Southern States Middle School Speech and Debate Championship
2021 — NSDA Campus, US
Congressional Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I am a first timer as debate judge. I will learn along the way.
Matthew Cupich. firstname.lastname@example.org
* 3 years: Public Forum debate competitor for William P. Clements High School. (Texas & National Circuits)
* 2 years: Foreign Extemporaneous competitor for '' '' '' '' (Texas Circuit)
* 1 year: coaching middle school Public Forum debaters at Fort Settlement Middle School.
- Be respectful and kind.
- Don't add me to the email chain until it is necessary.
- Speak at a slow to moderate pace (6/10 speed). I don't like fast mumbling because I can't understand what you are saying (Especially on zoom, this is difficult).
- Evidence ethics are important: Extend cards clearly through summary and final focus (Public Forum). I don't like to see misconstrued or unclear evidence. Now your sources.
- Crossfires are important: ask meaningful questions that have strategic value (Public Forum)
- Speak clearly and confidently. (Slow & clear > Fast & messy)
- Signpost: explain where you are debating on the flow (Public Forum).
- Debate is like chess: arguments are like chess pieces and strategy is important.
- Theory is good. However, I do not have any in-round experience with theory debate.
If you would like know more, feel free to ask me questions before the round starts. Thank you.
jw patterson update (10/21):
Things I'm going to start dropping your speaks by .1 for every infraction - 1. counting down before your speeches 2. calling me judge/ms. curry/any formality - please just call me Ausha or don't refer to me lmao (asking "judge ready?" is okay)
^if you do this i'll know either a. you didn't read my paradigm (bad) or b. did read my paradigm and just aren't respecting it (also bad)
Hi! I'm Ausha (they/them)
I'm a current freshman at American University majoring in a mix of poli sci/econ, probably going to do some form of debate here too. In high school I did 2 years of policy and 2 years of LD, running stock and critical args in both. I finished top 50 at NSDA Nats in 2021 and am the current WA state LD champion.
Put me on the email chain if you make one : ausha.L.email@example.com
tldr -- Run whatever you want to run. I'll listen. I'll vote where you tell me to, that's your job in the rebuttals.
Don't do/say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamphobic, etc. It'll 100% result in an L20.
Conflicts: Mount Vernon (WA)
1. online - go maybe 80-90% max speed and definitely start a little bit slower in case the audio is shady. also plz locally record your speeches in case either of our internet cuts out !
2. disclosure - i'm unlike a lot of other circuit judges in the sense that I won't vote on disclosure unless the violation is super egregious. i was literally the only circuit debater at my HS and i couldn't afford programs like debate drills, impact, etc. so if you're in a similar boat i will def be empathetic towards you in these rounds. On the flip side if you're from a school that has a massive team and try to run the small school arg i won't buy it (interlake i am looking @ u)
3. tech > truth - please be super clear about signposting especially online. I'm most versed in line by line debate so I'll probs know if you miss something <3 even if your opponent straight out concedes something, I still need extensions of a warrant and some weighing for me to vote on it
4. speed - I'm pretty okay, I'll max out at maybe 400 wpm? I haven't heard top level policy speed in a while so tbh I couldn't tell ya. I'll yell clear or just ask for the doc post speech if I feel like I missed anything too significant (if it wasn't sent already)
5. Ev ethics - if u suspect ur opponent is clipping cards, let me know after their most recent speech. it'll also require some sort of recording for proof. I won't make you stake the round on it but that also means that you'll need to respect everyone's time and not just make accusations for fun. or just run theory and it'll work better for all of us
6. Flowing - I'll probably be flowing on paper most rounds so don't be discouraged if I look down, i'm not on my phone. Also this means you should be very very organized with good sign posting bc i don't want to waste ink or paper by messing up
7. Judging history - it looks like i've judged only like 10 rounds but it's only bc WA used a lot of paper ballots prior to covid lmao i promise i'm not just going in blind
Argument Specific -
tricks - strike me. i won't go for any of the "neg doesn't get CPs" or "eval the debate after x speech". i think they're genuinely cheating, a bad model of debate, and incredibly exclusionary and i will die on that hill
t/theory - I love t, please run it. I spent a lot of my time in policy going for t in the 2nr so I'd say this is where I'm pretty comfy judging debates. I default competing interps and I don't have any other glaring predispositions against standards, but I think the aff can win well nuanced reasonability. Neg, PLEASE have a tva that solves the aff!! Otherwise I will def be compelled by aff's "edu outweighs" args. I have a pretty high threshold for other theory, especially super friv theory like font size, but I think if it goes straight conceded i will vote on it unhappily.
LD specific: I grant affs a lot of leeway in LD specifically for 1ar theory, just say "Ausha, I read your paradigm" and move on with your shell. I didn't run a ton of grammatical stuff like Nebel in LD but if you run it well and explain the violation clearly, it's a pretty good shot I'll vote for it. i've come to the realization i don't particularly love theory 2ars if it's only introduced in the 1ar. I think it's made for some pretty shallow debates, but again, i will vote on it unhappily
Defaults: Competing interps, DTA, condo good, PICs good, yes RVIs
(note: this doesn't mean i won't flip, you'll just have to debate it)
larp (LD) - probably where I'm most comfortable judging. know what the aff plan does, neg call them out if their solvency ev doesn't say what their plan is <3 I'll vote on 0.000001% risk if that's how the debaters want to frame the round but I also like super niche ptx DAs with an advantage CP if that's how you want to debate.
phil (LD) - explain it well, but I'm sure that if your opponent doesn't understand it then I won't either. I've never ran a phil case, but I have won against them, so just let me know how to evaluate it in terms of the round in the final rebuttals. I have a general knowledge of how most of them function independently but if both of you are running competing frameworks/ideologies, I'll need a lot of comparative work
CPs - please make them competitive and have some sort of solvency evidence unless it's some a structural issue (ie taking an offensive word out of the plan text and replacing it), i think most aff ev will probably have an advantage cp lying around in it. i won't auto vote u down if you don't have evidence but it'll probably be a lot easier for the aff to win their case solves better. i use sufficiency framing for weighing the cp against the aff meaning you'll have to do more analysis than just "cp doesn't link to the net benefit" in the final rebuttal for me to vote on it. I think both internal and external net benefits are good.
DAs - I enjoy unique, nuanced das. I really like politics and i'll buy them pretty easily if there's a good link to the aff. Should have an overview in the final rebuttal and the block shouldn't be just reading new ev and not answering line by line. aff should probably make some sort of aff outweighs/solves/doesn't link arg in the 2ac (or 1ar in LD) for sure.
ks - go for it! I like them if they're ran well but make sure you know that your own lit. If you're reading a K on the neg and the aff knows your lit better? EMBARRASSING! I'm most familiar with generics (setcol, cap, security), Foucault, a little Edelman, and Baudrillard, any other high theory ones you should explain more though. open to pomo but never really ran it during high school and only hit it a couple times
k affs - I like these, i've ran a couple. They don't have to be topical, but I think it's easier to win on t if they're in the direction of the topic. I mostly end up going for k v k against these affs but i also run fw in the 1nc so i have choices and so do you, see the t section above if you have questions about that. tvas can be deadly so please blow it up if T/FW is your nr strat!
performance - never ran this, but always enjoyed watching these rounds. Tell me why the 1ac is important in the debate space and win T and it'll be a super easy aff ballot. negs be careful and please don't say anything offensive <3 but i feel like a different K or pik is always a better bet than fw against these
education =/= fairness - I think that both of these impacts have separate strats/internal links that need to happen in the speech and you shouldn't just use them as buzzwords in an overview ie i need something about setting a precedent for fairness vs something about portable skills for education
I think i tend to give relatively high speaks, especially at the novice level, averaging between a 28-29. Things that'll boost your speaks: jokes, FUNNY** memes at the top of the speech doc, good organization, clear weighing, and being respectful to your opponent.
if i'm judging you on the WA local circuit i'll give you a 30 if the first cx question is "how is your day"
Just let me know if you have any other specific questions you need answered before round :)
Forensics Team coach for Dallastown since 2014
For the most part,you'll be looking at this paradigm because I'll be your LD judge. cross-apply these comments to PF as applicable and to policy if/when I get recruited to judge policy.
Speed and Decorum:
Send me your case. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org I cannot overemphasize the necessity of doing this – it will help keep me focused and generally just make me happier. Using the file share feature on online platforms is also OK. (Let me know that you've sent me your case.)
Spreading…fine if you've given me the speech DOC and follow it (or make it clear where you deviate). Probably also a good practice for virtual debates, too. .
If we ever go back to in-person debating, I don't care if you sit/stand. Really, I don't. Just vaguely remain in the room. If in person, I'm not a handshake person.
Please time your speeches and prep time. I may not keep accurate time of this since my attention is to the content of your speeches. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.
Some debaters have asked me for "time signals" (like in extemp?) - this will result in my not taking notes. If you want this, be aware that I won't be taking notes and you'll risk me forgetting the content of your speeches.
Arguments that are obviously racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. are not OK. (Read: you will lose if you run them.)
I do not prefer theory. I find it unnecessarily complicated and usually designed to make debate inaccessible (especially to those who are likely already crowded out of this forum in some other way). Please don't run it unless there you see literally NO OTHER WAY to respond to your opponent's arguments. Even then, I may not evaluate it the way you want or expect. If you planning to run dense or tricky theory, you should find a different judge.
You have an absolute obligation to articulate your arguments. Even if I’m familiar with the literature or whatever that you might be referencing I *try* to avoid filling in any gaps.
Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!
Tricks = no. Thanks.
Above all, strive to make sense. I do not prefer any “style” of debate or any particular kind of argument over another. Similarly, there isn’t much that is “off limits” (other than that which is listed above…pay attention to that). Regardless of what you run, if your case relies on me to connect the dots for you or if it is a literal mess of crappily cut and equally crappily organized evidence sans warrants, you probably be sad at the end of the round.
I am a freshman attending the University of California, Berkeley. I have had overall debate experience for nearly seven years. I competed in Parliamentary debate during three of my four years of high school, and also competed in Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas debate at the middle school and high school freshman year level.
Things I look for:
1. What I look for most is which team can uphold the best the criterion of the round (it is also known as the weighing mechanism or judging mechanism). All of your overall arguments, evidence, links, and impacts need to have a clear tie back to your criterion.
2. I place a bit more emphasis on the framework debate than some other judges. Don't bring up framework debate and then simply drop it after one exchange. I believe that framework and your arguments need to be consistent.
3. In your final rebuttal speeches, have clear-cut voting issues. It helps to number them out for me. It keeps me organized and able to flow.
Things I discourage:
1. IMPORTANT: DO NOT SPREAD. I understand that you feel the need to jam-pack information to try to win the most arguments, etc. Trust me - you'll be at a severe disadvantage. I'm not going to say you will automatically lose if you do, but it'll be really hard. I cannot understand debaters who spread. At the beginning of the round, I may even show an example of what I consider unacceptable in terms of spreading. I cannot flow and follow along if I cannot understand you. In the event that you are speaking too fast, I may either: a) stop writing and look up, b) look extremely confused, and/or c) say "clear". Any one of those cues you see and/or hear, it is your responsibility to adjust your speaking. I can only judge the round based on what I can flow.
2. Don't drop major arguments. I understand that styles are very different from where I competed in Parliamentary (Orange County) than other areas, and that some different styles actually encourage dropped arguments. It's one thing to concede and drop a piece of evidence, a link, or even an impact (although a dropped impact will probably hurt you more than the former two). It's another thing to drop entire arguments. Also, if a team does drop an argument, point it out! Don't just leave it abandoned on my flow.
Otherwise, just have fun. It's a learning experience, and you're here to learn over anything.
Hey everyone ! I'm Kayleigh Langston, I've been in debate for three years now. I understand the basics to every style of debate but I primarily judge JV or Jr. High Congress.
When it comes down to how you speak in the round I prefer clear speaking over how fast you can talk, I don't need to know that you can spread, I need to know what you are saying and typically when you do spread I won't be able to understand a word you are saying. DO NOT use any slurs or anything deemed personally disrespectful to your opponent(s). If you do, this will be reflected negatively on your ballot and a report to your coach. I understand rounds can be frustrating but there is no need to be rude or aggressive to your opponent(s).
I will be flowing the entire round, but I won't be flowing CX. I have no real preference with tech over truth, it depends on the resolution truly for that sense, I will judge more on (at times) your speaking skills and if your argument makes sense. Be sure to thoroughly explain why you are using that card and why it is relevant to the debate itself, please don't just throw a card out there and have little to no explanation of it. With theories, they can be ran if they are short, conscience and don't stray too far from the resolution. If they do take a turn and stray far from the resolution is where the theory should be stopped and the debate needs to become more on topic. Be sure to keep up with speech times and prep time, I will time along with you though if you ever forget to time.
These notes are more framed towards those to who do not compete in Congress, but for those in Congress my paradigm follows the same premise. For specifics of the small areas where there are differences between judging Congress and other events: I love to see clash and little to no repetitive points after the first affirmative and negative.
As a whole, I look forward to watching your round and am excited to see you give your speeches if you ever have any questions or concerns you can email me at email@example.com
Hi all- my name is Natalie Steinbrink and I am an assistant coach at Phoenix Country Day School, where I've been since 2015. I graduated from Arizona State University in 2018 with a degree in English Literature. I am primarily a speech coach, but I do enjoy coaching and watching Congress when I can. Here is what's important to me in a Congressional Debate round:
-Clear argumentation. Don't make me work to understand your argument. Your structure, evidence, links, and impacts should be clear and easy to understand. I can appreciate a complex argument, but if I'm still wondering what your point was by the time we've moved on to the next speech, you haven't done the job.
-Be INVOLVED in the session. Be an active listener and don't get wrapped up in your own speeches (i.e. please don't practice your speech while others are talking). Ask good, varied questions. Be a congressperson who's going to foster good debate in the round (the most fun part of congress!).
-Give me some genuine emotion! This may be the speech coach in me jumping out, but the bills you're debating impact real people in the world, and you should treat them as such. How is anyone going to believe in your argument if you don't act like you believe in it yourself?
-Good delivery is a must. Try to get away from your legal pad as much as possible.
-Be respectful. If you're rude or aggressive to other debaters, you'll be dropped. Plain and simple.
I'm excited to listen to you all, and I hope you're excited as well!
No spreading, speed is acceptable though. Please include a roadmap before speeches. Please don’t run K’s or theory shells. I weigh the round based off what you tell me to weigh the round on. Most of all, have fun!