late to deliver a speech and decide to NOT adapt to the situation and instead read off a constructive speech, you will fall in ranks. Even if you're not the best extemporaneous speaker, it still shows that you're engaged with the debate and want to make an impression

+ INTERNALIZE YOUR IMPACTS. I listen to impacts above all else, and to that end I expect your arguments will always point directly to a basis in reality. If you can make the room understand what it's like to be part of the population this legislation impacts most, you're not just giving a good argument, you're giving a great speech

+ For the Presiding Officer (PO): I will always rank the PO unless if they do something contemptible that specifically urges that I do otherwise (e.g., flagrantly violating procedural rules, favoring some competitors over others, unwarranted or nasty remarks towards others, etc.). Besides that, if you go fast, make little to no mistakes, and treat your fellow competitors equally and impartially, I will guaranteed rank you in the top 3

Public Forum Paradigm

+ Truth > Tech. I weigh on a framework of benefits and harms--fewer vague appeals to common sense, the better

+ Clearly warrant, cite, and explain evidence--no speculation or over-generalizations

+ SIGNPOST. If you could signpost where you are in your rebuttal (E.g., "Starting with my case", "Moving onto my opponent's case", etc.), that would be great

+ Separate rebuttals of your opponent’s case and your case if possible. Jumping around makes it difficult to follow your args

+ Please don't interrupt during cross-ex. Moreover, I would prefer to see strong and even engagement across the board during questioning, but don't abuse your platform to give shallow or overly long answers

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

+ My paradigm for PF carries over to LD, ESPECIALLY truth > tech. Instead of benefits and harms, however, I expect you to take a step back and focus on the moral admissibility (or the lack thereof, if you're on neg) of the resolution under your framework. Unless if the affirmative puts forward a plantext I'm less inclined to go for policy or post-fiat negs

+ Value/Value criterion debate all the way. Standards are fine as long as the presumptive value is morality (it should be anyway). Not gonna lie, I almost exclusively pay attention to criterion because they address real-world implications, so please focus your framework debate around that. If you and your opponent have similar criterions, you should just cut to the chase and explain why your case works better under that framework

+ I already said my PF paradigm carries over, but please, I BEG you: clearly cite, warrant, and explain evidence in your speeches, and do not rely on appeals to common sense in your arguments

Policy & Tech Debate Paradigm

+ For prefs: The more trad you are, the higher you should pref me

+ My emphasis is typically on stock issues, which almost always defaults to my primary voter.

+ I am cautiously open to technical negative strategies as long as they are A) relevant to the substance offensive and B) realistic in the sense that they authentically reflect prima facie obligations in debate

+ I have a high threshold for Kritiks based mostly on alt solvency & impact calc

+ If your CP is not competitive I will hate you, and if you PIC I might just die

+ Assuming the interpretation and violation are accurate, I only ever listen to voters on T or Theory and expect the debate to revolve around those factors, so good luck convincing me on competing interps

One last, super important thing for my master debaters

Regardless of events, I will feel more compelled to vote for you (or, and especially if you're in Congress, rank you high) if you demonstrate effective extemporaneous speaking in your speeches. Just have fun!

I am an experienced judge who coached high school for 25 years at Westfield HS in Houston, TX and judge frequently on the TFA and UIL circuits. I tend to be more traditional but will accept theory and progressive arguments if they are well explained. I judge based on quality of arguments, not necessarily quantity. I look for well organized speeches in extemp, with a preview in the beginning and a review of main points in the end. In interpretation I want well established characters who are easily distinguished. Movement is good but shouldn't be to an extreme. In POI I want a clear explanation of your theme as well as distinction when you move from one genre to the next. In Informative, I also look for an overall theme that is informational (thus the name) rather than persuasive.

In congress, I want organization. I prefer a preview of points but that isn't an absolute necessity if arguments are well developed. I want CLASH. It's important that legislators names are mentioned in clash, not just "the affirmative said" or "the negative said. I judge a lot of congress and except clarity and persuasive style. This is not policy debate so speed is a negative.

I am currently a J.D. student. I was a four-year Congressional Debate competitor from 2014-2019. I also did Model UN.

I have different standards for each event that I judge. While I do take into account what is typically rewarded in these events competitively, some things stand out to me as a judge.

1) Effective communication. Do the words that you are saying make sense? Give me the BLUF: bottom line up front. I'm looking for clear, concise communication suitable for executive delivery - if you're not willing to say it to a CEO, you shouldn't be saying it in round.

2) Thorough and logical argumentation. Do your sentences connect? Does the evidence actually support what you are saying? Do I believe in the integrity of your evidence? Did you make your argument matter to me? Did you address weaknesses and counterarguments?

3) Engagement. This looks different from event to event, but I expect competitors to be good listeners and show an active, mindful presence in-round.

Congress-Specific Paradigm (does not apply for Policy, LD, PF, etc.)

I want to see good evidence and I want to see it explained. I want your argument to make sense. I want it to be based off more than a random line you pulled out of an article from The Guardian. Give me the links.

NEGATION SPEECHES MUST SHOW HARMS! If you're speaking on the negation, and you give a nonunique impact in your first contention, your second contention BETTER follow up with an active harm! If your main line of argumentation on the neg is "this won't work" with no harms, the affirmation ALWAYS wins, because they can say "well then it can't hurt to try"!

I like to see well-constructed, direct refutation. I want to hear "Representative X said Y, here's why it's wrong/ less important/ etc" not "X is wrong". Every speech after the 1st NEG should contain refutation. If you're weighing impacts, ref should also be substantiated, whether that's with new cards or with other representatives' arguments on your side.

I will rank up debaters that utilize good round strategy. If you sponsor the first bill and go within the first four speeches of the next bill, I will be very confused. (Stepping up to take one for the team when there are no speeches is an exception to that.) If you have recency, use it wisely! Not all Congress skills can be displayed effectively in every stage of the round. Sponsorships and extension speeches and crystals all happen at different stages for a reason.

Word choice and rhetoric are important. Don't shove stolen rhetoric at the end of a contention. It always sounds cheesy and bad. Rhetoric should be unique and make sense and feel natural. Honestly, I'd rather see no rhetoric than bad rhetoric.

Also, don't use debate words. I hate debate words. This is Congress. I don't want to hear burden, I don't want to hear impact, I don't want to hear link or link turn, etc. etc. unless those words are being used in the same context a normal, non-debater would use them ("The burden of the affirmation" = bad. "The burden on low income americans" = fine.)

My most important things for delivery are fluency, speed and engagement. I was fast. I know it's hard. But slow down. Be conversational. If I zone out, you're not a compelling orator.

Remember, at the end of the day, you're trying to pass (or fail) policy and protect people. Show me that. Show me emotion and passion and that you care. And good luck!

(any pronouns).

I am a former debate coach and debate tab staffer at many regional and circuit-level tournaments in California. I competed in student congress and have actively coached congress, speech (e.g., oratory or platform events), LD, and public forum debate. I competed from 2006 to 2008, coached from 2008 to 2013, and tabbed from 2011 to 2022. My specialty is in tabbing and evaluating TOC-level congressional debate rounds.

Outside of speech and debate, I have my PhD in Social Psychology. I focus on group identities and how it affects our thoughts and behaviors. Between that and my other professional experiences, my view of speech and debate has now become focused on the communication of information and logical arguments for an audience.

Here is how this has affected my perspectives of debate rounds:

1. Do not actively harm anyone else in the debate round. Personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, or similar actions detract from the speech and debate experience. If you engage in any behavior that actively harms yourself or a competitor, I will give the win to your opponent and immediately let tab staff know of your behavior.
   
   Think about what you plan to say or do before you say and do it. This can often lead to a better round and less potential for unintentional outcomes from a round. This can also help identify biases within ourselves and each other that affect what we do and do not perceive or how our words and actions can affect others. I am trying to learn how my biases influence how I see the world, and I hope you take time to do so as well.
2. Any argument that you want to run that does not actively harm yourself or your opponent works for me. This includes traditional and progressive arguments. Importantly, any argument that you want to run is fine with me if you can explain the argument in simple English. Tell me why your argument is relevant and matters in the round, and I will evaluate it. Arguments filled with excessive jargon without an attempt to explain it in simple English will likely be ignored.
3. Debate is inherently an activity based on value judgements. Arguments that focus on an empiric as the take-home point (e.g., we save x more lives than our opponents or save x more money than our opponents) do not inherently have value by itself. You need to tell me why your evidence and analysis matters (e.g., overall, our side allows us to achieve something we value or avoid something that we do not value). Tell me what matters, and tell me why I should weigh it above your opponents' case. On average, I will value plausible evidence more than implausible examples. As an aside, extinction arguments will usually be ignored and excluded from my flow if it is irrelevant to the topic.
4. It is up to you to convince me as a judge that your evidence is (1) valid and (2) relevant to the round. Sensationalist or inflammatory arguments or evidence that do not add to the overall logic or arguments of the round will be ignored completely (e.g., they will not make my flow sheet). It is your responsibility to ensure that your argument is (a) not sensationalist, (b) not inflammatory, and (c) relevant to the round
5. I do not support the game theory of spreading. Communication matters. Information processing speed in working memory capacity matters. Short-term memory matters. Physical or mental obstacles to hearing or encoding information matters.
   
   I will defer to Cowan's (2001) analysis of short-term memory, which states that a person can remember about 4 chunks of information in short-term memory. In practice, this means that I--as well as every other judge you encounter--will remember somewhere around 4 chunks of information within each speech. You are better off developing four well-developed chunks than spreading across multiple points in a constructive speech and then collapsing from many arguments into few arguments.
   
   What this means in practice is this: If you propose three to four general advantages/disadvantages, contentions, or reasons why I should support your side and realize that two of those points should be promoted by you and your team, then collapsing to those two chunks makes sense and is a good strategy to do. If you propose more than one chunk per minute (or more) so that there is no way for your opponent to respond, and then collapse after your opponent had a chance to address your case overall? That is not equitable and I will likely call out that strategy.
   
   Do not spread. Speed is okay, but spreading will receive low speaker points. Furthermore, I will be very open to hearing and voting for a critique that says the opponent is spreading too fast, which inherently makes the activity more exclusionary and harmful to competitors and observers within speech and debate.
6. Most debates focus on a specific topic or point. Although it is a tactic to focus on a specific aspect of the debate, concede that point after much of the round has passed, and then state “I concede the point that we spent much of the round that we discussed while still winning on the rest of my case that my opponent has overlooked,” I find that to be a very cheap debate tactic that does not have much real world applicability. If you and your opponent explicitly or implicitly focus on a specific point or area of contention within a round, I will decide my ballot based on that point or contention.
7. Specific to LD: I need a value. Morality is not a value, as groups define what it means to be moral (Ellemers et al., 2013). I need to know a specific value that you think I should promote or prefer in the round.
   
   Utilitarianism is a value, but you need to tell me why this value should be preferred over other values in the round. Stating that your value is utilitarianism and that your value criterion/plan/whatever is a cost-benefit analysis may or may not win you the round, but I will likely not give more than 27 speaker points in the round to a competitor who proposes this CV/VC or defaults to this CV/VC.
8. Specific to Congressional Debate: You may have noticed that I said I competed in student congress but evaluate congressional debate rounds in my introduction. That is intentional. Congressional debate has grown into a multifaceted event with nuanced arguments regarding policy and societal proposals and implications. Assume that my rankings is based on diversity of skills (e.g., can you give multiple types of speeches), essentialism within the round (e.g., what was your holistic effect within the round, or how would the round be different if you were not in the round), and quality of novel arguments and argument advancement during debate on a topic.
   
   I rank presiding officers and know how to evaluate them based on 2 years of being a presiding officer and 14 years of evaluating student congress and congressional debate rounds.
   
   All things being equal, I rank students lowly who only give crystallization speeches within the round. The goal of congressional debate is to advance discussion on a topic. There are many ways to do so (e.g., sponsorship, early-cycle extension speeches, summary and late-cycle extension speeches, and crystallization speeches). All speeches have value, but I prefer students who show diversity in their speech types when possible. When diversity is not possible, I need to know how your speech extends an argument above and beyond summarizing what was previously discussed. Often, crystallization speeches summarize events without extending discussions. In rounds where it is possible for all speakers to give two speeches, I rate students who choose to only give crystallization speeches lower.

Overall, I hope you have fun, communicate clearly, use valid and relevant evidence effectively, and be respectful of yourselves, your opponents, and the community. We all showed up because this is something that we enjoy. Treat others with the respect you hope to be treated with, and I will do my best to treat everyone with respect throughout the round.

Above all, be respectful to your fellow competitors, but don’t be afraid to engage one another during the debate. I expect to hear clear, concise arguments that are backed up by solid evidence. Don’t say something just to say something or fill time. That’s not what a debate should be about. If you’re arguing about a topic, you will need to provide the evidence to back up your claims. If you are refuting your opponent’s argument, it is your job to convince me why you don’t agree with their statement, as well as why your position is the better choice.

I prefer quality over quantity when making arguments. The more active you are in the debate, the better chance you have at getting my attention. Active debaters are individuals who listen to their opponent’s statements and respond with interesting, enlightening, and factually correct commentary. This does not necessarily mean that the person who speaks the most will rank the highest. Keep in mind that excessive yelling is not a good way to score points. Speak with conviction, but do not feel like you need to shout in order to get me to notice you. Lastly, have fun! Yes, you are competing, but it’s still important to remember that every tournament is practice for the future. You will only get better by practicing.

Dear students and coaches,

Thank you for this opportunity to witness your hard work as your judge today. Feel free to ask any questions before we begin the round. There are unique challenges in this new virtual environment, so let's be sure to practice patience and forgiveness with each other. And most importantly, make sure to have fun!

BACKGROUND: Plano East HS, class of 2011; University of Texas at Austin, class of 2015. My HS debate career focused primarily on extemp (FX), congress, and ended with 1.5 years of CX (2A/1N, former Michigan camper). I also briefly competed in college extemp. Over the past ~7 years I have judged extensively across Houston and Dallas circuits in all debate events, including recently for TFA State and NSDA Nationals. I currently work in the energy industry.

CORE PARADIGM: Naturally, details will differ by event, but generally speaking I am a games player judge. In addition to general argumentation strategy, I want to see demonstration of three competencies in this round: 1) integrity, via demonstration of the relevancy of your argument/evidence, 2) comprehension, via clear communication of how your cards prove the point you are trying to make, and 3) curiosity, via direct, respectful clash with your opponent.

SPREADING: I'm comfortable with speed, although note that the more arguments you make, the more arguments you will have to defend. I am inclined to permit your opponent drop an argument if you dropped it yourself first. Generally, it is better to make one or two very strong arguments than to make ten weak ones. Also, given variability in wifi, slower speaking can also help ensure that your speech doesn't cut out during virtual tournaments.

CROSS-EX: Open CX is fine. In a world where school teams are sharing cases and resources, I need to see very clearly that you are understanding how your case works. I don't flow CX formally, but will be unimpressed if it becomes clear that you do not know your material thoroughly enough to answer questions about it. Be kind and respectful to your opponent. Do not try to use CX as extra speech time.

NON-TRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS: I have grown more open-minded to Ks and other non-traditional arguments. However, please don't abuse this style of argument to avoid building an actual rebuttal or engaging. Topicality and theory arguments are fine - I view this as a core part of the heart and governance of debate - but it is not a catch-all strategy. PICs are fine too.

I look forward to hearing your insights! Good luck!!

Kind regards,
Kelsey Sawyer

(updated January 2021)

Hi, I'm Devon Shewell, and my pronouns are he/him/his.

I debated for four years in Missouri (Near Kanas City), and my main focus was on Congress and LD, but I am also quite experienced in PF and Extemp. I go to Vanderbilt now and study Philosophy and Communication Studies.

Some general stuff - regardless of the type of event, use good evidence if it's needed, use organization in your speeches, and don't be a bad person. Please don't waste my time, your time, or your opponent's time. I high-key like voting issues (in congress make them to your colleagues, in LD/PF/Policy make them to me).

Adding this cause it hasn't happened much - please give me weighing mechanisms and tell me how to evaluate the round.

PF

Give me weighing mechanisms/framework. Focus on strong internal structure within your speeches and give me lots of signposting. I look for each speech to serve a purpose towards the round, and for teams to be strategic in how they choose to extend arguments and which arguments slip out of the debate. Don't feel like you need to hit every single point in the round during every speech, some stuff won't be relevant and that's okay - just don't bring something up in the constructive and then never talk about it again until the FF. I will be flowing the rounds, and if you want something to be in the last row of my flow (FF), it needs to be extended. Please give me some voting issues and try to "write my ballot" for me towards the end of the round.

LD

In LD, I am open to just about anything. That being said, I come from a relatively traditional LD Debate Background. I try to come to every round as an entirely blank slate that will mold to the round. I will judge you off the flow, but I am not opposed to people stepping out of the line-by-line norm. The round, although judging from the flow, is like a story. If you can tell the story better, I am inclined to vote for you. Of course, be sure that your evidence is good - if you are paraphrasing evidence, summarizing evidence, or doing the "reading bolded sections thing," you should make that clear, especially when sharing evidence. If you send me a card that is two pages long but only selectively reads two sentences, I'm going to think that's pretty suspect. Other than that, I am open to watching debates as they unfold - ask questions if you have them before the round.

If you are going to read Philosophy style frameworks it better make sense. Just cause you say Util is the framework doesn't mean I will accept it (unless your opp does too). You need to explain why frameworks are optimal, not just that you have one.

If you are wondering what my LD Style/Background is like, I come from the Heart of America District where I was a national qualifier - check out either of the wonderful debaters from the 2017 NSDA National Championship (shoutout Natalie and Nathan) or the 2019 NSDA Championship (shoutout Grace) to see what that debate looks like.

Virtually - Please include me on the email chain if necessary.

Please don't go crazy with speed. I can flow it, but if I can't understand or comprehend the argument in time, I don't think it helps you.

I really enjoy a good theoretical argument.

Good structure within speeches, both for the speech itself and within arguments, is great.

Speaker points will be high if you are clear, nice, insightful/witty, and signpost well. I also really appreciate it if you are not reading off blocks and prewritten responses to the entire debate. If you are funny, it's a plus, but not everyone can be funny (sorry), so if you aren't funny, don't worry about it. Generally, everyone gets pretty good speaker points. You can swear if you want to, I don't care - don't be mean though.

Give me good evidence - I love academia

Don't be a bad person (Racism, homophobia, hateful, etc.)

Congress

Things I Really Don't Like (I'll probably drop you).

- In House recess to prep speeches - it's your obligation to prep before a tournament; if you are the PO, I think you should rule the motion dilatory. Don't waste everyone's time.

- Asking about the "split." Debate on the side of the legislation you believe in. Flipping sides and making arguments you don't care about is quite potentially the silliest thing I have ever seen.

- Not using evidence and not knowing what your evidence actually says.

- Not being willing to solve problems/address the issues.

- Reading Speeches

- Going overtime - you have 3 minutes.

- Having Stale Debate (It's okay to not speak on every bill. You have lots of legislation, if stuff is boring, move on)

- Being a bad person

My first and primary focus is on quality argumentation - it's a debate. I want quality evidence; however, there is no need for you to read card after card after card - give me analysis from the evidence. If you are giving a later speech, clash is expected. Please try to contextualize your arguments and humanize your impacts. Debate in what you believe in - debate the issues for the sake of debating the issues (not to have an "even split"). I won't mark down any particular arguments, but I have a bias towards arguments that makes the lives of human beings better (particularly on economic and foreign policy.)

Delivery and style do matter, but you don't win from it! If you can't persuasively explain your argument, it's hard for me to buy it. I'm not a big fan of the quirky congress rhetoric; I would much prefer you simply explain your argument. Structure your speeches clearly and signpost within them. Don't be afraid to give an early speech. I think a good constructive explains what the legislation does (references legislation) and doesn't get caught up in nuances. Make sure you know what type of speech you are giving. i.e.) if it is six speeches deep on a topic, don't give a constructive speech. I have no preference for when you speak. However, if it is a longer round, and you have the chance to speak multiple times, it would benefit you to showcase different skills by giving different types of speeches.

I have a lot of respect for people who make arguments which they believe in. If you debate what you believe in, it should reward you. I also really respect people who give a speech when the chamber needs a speech; the most frustrating thing to me is taking a recess to prep a speech. If you give a totally extemporaneous speech because nobody else in the chamber is willing to speak, you will be looked at favorably.

Presiding Officer - I will hold you to a very high standard. Maintain order and keep track of everything (I will as well). Enforce time limits on speeches and questioning. Tell me about your procedures before the round starts. I also understand that in the virtual setting, some things are exceptionally difficult; if you prioritize fairness, you should be good. I am more than happy to give the PO a 1.

If you are a real nerd, you can see what I like as a PO (cause it's what I did) by finding my time as PO in the Nats final from 2018.

Other Notes on Ballots - High speech scores on your ballot do not directly lead to the best rankings. Everything will be put in the context of the round. I will try my best to give comments that actually help you improve. For so many of these rounds, everyone is very talented, ballots in those round may come across as critical of very small things, but that's how the decisions are made when everyone is good.

If you have any questions, my email is devonshewell@me.com

I'm a coach, but I'm basically a lay judge. If you spread, you will lose.

For Congress:

I want to see you interact with the chamber. Ask good questions and point out logical fallacies while maintaining decorum. Your speeches shouldn’t be given too quickly as your constituents and colleagues need to understand what you’re saying. Don’t try to do too much in your speeches either, I’d rather see you adequately break down a single argument than try to address everything poorly all at once. I also want to see a bit of debate. Don’t just rehash the same points over and over.

Any claims you make to address arguments should have some sort of evidentiary support. This is what congress SHOULD look like, not what it currently actually looks like.

As a PO I want to see you in complete control of the chamber keeping things moving and following procedure. Gentle reminders should be used to maintain decorum and you should try to have a genuine relationship with the entire chamber. Congresspeople should not have to call you out about precedence!

I'm a coach, but I'm basically a lay judge. If you spread, you will lose.

For Congress:

I want to see you interact with the chamber. Ask good questions and point out logical fallacies while maintaining decorum. Your speeches shouldn’t be given too quickly as your constituents and colleagues need to understand what you’re saying. Don’t try to do too much in your speeches either, I’d rather see you adequately break down a single argument than try to address everything poorly all at once. I also want to see a bit of debate. Don’t just rehash the same points over and over.

Any claims you make to address arguments should have some sort of evidentiary support. This is what congress SHOULD look like, not what it currently actually looks like.

As a PO I want to see you in complete control of the chamber keeping things moving and following procedure. Gentle reminders should be used to maintain decorum and you should try to have a genuine relationship with the entire chamber. Congresspeople should not have to call you out about precedence!