Actively Competing in Congressional Debate

Refutation: I want to see a lot of active refuting throughout the speech and not just name drops. Show me that you are actually interacting with the others in the round. Except for the first cycle, I would like to see refutations in every argument.

PO: Show me you know what you are doing. You know the procedures and you are confident with it. You will be ranked fairly if I see you demonstrating these aspects and running an efficient round.

Overall:

-Don't rehash, if you are going to bring up a previous point add more to it, and don't just restate.

-Show me your personality. Add humor, jokes, sarcasm it all just helps you stand out.

-I would like to see how confidently you answer questions showcasing preparedness.

Hi, my name is Isabelle Bennette. I've competed and judged in Individual Events, Public Forum, and Congress.

I prefer a polite debate/speech space.

For debaters, time yourself. Speed is not a factor in my decision. Have sources for all content and do not purposely misinterpret your opponent's arguments. Impacts are the most important element of your case. Signpost everything.

For speakers, try your best to enunciate, use hand motions, and make eye contact. For dramatic speeches (Prose/Poetry, Duo, POI, HI, DI, etc.), I want to see and experience strong emotion. For informational speeches (Extemp, OO, etc.) try to include humor, speak clearly and conversationally.

Best of luck to all of you! I will try my best to be a fair judge.

Currently competing in Duo Interp.

- The points you make in your argument must be clear and concise, so I understand what you're saying.

- Be confident when getting your point across.

- Don't restate previous points.

- I would prefer if you slow down while speaking, and use a clear tone with voice fluctuation.

- Don't stress out and enjoy the round!

Hi,

I participated in speech and debate all four years of high school, specializing in Public Forum. I have also participated in Lincoln-Douglas, Parliamentary, and Impromptu. I have experience judging and coaching both speech and debate, and prefer judging Public Forum. I prefer well-paced speaking (please don't spread if possible thank you), and use of credible evidence, analysis, and response to questions are important to my final decision. Speaking style and efficiency of speeches are also noted, but will usually not be the determining factor to a debate unless they are particularly effective. Please remember to maintain decorum, I do not appreciate when opponents are rude to each other. Best of luck!

Claire Hsu

4 years of PF, UVA '23

Winning my ballot starts with weighing, in fact, weighing is so important I'd prefer if you did it at the begiNning of every speech after first rebuttal. Be cOmparative, I need a reason why I should look to your arguments firsT. Please collapse, don't go for more than one case arg in the second half, its unnecessaRy. I'm a lazy judge the easIest plaCe to vote is where I'll sign my ballot. I'm not going to do more worK than I need to. I will not vote off of one sentence offense, everything needS to be explained clearly, warranted, and weighed for me to evaluate it(turns especially). I try not to presume but if I do, I will presume whoever lost the coin flip.

I will evaluate progressive arguments.

If you are going to give a content warning please do it correctly - this means anonymized content warnings with ample time to respond.

I'm very generous with speaks, speaking style doesn't affect how I evaluate the round and I don't think I'm in a place to objectively evaluate the way you speak. With that being said I will not tolerate rudeness or ANY bm in round. I can handle a decent amount of speed but do not let speed trade off with quality.

Online debate I will be muted the entire round just assume I'm ready before every speech and time yourselves and your own prep. I will disclose if the tournament allows.

Questions: chashuang1@gmail.com

I judge based on the arguments presented, not on my own convictions. Apart from listening to first affirmative and negative constructs carefully, I pay close attention to cross examination, rebuttals, and timings before voting.

I am based out of East Bay, California.

I have been judging for past 8 years (in fact earlier than that).

I am a parent judge. I prefer traditional LD/lay policy-style arguments.

Add me to the email chain: elissalu6@gmail.com

Please do not spread. If I do not understand you, I cannot accurately evaluate you. Please avoid topic-specific jargon, or be sure to explain it, and signpost your arguments in a well-structured speech.

Have strong warrants/explain the connection between your claim and evidence. Be sure to do clear weighing and give voters. Utilizing cross-ex well is smart to establish weaknesses in your opponent's case.

Be respectful and have fun!

Previously Competed in Congressional Debate

Now competing in Humorous Interpretation (HI)

->When giving speeches, I want to see a clear tone and a lot of voice fluctuation

->Make sure to showcase your personality (jokes, sarcasm, powerful voice, etc.)

->The points you make your argument MUST BE VALID, and make sense

-> Refute well, when being questioned answer confidently so I know you understand what points you are making

-> Enjoy the round! I don't want to see people distracted, so be engaged it's a debate.

I prefer moderate speed while speaking. I vote for speaking clearly and convincing arguments.

Hi, I'm Gillian! I did speech and debate for 2 years in high school, and competed in a range of events (PF, Congress, extemp, duo, prose, informative). I write pretty detailed ballots, but if you have any remaining questions, you can always contact me at gillianemeyers@gmail.com.

In general, please be polite and respectful at all times––any personal attacks against your opponents, rude behavior, unwarranted interruptions, etc. will count against you.

Speech and debate should be an activity that's accessible to everyone. Please explain everything clearly, make sure your logic follows, and don't spread; if I can't understand you, I can't judge you. It's totally fine if you speak quickly, just make sure to enunciate.

For debate, I would rather you be accessible than technical––kritiks, theory, and jargon won't help your case unless you explain them thoroughly. Research-backed arguments with strong links will serve you best. In PF cross, please don't hog questions (unless your opponent doesn't have any to ask you). Address all of your opponents' contentions, make sure I know why I should vote for you, most of all weigh your impacts!

For speech events, have fun and be creative! For extemp in particular, be expressive and personable, and don't forget to explain the impacts of your argument.

Debate can be pretty intense, but at the end of the day, it's still something you're doing for fun. Best of luck!

I am a graduated senior at St. Andrew’s Episcopal school. I competed in Public Forum in 6th-8th grade and I currently compete in Lincoln Douglas debate, Prose interp, Dramatic interp, Duo inerp, Original Oratory, and congressional debate (a lot I know).

Debate: I do not particularly like spreading I think that it is often used as a tactic to cause confusion so that your opponent does not have the ability to respond but if you do spread be sure to read taglines clearly and annunciate your words as well as share your case with me as well as your opponent. My favorite part of debate is cross examination and if you can get some really good question in there you set yourself for a good round in my world. With that being said respond directly to your opponents questions if you don’t know the answer I prefer you say you don’t know rather than wasting time circling around the question. My main voting point will more than likely be based upon how well you respond to your opponents case and impact weighing.

Speech: I really enjoy Speech events this year i competed in 4. my main events are Duo interp and Original Oratory. in speeches i look for clarity and inflection. if your speech/ speaking voice is flat you wont rank well. I enjoy funny pieces but i really like when funny pieces still have a message i think that presenting a message and teaching something is the point of speech and debate. for duo i really look for partner chemistry and a good flow int he cutting and blocking. that being said blocking isn't enough there needs to be some good acting. acting outweighs tech. for platform events: clarity, posture, inflections, tone, speech organization.

About me:

I am a parent judge. My child debates in Policy.

This is my first year as a judge so please bear with me as I get up to speed.

I prefer well-paced speak, don't spread. Do not rush, if I don't understand you I can't correctly evaluate your performance.

Use of credible evidence and analysis is important to me.

During cross examination, be respectful to your opponent. Rebuttal should be right to the point, refutation can be sharp but be polite.

I value debate skill and truthful arguments equally.

Junior at the University of Texas at Austin.

Email

divwalia [at] utexas [dot] edu

Key Takeaways

1. Consistency across the flow is important to me. I will be flowing, and any inconsistencies you have in your argumentation will be evident and affect my decision.

2. PLEASE signpost. It is in your best interest. Spell out your desired outcome for me, even though I am not a lay judge. This should never change.

3. If you are an LD or PF debater with a more traditional style and you are given a case to read, make sure you have a full understanding of what you are given (and it sounds so).

Value and Value Criterion

I judge both on value criterions and contention level arguments. If you are going to read a passage explaining your value/value criterion, make sure (a) it contributes to your argument meaningfully and (b) you actually have an understanding of what you are saying. If you are reading a philosophical passage simply for the sake of reading it, please, save us all the trouble.

Progressive LD, Theory, and Ks

I will only entertain progressive arguments if they are explained well enough. Arguments do not necessarily need to be understandable to a "lay" judge, but a judge should not have to be specifically keyed into obscure terminology in order to follow your argument. In other words, if you run theory or Ks in order to score an "easy win" against an opponent who debates in a traditional fashion, you will lose the round.

Ks are often valid, but are not always productive. I will not entertain debaters who seek to make debate inaccessible in this manner for their opponents, and for that matter, for judges, simply for the sake of winning. Use them for their intended purpose, and nothing more.

Theory

Running theory is akin to asking me, the judge, to intervene in the round. I will only do so if the request is reasonable.

Speed

Slow and "fast" conversational talking speeds are all fine. I really have no problem with moderate speed so long as taglines and impacts are read slowly and with purpose. However, in my experience, speaking extremely fast rarely results in any sort of advantage.

Speaker Points

25 - terrible round with massive flaws in speech.

26 - bad round. Glaring clarity, time management, or fluency issues.

27 - average. No large mistakes but persistent errors nonetheless.

28 - above average. Few mistakes. The quality of speech made the argument more compelling.

29 - well above average.

30 - perfect.

Flex Prep

Unless this conflicts with a rule of a specific tournament or circuit, I will not allow flex prep. Asking for evidence during prep time is okay, but don't expect me to pay attention. I judge based on what I hear during speeches and CX.

CX

I will not rigorously flow during CX but during rounds between similarly competent debaters, this will likely be a deciding factor.

Pronouns: They/She

Email: patriciayango@arizona.edu

I am a 2020 graduate of Perry High School (AZ) and a 4 year competitor in a variety of speech and debate events at both the local and national levels. I am competing for the University of Arizona. I'm the Arizona District Assistant Coach of the Year (2021).

tldr; signpost always. run whatever you want (no trix tho pls). check your privilege.

you are responsible for the weighing, extensions, and impact calc (and explaining unfamiliar lit).regardless of if you debate trad or progressive, good comparative impact calc will prob win you my ballot. if i don't understand ur contention, i probably wont vote on it. if i don't understand ur k/t/phil/da/cp/whatever else i probably wont vote on it.

i am a lazy judge. in an ideal world, you are filling out my ballot for me. tell me what i need to vote on EARLY IN THE ROUND and why. if you leave that up to me, you probably wont be happy with my RFD. pretty much any argument goes as long as you have a warrant and can explain it well.