Congress- For Congress, I'm mainly looking toward your presence in the round. If I see your name repeated, or you are actively engaging with the session I will rank you up. I absolutely love, rhetoric and refutation in Congress and both of those are key factors I look at when I am ranking. For middle school tournaments, I will usually be your presiding officer, and overall I wouldn't recommend Poing, because, between a good speaker and PO, I will always rank up the speaker. I prefer speaking style over content. I might or might not fact check so don't assume you can get away with fake sources, but I won't rank you last or anything if it makes sense logically without the source.

PF/LD/CX-I firmly believe that clarity within rounds is critical. There is minimal point in a debate where everyone is just spreading arguments and going for the quantity game. Furthermore, no real debate will ever involve speaking at an incomprehensible speed. Thus I heavily prefer better speakers because quite frankly if I don't understand your argument, I will not count it on the flow. I'm game for any plans, k, whatever again just argue it well and you'll do fine.

Extemp

1. ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!

2. Be organized, clear and structured in what you're saying. Your speech should follow the general extemp format that's easy and clear to understand.

3. Funny jokes and good humor will never hurt you!!

4. Always have logical links within each argument. Over-complicating a simple topic won't help you or me understand it any better. Additionally, the more simple you can make a complicated topic, the better it will be for your rank!

5. Most importantly, have fun and be confident in your speaking

plano west '22, ut '26

did pf for three years at plano west, qualified to nats + silver toc junior year. did wsd senior year

for email chains: priyanka.gupta@utexas.edu and planowestdocs@googlegroups.com (both)

for ut tournament: i have zero topic knowledge so please make sure you explain things specific to the topic or you are risking me not understanding your argument. i will not vote on something that doesn't make sense to me.

debate is supposed to be a safe space for everyone!! don't say anything racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/etc., pls read content warnings for sensitive arguments, respect ppl's pronouns, etc. if there is anything i can do to accommodate u, pls email me.

general

standard flow judge

here's how i view the round:1) weighing tells me what impacts matter/to vote off of. 2) offense: basically whoever has offense that links into the weighing that won. this means you can win weighing and lose the round if you lose the turn/contention that linked in to the weighing. this also means you can lose weighing and win rounds through turns or link ins

tech > truth, but my threshold for responses goes down the more untrue an argument is. ex: if u say the sky is purple, someone telling me the sky is not actually purple is probably enough.

warrant!!!!!!! i won't vote off anything that doesn't have a warrant extended throughout every speech in the round.

actually implicate your responses or else they don't rly matter. this means telling me why defense is terminal, weighing turns, etc.

second rebuttal, at the minimum, should frontline any turns on case

if you choose to dump responses, PLEASE make sure everything has a warrant and don't go ridiculously fast unless you're reading cut cards

collapse in summary/ff

other

not too much experience with theory and none with k's -- only read theory if you feel like you really have to and i will do my best to evaluate it but be aware that i am not that familiar with it

ask questions before round

slay

1. Warrant arguments (explain them well)

2. Weigh

3. Don't spread

when they say you need to judge

hi! i debated for plano west. i use they/them pronouns. add me to the email chain: rhl53@georgetown.edu

tl;dr

• my priority #1 is a safe debate space. read trigger/content warnings with proper opt-outs when applicable, respect people’s pronouns, and generally don't act exclusionary/___ist or you will be given an L and 20s

• watching people debate off speech docs makes me sad.

• extend the entire argument (uniqueness through impact) and collapse please. otherwise, your speaks will be a bit concerning

• warrants > evidence; i won't call for cards unless you tell me to, or if a lack of warrant comparison requires me to

the rest

• email chain ≥ google doc >>> zoom/nsda campus chat. pf evidence ethics...

• "new warrants are new arguments and will be treated as such" —aj yi

• unanswered defense is sticky in first summary; the only frontlining i require in second rebuttal is turns/offense

• i like progressive arguments, as long as they are run in a way that's accessible to everyone in the round. if you read tricks or friv when your opponents didn't agree to a tricks/friv round, you are cringe and my threshold for what counts as a good response will be very very low

• i don't mind speed, but if i have to flow off a speech doc, you're going too fast. (if i have to clear you more than 2-3 times, i'm deducting speaks) that being said, send your speech docs anyway

• random specific icks: dumping/doc botting and then either looking confused mid-speech when reading through some of the responses on your doc or using completely irrelevant responses, calling for a gajillion cards and then not making them relevant in any speech, probability weighing, impact weighing the same impact scenario read on both sides, being called judge (just call me renee)

• i don't have a presumption preference. if the round goes off the rails, tell me why i presume for you or else i may or may not flip a coin

• click here to boost your speaks; click here and here for instant serotonin

feel free to ask questions! i’m fine with postrounding

if you ever need someone to talk to or have anything else you want to ask, my facebook messenger and instagram (@reneelix) dms are always open

glhf!

I competed in primarily OO and INFO during all four years of high school, though I've dabbled in all of the Interp events (DI, HI, prose, poetry, DUO, duet) as well. In 2021, I was the double champion at TFA State in OO and INFO.

For public speaking events (OO and INFO), I'm looking for topics that you are personally invested in and is relevant to the real world. I want to leave the room learning something new and wanting to make a change in how I live my daily life. Content and analysis is important to change one's perspective on your topic. I'm also looking for a balance between ethos, pathos, and logos. Heart stories are important to me. I want to see why you are passionate about your topic and how it affects people on an individual level. Be authentic to yourself. I want to feel inspired and like I'm simply having a conversation with you. Speak to me, not at me. For INFO, I'm looking for visuals that are necessary and not techy. However, don't be afraid to spice them up! I want to be visually engaged, but not distracted.

For Extemp, I'm looking for a clear answer to the question and a through analysis of distinct points. Structure and organization is important for me to follow your train of thought. I want explanations that are easy to follow so anyone can understand. Be conversational when speaking and don't be afraid to incorporate humor. Repetitive points, fluency breaks, and poor time management could affect your rank in the round.

For Interp Events, the heart and passion behind your choice in pieces is most important to me, regardless of events. I want to know why you're performing, why it matters to you, and what message you want to spread to the world. I want to hear your truth. Don't mold into circuit trends. Execute your interpretation based on what you believe, not what you think judges want. Raw emotion is important, but also make sure there is cleanliness in your performance. I like creativity in blocking and how a line is executed. I'm also looking for a clear story arch. It should be simple when looking at the big picture, but your execution and emotions should add complexities that allow the audience to get invested. Dimensional characters are preferred over stereotypical ones.

Hi everyone! I'm a current sophomore at UT Austin, and I'm excited to be judging you. I mainly competed in International Extemp in high school, though I'm also familiar with US Extemp, Congress, and Worlds.

For Extemp, PLEASE answer the question, and (if needed) preface how you're going to answer the question in your intro. In general, I value analysis more than presentation, but I always like a good joke.

In Congress, I care most that the speech you give matches where you are in the round. If you're beyond the first cycle, please refute previous speakers!

Have fun! I made my best friends from debate :)

4 years of pf @ oakton || karinliu2011@gmail.com for email chains

lmk if you have questions about my paradigm! ◡̈

general

- resolve clash/compare warrants (!!!!!), collapse, extend, & weigh

- alright with speed, send a doc if going fast (but i still might not catch everything)

- second reb should frontline, if not i'll be very hesitant to buy new frontlines in 2nd sum

presumption

- unless given warrants otherwise, i'll presume the team that lost flip

- if it's side locked i'll presume the squo

prog

- i understand theory a lot more than k's, no friv theory or tricks

^ i have v basic understanding of prog so i might vote wrong, make sure it is rly warranted

speaks

- L20 if you run problematic arguments or run prog/spread on newer debaters

^ aka don't ask anything starting w/ "but wait"

email for email chains: satvik.debate@gmail.com

i very very very much prefer slower speeches. please do not go too fast. i wont be able to keep up.

i presume for whoever lost the coin flip unless you tell me otherwise

i will not intervene on arguments not having a warrant unless you call it out. however, just saying "there is no warrant between ___ and ___" will be sufficient for me to not vote on an argument without a warrant. but please warrant your args to make my life easier

make weighing comparative pls. also, if there isn't comparison between different pieces of conceded weighing, i will just intervene for what i think is most important. it will probably something like: link in/prereq w/ timeframe > link in/prereq > magnitude/scope > probability. however, if certain weighing is less comparative than other weighing and there is no comparative between the two pieces of weighing, ill probably just prefer whatever is more comparative.

DONOT read tricks!!!

i will not vote for risk of solvency arguments on policy change topics. it is not sufficient to just say that "the status quo is failing and we have the only risk of solvency". this is lazy debate. make actual warranted arguments that are compelling for me to vote for.

I will vote off the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

I will evaluate anything you say as long as it isn't exclusionary or problematic in any way and is properly warranted.

Arguments with warrants and evidence > arguments with warrants but no evidence > arguments with no warrant but evidence > arguments with no warrant or evidence

PLEASE READ: However, I would MUCH MUCH rather you paraphrase all your evidence or read only analytics and have it make sense than read cut cards that are grammatically incoherent, underwarranted, extremely wordy, or incomprehensible. You will be much happier with my decision and the speaker points that you receive as well because if I don't understand the card, I will not be able to properly evaluate it. This will also allow you to be much more efficient by actually explaining your arguments concisely rather than through lengthy, unclear cards, which will let you slow down, implicate, and break the clash, making me even more likely to vote for you.

No new arguments are allowed from second summary and onwards except for weighing. However, all weighing must be done during second summary and first final focus at the latest. Second final focus is too late. Also, it is best to start weighing as early as possible.

Second rebuttal should frontline everything from first rebuttal, including defense, on all arguments you plan on going for.

Extensions

You definitely should briefly summarize your argument when extending it but I am not super picky about how in depth the extensions are as long as all parts of the argument are brought up, and especially the link and impact

Be strategic, nice, and persuasive and you will get good speaker points.

Do whatever you want in crossfire, I'm probably not going to be paying attention. Just please be nice.

If you have any questions, please please please ask me before the round starts so that everyone involved has a great experience!

If you need to contact me/add me to the chain: aprasannaco23@gmail.com

Hey everyone! I've competed in speech and debate for over 6 years, primarily in both sides of extemp. I also have experience in virtually every speech and debate event, barring interp. I've competed on the TFA, UIL, and National circuits and have accolades such as winning the Emory University tournament, finals at TFA State, numerous TOC, ETOC, and NIETOC bids, and making late outrounds at many other large national circuit tournaments. I also offer private coaching, so if you are interested, just shoot me an email.

In General:

Be kind. Bigotry, bullying, or hate speech of any kind can/will get you downed and will not be tolerated.

If you are running a case/speech that can be triggering, please use a trigger warning. If it disturbs the round, you may be downed.

Do your best and have fun: don't forego the reason why you do this event for the competition.

PF:

Treat me like a flay judge: I'd prefer if you didn't spread but I will flow arguments.

Weighing the debate with comparative analysis and impacting is really important. Don't drop an argument or an impact unless it's absolutely necessary. Having a few quality arguments is far better than introducing many smaller, yet less impactful arguments. If you don't weigh the debate for me, I will do so myself.

Framework debates are great and I'm happy to evaluate one, but a framework by itself won't win you the round-it only affects the precedence of arguments and impacts when deciding the winner of the round.

Tech > truth, but make sure your arguments are within the scope of reason and valid judgement. As long as a valid link chain is clear, I'll weigh the argument.

Make sure you signpost! Oftentimes, I won't be able to keep up with your rebuttals or summaries if they are just dumps of information.

While I have reservations with running Ks and theory in PF, I will hear them out if done well. I have some understanding of Ks and theory, but not enough, so please be explicit and patient with your explanations: I probably will not know the literature you run. Reasonability > competing interps. Make sure these are layered within the debate so you have substance to fall back on.

Please don't run tricks.

Speaks start at 27 but I will give 29 to a great debater with fluency, argumentation, and humour. A 30 is the perfect debater.

Congress:

Remember, this is still a debate event. Not every speech should read like a first or second cycle speech: if you speak later, I expect to hear refutations or crystallization. Clash, rebuttals, summary, and crystallizing are all important aspects to this event.

Evidence is key to making good arguments, but analysis and impacts matter more. Explain your evidence in a way that matters to the round and to the judges, and be clear with your explanations. Weighing your impacts is what can help win you the round: this isn't a line-by-line style rebuttal, but rather an emphasis of the importance and influence of the argument. Make sure to explain a world with/without the legislation and what the aff/neg does/doesn't do right.

Establish your presence in the round. Be active, ask questions, and make sure your inputs are good enough to change the whole debate. This is what gets you a good rank.

Don't be afraid to play into your character: this is what puts the Congressional in Congressional Debate.

Extemp:

Answer the question!!! This is the most important thing in extemp and it will be the primary factor in deciding who wins the round. Don't answer a similar question, make sure you answer the question given adequately.

If you don't use standard speech structure/substructure, there should be a valid reason behind it. In this scenario, make sure to signpost well and make your different subpoints clear and concise.

Make sure your points are distinct and clear from each other, but that they all fall under your umbrella answer/thesis. Be specific in your warrants and impacts.

Please don't fake your sources.

While I don't mind the occasional canned AGD/on-top, originality matters. Extemp isn't a cookie-cutter event, so make sure to be yourself and have good delivery. The more fun you have, the more I'll enjoy the speech.

Speech:

Remember, you are the expert in your topic/piece. I may not know as much as you do, so make sure you are clear and effective in your communication. Don't assume that I may know a niche term or idea: it is your responsibility to teach and inform us.

Cohesion in your speech is important. This can refer to anything from speech structure to delivery. Make sure your points flow from one to the next while being unique. Unless you missed an important part of your speech, don't focus on your stumbles: just move on and keep going.

Show your originality through humour, rhetoric, energy, and passion. You don't have to make me cry or laugh to get my 1, but you do have to resonate.

Interp: make sure your characterization and blocking are clear and easy to understand. Every action should be intentional. Remember, you are the character, so show that through your choices, interpretation, or pantomime.

Lmao pls read smth fun and non substantive

Fr ill buy anything, but it has to be warranted and weighed well. 2nd rebuttal has to frontline turns but term defense can be responded to in summ. Defense is sticky but new implications need to be made in summary for it to be considered in final. Weighing is vital. Extend card by card esp in summary and extend all warrants and impacts on turns.

u gotta explain shit well

Dont go too fast, im tech but im not that great with spreading :)

I dont have presumption preference pls give me reasons for presuming one side or the other in round

funnier/more entertaining the round = more speaks

on theory:

all parts of the shell need to be extended

hey! i'm meghna (meg-nah), pronouns are she/they :)

meghna.sub@gmail.com for email chains, if u have any questions lmk before round

i currently do pf at plano west (the s in ws) on both the local and national circuit

read the bold if ur short on time

first and foremost, debate is supposed to be a safe space for everyone!! don't say anything racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/etc., pls read content warnings for sensitive arguments, respect ppl's pronouns, etc. if there is anything i can do to accommodate u, pls email me.

for cx/ld:

- i have zero topic knowledge pls don't be too big brain.

- if ur spreading send speech doc before speech, not after.

- also not super sure if i should evaluate these events the same way i would pf, so plssss read the rest of my paradigm and tell me if there's smth u want me to change in this paradigm for the round

pf:

tldr: tech > truth, weighing wins rounds, pls give me a warrant, don't be problematic

general:

- here's how i view the round: 1) weighing tells me what impacts matter/to vote off of. 2) offense: basically whoever has offense that links into the weighing that won. this means u can win weighing and lose the round if u lose the turn/contention that linked in to the weighing. this also means u can lose weighing and win rounds thru turns or link ins.

- tech > truth, but my threshold for responses goes down the more untrue an argument is. ex: if u say the sky is purple, someone telling me the sky is not actually purple is probably enough.

- warrant!!!!!!! i won't vote off anything that doesn't have a warrant extended throughout every speech in the round.

- weigh early and comparatively. i am a simp for good weighing. whenever u want to start is fine, but by summary i need some kind of weighing. i won't evaluate new weighing in ff unless there's no other weighing in the round. also make sure it's actually comparative to ur opponents' impact(s). if u don't weigh i will be very sad :( and presume whoever loses the coin toss (unless you tell me why i should default a different way)

- overall, i kind of hate sticky defense, so pls just fronline everything in 2nd rebuttal and extend defense in 1st summary. however, if u usually debate with sticky defense, i can adapt. if both teams tell me before round that defense is sticky, i'm down. in that case, 2nd rebuttal should definitely frontline turns at the very least. any defense that 2nd rebuttal doesn't frontline is sticky and first summary doesn't have to extend it, but it must be in final focus.

- pls collapse. makes my rfd so much cleaner, will probably give u a decision u like, and will prevent me from getting a headache

- actually implicate ur responses or else they don't rly matter. this means telling me why defense is terminal, weighing turns, etc. implications are just so heart eye emoji

- make sure to extend uniqueness, warrant, and impact or i will cry

prog stuff?:

- i'll probably always pref larp unless there is major abuse in the round. if there is major abuse, an informal/paragraph shell is enough to win my ballot.

- not super familiar w/ it and never ran it, so go at ur own risk.

- overall, pf should be accessible. this means no running prog stuff on teams that don't know how to respond for an easy up >:(

- with theory: default drop the argument unless told otherwise

- content warning theory: yes yes yes yes pls use content warnings

- paraphrase theory: will vote off the shell or an rvi

- disclosure theory: no❤

- friv theory: no❤

other stuff:

- k: never ran/debated one, but open to vote off it if u drop jargon and can explain it to me like i'm lay. if u don't have an alt, i won't vote off it (unless k aff lol).

- prefiat: yeah go for it, but again explain like i'm lay

- phil: never ever heard this so tread lightly, might be a screw if u go for it and i don't get it sorry :(

- trix: no❤

- prob don't run anything else because i will be highly confused

speaks:

lol

rarely give out 30s, but not opposed to it. average a 29.

if it's ur bubble round, tell me, and i'll give y'all 30s.

things that will bump speaks by .5 (only get one bump even if u do more than one):

- make me laugh

- sing a lauv song during cross

- dm a pick up line to priyanka gupta or kaustubh sona and show me a screenshot

- make a haikyuu reference

paradigms i like:

- edison huang

- aditya kumar

i LOVE debate

hey guys! did 3 yrs of pf in hs in the dallas circuit, so i'm sorta familiar with how things go

email chain: svummadising@gmail.com

i'm decent with speed but please speak clearly and try not to spread

read theory at your own risk. i'm really not the best with theory/k's so i can't promise anything

makes sure to extend and weigh in summary and final focus

generally i'll evaluate anything as long as its warranted well and extended throughout the round

i give pretty good speaks so just don't be rude/interrupt in CX

feel free to ask questions!

I competed in speech and debate throughout high school.

Keep in mind that your goal in a speech should be persuasiveness. An insightful and cohesive argument alongside engaging delivery is key. Speed is fine as long as I can understand you.

For Congress:

• Be aware of arguments that have already been extensively developed to avoid rehash.
• I expect to hear refutation after the first cycle.
• Don't bring up new arguments towards the end unless it is truly groundbreaking and completely shifts the direction of the debate.
• Don't be afraid to give an early constructive for fear of "losing relevance", I will remember a good speech.
• Weighing and impacting are important.
• Being able to adapt to the round is essential. I don't want to listen to a one-sided debate.

glhf

Hello! I'm a first year out of Speech and Debate. I primarily competed in Extemp and Congress in high school, pretty regularly on the national circuit. 

Extemp: The most important part of your speech is to answer the question. If you make strong arguments within your points, but none of them tie cohesively to the question, you are disregarding the most crucial content element of the speech. AGDs, no preferences, but making me laugh is always a bonus. Be conversational! I want to feel like you are talking to me, not at me. 

Congress: I prefer if the sponsorship to any legislation spends time explaining the bill, not just bringing up arguments related to it. Any speech past the first cycle of the bill should address previous speaker's arguments. PO starts at my 3, every mistake will drop you a rank. Please try to not rehash past this point. 

Have fun and I'm excited to judge!

include me in email chains: annie.zhu.898@gmail.com

Congress:

-Speak fluently and with confidence

-Quantity of speeches is important but I care more about the quality of your speeches

-Include refutation if you're after the first three/four speeches

-Don't give me boring AGDs please (no statistics, be creative. jokes are always great if you deliver them well.)

-It's okay if your delivery lacks a bit as long as your content makes sense

-I've debated all of these pieces of legislation before I know the topic matter well

PF:

-Speed is fine but I need to understand what you're saying

-I'm big picture so don't target every little detail, rather the broader case and why your side wins

-Don't try any theories, just stick with the topic and provide strong arguments

-As long as you're not rude towards your competitors/teammate or say something that is offensive, you will get at least 27 speaks