hey y’all! my name’s Anya (she/her), i’m a freshman at dougherty valley and have been competing in congress for the past 3 years.

what i’m looking for:

argument structure - the logic behind your arguments should be easy for me to follow. evidence should be stated with a source or author, and a date. the best usage of evidence, in my opinion, is when you cite statistics and then explain it's relevance in the debate. i want to hear your thought process, so i’ll take this over a credible author’s word any day.

speaking style - i care about what you say, i don’t put a whole lot of emphasis on how you say it. that being said your speaking still needs to be clear enough for me to fully understand. also keep in mind when content is equal among competitors, i’ll be using presentation to determine who gets the higher rank. feel free to try different speaking styles that you think are effective and engaging, i’m open to anything.

rehash - don’t do it!!!! (note all the exclamation points) if you are planning on extending an argument, make that clear by mentioning the speaker you're adding on to.

weighing - this is so so so important. y’all should not be speaking in parallels. many arguments presented by the opposing side are probably true, so explain to me why your impacts matter more than theirs.

refutations - namedropping is NOT considered a refutation. fully flesh out your links and explain why it disproves your opponents argument. refutations are expected in every speech after the authorship/sponsorship in some capacity.

cross x - ask questions that poke holes in your opponents logic. quality of questions will be taken into consideration when determining overall rank.

adaptability - if you have to flip sides to keep the debate going i’ll be more lenient when judging. adaptability is an important skill for debaters to have.

POing - if you win in a PO election expectations will be much higher than someone who just volunteers for the sake of even having a round. overall as long as the chamber runs seamlessly you will be ranked well.

most importantly, be respectful and have fun! every tournament is a learning experience, so don’t get too stressed about ranks, instead focus on putting your best foot forward. feel free to ask me any questions before the round starts.

I do not like spreading, especially online as I have a hard time understanding what you are saying if you spread. Also, please try not to mumble as I am somewhat hard of hearing.

I do not like Ks. I do not know how to judge a competitor using one or any kind of progressive debate in LD.

FOR EVERYONE:

Do NOT bring up victims of police brutality just for your intros or as an additional piece of evidence you immediately move on from. people's lives should not be used as a piece of 'gotcha' evidence or a card to win a judge. if you are ignoring people's humanity to win a round you are not doing this activity correctly.

For Congress:

40% presentation, 60% content. There MUST be refutation in every speech after the authorship. your job as the author/sponsor is to explain how the mechanisms of your legislation work, not just give the first aff speech-explain what your legislation does and how it solves the problems in the status quo. If you speak twice on the same bill I will drop you. If you refer to male presenting competitors as 'representative/senator' and female presenting competitors as 'Ms.' I will drop you. If you are aggressive in direct cross I will want to drop you. Please give me clear impacts and ask questions often. I also coach extemp, so I don't want to see you just reading a prewritten speech off your legal pad. I love good POs and I will rank you high for it!

For PF:

I'm not going to time you. I'm not going to flow cross. As long as you're not an LD or Policy debater turned PF debater, I'll be fine with your speed (as long as your constructive is under 900 words you're probably fine). I need impacts and clear taglines. Organization is a huge thing for me. It is not my job to weigh the round for you, so you need to be doing impact calculus and giving me key voters all the way through. SIGNPOST. If you are rude in cross I will give you low speaks and I will want to drop you. If you run a K I will drop you. Also I do not flow the authors of your cards are so if you refer to cards by the author only I am not going to be able to find it on my ballot-give me a source name, a key word or phrase, something.

For IEs:

Your Infos/Oratories should all have quality cited evidence. Your Infos should give me impacts, and your Oratories should have solutions. For Interp, you should not be performing a character with a disability piece if you do not have that disability. In Humor ESPECIALLY, if you do a racist caricature/accent, I will drop you. Please use good judgement.

Email: erinmguiney@gmail.com

Hey everyone! My name is Fidencio Jimenez, and I am currently the head congressional debate coach for Modernbrain Academy. I have competed in a variety of individual and debate events during my time as a competitor in the high school and collegiate circuits of competition. My general approach to judging follows as such:

Email for document sharing: fidencio.jimenez323@gmail.com

Congressional Debate

Make sure your claims are linked and warranted with evidence. If you don't make it clear how your sources and information connect, you just sound like you are listing sources without contextualizing them in the round. This usually results in speakers presenting impacts that were not explicated thoroughly. I do not flow arguments that fail this basic requirement.

Incorporate the legislation in your arguments. I read the topics before each round, make sure you do too. If your points do not connect with the actual plan (that being I don't buy that the topic viably solves the problems or creates claimed harms), I will not flow them.

Keep the debate topical. If the link between your claims and the bill is obvious there isn't much to worry about here. If you don't think the grounds for the link between your harm/benefit are clear, justify yourself by explaining what mechanisms in the legislation make it so that your claims come to fruition. This makes it so you avoid mistranslation and prevent judges (myself included, it can happen to anyone) from overlooking/misunderstanding something in the topic.

For presiding officers, I ask you to be firm, deliberate, and clear in your instructions. The more a PO demonstrates the ability to take control over the round to avoid complications, the more they will be rewarded.

EX: Round does not have anyone who wants to speak so you call for recess, call for splits, and urge people to swap sides or speak.

Policy/LD/PUFO/Parli

Spreading- I do not mind if you spread. However, if your speed makes it so you become audibly incomprehensible I will clear you. Spread at a pace you can actually handle and perform stably.

Counterplans (for where it is relevant)- I am not a fan, too many times it seems like the plans do not tackle the benefits provided by the proposition. If you can link a counter-plan that establishes a harm, run it, but if it doesn't tackle their actual case, you are better off avoiding it.

K's- Same thing as counter plans. There is a time and place but if the K is not extremely fleshed out or justified, I will not consider it. There has to be substantial real-world harm clearly established. Make sure to weigh why the educational value of the discussion is not worth the consequences it creates.

IE's

I evaluate based on performance and the educational value of a competitor. For instance, if someone has a cleaner performance, but does not have a topic that is educationally substantive or as critical as someone with a slightly less clean performance, the person with the more substantive topic will get a higher mark. This is why for interpretation events I ask your thesis is made clear within your introduction and for events like impromptu and platform speaking to avoid surface-level theses or topics.

Hey, I'm Mike Kaiser! I competed in Congress on the national circuit for 4 years and graduated in May of 2023; I'm now an undergraduate college student studying finance at the University of Florida. My biggest takeaway from this activity was that there are an infinite amount of ways that to communicate a message effectively, but the best way will always be the one that highlights your individuality, so be original!

Congressional Debate

General Philosophy (and TLDR): I reward speakers that explain why their arguments are true as well as prove that they are true. This means a good argument includes plenty of warranting behind it, solid evidence to prove it, and proper analysis to link it together. I believe that every speaker has a unique role depending on how early or late the round is and I will rank the speakers that do the best job of fulfilling their roles (i.e. don't give a constructive as the last speech of the round). Finally, make sure that your speaking is engaging and passionate. In order to convince me that I should care about what you're saying, you have to sound like you care about what you're saying. Think of your round as an opportunity for me to get to know you, throw in a little personality.

Originality:As the great Zachary Wu once said, Congress is a game of raw persuasion. This just means that you don't have to abide by the conventions of Congress in order to be good, you just have to do the best job of convincing me why your argument is the most important in the round. I don't want you to give copy-paste speeches that you've given before nor extensively rehearsed speeches that sound like ChatGPT. In fact, I would rather you write a speech from scratch in-round if it means you will adapt to the round, include refutation, and explain your advocacy properly. I rank speeches that are good in the context of the round, not just good in isolation.

Humor: I love humor and will reward it if done properly. Humor in Congress is at its best when the jokes are professional and the role of Congressperson is maintained. That being said, if you make me laugh with a "less-than-professional" joke I will still reward you because I have a sense of humor.

Presiding Officers:If you want my 1, you better not make any mistakes. I rank presiding officers that are assertive, but not rude, and effectively manage the round. The best presiding officers are not yappers, they are quick and concise. Making a couple of mistakes will probably still land you in my ranks, depending on how you handle them.

Flipping:I love a balanced debate, so I reward people who flip. There is a caveat here that is fairly important: don't give a bad speech. Flipping will not automatically get you my 1, I still want to hear a good speech. In other words, don't give a terrible speech "for the sake of the debate." You will get points for flipping if your speech is good though.

Weighing: Do it, please. I'm a fan of weighing at any point in the round where it makes sense to do so, don't just leave this to the crystallization speech if you can fit it in earlier. The best debaters can weigh without using debate jargon, but I'll be happy with any weighing.

Refutation: Don't just tell me that someone is wrong, tell me why they're wrong and explain why you're right. Also, don't just namedrop a bunch of people and say they're all wrong. Either group their arguments or take them one by one.

Most importantly, have fun, be yourself, and don't be rude to anyone. And be confident.

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to email me at michel.s.kaiser@gmail.com anytime.

Hello all,

I am a parent judge. I have been judging the student congress debate for last three years.

For the contents of your speech, I would like to hear the debate about the harm and benefit analysis of the bill based on the flow of the chamber arguments and your data. I also look at the type of speeches you present during the round. I expect an argumentative speech if you speak later. If you bring an applicable real-life impact to your speech, that also counts for a good ranking. For the delivery, it matters to me if a student speaks with a clear sound, a persuasive tone, and a natural talking style. I give a favor to a student who participates in the debate actively with critical questions to weigh the side of the bill. I rank PO well if the PO runs the chamber efficiently. Good luck, and have fun!

Filipp Krasovsky
UCLA, Economics BA 2019

I have about 8 years of competitive debating experience in congress, parli, APDA, and BP (College level world schools).
I can tolerate speed but prefer quality over quantity of arguments. I'm a little less strict on warranting using citations
and prefer in-depth logical explanations rather than stating an authority. If an argument is not impacted out explicitly,
I probably won't vote for it even if it gets dropped.

Because of my BP background, I'm less stern about the burden of rejoinder in debate; I don't believe that a dropped argument
automatically wins a team the debate, especially if that argument becomes tangential to the motion itself.

I'm generally against pre-fiat Ks and will drop any argument that targets a debater because of his/her gender, skin color, race, etc. as these are absolutely counterproductive to the debate. I'm otherwise fine with theory, Topicality, and other shells.

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

'24 Spring Note: Being at nationals is a huge achievement (and privilege) and I hope you are all incredibly proud of yourselves for having made it through a year of debate as the world falls apart over and over. I take my role as a judge especially seriously now because I know that this competition is incredibly important to the debaters. I also see now as a more critical time than ever to ensure that our research projects in debate are based in facts, not fascism. On a personal level, please remember that this is one weekend out of your whole life, and I hope sincerely that you are taking care of yourself, your mental, and your physical wellbeing during the tournament and after.

Who I am

I (she/her) debated college policy (CEDA/NDT) at The New School, where I started as a college novice. I read Ks that were research projects about things I cared about. I value debate for its educational value, the research skills it builds, and the community it fosters. I have no issue dropping speaks or ballots for people who undermine the educational value of the activity by making people defend their personhood.

**I will be wearing a mask. I don't know y'all or where you've been and I don't want you to breathe on me. It's not personal. Please ask me for any other accessibility accommodations you need before the round and I will do my best to make the round comfortable for you!

For all formats (specifics below)

Email for the chain: newschoolBL@gmail.com

I vote on the flow. Do what you're good at and I will evaluate it: what is below are the biases I will default to without judge instruction, but if I am given instruction, I will take it. If provided them, I follow ROBs and ROJs seriously in framing my decision. I have voted both on the big picture and on technicalities.

I am excited to be in your debate, especially so if you are a novice, and I would love to chat post RFD if you have questions! :)

Policy:

DAs, CPs: Fine, no strong opinions here.

Ks: Yes, fine, good. Explain your links and your impact framing.

T: Hate when blippy, like when thorough & well-explained and have voted on T when it has won the debate many times. I am unlikely to vote on an education impact vs a K aff, though.

High theory for all of the above: Explain yourself. I don't vote on arguments I don't understand.

Likes: Clear spreading, smart debating, impact calculus, well-warranted arguments, case debate, thorough research, debaters from small schools.

Dislikes: Unnecessary hostility, bad evidence, blippy T blocks, strategies that rely on clowning your opponents, mumbling when spreading.

I am by far most comfortable in clash and KvK debates. I don't really care about policy v policy, but will give it the proper attention if put in them.

Public Forum:

If you don't share evidence, strike me. And also re-evaluate your ethical orientations.

Non-negotiables:

1) Email chain. The first speakers should set up the email chain BEFORE the round start time, include everyone debating and me, and share their full cases with evidence in a verbatim or Word document (if you have a chromebook, and in no other instances, a google doc is fine).

2) Evidence. Your evidence must be read and presented in alignment with the intent of whatever source you are citing. I care about evidence quality, and I care about evidence ethics. If you are paraphrasing or clipping, I will vote you down without hesitation. It's cheating and it's unethical.

Debate is a communication activity, but it is also a research activity, and I think that the single most important portable skill we gain from it is our ability to ethically produce argumentation and present it to an audience. I believe that PF has egregious evidence-sharing practices, and I will not participate in them.

I like smart debating, clear impact calculus, and well-warranted arguments.Do what you're good at and I'm with you! This includes your funky arguments.

I am fine with speed, but going fast does not make you a smarter or better debater and will not make me like you more.Debate is above all else a communication activity that is at its best when it's used for education. I can't stand it when more experienced or more resourced teams use a speed strategy to be incomprehensible to the other team so they drop things. It's bad debating and it perpetuates the worst parts of this activity.

Please be as physically comfortable as possible!! I do not care what you are wearing or whether you sit or stand. It will have literally zero impact on my decision.

I am far less grumpy and much more friendly than the PF section of my paradigm might make me seem. I love debate and go to tournaments voluntarily. See you in round!

Regarding my background, I have served as a career diplomat with the U.S. Department of State and have served in U.S. Embassies across the globe as well as in Washington, DC and at the United Nations. Prior to that, I initially began my career working on Wall Street for Goldman Sachs in corporate finance. I transitioned to consulting on international finance for Price Waterhouse, and then left to begin a career in government working for the CIA. All that to say, my background is heavy on foreign policy, economics, and finance. I have judged speech and debate for the past 15 years but most actively in the last 5 years. I have judged every speech and debate event on both the local and national circuits. Congress has become one of my favorite events to judge because almost every round there is an issue that I can relate to from real world experience and it is truly a joy to watch students delve into significant and strategic issues.

I tend to spend more time listening and evaluating your arguments than I do writing feedback, though I aim to give constructive comments. In general, I look for strong evidence to back up arguments and well constructed and articulated speeches. Coming from a diplomatic background, I like a courteous debate, although I appreciate, when appropriate, the need to be assertive and forward leaning in defending a position.

I am very objective when it comes to the issues. However, I will mark down for a speech that does not stand up in the status quo. While content and argumentation are at the forefront of my judging criteria, I do appreciate fluidity and strength in delivery. I frown on rehash and grandstanding. Speeches should also demonstrate strong impact. Questions should be relevant and purposeful. Lastly, I especially enjoy judging rounds where students are listening and creating good clash. Have fun and make it a true debate!

Hi! My name is Divya Mehrotra (she/her), and I'm a third-year at the University of Chicago! I competed for Dougherty Valley in primarily Congressional Debate & Extemporaneous Speaking for 6+ years, and I still coach for the Dougherty Valley team. I do have some experience in the other debate events, but I spent most of my debate career in Congress and Extemp.

Congress:

• Presiding Officers: I highly respect you all for sacrificing speaking time to serve as a PO. However, that doesn't mean automatically being in my top 6. You are still expected to lead the chamber well and make minimal mistakes to be ranked by me. There is no guarantee that you will rank by solely serving as PO. My idea is that you've done a great job if I can't tell you were there in the first place. I will not penalize you for taking some extra time to be correct. Other things are that I'll definitely smile if I see a colorful PO sheet (it won't influence my rankings, but it does make me happy) and that I like funny and personable POs! A few occasional comments to liven up the round don't hurt! Also, as an update for the Tournament of Champions, I expect that all presiding officers are keeping track of precedence and recency on paper or on the chalkboard/whiteboard available in the room (basically, NO use of computers/tablets to track precedence and recency).

• Cross-Examination: Being ranked in my top 3 means constantly participating in cross-ex. No one is above cross-ex, so please be sure to participate whether it is before your speech or afterward. In terms of evaluation, cross-ex can be the deciding factor in my ranks. I'm not big on having to remain civil during cross-ex. This is one of the only instances where you can clash with others' arguments, so feel free to be more aggressive if that's your personality.

• Indirect: Please ask questions that are not answerable with a yes/no. Point out flaws in their argument and force them to confront any loopholes or flaws in their argument.

• Direct: Please do NOT talk over each other constantly if you can. However, if you need to cut someone off to continue your line of questioning or reclaim the ability to speak, that's all good. These questions need a strategy to them; please have a direction that you are trying to take the speaker in.

• For the TOC/Nationals: it is unacceptable for you not to participate in cross-examination. I will NOT rank you if you do not participate in questioning. You are supposed to be the best competitors in the country; there is no reason for you not to be questioning and participating in the round.

• Flow of Debate: I greatly value all types of speakers. Whether you are giving the authorship or the final crystallization speech, you are contributing to the flow of debate. PLEASE be sure to give the appropriate speech for the part of the debate that you are in. Nothing peeves me more than crystals in the 2nd & 3rd cycle and constructives in the last cycle.

• Authorship/Sponsorship: Intro should be relevant to the bill & organic. Indicate the problem to me, how your bill solves the issue, and the impact of passing this bill. The speech should set up affirmative advocacy. You need to address both the solvency and impact debates with this speech. If you set up a solid framework, I'll be incredibly happy!

• First Negative: Intro should also be relevant to the bill & organic. Tell me why the aff doesn't solve the issue and what the general net harm of passing this bill is. You NEED to address both a lack of solvency and a net harm; the absence of either will hurt you in my ranks. If a net harm is difficult on a bill, I LOVE points like complacency or the bill's failure in the political realm (being meta like that is something I enjoy). Be sure to either address the author's framework or CONTEST it.

• Constructives: I don't mind the speech structure here. Just be clear about your impacts, include refutations, address solvency if you can, and add nuance to the debate. NO rehash (I'll feel so sad). However, do not use arguments that are so nuanced that they are out of the realm of the legislation. Intros can be creative and organic here (I love humorous intros)! Overall, just do what you do best with these speeches. Everyone brings their own style to them, and they are valuable because of that.

• Refutation Speeches: These can be more line-by-line refutations. That does not mean just namedropping someone and going into your completely different arguments. You need to fulfill the FULL requirements of a refutation: address their point with evidence or logic and tie it up with why your argument therefore wins. I would also LOVE it if you weigh impacts against each other. I love the debate jargon, so feel free to use it in front of me.

• Crystallization Speeches: I'm okay with canned intros here. I prefer the content in these speeches anyways. You should either categorize the round through general arguments that have been covered or through questions that the round has been centered on. This is NOT the speech to introduce new arguments. Weigh on what the round has been focused on & tell me which side wins and why they do. If you don't weigh impacts in this speech, I just won't consider it as meeting the requirements of a crystal. You can and should introduce evidence that you use to weigh impacts. For example, "the aff wins b/c we prevent the most number of lives from being lost by decreasing air pollution" can be followed by evidence that explains how many lives can be lost to air pollution. Other than that, be VERY clear about structure in this speech & try your best to explain the round to us. The best crystallization speakers know how to posit themselves as the clarifying voice in a very confusing round.

• Motions/Parliamentary Procedure: It honestly doesn't matter to me when ranking whether you were participating a lot in pre-round discussions or proposing motions a lot. What will positively influence my ballot is someone using parliamentary procedure to help include their fellow competitors. The use of parliamentary procedure to shut out someone or to exclude someone WILL drop your rank regardless of how phenomenal your speeches were.

• Content v. Presentation: 80% content v. 20% presentation --> I firmly believe that this is a debate event. I will judge you accordingly. Please have solid warranting, arguments, refutations, weighing, and clash. Props to you for creative introductions & conclusions though (you'll definitely see me laugh if it's funny)! Though, you still need to value eye contact, an aspect of presentation that is even more important in person. It makes you all the more personable.

PF, LD, Policy:

• I'm not too familiar with progressive arguments, so you can consider me to be more of a traditional judge in that sense.

• I'm mostly comfortable with faster speakers, but I will indicate for you to slow down if I can't understand you.

• I will not flow cross, but I will be paying attention. Please be strategic with the questions you ask; they can contribute to your rebuttals if successful.

• I'm truth > tech. PLEASE make sure that you are warranting well & that you are weighing impacts.

• Speaker Points: I start off at 29 and go up or down based on your fluency and overall presentation. I will not give you below a 27 unless you have made the round unsafe or uncomfortable.

• You all can time yourselves for prep. I'll defer to your timing unless there are any issues raised.

General:

• Do NOT create an unsafe space (no sexist, xenophobic, racist, homophobic, etc. language)! I will drop you in that scenario, and your speaker points will be quite low.

• Please reach out to me if you have any questions! I'm more than willing to clarify anything said above and to add additional information. My email: divyamehrotra08@gmail.com

• I'll be flowing regardless of the event!

• Also, feel free to eat small snacks & drink any appropriate beverage as you see fit! I know that everyone has their own circumstances, plus y'all are probably prepping a lot in between rounds & forget to eat. So, I'm not going to penalize you for making sure that you're staying healthy by snacking during the round!

• Overall, have fun! I loved this activity as a competitor, and I hope that you enjoy it too!

Harker, now UChicago, did Congress all 4 years of HS.

I reward people who are prepared to speak on both sides, actually refute people instead of just namedropping, PO efficiently or at least make an effort to, have high quality evidence, unique and high quality intros, jokes in speeches, and GOOD QUESTIONS/LINES OF QUESTIONING IN CX

Things I won't reward: Politicking to stop ppl from speaking, not coming prepared for the debate, only giving constructives even late on bills, not filling the time on your speeches, canned intros, speaking from your laptop.

Also I really like when Congress rounds are fun, so try to make rounds fun, don't be cutthroat, use humor, support each other, don't get mad when people don't know procedure, Congress procedure is stupidly complicated and everyone does it different, I promise you I don't care.

I use she/her pronouns.

I have coached all forms of debate, with students as state champions, national qualifiers, and national outrounds (mainly in LD, but also CX, PFD, and congress). While I am a coach of 20+ years, I like to be treated as a lay judge. My philosophy is that regardless of the style of debate, you should never assume that your judge knows more than you and it is your responsibility to educate them on the topic. That means:

1) I prefer speech habits that emphasize persuasiveness and understanding. Don't spread, make sure to signpost, and think about how you can use your voice to emphasize key points.

2) Avoid topic-specific jargon. We are not researching this stuff to the level that you do as a competitor. Don't throw out an acronym without telling me what it stands for, unless it is a universally-known one (i.e. NATO). Sometimes even terms of art in the resolution aren't really known to the judge, so it is helpful to clarify. That also goes for complex ideas and theories.

3) Explain your arguments/contentions. Just reading card after card does not showcase your logic. Remember the warrant -- WHY does that evidence matter? And with that said, what is the impact? I love a good impact.

I have been debating competitively for around 10 years now. 2 For PF/LD, 2 in American Parli, 4 in British Parli, 3 as a coach/instructor for PF/LD.

I make decisions sticking to the flow of the round, but still exercise common sense discretion. Evidence must be properly explained and introduced, link chains need to be explained, and impacts weighed for me using the rounds framework. For example, chains leading to nuclear war and extinction require a lot of time, evidence, and analysis for me to weigh out.

I give credit to both practical and philosophical arguments as long as they are based within tangible impacts, examples, and/or logical chains.

I am against spreading as a tactic as the online space already makes understanding of cases difficult for some debaters and spreading is antithetical to the educational value of debate. I can understand and keep up with quick speed, but spreading is too much.

I also tend not to credit Kritiks or T-Shells unless fully and properly explained within the context of the round. Even then, engagement with the opponents case/argumentation is necessary.

Clash is necessary within a round, proper responses and engagement with opponents cases are needed. Blanket rebuttal or generalizations about a case are less accepted. Weigh arguments individually, unless you can prove they have mutual exclusivity to another argument you have already refuted.

Happy to answer clarifications on paradigm.

Hey everyone!

My name is Andrew — I’m a second year college student who competed in Congressional Debate before college.

Very simply, I prefer to rank the competitors who are explicitly and persuasively showing that their side is better than all other sides. I care especially that you’re placing your arguments within the context of the round and the other arguments already presented, as well as explaining the consequences of your arguments. I also appreciate well thought out questions and answers that complement and advance your position within a particular debate, or even across debates in the same round.

And above all, make sure to have fun! Enjoy the discussions you take part in, and take into consideration the wide variety of viewpoints you’ll encounter.

Hi there, I'm Olivia! I'm a current Class of 2024 high school student at Amplus Academy in Las Vegas Nevada

Debate Experience

4 years of Public Forum Experience

3 years of Lincoln Douglas Experience

1 year of Congressional Debate Experience

Speech Experience

5 years of Humorous Interpretation Experience

3 years of Program Oral Interpretation Experience

1 year of Original Oratory/Informative Speaking Experience

1 year of Domestic Extemporaneous Speaking

Judging Experience

Speech: Middle School Asynch 2020

Congress: Middle School TOC 2020

Debate: Clash at Cannon III 2023 (Lincoln Douglas) ShadowAngel 2023 (Public Forum)

I will always look over and weigh content and evidence over delivery (though it is just as important) when it comes to Debate, since I understand everyone can prepare as much as they can, and still be nervous to deliver speeches.

I’ve been Involved with Speech and Debate since 2015, although I’ve been judging almost nonstop since 2019. Available as a judge-for-hire via HiredJudge per request.

9.9/10 if you did not receive commentary on your ballot after the tournament, you (hopefully) would get my judge email on there instead.

I don’t currently operate from a laptop so my ballot speed is not ideal atm; I’m usually typing out paragraphs from a doc until the last allowable minute, but my timing is not the most perfect. You won’t always get a pageful but its my personal policy to give a minimum of 5 sentences. If you send over an email asking about your round; it might take up to 24 hours post tournament but I -will- reply back.

_____

Ballot Style:

Where possible I add timestamps to help students pinpoint exact moments in their speech that address the issue as noted by comment.it is a personal philosophy of mine to try never have less than 5 sentences on any ballot.

Debate Philosophy: I can comfortably judge parli, LD, PF, SPAR & Congress due to judging almost nonstop since the start of the pandemic. I don't have a lot of experience with policy debate as of this writing, I’m working on understanding spread speak as I do more tournaments. [current speed: 2 notches down from the fast verse in Rap God ]

I LOVE it when students are able to be fully themselves and have fun in a round
Debate Judging: I’m not the biggest fan of utilitarian as a value metric, but otherwise I try to approach the round as a blank slate. I like hearing both Ks & Traditional Argumentation however my rfd really depends on how you use them (or inverse thereof) in the debate.

Sportsmanship (like, dont lower your performance/ be rude on purpose, please) > Argumentative Cohesion & Organization > CX utilization & Clash > Framework Discourse > Delivery > Structural Presence, but I am a little stricter on citation~ doesn’t need to be the full date but it needs gotta be there

Congress: (also see above) but I like those who can flip arguments in their favor;You dont need to be extroverted to be PO, but POs should be attentive with overall energy in the chamber and facilitating ethical and intentional inclusion beforesilence becomes a huge issue in round, in addition to strict yet -visible- timekeeping.

RFD FLOW - I try to have at least a paragraph summary explaining my flow (sometimes it’ll be copy/pasted)

Speech Judging: I can judge any speech event across all levels!

I would sincerely appreciate if students could self time so I can focus on ballots.

(For those who have read all the way through, some free interp gems that will be erased in a month, besides the basics: storyboarding, stop animation, pixar’s “inside out,” samurai jack, sound track your pieces.)

Last updated 2/19/2023

2026 / University of Arkansas, Fayetteville

Debated at Little Rock Central (AR), Policy and Congress

Put me on the email chain @ ellewalters2@gmail.com

tl;dr– Keep it interesting and don't be problematic

Congress

I am not here to listen to you play devil's advocate

There's a difference between taking unpopular ground (necessary) and saying things that are racist/classist/ableist/sexist/etc... (you're getting dropped). The marks of a good competitor are a) the ability to find creative argumentsfor an unpopular side and b) the ability to steer the chamber away from debating a bill that demands problematic speech on one side.

If you're planning to say something offensive/problematic just to get a speech in, you would probably be better off staying silent. In other words, check yourself.

That being said,

I like- clearly defined impacts and framework, unique intros, funny comments

I do not like- rehash, platitudes, stupid questions

I'm most concerned with hearing how your argument fits in the context of the round and the arguments of the speaker before you- my highest ranks go to speakers that give good refutation and weigh the round's impacts.Congress is only interesting and educational if you actually engage in debate,so that will always be most important when scoring and ranking.

Clarity, vocal variation, and engagement are also important. Blippy speakers are ok, but monotonous, incoherent or clearly scripted speakers are not

I don't flow questions, but I do take activity into account

Decorum is less important, proper parliamentary procedure is more important

Deductions–

If you're reading a speech straight/verbatim from paper or a computer for the majority of your speaking time, that's an automatic 2 pt. deduction.

If y'all say something silly like "I begin on my first word" it's an automatic 1 pt deduction

General (policy, ld, etc...)

I'm a much better judge for a K round than 6 off.

If the aff can prove they're reasonably topical, that's enough for me– I have high bar for voting the aff down on topicality alone. I'm much more interested in FW on the K than T or theory debates on the CP. (It's not like I have to be interested in your arguments to judge them, but I have a very short attention span. If I'm super into it, my decision will probably be a lot better.)

Fairness is a mid impact. Education almost always outweighs and I lean truth over tech.

At this point assume zero topic knowledge

Background and general views

I've been doing this for a decade now, so this isn't my first rodeo. I can adapt to pretty much any debate style, so do what you prefer. I don’t want you to be so focused on trying to please me as a judge that you lose sight of your case or your coaching. The one exception to this is spreading; I shouldn’t have to have your case in front of me to understand what you’re saying and I will drop over this.

I enjoy a lively, energetic debate, so don’t be afraid to be assertive. As long as you’re not blatantly rude, I won’t dock your speaks for being aggressive.

I prefer not to be added to email chains. If a piece of evidence is called into question, it’s up to you to prove why it should or shouldn’t be considered. As for emailing cases, refer to my comment about spreading.

Public Forum

I prefer when your FF speeches contain more weighing than summary. I want you to identify the voters and explain exactly how you outweigh your opponent on the key issues. For extensions and drops, I expect you to remind me what the card is and why it’s so important.

Cross isn’t for establishing new arguments, so I won’t flow any new ideas you bring up. I’ll make note of anything conceded during cross as well as general participation, but cross won’t factor too much into final scores or decisions. During GC, I want to see both partners on each team participating.

It’s up to you to attack your opponent’s case. No matter how silly a point may seem to you, I’m going to flow it through if you don’t effectively refute it.

I am the speech and debate coach at Hazard High School. Congressional Debate is my favorite event and I have coached many state finalist and champions and as well have had students do well at national tournaments. I enjoy all aspects of congressional debate but really like best is the role of Parli. I am here to facilitate a smooth chamber. My preference is to remain unobtrusive yet be of value and assistance to the PO, judges and the participants.

I also coach interp, limited prep events, and public speaking. I love to see the character come through the performance, the passion evident in the speech and the clear and concise analysis in delivery of your view on a topic.

Hey! I’m Zach, I graduated from Naperville North HS in Illinois (‘23) and I’m studying economics at Vanderbilt. I’ve competed in LD and Congress for give-or-take six years, so I’ve been around the block a few times. I championed Harvard twice, was runner-up at the Tournament of Champions twice, ranked 3rd in the Senate, and 6th in the House. I also won 4 state titles here in Illinois.

If you only have 5 min & you want a TL;DR: Make good, well-warranted arguments. Think and debate strategically, show me that your side is winning, and do as much of your own analysis as possible. Being a well-rehearsed speaker who is only capable of giving their well-rehearsed speeches in the first 3 cycles and is incapable of making relevant round observations or refutations is like eating empty calories. You will not get a good rank from me.

Top-level: My basic philosophy on Congress is that it is neither a debate nor speech event. It is a game of raw persuasion: however you choose to win that game is totally up to you. So do whatever you are best at. I am not in the habit of rewarding a good sponsorship more than a good crystallization speech (or vice versa) just because it is a sponsorship. Insofar as you are doing a sufficient job deploying arguments in the right place (early, middle, late) and show me that you are the legislator with the best read of the round, you’ll get my 1.

“Best read of the round” just means making the argument that is most strategic (does the most good for your side) and persuasive (has good warrants and supporting analysis).

Argumentation: I enjoy well-thought-out positions that explain the round from a perspective that hasn't been considered. I will not hyper-scrutinize every link or warrant in an argument, but if your claims are clearly unsubstantiated or flimsy, that reflects poorly. Explain every part of your argument in a way that an average viewer on C-Span could understand. Congress is supposed to be an accessible event.

Here are some content-related things that may be useful to consider if you are debating in front of me:

Evidence and dumping a lot of “cards” in a speech is a poor method of doing Congress. I’ve always been of the belief that evidence matters very little if you have constructed a thoughtful and percipient analysis of the round. You should be able to articulate that through your own analysis and commentary. I averaged probably 1-2 cards a speech, and spent most of my time on analysis, weighing, and other more useful (and persuasive) things. Unless it is a stat that totally changes or recontextualizes how we evaluate and understand other arguments made in the round (it almost certainly isn’t), it needs to be explained further. Also, a random "expert" giving an opinion, no matter how well-credentialed said expert is, is not really useful to me unless you can also explain the warranting behind their opinion.

Relatedly, I think warrants are important. Like super duper important. This means you cannot prove arguments with a piece of “evidence.” You need to provide a logical underpinning (or, in AP Lang terms, a defensible line of reasoning) behind your argument. And do so succinctly.

Frame well. Coming from a Lincoln-Douglas background, it is very very important to me that debaters frame and reframe the debate strategically to capture what arguments are most important. I am an absolute sucker for strong framing, the effective use of overviews, and really acute round strategy above all else. Congress involves many different debaters spewing many different facts at the judges -- the best debater is the one who can provide the judge with a coherent and advantageous arrangement of said facts. That’s framing!

Presentation: Do not be boring. If you are an engaging and persuasive speaker who uses rhetoric and style effectively, you will be rewarded on my ballot. This does not mean just yelling and inserting random platitudes. This means making jokes and delivering creative intros, incorporating unorthodox play-styles, narratives, or speech structures. Any way of doing Congress that goes past the two-point constructive mold will make me happy and keep me engaged throughout your 3 minutes.

Other stuff that might be relevant to you:

I'll always reward debaters who flip. I have been in this position countless times, and I know it can be stressful and frustrating. Don't worry, as long as you give a good speech -- I've got your back. Note here that you shouldn’t let anyone in the chamber pressure you to flip: giving a significantly compromised speech just for the sake of ‘advancing debate’ is deeply unstrategic and will probably make me sad.

For presiding officers, don't make any mistakes and be assertive. A good PO will always be ranked T4 in my book, but a middling or poor PO is likely to be dropped. Make sure you know your stuff before you run. When I presided rounds, I wasn’t always flawless, but even when I made mistakes, I moved on from them quickly and maintained composure.

Be confident! Always go into every round with $100 on yourself. Most importantly, have a ton of fun and learn a lot. Please please please email me at wu.zachary@gmail.com if you ever have questions about my ballots, your performance, or want to talk about anything at all.

Congressional Debate:

General Ideas to Keep in Mind: I strongly prefer clear speakers that are easy to understand and follow. I would also like a respectful debate, so during the round and cross examination especially, please limit cutting off other competitors. The side you stand on does not matter to me as long as you are a good speaker with proper argumentation and persuasion skills.

Speeches: I prefer clear speakers who I can understand well - if I have any trouble understanding you, you will not be getting a high score. Please include vocal variety and some hand gestures, or else the speech seems very bland. I also would like to see clear argumentation that is backed up with solid evidence. And finally, unless you are the sponsorship or authorship speaker, I expect some clash in your speech, though canned rebuttal will lose you points.
I recognize crystallization speeches and that they are harder to present, so if you do it well, I will give you a higher score. However, if you do it poorly, do not expect me to rank you very high.

Cross Examination: During direct cross examination, I would like both competitors respecting each other and allowing the other to speak. Please do not continuously cut off other competitors as that makes it harder to follow and understand - I will give you a lower score for that.
And during indirect cross examination, please keep your questions short but meaningful, with solid answers - leading questions, preface questions and other fallacies should not be present in the round and will you get a lower score.

Presiding Officers: I expect that Presiding Officers can move the round along quickly and smoothly - if as a judge I can clearly see otherwise, I will not give Presiding Officers a high score. However, if the Presiding Officer is particularly good, expect a top 5, or at the very least, top 8 score.