2021 — NSDA Campus, US
Congressional Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
In Congressional Debate: Analysis is the most important factor. Sources are paramount. Clash is expected. Delivery is secondary.
In Extemp: Give a CLEAR answer to the question, need good time allocation, good sources. I consider this public speaking, not interp.
In OO/Info: Need clear structure with sources. I consider this a public speaking event, not interp.
In Interp: Need different levels, clear characterization. I need to be able to follow your story.
I am a parent judge.
No spreading please. Just present your arguments clearly and weigh impacts
I'm pretty close to tabula rasa. I'm not going to tell the contestants what to say to persuade me; it's up to them to come up with that. If contestants weigh arguments, I consider the relative weight they assign when evaluating the round.
I do have some preferences, though. I prefer real world topical arguments to fanciful ones (e.g., Harry Potter DA). I prefer resolution based arguments to theory, though I understand that sometimes theory is useful. I tend not to vote neg on topicality unless they can show aff's case is clearly abusive. I will vote on what is presented in the round, though, not based on an idea of what I think debate should look like.
I also have some preferences regarding structure. Signpost, signpost, signpost! Refer to arguments by which points and sub-points they fall under, as well as the sources of the cards.
I have no philosophical objection to speed, but if you speak to quickly for me to flow, you won't get credit for all your arguments. Word economy is preferable to speed.
My competition background is in LD. I have been judging LD and PF for about 8 years now. I also judge WS, but not CX (except for an NCX round once in a blue moon).
Ask me anything else you would like to know; I'm very approachable.
*firstname.lastname@example.org for the chain*
Currently the head coach at Southlake Carroll. The majority of my experience is in Public Forum but I’ve spent time either competing or judging every event.
Please show up to the round pre-flowed and ready to go
You would probably classify me as a flay judge. The easiest way to win my ballot is through comparative weighing. Explain why your links are clearer and stronger and how your impacts are more important than those of your opponents.
Speed is fine but if I miss something that is crucial to your case because you can’t speak fast and clearly at the same time then that’ll be your fault. If you really want to avoid this issue then I would send a speech doc if you plan on going more than 225 wpm.
I do not flow cross so if anything important was said mention it in a speech.
I would classify myself as tech over truth but let’s not get too crazy.
Typical speaks are between 27-30. I don’t give many 30s but it’s not impossible to get a 30 from me.
I would much rather you sacrifice your speed for clarity. If you can’t get to everything that you need to say then it would probably be best to prioritize your impacts and do a great job weighing.
Any comments that are intended (or unintended in certain circumstances) to be discriminatory in any form will immediately result in the lowest possible speaker points.
I’m probably not evaluating your K or theory argument at a non-bid tournament. If you’re feeling brave then you can go for it but unless the literature is solid and it is very well run, I’m going to feel like you’re trying to trick out of the debate by utilizing a style that is not yet a norm and your opponents likely did not plan for. If we're at a bid tournament or state, go for it.
Don’t just extend card names and dates without at least briefly reminding me what that card said. Occasionally I write down the content of the card but not the author so if you just extend an author it won’t do you any good.
LD Specific (This is not my primary event so I would make sure I check this)
Cheatsheet (1 is most comfortable, 5 is lowest)
I’ll understand your LARP arguments. I’ll be able to follow your spreading. I can evaluate most K’s but am most comfortable with identity K’s. I will understand your theory arguments but typically don't buy RVIs. Past that, I’m still getting fully comfortable judging LD so I would over-explain if you don’t fall into those categories and adjust if possible.
Congress: There is nothing better than a meaningful, humanized impact built from sound logical warranting.
Extemp: Have fun with it. I prefer conversational speaking.
All other debates (PF or LD): Treat me as a traditional lay judge. Very generous with speaks.
All other IEs: Treat me as lay judge. I like humor.
if there was a technical glitch and you did not receive feedback just email me at email@example.com
Spread only if the speed you use also allows for enough enunciation that I can understand. I can keep up, but only if I can comprehend.
I believe in traditional debate. In LD, everything is about the V/VC construct and should apply to it. I don't really care about definition debate unless it is absolutely vital. Observations don't really matter to me unless both sides agree to them.
In, PF I try to take the position of a typical citizen judge and base "my knowledge" only on what you tell me in the round and not what I already know. Civility is still important in cross-examination so it is important to remember that with me.
In Policy, I am least familiar, so I base everything on my flow and which side has the most arguments standing by the end of the debate. Also, and I know it may be unusual, but I do care if the plan actually makes sense because I can't vote for it if it doesn't.
I don't listen to parenthetical documentation as a source. What does that mean anyway???
I believe tournaments are opportunities for students to practice and exhibit their best debate skills. Therein, I consider my personal preferences to be irrelevant. I encourage contestants to utilize whatever methods they have learned and perfected. In turn, the debater or team that is more convincing earns my vote. That said, please be aware that substance beats style. Meaning: a creditable case poorly delivered will beat an implausible case expertly delivered. Also, clarity is essential. Speed is acceptable, but only if accompanied by good diction. Words not understood will be words ignored.
Bottom line: What you delivar will be considered your best. Good luck!
I'm a parent of an experienced congressional debater from Dublin High School. I've judged mostly congress for the past 6 years, but I've judged some PF as well at fairly high levels.
Ask for my congress paradigm verbally before the round starts. It's pretty simple, I trust that most of you know what to do.
I am a lay judge. I want to see clearly established links and easy to follow arguments. I do not want to get lost in my flow trying to make sense of your argument. I will still evaluate an argument if I have to make some leaps of logic but I'm less likely to evaluate it to the strength that you intend. As for responses, I want both refutation and weighing. Just because a response exists, doesn't mean it is good enough to take out the argument. I need to buy that your response does what you say. I always want to see weighing, debate is a comparative activity. The side that wins is the side that is better, not the side that is right. For frontlines, I don't want a repetition of your argument, I've heard it already. I want to hear, very clearly, what your response to the refutation is, there's multiple speeches for a reason.
As for speaking, I'm not a huge fan of speed. I'd prefer if you slowed it down a little. Slightly faster conversational is what I prefer. I want fluid speaking for high speaker scores. A little variation always helps me follow a long. If you have any massive fluency meltdowns, unintentional pauses, or just get obviously stumped at any points during your speech I'll deduct speaker points heavily, and depending on how bad it is, it can cost you the round.
Lastly, I highly value adaptability in debate. If your opponent says something that has you completely lost, it's not a good look and it can cost you the round.
Hello, I'm Collin Goemmer and I am a Senior at Texas State University majoring in Political Science. I graduated from Cypress Creek High School in Houston, Texas. He/Him. I have been judging all debate events over the last 4 years.
For debate events: please do not ask your judge for their “judging resume” or “judging experience” you have no idea how condescending you sound when you ask that question
Background on my experience: I did congressional debate and extemp mainly in high school, i state qualed 3 of 4 years I also did UIL CX and went to state 2 years in that. I have been judging mainly LD over the last 4 years but I frequently judge pf and occasionally policy
may the force be with you
TLDR: Have fun. Try hard. Take risks. Ask for accommodations. Safety > Ethics > Everything Else.
Hi, I'm Ethan. I debated for four years at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, TX, mainly in Extemp and Congress.
1) Pronouns, honorifics, and names matter. Default to singular they/them when no pronouns are provided.
2) Recycling prep is bad.
3) I like to give visual cues. Read them
4) The segregation of the debate space along racial, gender, and class lines is real and important. Make every effort to stop it.
5) Cheating is bad.
1) I evaluate Extemp on these three metrics, in order:
a) How accurately and completely did you answer the question?
b) How much did I learn from your speech?
c) How entertained was I by your speech?
2) Structure: I eat up substructure like Choji eats bbq. I also dig a good two-point speech. Framing and definitions in the intro are nice. Signpost.
3) Sourcing: There is no such thing as too many sources. Good sources are specific, reliable, and academic, but not necessarily recent.
a) Books > Government sources > Scientific research > Think tanks > News organizations.
b) Be creative with how you use sources; for instance, use an older source to show the change from past to present, your Economics textbook to explain monetary policy, or Fox News to show the conservative viewpoint on an issue.
c) If evidence doesn't have a date, say "no date."
d) I will flow and check your sources. Don't lie.
4) Timing: Be between 6:50 and 7:10. The grace period shouldn't exist. Also, I suck at remembering to give time signals, sorry in advance. Yes, you can time yourself.
5) Delivery: Smile. Be facially expressive. Vocally, live on the extremes of pace, volume, and tone. Anything in the middle is boring. On-tops are cool, and thematically linked on-tops are even cooler.
5) Purge "considering" and "as explained by" from your vocabulary.
6) CX: Be aggressive. Don't feel pressure to split your time equally between points.
1) I evaluate Congress on these three metrics, in order:
a) How clearly did you prove a net benefit or net harm of the legislation?
b) How engaged were you in the chamber and debate?
c) If you were running for Congress, would I vote for you?
2) Early round speeches are the easiest to give and the easiest to evaluate. I love a good sponsor.
3) Please have a real AGD. Stealing rhetoric/AGDs is an auto 9.
4) Make me care. Authentic and powerful rhetoric is a product of a strong warrant and a humanized impact.
5) Take risks! Mix up your speech structure, make references, and be funny.
6) Getting screwed by precedence sucks. Show me you can adapt.
7) If you give me rehash, I will visibly shake my head for the duration of the point.
8) Weigh, especially in crystals.
9) Be between 2:50 and 3:00. The grace period shouldn't exist.
10) Have fun in questioning. Pose scenarios, point out contradictions, and propose counterexamples.
11) Amendments, evidence challenges, turns, and thematic speeches are underutilized.
12) Purge "at their highest ground," "allow me to expand," "affirm," and "negate" from your vocabulary.
13) If possible, please take 10 minute recesses. I am a human who has biological needs.
14) POs: 12 speeches per hour-->top 3. No mistakes. Fairness matters. Be funny but not forced. "I guess we'll never know" is an abomination.
1) I'm a flay judge who did one year of NPF and watches an unhealthy amount of PF Videos on Youtube.
2) I vote on offense. Present the path of least resistance.
3) Weigh early. If you can tell me what "clarity of impact" or "strength of link" means, I will buy you a car.
4) Extend each part of an argument into FF. Defense is not sticky.
5) Signpost. Roadmaps are helpful.
6) Compare evidence.
7) Number responses.
9) Narrative building is important. Tell a story.
10) Don't steal prep.
11) I have a loose understanding of theory and Ks. I am willing to vote off of both. Please do not abuse progressive argumentation to bulldoze unprepared or novice teams.
a) Priors: Open-source disclosure is good, trigger warnings are good, hypocritical theory is bad, paraphrasing is bad, competing interps, no RVIs, drop the debater.
12) I'll disclose if allowed to. Please postround me, but do so respectfully.
LD: Traditional judge. Don't steal prep.
Platform: Structure matters. Be yourself. Open to anything.
Interp: Tell your story honestly. Develop characters. Open to anything.
I prefer a resolution of debate issues in the round and speaking skills when I judge debate. Be organized. Use structure and roadmaps.
In CX I fall under policy or stock issues when I am making decisions. At the end of the round when I sign my ballot, your plan is in action. That means that aff must have a developed plan in the round. Don't just read evidence in a round. Explain your arguments.
In LD, I am a traditional judge. You must have a value and criterion. You need a philosophy and philosopher in the round. Weigh the round in your speeches.
Personal Background/General Information:
My name is Murtaza Kazmi. I competed in Congressional Debate and International Extemp at Seven Lakes High School for four years.
I will not tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other form of prejudice or discrimination in round. If you or your partner display any of those characteristics, I will down you immediatley. I enjoy humor in round, but make jokes at your own risk. Debate is not a space for over-agressiveness. I understand sometimes speaking over each other, but do not be mean to your competitors - this will also lose points on my ballot.
Debate is a space to communicate, not to hate!
Congress is both a speaking and debate event in my view - successful representatives will show skills in both facets.
Rhetoric should be used effectively (not just to fill in time in a speech).
Each argument provided must have quantified/qualified evidence (with sufficient sourcing including date) along with a tangible impact.
AGD's should be unique (not canned) and have an effective tie-in to the topic.
Speeches should have succinct "action claims" (etc. this bill will fosters economic growth).
Mention the different sections/resolved clauses of the legislation in your speech.
Speeches without conclusions (or ending with pass/fail) are incomplete speeches and will be marked down.
Refutation is expected and speeches without ref (with the obvious exception of the author/sponsor) will be marked down
Any rehash will be marked down
Go for alternative speech structures at your own risk (unified analysis, defensive points, etc.), but speech without offense is not a good speech imo.
Authors/Sponsors can do well on my ballot if they do a good job:
1. Explaining the Problem (with quality evidence)
2. Discussing the solution that each part of the legislation provides (with quality evidence)
3. Elaborating on the human impact of both the problem and the solution.
Crystal Speeches can do well on my ballot if they do a good job:
1. Group arguments from both the Aff and Neg into logical and general claims
2. Show new evidence and explains logically why one side is correct
3. Explores the argumentative and human impacts of one side being correct
Presiding Officers can do well on my ballot if they do a good job:
1. attaining or nearly reaching the maximum number of both speeches and questions in a session
2. maintaining decorum and parliamentary procedure at all times (including accurately choosing questioners and speakers)
3. limiting fluency breaks or awkward phrasing
4. making humorous remarks from time to time (when appropriate)
Extemporaneous Speaking (IX/DX):
Similar to Congress, I weigh both speaking and content with a slight preference for better content over better speaking.
Each speech should have a MINIMUM of 7 sources (1 in the intro, 2 in each subsequent body point).
You can try alternative speech structures at your own risk (eg. two points), but it must make sense in the context of the topic.
Intro must include AGD, effective transition, background information and significance, state question and answer.
All body paragraphs must have succinct claims with dated and quality sources with significant analysis and IMPACT.
I will appreciate book sources and local newspapers sources (in IX) a lot!
If your point doesn't make logical sense without the quantified/qualified evidence, it is not a good point.
You have to restate the question and brief answer in your conclusion.
Speeches without conclusions are incomplete.
Speakers that use tonal and speed variation, effective hand gestures, eye contact will rank better than speakers who do not.
Public Forum/Lincoln Douglass:
I am flay, leaning towards content, but bad speaking will lose a lot of points on my ballot.
I'm not well versed in theory or other progressive arguments, but if violations (eg. racism, homophobia, sexism, etc.) are made that are grounds for a loss, then you can bring them up in round and if I agree then I will down the other debater.
I prefer substanatiative debate over progressive (theory, disads, K's, etc).
If you do run progressive arguments, there must be a clear and solid link to the resolution.
Teams that explain their link chains and show their impacts and impact calculus better than the other team will win my ballot.
Weighing impacts is necessary to win my ballot.
If you drop an argument, link, or card and try to bring it back up, I won't weigh it.
Weighing should begin no later than the Summary speeches.
I am tech over truth unless something is blatantly wrong (eg. we will be extinct from a squirrel takeover of Earth).
My average speaks will be a 28 (from 25-30) and can go up/down depending on your performance in round.
I participate in Congressional Debate, Original Oratory, and Impromptu speaking--so basically, a lot of speech-ing.
judging for speech is pretty standard; unlike debate, there's a rather clear universal criteria for everything when it comes to critiquing.
The one thing to be sure of is that when it does come to content, if you think your content is sensitive, please do give a trigger warning for the safety of others. Additionally, any racist, homophobic, xenophobic, discriminating content will work against you (unless you are quoting someone in history or interp), I don't tolerate that. If your speech is based around pushing for discrimination against any person, race, nationality, religion, gender or sexuality, I won't hesitate to put you last, even if you personally think otherwise.
Other than that, there's not much to really controversy in judging speech.
H.H. Dow High School class of 2020 graduate.
Put me on the email chain, my email is firstname.lastname@example.org
I debated policy for three years. I mostly debated trad, but I would say I have a decent understanding of theory.
Please slow down as I have found it is a lot harder to catch spreading online.
Tech > truth
I'm not a huge fan of K's, but if you explain it well I may vote on it.
For TFA State:
Interp: I am a pretty open minded judge when it comes to judging interp overall but there are a few things I look for in performances. Creativity and honesty will always be the most rewarded in my book because it is why we do what we do at the end of the day. Showcasing your own interpretation, but staying true to the core of the story is important to me. Character development and emotional shifts are super important especially over a digital platform to keeping us engaged with the story and showing us the meaning behind the words. Have fun with the choices you make as long as they are PURPOSEFUL, doing something that distracts rather than enhances makes us lose connection between what is happening in the story.
Speaking/Extemp: Big thing is show your own unique style and approach to speaking because this is what separates you from other. I am a big fan of humor, but PLEASE, I BEG do not make it feel forced or this is just awkward for both of us. In terms of depth of the speech, I like more than just surface level arguments and I want to see you get to the higher end issues and core problems effectively. Structure is important obviously to make sure we can connect all of the ideas and know how you are getting to what you are wanting to. Finally, have variation in your delivery, it is important to showcase the different levels and power of your arguments and statements and so we should feel very engaged with how you are saying and what you are saying.
Worlds School Debate:
School affiliation/s : Northwest High School
Hired (yes/no) : Hired for WSD
High School Affiliation if graduated within last five years (required): Northwest High School
Currently enrolled in college? (required) If yes, affiliation? No
Years Judging/Coaching (required) I have been judging for 5- 6 years.
Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event (required)
I pretty much started off my first year judging in interp and PF and then slowly incorporated all other forms of debate the following year.
Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year (required): Since August I have judged about 40 world school rounds around Texas.
Check all that apply
__x___I judge WS regularly on the local level
_____I judge WS at national level tournaments
_____I occasionally judge WS Debate
_____I have not judged WS Debate this year but have before
_____I have never judged WS Debate
Rounds judged in other events this year : 75 rounds including PF, LD, Interp, Speaking, and Congress.
Check all that apply
____ I have not judged this year
____ I have not judged before
Have you chaired a WS round before?
I have chaired multiple WS rounds before locally.
What does chairing a round involve?
Chairing a round basically is keeping the round in order and ensuring a productive and efficient debate. The chair is in charge of calling up the speakers, leading the RFD for the panel, making sure people do not ask questions during protected time (which I discuss students should keep their own timer at the beginning so we do not have this issue), and making sure a fair debate is occurring.
How would you describe WS Debate to someone else?
I would describe WSD as a form of debate in which you are arguing ideas and issues to show which side of the motion is the most logical. This is way different than Americanized debate where theory and jargon is utilized more, so it is focusing on the core issues of the debate. Worlds is suppose to make sense to anyone who is listening to the debate and therefore the arguments should make rationale sense to anybody.
What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate?
I am fortunate enough to have a full setup for my computer. I have two monitors and on the main monitor I watch the debate, and the second monitor has my tabroom ballot where I am writing notes over each speech and speaker. I also in front of me use a notebook to flow the debate to make sure I keep up with what is being said in the round.
When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.
This just simply depends on the topic itself. I am pretty open minded when it comes to arguments and do not have a personal preference as long as it is discussed why you chose what to advocate for. This clarity is needed to really emphasize why that approached is needed and it's on the debaters to tell me why it is preferable.
The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy?
I think strategy usually is overlooked in terms of how you want structure arguments. A speaker's strategy is how do you connect the claims you present and how you word things in order to be effective in elaborating on arguments presented by the other side. Picking the right way to argue things and how you say it are definitely things to be aware of for your strategy.
WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast?
First, I am glad to have not judged a WSD where someone was spreading, so let's keep it that way hopefully. If someone is just not effective with their speed and tone I usually deduct points from their style.
WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?
As silly as it may sound, I usually vote on simply what makes sense. Since we do not have to have the 20 minutes of calling for cards (thankfully), I simply view whos reasoning and rationale makes the most sense towards the topic and arguments presented in the round. Show me your thought process through your speech and it usually comes down to who can prove their claims in a clear manner, rather than the throw everything at the wall and see what sticks strategy.
How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?
I look at how effective and clear some model is to make sure it sets the foundation for your ideas. Make sure you think through your model to answer any potential questions individuals may have about it. I do not think all motions need a model or countermodel, so just make sure if you use one there is a purpose to it.
Hi there! I've been performing since I was very young, and I am a 2007 graduate of the American Musical & Dramatic Academy in New York City. I direct both adult and youth productions at my local theatre and have been an active judge in both this year's, as well as last year's, tournament seasons.
I have completed the NFHS Cultural Competency course, and I identify as diversity enhancing!
POI/PR/PO: Show me a strong commitment to your material, with bold but organic choices. Use your binder but don't hide behind it!
HI/DI: Make sure your piece tells a decisive story and that your character transitions are smooth enough that I know who's talking at at all times! Also important: sure, bold choices are good, but I still want to see the nuances behind your characters and what you're saying. Rather than just doing stock characters, approach them from a place of truth. That almost always yields funnier and/or more powerful results!
EXTEMP: Research, research, research! I'm looking for a well-organized speech that answers the question clearly and provides a lot of cited sources.
OO/INFO: I love how much I learn when judging both of these categories. Remember your top priority is to teach us something, and good lessons are organized, compelling, and easy to understand.
CONGRESS: Ask great questions of your fellow debaters and be researched enough to be able to provide convincing answers to the questions that are asked of you!
Remember that no one can offer exactly what YOU offer, and embrace that! Most of all, have fun!
I am currently the Director of Forensics for Bruins@NPDA, UCLA's student-tun NPDA debate team. I competed in college parli for two years and last year got 3rd at the National Round Robbin. I competed in CX debate and Congress in high school and made it to state for both events. I have experience judging CX, LD, Parli, Extemp, and Congress.
Judging philosophy for CX, LD, and Parli:
-I am a flow judge and will vote on any argument that is conceded in a round if it has: Clear framing, warrant, and impact weighing.
-I think conditionality is good but will vote on Condo bad if it has won the theory debate
-Feel free to read a topical aff or a Kritikal affirmative( I have experience with both and would prefer you do the style of debate that you are most comfortable in)
-I will assign speaker points based on technical skills. I will lower your speaker points if you are rude to your opponent and drop you if you are racists, ableist, etc.
-The theory is always fun! I am cool with the 2AC theory but will not vote on 2NR or 2AR theory. Make sure it has a clear interpretation, violation, standards, and voters for me to vote on
-I do not accept shadow extensions; if you want to collapse to an argument in the 1AR/2AR, it must be in the 2AC. No new arguments in the rebuttals, please.
-Make sure you have warrants and impact weighting in the rebuttals!
Judging philosophy for speech/congress:
-I highly value sources and warrant analysis
-A clear opening with an organization is always helpful
-I would rather see a small speech with much detail and sources, than a long speech with little to no sources
Overall, I really appreciate charisma and creativity. I like when people fully get into the politician act! Feel free to take creative liberties with AGDS as long as they make some sense. I'd rather you lack a bit in substance and structure but really get into the round than to read straight off the page even with technically perfect content and organization. The roleplay aspect of Congress is what differentiates it from other debate events so it's really fun to see people play with it!!!
I like grounded, people focused impacts. If you can tie back to how individual people will be help/hurt by a bill and why, I'll probably rank you high. Also, use whatever structure you want. I usually like when it's easier to follow, but I'm fine with anything and won't drop you for being creative.
I value fluency and delivery the most in authors and sponsors. Also, make sure to contextualize the legislation.
If you genuinely try to help the round progress by writing a sponsor in round, I'll definitely keep that in mind and be more forgiving of any fluency breaks (but I can probably tell when you already have a speech written and pretend like you don't).
If you're speaking after the author/sponsor, I'd like to see some clash with other speakers/questioners. If it's impact related, that's definitely a bonus. Try not to just name drop every other representative in the chamber and focus on 2-3 specific speeches (or maybe 1 if you're going earlier).
Try not to rehash other people's arguments. If yours get taken, you can try to change the impact, find a new point, or switch your speech to a half-ref/crystal. I usually drop for rehash but I understand that sometimes you end up in a tough spot with bad precedence and no points, so I'll take that into consideration.
Try to avoid rehashing previous points and make sure to have a pretty unique argument for your constructive point. I don't care if you have your ref point at the beginning or end of your speech, if it's there, you're good. I'd prefer for these to be pretty late in the round, at least the 4th cycle, maybe 3rd in a smaller room.
I like seeing people learning how to crystal through trial and error so especially at locals, I'll give you some credit for trying because learning is good. Try to weigh the impacts of both sides to show who wins, avoid rehash, and have some evidence. These should be the last 2 speeches in the round.
I consider POs for all ranks including first! I'll let you run the chamber, but if you have any questions, feel free to ask me and we can work things out! I won't drop you if you make some small mistakes then correct yourself! It happens! I don't have a preference for any type of time signals as long as they're consistent and work for the chamber! I'd also appreciate if you could state the name/topic of each piece of legislation before we debate it, not just the number.
I appreciate POs who listen to the chamber and go out of their ways to create a "fast, fair, and efficient chamber" like they promise to in the speeches. I'll give points to POs who try to connect with the chamber!
Please be supportive and polite to each other in the chamber!!! I won't drop you for being passive aggressive or intense in speeches or questions (unless you go way overboard), but I'll have a problem if you act that way outside of your time on the floor. Also, I'll probably drop you for steamrolling novices.
I rank based on quality of speeches rather than quantity, but appreciate active participation in round and friendliness/willingness to help others also plays into my rankings.
I usually tend to favor passion and enthusiasm!
I'm totally fine if you turn your cameras off when you're not speaking or questioning so zoom doesn't lag if the tournament is fine with it!
I'm pretty chill and up for whatever so if you want to experiment and try something new, go for it!
Good luck and if you have any questions, feel free to ask me!
I'm here to assess your best. Be sure to offer perspective and well developed arguments that show a total understanding of the topic. How everything relates. For example, articulate the connection between funding and solvency - "if there's no money to pay for the enforcement/products/etc, then it can't work" type of conceptual development. There should be some sort of evidence to back up a theory, but too much evidence without depth is not enough to win an argument. Really answer the WHYs and the HOWs.
I value the speaking style as much as the quality of the material. Speeches should be a convincing presentation, effectively communicating ideas, bringing everyone in the room into the discussion. (read: Speaking like an auctioneer or the person in medicine commercials reading the side effect warning label isn't including the room or natural communication in any other setting. think: professor. politician. lawyer. TED talks.)
CX: Not everything ends in nuclear war/annihilation. It hasn't before, so what's a realistic outcome NOW? What other impacts are there that are massively damaging to people, society, culture, etc that have happened before and could happen again in the Aff scenario? Don't spread. If you "cross supply" an author or evidence, specify which arguments are important and WHY they are, in order to show the conceptual clash.
LD: Most focus should be on answering the WHY's - WHY is this wrong in the status quo, WHY is this harming people, WHY should we help, type of questions. (If we took a plan to congress and said it would cost $78M, they wouldn't say, "sure!" instantly; it would be, "wow, a lot of money. why should we spend this?") Strong V/C clash.
Extemp: Clear organization. Engaging speaking. Sources. Thorough development of what the question is asking - the context of the topic question.
Interp: Why did you choose this/these as a piece/s? Which aspect resonates with you...and why? Authenticity over emphatics. Natural and organic and what feels believable is more meaningful, for me, than a very dramatic and (overly) emotional interpretation of a scenario.
Specific Questions? I can BRIEFLY answer questions before the round.
A quick note about myself:
Hi. My name is Jackson. I competed for Northland Christian School in Houston for four years. I have an extensive background in congress. It was my primary event. I competed in nat circuit tournaments like Berkeley, Emory, TOC, Sunvite, and others.
-Before reading into this: don't feel like you need to change yourself as a debater. I understand people have different styles and techniques. I will equitably evaluate all of these.
- Facts first. You aren't making this activity educational by making things up.
- Relevant and captivating introductions will get even the most experienced judge's attention.
- I like hearing direct lines and quotations from your evidence. Sometimes paraphrasing is necessary. Use good judgment here.
- Cite your evidence to the full extent that you can (don't leave out author, date, etc. when that info is made available in the book or article). Make it easy for me to find your evidence!
- Think about the kind of speech you are about to give. Is it a constructive AFF/NEG, Rebuttal, Crystallization, Refutation, Combination? Remember that this is a debate event. Just as LD or PF starts the round with constructive speeches to set that debater's position, the first few aff/negs in congress do the same. As you get further along in an item, the speeches should be getting more conclusive/overviewing.
- Be careful about tautological arguments.
- As the PO, you will start at 1 and can move down with errors. Please be efficient. I'm not asking you to abbreviate parliamentary procedure but think about your word economy when calling for speakers and questioners. This could make the difference between a few more speeches happening or not. If you run against someone to get to the seat, I will expect more from you.
LD, PF, & Policy:
If you get me for these, don't spread. It would be best for you to stay topical, but if you decide to take the theory route, I will listen.
- Have fun :)
- Be respectful, civil, and kind
- Think of what you are about to say. Is it problematic and potentially harmful to someone? If you don't know, think of something else to say!