NEWMAN SMITH SPONTANEITY 41
2020 — Carrollton, TX/US
Congress Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideI love to see clashes during the debate. Don't just tell me your arguments, but tell me why are they better than your opponent's.
About me: Speech and debate alumni - participated from August 2015 - June 2020.
- 3 time nationals qualifier.
- 3 time Capitol Congress.
- Enjoys spaghetti on a cold Autumn night.
~ Congressional Debate ~
1. I judge roughly 60/40 on arguments vs. speaking, respectively.
2. This is a mock congress - please debate as such. Remember that you are a Representative/Senator.
3. I also take participation in the chamber into account. Ask questions, call motions, vote, etc.
4. Please present clash if you aren't giving the authorship/sponsorship. Simply saying the name of another student and claiming they are wrong does not count.
5. I try to stay educated on politics, but I won't know the ins and outs of every bill/resolution. Make sure you are clearly explaining what you are talking about.
In Public Forum and Extemp: I prioritize reasonable framework and clear analysis supported by evidence from credible sources. I'm interested in the big picture, and more in the significance and impacts of arguments than the quantity. Overall, I enjoy a good performance. Persuade me, but most of all, wow me with your passion and love fot the subject you are discussing. Now, passion does not equal yelling. Be smart but be kind, don't yell at me or each other. I often see a negative correlation between persuasion and volume or intensity. I assign speaker points from 27-30, which may reflect positive and negative behavior, and may include partial points when allowed (e.g. 27.5, 28.75).
In Oratory, Info, and Impromptu: I value your originality, creativity, and persuasive presentation of ideas of personal importance. Cite your sources, explain their importance when not obvious. Again, I enjoy a good performance. Speak with passion and make me believe that what your saying is important.
In DI, HI, DUO: Tell me a story! Among chiseling tools I prefer the precision of a scalpel to the raw power of a jackhammer. It's easier to get and keep my attention with thoughtful, meaningful, measured creative performances of cuttings that preserve a storyline than with more frenetic or extreme choices. Storytelling must be clear. I come from a theatre background, so I need clarity in story telling and clear choices. Most of all, go after your objective with everything you've got. I want to see the importance of the scene to you and the character you are portraying. What's happening in the scene is life or death for the characters, so it needs to be important to you too. But most of all, have fun. If you're not having fun, then it's not worth doing or watching.
Be kind and have fun!
Tom McCaffrey
In Public Forum: I prioritize reasonable framework and clear analysis supported by evidence from credible sources. I'm interested in the big picture, and more in the significance and impacts of arguments than the quantity. I can't vote for points and impacts I can't hear or understand, so slow up for key points and explain them clearly. Be smart but be kind, don't yell at me or each other. I often see a negative correlation between persuasion and volume or intensity. I assign speaker points from 27-30, which may reflect positive and negative behavior, and may include partial points when allowed (e.g. 27.5, 28.75).
In Congressional Debate: I value natural delivery of points and impacts, and reasonable positions; talk pretty. I look for acknowledgement of prior speakers' points and clash leading to good argumentation and refutation, and for purposeful questioning leading to clarity, understanding, or insight. Knowledge of and adherence to Parliamentary Procedure is expected in the chamber. Skillful Presiding Officers make sessions a positive experience for all and will be ranked accordingly.
World Schools Debate: is a great event that should not sound, look, or feel like any other event. Please demonstrate that you understand, use, and respect this event's differences, norms, and value.
For Extemporaneous Speaking: International, Domestic, or Mixed, be sure you answer the question. The format elements that have been developed and are most commonly used are effective. Anything else is unexpected, and will need to be an obvious improvement.
In Oratory, Info, and Impromptu: I look for your originality, creativity, and persuasive presentation of ideas of personal importance. Cite your sources, explain their importance when not obvious.
POI is the most wide-open opportunity we have to connect and weave an unexpected and dazzling array of related choices to elevate an important advocacy.
In DI, HI, DUO: I think of everything we do in Speech and Debate as storytelling. Tell me a story! Among chiseling tools I prefer the precision of a scalpel to the raw power of a jackhammer. It's easier to get and keep my attention with thoughtful, meaningful, measured creative performances of cuttings that preserve a storyline than with more frenetic or extreme choices.
I believe your speaking skills and performance choices can, do and should win tournaments. There are only two outcomes, and they're both great: you win or you learn. And you get to keep and add to the learning forever! Be kind and have fun!
Judging
Background
I teach congressional debate and I judge it. It was my main debate event.
Quick Notes
If it is five minutes before the start of the round and you're panicking, here's a TL:DR - Aggression is okay, ask good questions, be present and make your presence known in round.
Just be civil when debating but if you can make it interesting with good questions and points, you'll do well.
LD PARADIGM
- Please don't spread, I have a Congress Background. You can read fairly fast but I will appreciate and understand your points better if you don't spread.
CONGRESS PARADIGM
- Clash is essential. This is congressional debate, debate is in the name for a reason. Mention other speakers, show me you're paying attention in round.
-PO. If you are POing, your job is to make sure the room debate flows smoothly. Good POing means I do not have to interfere with the round.
-Good questioning is a good way for me to rank you up. Ask essential questions that relate to the topic. Don't start attacking each other on political stances, I don't care.
-I respect those who can be aggressive in round, however, I prefer diplomacy over aggression. If you can go up, make your points, and have a civil debate that others can learn from, you're good. The whole purpose of debate is the clash of different mindsets and to see new perspectives.
-The intent is one thing, but results and impacts on the people you represent are the reason why you are debating and role-playing as a member of congress.
Congress:
I enjoy clash- reference other competitors by name in your speeches if you agree with them or want to make direct refutations against their arguments.
Try to avoid rehashing the same arguments in several speeches; continue the analysis of points, don't just let them stagnate. Later speeches that don't provide anything thoughtful or insightful to the topic at hand will not be scored as highly as fresh speeches.
Ask questions and otherwise participate in chamber. If you go up, give a speech, and do nothing else for the rest of the 2-3 hours, you're not going to rank.
POs, keep the chamber running smoothly and try to avoid making mistakes in procedure. I won't count a few simple errors against you, but if it's clear you don't know what you're doing and/or aren't making a genuine attempt to run the chamber well, you're not going to score highly.
LD:
Your Value and Criterion framework must be standing at the end of the round. Everything else is secondary to V/C, and my win will go to whoever was best able to support the ideals presented in that framework. Ks and the like must be explained thoroughly and should still tell me why the opponent's V/C are irrelevant to the matter at hand, otherwise it simply sounds like a complaint with no basis.
Impacts are the next most important thing I consider after V/C solidity. Whoever can prove that their impacts are greater in the case of a V/C tie will win.
No spreading- Lincoln and Douglas didn't spread, neither should you. I also prefer more traditional resolution debate, but if you choose to go down a more progressive route then make sure that what you're saying makes sense, as mentioned earlier.
Evidence of course is preferred, but if something makes more sense through the use of anecdotes, analogies, and/or metaphors, I will still consider those because of the philosophical nature of LD.
Make sure you don't go off on weird tangents without explaining to me how you got there. Show me points A, B, C, and D in your logic; don't just jump from A to D and expect me to keep up.
PFD:
No spreading. I know PFD times are shorter than other debates, but the point is to crystallize the most important things to talk about in the context of the resolution, not fire off as many arguments as possible to leave your opponents scrambling. That's not conducive to a Public Forum.
Make your lines of argumentation clear; don't jump from point A to D without also showing me the intermediate steps of B and C. Same thing with impacts, which are a key voting factor for me.
I don't flow crossfire, so if you want to capitalize on points made during crossfire make sure to actually mention them in your next set of speeches or else they'll be lost and not counted in or against your favor. Try to avoid becoming too aggressive with each other during crossfire since that's not the point; speaks will drop for both teams, but especially for the instigators.
WSD:
Absolutely no spreading! This is a conversational debate; if you wouldn't use your rate of speed to talk to a friend, don't use it to deliver a speech to me.
Impacts are super important to me. Quantify your arguments and tell me why I should care about the issues at hand. Along the same vein, don't just immediately jump from Point A to Point D in your analysis- show me logically how you get there by explaining A, B, C, D, etc.
Excessive rudeness (belittling your opponents, ad hominem attacks, etc.) will result in the obliteration of your style points. Keep it professional.
Considering how it's World Schools Debate, I'd like to see a variety of evidence from around the globe if the topic allows for it.
I'm not super familiar with a lot of debate jargon used nowadays, so if possible, please explain it in layman's terms.
Fundamentally I see debate as a game. I think it is a valuable and potentially transformative game that can have real world implications, but a game none the less that requires me to choose a winner. Under that umbrella here are some specifics.
1. Comparative analysis is critical for me. You are responsible for it. I will refrain from reading every piece of evidence and reconstructing the round, but I will read relevant cards and expect the highlighting to construct actual sentences. Your words and spin matters, but this does not make your evidence immune to criticism.
2. The affirmative needs to engage the resolution.
3. Theory debates need to be clear. Might require you to down shift some on those flows. Any new, exciting theory args might need to be explained a bit for me. Impact your theory args.
4. I am not well versed in your lit. Just assume I am not a "____________" scholar. You don't need to treat me like a dullard, but you need to be prepared to explain your arg minus jargon. See comparative analysis requirement above.
Side notes:
Not answering questions in CX is not a sound strategy. I will give leeway to teams facing non responsive debaters.
Debaters should mention their opponents arguments in their speeches. Contextualize your arguments to your opponent. I am not persuaded by those reading a final rebuttal document that "answers everything" while not mentioning the aff / neg.
Civility and professionalism are expected and will be reciprocated.
Speech events. I am looking for quality sources and logic in OO and Inf. I have been teaching speech for 18 years and will evaluate fundamentals as well.