Introduction

Tayo (She/Her)

Hi, my name is Ibitayo but everyone calls me Tayo (pronounced Thai-yo), only my parents say Ibitayo. I did Forensics and Debate for four years at Bentonville West High School (2016-2020) and I’m currently a freshman in Academy of Art University. I was extemp co captain my junior year and Speaking captain my senior year in high school.I did a wide array of events from HI to Extemp to BQ to Congressional Debate. My favorite event however is definitely Congressional Debate (I’m that kid that brings their own gavel *smh) I strive for everyone to be comfortable and have fun.

Congressional Debate I love-

-When you have evidence for every single point and citing them correctly

-Addressing the other representatives appropriately (don’t be calling people by they first name in round)

-Extensive knowledge of Parliamentary Procedure

-Actually using the knowledge of Parliamentary Procedure to help the round move along

-Speaking clearly

-Make points that are realistic to the current political situation. If you are going to talk about immagration you better not act like covid-19 doesn’t exist rn.

I really dislike-

-Disrespect. I expect everyone to act more like adults than the actual senate okay.

-Spreading this is congress

-Wasting time. Pointless motions, going way over time, making points on a bill/resolution and not adding any more points or evidence to the subject matter. Wasting time is not a good look for me

-Softball questions, asking questions that are not constructive and are not going to challenge anything. Not answering the question is also very annoying

Debate(PF/BQ/LD) I love-

• Clash. Really utilizing the CX time to make the points stronger

• Arguments that are constructive and flow really well

• Being able to speak in rebuttals really confidently and really explaining why the opponents points are inferior

I really dislike-

• When competitors don’t use up all of the time they have. If you have four minutes to speak, use it.

• Disrespect

THE WORST THING YOU COULD DO IN ANY DEBATE STYLE:

If you are speaking on the behalf of another group of people (another race, religion, gender, ect.)and you don't have evidence supporting that, my respect drops immediately. I would rather the evidence be from someone that is actually of that group as well. There have been so many instances where people just make stuff up about another religion or something with nothing to back up their statement. If you do this in congress, you'll get the lowest speech score from me. In any other debate style, its going to be very hard to gain my respect as a judge back.

If you ever have any questions let me know here: Ibitayo.L.Babatunde@gmail.com

For Congressional Debate, my primary focus is on logical arguments that are well-constructed with quality evidence to support your claims. I appreciate rhetoric and impacts, but I will discount scores if these replace analysis and evidence. Refutations are essential to a strong score but require more than just a claim – give me the analysis and back it up with evidence.

I highly respect constitutional arguments and discount for affirmations of an unconstitutional bill.

It is essential to me that competitors remain in the role of a congressperson, showing respect to the chamber and following proper parliamentary procedure. I encourage everyone to remember to address their colleagues with the proper honorarium (Representative/Senator) at all times, and to avoid using Mr./Ms. personal titles as they both assume gender identity and may be considered dismissive at times.

I respect competitors who are active in the chamber and strongly disagree with the trend of some competitors to press for a base-2 model. Finally, while our U.S. congresspeople may lack persuasive speaking skills, I highly value presentation skills in congressional debate.

As a parliamentarian, I value a presiding officer who is, of course, familiar with both Roberts Rules and the rules set forth by the tournament. However, I do not mind if the PO asks questions to confirm procedures or tournament preferences. The PO should always strive to run a fast and fair chamber to allow everyone opportunities to speak. I prefer to remain as quiet as possible giving the PO the control of the chamber. I will intervene only if the PO makes an incorrect ruling that will impact the results of the session, makes an error in precedence/recency (though I will certainly give the chamber a chance to catch this first), or to insure fairness to everyone in the chamber. I encourage the PO to take charge of the chamber, to rule motions dilatory when appropriate, and to remind the congresspeople of proper procedures when needed. However, I do believe these corrections can be done with respect and kindness.

Though I strive to allow the chamber to function without my input, I will step in if I suspect there is bullying in play, or if I sense discrimination within the chamber, either intentional or unintentional. I support the NSDA's position that every student deserves a caring and welcoming environment—one that is committed to conditions of fairness, fosters inclusion, affirms identity, celebrates lived experiences, and protects from harassment and discrimination.

I flow pretty intensively, but I prefer to vote off of voting issues (a larger analysis of multiple points) than just one card.

I'm open and appreciate well articulated philosophical positions (Ks included), and I'll listen to anything but obscene worldviews such as evolutionary justifications for racism and what not.

I can vote off of theory, but no one has fun when the violations are frivolous. As such, I'm very persuaded to make theory an RVI to deter bad theory. If you plan on running a shell, go all in and articulate every section with logical justifications. The violation should be very specific, and the standard or standards should be fleshed out. At the end fo the day, it's a value debate like everything else in LD, so you are unlikely to persuade anyone by just shouting one liners.

Having done events outside of LD, I appreciate great presentations skills. They mostly affect speaker points, not the outcome of the round. I will give a 30 to a strong presenter. This means that even though I'm fine with speaking quickly, clarity is really important.

Lastly on the subject of speed, I really encourage both debaters to weigh arguments as opposed to trying to out-spread each other. Deep thoughtful analysis of core issues is more important than underscoring concessions. To that end, framework debate plays a huge role in the round.

A little bit about me: I coach for Millburn High School in New Jersey. I competed on the circuit in high school and college.

I do my very best to be as non-interventionist as possible, but I know some students like reading judge's paradigms to get a better sense of what they're thinking. I hope that the below is helpful :).

Overall: You can be nice and a good debater. :)

Here are some things to consider if I'm your Parliamentarian/ Judge in Congressional Debate:

- I am a sucker for a well-executed authorship/ sponsorship, so please don't be afraid to give the first speech! Just because you don't have refutation doesn't mean it isn't a good speech. I will be more inclined to give you a better speech score if you stand up and give the speech when no one is willing to do so because it shows preparedness.

- Bouncing off of the above bullet point, two things I really dislike while at national circuit tournaments are having no one stand up to give the earlier speeches (particularly in out rounds) and one-sided debate. You should be prepared to speak on either side of the legislation. You're there to debate, so debate. I'm much more inclined to rank you higher if you flip and have fluency breaks than if you're the fourth aff in a row.

- Asking the same question over and over to different speakers isn't particularly impressive to me (only in extreme circumstances should this ever be done). Make sure that you are catering the questions to the actual arguments from the speech and not asking generic questions that could be asked of anyone.

- Make my job easy as the judge. I will not make any links for you; you need to make the links yourself.

- Warrants are so important! Don't forget them!

- If you are giving one of the final speeches on a piece of legislation, I expect you to weigh the arguments and impacts that we have heard throughout the debate. Unless there has been a gross negligence in not bringing up a particular argument that you think is revolutionary and changes the debate entirely, you shouldn't really be bringing up new arguments at this point. There are, of course, situations where this may be necessary, but this is the general rule of thumb. Use your best judgment :).

- Please do your best to not read off of your pad. Engage with the audience/ judges, and don't feel as though you have to have something written down verbatim. I'm not expecting a speech to be completely flawless when you are delivering it extemporaneously. I historically score speeches higher if delivered extemporaneously and have a couple of minor fluency lapses than a speech read off of a sheet of paper with perfect fluency.

- Be active in the chamber! Remember, the judges are not ranking students based upon who is giving the best speeches, but who are the best legislators overall. This combines a myriad of factors, including speeches, questioning, overall activity, leadership in the chamber, decorum, and active listening (i.e. not practicing your speech while others are speaking, paying attention, etc.) Keep this in mind before going into a session.

- Please please please don't speak over the top of one another. This being said, that doesn't mean you have a right to monopolize the questioning time, but there is a nice way to cut someone off if they're going too long. Use your best judgment. Don't cut someone off two seconds after they start answering your question.

- I rank based on who I think are the overall best legislators in the chamber. This is a combination of the quality of speeches, questioning, command of parliamentary procedure, preparedness, and overall leadership and decorum in the chamber.

Let me know if you have any questions! :)

Here are some things to consider if I'm your judge in Public Forum:

- Please add me to the email chain if you have one: jordybarry@gmail.com

- I am really open to hearing almost any type of argument (except K's, please don't run K's in PF), but I wouldn’t consider myself a super techy judge. Do your thing, be clear, and enjoy yourselves!

- Please debate the resolution. It was written for a reason.

- It's important to me that you maintain clarity throughout the round. In addition, please don’t spread. I don’t have policy/ LD judging experience and probably won’t catch everything. If you get too fast/ to spreading speed I’ll say clear once, and if it’s still too fast/ you start spreading again, I’ll stop typing to indicate that I’m not getting what you’re saying on my flow.

- Take advantage of your final focus. Tell me why I should vote for you, don't solely focus on defensive arguments.

- Maintain organization throughout the round - your speeches should tell me what exact argument you are referring to in the round. Signposting is key! A messy debate is a poorly executed debate.

- I don't weigh one particular type of argument over another. I vote solely based on the flow, and will not impose my pre-existing beliefs and convictions on you (unless you're being racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, or xenophobic). It's your show, not mine!

- Please please please don't speak over the top of one another. This being said, that doesn't mean you have a right to monopolize the questioning time, but there is a nice way to cut someone off if they're going too long. Use your best judgment. Don't cut someone off two seconds after they start answering your question.

- Be polite!

- Make my job easy. I should not have to (and will not) make any links for you. You have to make the link yourselves. There should be a clear connection to your impacts.

- Weighing impacts is critical to your success, so please do it!

Any questions, please feel free to ask! Have fun and good luck!

Speech:

I am a relatively inexperienced speech judge but have plenty of experience in forensics. Please feel free to ask any questions.

Public Forum:

Flow judge.

Stating something that contradicts what your opponents have said isn't debating; it's disagreeing. AKA implicate your responses and don't repeatedly extend through ink.

I look for the path of least resistance when I'm deciding a round.

If you misrepresent evidence, I will drop you.

Theory: Generally, I don't think theory belongs in PF debate. I think PF is unique in the sense that accessibility is an integral part of the activity and in my opinion the speed at which debaters often have to speak and the evidence cited in theory shells are simply not accessible to the public at large. That being said, I understand the value of theory with respect to protecting competitors from abuses in round and out of respect for all debaters and arguments alike I will listen and flow theory and evaluate it in the round. I've even voted for a team who ran it once. All I'll say is the only thing worse than running theory is doing it badly. If you don't know what you're doing and you don't actually have a deep understanding of the theory that you're running and how it operates within a debate round, I wouldn't recommend that you run it in front of me. Lastly, if you're going to run theory you should know that I really value upholding the standard that you run in and out of rounds and across all topics.

Experience:

Debated in PF during all four years of HS for Bronx Science, dabbled in Policy for a year at Emory. Coached for 3+ years. Currently a law student at Emory.

Judged various forms of debate since 2013.

Please add me the to email chain: bittencourtjulia25@gmail.com

C_boreczky75413@berkeley.edu

Brief update for Stanford LD competitors - I primarily judge circuit and CA-circuit policy debate, but much of the below should apply. I'm not primed for any category of LD arguments over another, and don't have an inherent preference for circuit arguments and styles, but I'm very open to them.

Four years of policy competition, at a solid mix of circuit and regional tournaments. I generally do enough judging these days to be pretty up-to-date on circuit args.

Generally comfortable with speed but I tend to have issues comprehending overly breathy spreading. And please, for everyone's sake, make sure your tags are clear and don't try to give theory analytics at full speed. You can do whatever feels right, of course, but I can only decide based on what I catch.

Broadly, I default to an offense-defense paradigm and a strict technical focus. It's not exactly hard to get me to depart from those defaults, however. I'll vote for anything, and it doesn't take any 'extra' work to get me to endorse performance advocacies, critical affirmative advocacies, etc - just win your offense, and framework if applicable.

I'd love to be a truth over tech judge, but I just don't believe that's an acceptable default orientation for my ballot. That said, engaging with that preference and doing it well is a pretty convincing approach with me. This most often comes across in impact calc.

Evidence quality is extremely important to me. I tend to grant much more weight to card texts and warrants than to tags, and I'm perfectly happy to drop ev that doesn't have warrants matching the tag, if you articulate why I should do so. That said, I don't discount evidence just because I perceive it to be low-quality, and if it gets conceded, well, it might as well be true.

My bar for framework and T/theory tends to depend on what you're asking me to do. Convincing me to drop a states CP on multiple actor fiat bad requires fairly little offense. Convincing me to drop a team on A-Spec is going to be an uphill battle, usually.

High school debate: Baltimore Urban Debate League ( Lake Clifton Eastern High School).

College debate: University of Louisville then Towson University.

Grad work: Cal State Fullerton.

Current: Director of Debate at Long Beach State (CSU Long Beach), former Director of Debate a Fresno State.

Email for chain: Devenc325@gmail.com

Speaker Point Scale

29.5-30: one of the best speakers I expect to see this year and has a high grade of Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve, Talent, and Swag is on 100. This means expert explanation of arguments and most arguments are offensive.

29 - 29.5: very good speaker has a middle grade of Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve, Talent, and mid-range swag. Explanation of arguments are of great quality and many of the arguments are offensive.

28.4 - 28.9: good speaker; may have some above average range/ parts of the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym but must work on a few of them and may have some issues to work out. Explanation of arguments are of good quality and several of the arguments are offensive.

28 - 28.3: solid speaker; needs some work; probably has average range/ parts of the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym but must work on a few of them and may have some issues to work out. Explanation of arguments are of okayish quality and very few of the arguments are offensive.

27.1 - 27.5: okay speaker; needs significant work on the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym. Not that good of explanation with no offensive arguments.

< 27: you have done something deeply problematic in this debate like clipping cards or linguistic violence, or rhetorically performed an ism without apology or remorse.

Please do not ask me to disclose points nor tell me as an argument to give you a 30. I wont. For some reason people think you are entitled to high points, I am not that person. So, you have to earn the points you get.

IF YOU ARE IN HIGHSCHOOL, SKIP DOWN TO THE "Judging Proper" section :)

Cultural Context

If you are a team that reads an argument based in someone else's identity, and you are called on it by another team with receipts of how it implicates the round you are in, its an uphill battle for you. I am a fan of performing your politics with consistency and genuine ethical relationships to the people you speak about. I am a fan of the wonderful author Linda Martin Alcoff who says " where one speaks from affects both the meaning and truth of what one says." With that said, you can win the debate but the burden of proof is higher for you....

Post Rounding

I will not entertain disrespectful or abrasive engagement because you lost the round. If you have questions, you may ask in a way that is thoughtful and seeking understanding. If your coach thinks they will do this as a defense of your students, feel free to constrain me. I will not allow my students to engage that way and the same courtesy should be extended to EVERYONE. Losing doesn't does not give you license to be out of your mind and speak with malice. Keep in mind I am not from the suburbs and I will not tolerate anyone's nasty demeanor directed at me nor my students.

"Community" Members

I do not and will not blindly think that all people in this activity are kind, trustworthy, non-cheaters, good intentioned, or will not do or say anything in the name of competition or malice towards others. Please miss me with having faith in people in an activity that often reveals people engaging in misconduct, exploitation, grooming, or other inappropriate activities that often times NEVER get reported. MANY of you have created and perpetuated a culture of toxicity and elitism, then you are surprised when the chickens come home to roost. This applies to ALL forms of college and high school debate...

Judging Proper

I am more than willing to listen to ANY arguments that are well explained and impacted and relate to how your strategy is going to produce scholarship, policy action, performance, movement, or whatever political stance or program. I will refer to an educator framework unless told otherwise...This means I will evaluate the round based on how you tell me you want it to be framed and I will offer comments on how you could make your argument better after the round. Comparison, Framing, OFFENSE is key for me. Please indict each other's framework or role of the ballot/role of the judge for evaluation and make clear offense to how that may make a bad model of debate. OR I am down with saying the debate should not be a reflection about the over all model of debate/ no model.

I DO NOT privilege certain teams or styles over others because that makes debate more unfair, un-educational, cliquey, and makes people not feel valued or wanted in this community, on that note I don't really jive to well with arguments about how certain folks should be excluded for the sake of playing the "game". NOR do I feel that there are particular kinds of debate related to ones personal identity. I think people are just making arguments attached to who they are, which is awesome, but I will not privilege a kind of debate because some asserts its a thing.

I judge debates according to the systematic connection of arguments rather than solely line by line…BUT doesn’t mean if the other team drops turns or other arguments that I won’t evaluate that first. They must be impacted and explained. PLEASE always point out reason why the opposing team is BAD and have contextualized reasons for why they have created a bad impact or make one worse. I DO vote on framework and theory arguments….I’ve been known to vote on Condo quite a bit, but make the interp, abuse story, and contradictions clear. If the debate devolves into a theory debate, I still think the AFF should extend a brief summary of the case.

Don’t try to adapt to how I used to debate if you genuinely don’t believe in doing so or just want to win a ballot. If you are doing a performance I will hold you to the level that it is practiced, you have a reason for doing so, and relates to the overall argument you are making…Don’t think “oh! I did a performance in front of Deven, I win.” You are sadly mistaken if so. It should be practiced, timed well, contain arguments, and just overall have a purpose. It should be extended with full explanation and utility.

Overall I would like to see a good debate where people are confident in their arguments and feel comfortable being themselves and arguing how they feel is best. I am not here to exclude you or make you feel worthless or that you are a "lazy" intellectual as some debaters may call others, but I do like to see you defend your side to the best of your ability.

GET OFF THEM BLOCKS SOME! I get it coaches like to block out args for their students, even so far as to script them out. I think this is a practice that is only focused on WINNING and not the intellectual development of debaters who will go on to coach younger debaters. A bit of advice that I give to any debater I come across is to tell them to READ, READ, READ. It is indeed fundamental and allows for the expansion of example use and fluency of your arguments.

A few issues that should be clarified:

Decorum: I DO NOT LIKE when teams think they can DISRESPECT, BULLY, talk RUDE to, or SCREAM at other teams for intimidation purposes in order to win or throw the other team off. Your points will be effected because this is very unbecoming and does not allow this space to be one of dialogue and reciprocity. If someone disrespects you, I am NOT saying turn the other cheek, but have some tact and utility of how you engage these folks. And being hyper evasive to me is a hard sell. Do not get me wrong, I do love the sassiness, sarcasm, curtness, and shade of it all but there is a way to do it with tact. I am also NOT persuaded that you should be able to be rude or do whatever you want because you are a certain race, class, gender, sex, sexuality, or any other intersection under the sun. That to me is a problematic excuse that intensifies the illegit and often rigid criticism that is unlashed upon "identity politics."

Road maps: STICK TO IT. I am a tight flower and I have a method. However, I need to know where things go so there is no dispute in the RFD that something was answered or not. If you are a one off team, please have a designed place for the PERM. I can listen well and know that there are places things should go, but I HATE to do that work for a team. PLEASE FLOW and not just follow the doc. If you answer an arg that was in the doc, but not read, I will take it as you note flowing nor paying attention to what is going on.

Framework and Theory: I love smart arguments in this area. I am not inclined to just vote on debate will be destroyed or traditional framework will lead to genocide unless explained very well and impacted based on some spill over claims. There must be a concrete connection to the impacts articulated on these and most be weighed. I am persuaded by the deliberation arguments, institutional engagement/building, limits, and topical versions of the Aff. Fairness is an interesting concept for me here. I think you must prove how their model of debate directly creates unfairness and provide links to the way their model of debate does such. I don't think just saying structural fairness comes first is the best without clarification about what that means in the context of the debate space and your model of debate.

Some of you K/Performance folks may think I am a FW hack, thas cute or whatever. Instead of looking at the judge as the reason why you weren't adequate at defending your business, you should do a redo, innovate, or invest in how to strategize. If it seems as though you aren't winning FW in front of me that means you are not focusing how offense and your model produces some level of "good." Or you could defend why the model approach is problematic or several reasons. I firmly believe if someone has a model of debate or how they want to engage the res or this space, you MUST defend it and prove why that is productive and provides some level of ground or debatability.

Winning Framework for me includes some level of case turn or reason why the aff produces something bad/ blocks something good/ there's a PIC/PIK of some kind (explained). This should be coupled with a proficient explanation of either the TVA or SSD strategy with the voter components (limits, predictability, clash, deliberation, research burden, education, fairness, ground etc.) that solidify your model of debate.

Performance: It must be linked to an argument that is able to defend the performance and be able to explain the overall impact on debate or the world/politics itself. Please don’t do a performance to just do it…you MUST have a purpose and connect it to arguments. Plus debate is a place of politics and args about debate are not absent politics sometimes they are even a pre-req to “real” politics, but I can be persuaded otherwise. You must have a role of the ballot or framework to defend yourself, or on the other side say why the role of the ballot is bad. I also think those critics who believe this style of debate is anti-intellectual or not political are oversimplifying the nuance of each team that does performance. Take your role as an educator and stop being an intellectual coward or ideology driven hack.

Do not be afraid to PIK/PIC out of a performance or give reasons why it was BAD. Often people want to get in their feelings when you do this. I am NOT sympathetic to that because you made a choice to bring it to this space and that means it can be negated, problematized, and subject to verbal criticism.

Topic/Resolution: I will vote on reasons why or why not to go by the topic...unlike some closed minded judges who are detached from the reality that the topics chosen may not allow for one to embrace their subjectivity or social location in ways that are productive. This doesn’t mean I think talking about puppies and candy should win, for those who dumb down debate in their framework args in that way. You should have a concrete and material basis why you chose not to engage the topic and linked to some affirmation against racism/sexism/homophobia/classism/elitism/white supremacy and produces politics that are progressive and debatable. There would have to be some metric of evaluation though. BUT, I can be persuaded by the plan focus and topic education model is better middle ground to what they want to discuss.

Hella High Theory K: i.e Hiediggar, Baudrillard, Zizek, D&G, Butler, Arant, and their colleagues…this MUST be explained to me in a way that can make some material sense to me as in a clear link to what the aff has done or an explanation of the resolution…I feel that a lot of times teams that do these types of arguments assume a world of abstraction that doesn’t relate fully to how to address the needs of the oppressed that isn’t a privileged one. However, I do enjoy Nietzsche args that are well explained and contextualized. Offense is key with running these args and answering them.

Disadvantages: I’m cool with them just be well explained and have a link/link wall that can paint the story…you can get away with a generic link with me if you run politics/econ/tradeoff disads. But, it would be great to provide a good story. In the 2NC/1NR retell the story of the disad with more context and OFFENSE and compartmentalize the parts. ALWAYS tell me why it turns and outweighs case. Disads on case should be impacted and have a clear link to what the aff has done to create/perpetuate the disad. If you are a K team and you kick the alt that solves for the disads…that is problematic for me. Affs need to be winning impact framing and some level of offense. No link is not enough for me.

Perms: I HATE when people have more than 3 perms. Perm theory is good here for me, do it and not just GROUP them. For a Method v Method debate, you do not get to just say you dont get a perm. Enumerate reasons why they do not get a perm. BUT, if an Aff team in this debate does make a perm, it is not just a test of competition, it is an advocacy that must be argued as solving/challenging what is the issue in the debate.
Additionally, you can kick the perms and no longer have to be burden with that solvency. BUT you must have offensive against their C/P, ALT, or advocacy.

Counterplans/Advocacies: They have to solve at least part of the case and address some of the fundamental issues dealing with the aff’s advantages especially if it’s a performance or critical aff…I’m cool with perm theory with a voter attached. I am cool with any kind of these arguments, but an internal net benefit is not enough for me in a policy counterplan setting. If you are running a counter advocacy, there must be enumerated reasons why it is competitive, net beneficial, and is the option that should be prioritized. I do love me a PIK/PIC or two, but please do it effectively with specific evidence that is a criticism of the phrase or term the aff used. But, know the difference between piking out of something and just criticizing the aff on some trivial level. I think you need to do very good analysis in order to win a PIC/PIK. I do not judge kick things...that is your job.

Affs in the case of PIK/PICs, you must have disads to the solvency (if any), perm, theory, defend the part that is questionable to the NEG.

Race/ Identity arguments: LOVE these especially from the Black/Latinx/Asian/Indigenous/Trans/Sexuality perspective (most familiar with) , but this doesn’t mean you will win just because you run them like that. I like to see the linkage between what the aff does wrong or what the aff/neg has perpetuated. I’m NOT likely to vote on a link of omission unless some structural claim has risen the burden. I am not familiar with ALL of these types of args, so do not assume that I know all you literature or that I am a true believer of your arguments about Blackness. I do not believe that Blackness based arguments are wedded to an ontology focus or that one needs to win or defeat ontology to win.

I am def what some of you folks would call a "humanist and I am okay with that. Does not mean you can't win any other versions of that debate in front of me.

Case Args: Only go for case turns and if REALLY needed for your K, case defense.…they are the best and are offensive , however case defense may work on impacts if you are going for a K. If you run a K or performance you need to have some interaction with the aff to say why it is bad. Please don't sandbag these args so late in the debate.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am of the strong belief that Congressional debate is a DEBATE event first and foremost. I do not have an I.E or speech background. However, I do teach college public speaking and argumentation. The comments I leave will talk about some speech or style components. I am not a judge that heavily favors delivery over the argumentation and evidence use.

I am a judge that enjoys RECENT evidence use, refutation, and clash with the topics you have been assigned.

STRUCTURE OF SPEECHES

I really like organization. With that said, I do prefer debaters have a introduction with a short attention getter, and a short preview statement of their arguments. In the body of the speech, I would like some level of impacting/ weighing of your arguments and their arguments ( if applicable), point out flaws in your opponents argumentation (lack of solvency, fallacies, Alternative causes), cite evidence and how it applies, and other clash based refutation. If you want to have a conclusion, make sure it has a short summary and a declarative reason to pass or fail.

REFUTATION

After the first 2 speeches of the debate, I put heavy emphasis on the idea that these speeches should have a refutation component outside of you extending a previous argument from your side, establish a new argument/evidence, or having some kind of summary. I LOVE OFFENSE based arguments that will turn the previous arguments state by the opposition. Defensive arguments are fine, but please explain why they mean the opposition cannot solve or why your criticism of their evidence or reason raises to the level of rejecting their stance. Please do not list more than 2 or 3 senators or reps that you are refuting because in some cases it looks like students are more concerned with the appearance of refutation than actually doing it. I do LOVE sassy, assertive or sarcastic moments but still be polite.

EVIDENCE USE

I think evidence use is very important to the way I view this type of debate. You should draw evidence from quality sources whether that is stats/figures/academic journals/narrative from ordinary people. Please remember to cite where you got your information and the year. I am a hack for recency of your evidence because it helps to illuminate the current issues on your topic. Old evidence is a bit interesting and should be rethought in front of me. Evidence that doesn't at some level assume the ongoing/aftermath of COVID-19 is a bit of a stretch. Evidence comparison/analysis of your opponent is great as well.

ANALYSIS

I LOVE impact calculus where you tell me why the advantages of doing or not doing a bill outweighs the costs. This can be done in several ways, but it should be clear, concise, and usually happen in the later speeches. At a basic level, doing timeframe, magnitude, probability, proximity, or any other standard for making arguments based on impact are great. I DISLIKE rehash....If you are not expanding or changing the way someone has articulated an argument or at least acknowledge it, I do not find rehash innovative nor high rank worthy. This goes back to preparation and if you have done work on both sides of a bill. You should prepare multiple arguments on a given side just in case someone does the argument before you. There is nothin worse to me than an unprepared set of debaters that must take a bunch of recesses/breaks to prepare to switch.

Heyoo and Howdy, Its Jomi,

I have been Competing, Coaching, and Judging for going on 8 years now and I'm 21 so that says a lot about my wild amount of commitment I have towards this activity.

Mainly competed and coached extemp and congress so that is where my best critiques would come from since those are the events that I know the most about, however, I am proficient in knowing PF and LD since I have judged tons of elimination rounds for those events and have friends in the events so they teach me the game.

I would say no matter the event it always comes down to three solid principles for me

Logic without evidence

Quality of evidence

Speaking and execution of rhetoric

Logic without evidence meaning how solid on a logic understands deductive or inductive reasoning is the argument, to the point that at the least from a basic philosophical level can I consider that argument valid but not being true because that would require evidence.

Quality of evidence is what sets an argument to being a good argument because if your evidence is timely, relevant, and flows within the speech or case then that sets you apart from the round. Good evidence balances arguments, Bad Evidence breaks arguments

Speaking and execution of Rhetoric meaning simply how well are you conveying your speech and case in your delivery, even in Policy debate, if you want the judge to hear something import and round defining then you slow down and say it with conviction. How well do your voice and your inflections convey your narrative especially on the impact analysis which to me is the most important parts of arguments especially;y on a human level is to be important

Most of all, be respectful and courteous to your judges and especially to your opponents because if you are rude, condescending, sexist, racist, you know the deal if it's bad and I catch it, expect the worst result from me and expect for me to back it up. So just be a respectful person and we will be all good.

For WSD I like clear argument engagement that includes thoughtful weighing and impact analysis. I prefer debates that have colonial and imperial powers reckon with their history (if its germane to the topic). When it comes down to relevancy and impacts/harms, I prefer debates that show how their resolution (whether we're going for opp or prop) will benefit or improve black and brown communities, or the global south.

Interp overall: I pay real close attention to the introduction of each piece, I look for the lens of analysis and the central thesis that will be advanced during the interpretation of literature. When the performance is happening, I'm checking to see if they have dug down deep enough into an understanding of their literature through that intro and have given me a way to contextualize the events that are happening during the performance

POI: I look for clean transitions and characterization (if doing multiple voices)

DI: I look for the small human elements that come from acting. Big and loud gestures are not always the way to convey the point, sometimes something smaller gets the point more powerfully.

HI: I'm not a good HI judge, please do not let me judge you in HI. I don't like the event and I do my best to avoid judging it. If that fails, I look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. Please don't be racist/homophobic in your humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well research speech that has a strong message to deliver. Regardless of the genre of info you're presenting, I think that showing you've been exhaustive with your understanding is a good way to win my ballot. I'm not wow'd by flashy visuals that add little substance, and I'm put off by speeches that misrepresent intellectual concepts, even unintentionally. I like speeches that have a conclusion, and if the end of your speech is "and we still don't know" then I think you might want to reassess the overall direction you are taking, with obvious exceptions being that we might literally not know something, because its still being researched (but that is a different we don't know than say, "and we don't know why people act this way :( ")

FX/DX: When I'm evaluating an extemp speech, I'm continually thinking "did they answer the question? or did they answer something that sounded similar?" So keep that in your mind. Are you directly answering the question? When you present information that could be removed without affecting the overall quality of the speech, that is a sign that there wasn't enough research done by the speaker. What I vote up in terms of content are speeches that show a depth of understanding of the topic by evaluating the wider implications that a topic has for the area/region/politics/etc.

Blippy arguments make the debate nearly impossible to judge:

Cards should have warrants and you should be able to access the warrant and reasoning behind the card a quote without context is not an argument. You should be using warrants not just reading a quote. If you are extending evidence you should be reading the warrant, not just a blip.

THE DEBATER WHO HAS BETTER ARGUMENTATION WILL WIN OVER THE DEBATER WHO JUST READS A CARD THAT SAYS WELL ACTUALLY WSJ SAYS XYZ.

there should in general, be more engagement on the framing aspect of the debate. Tell me:

How you link into framing
Why that is good
Why your opponent doesn't
why that is bad

pick one main argument that you are winning and link to framing.

pick what offense the other team has and outweigh it

he/him

I have been a coach at Evanston for 5 years, and have been judging for them for 7+

please be clear if spreading, very important that you pause and sign post during argumentation. I will defer to what I hear in speeches and use the speech doc sparingly. It is importance to change cadence when spreading in order to emphasize warrants and impacts in order to differentiate. I don’t want to have to read the cards to figure out what you are saying in your speeches, you should be clear enough so I can flow

Tricks are pretty annoying and don't really help people learn how to debate, It is on a case to case basis on how I will weigh tricks (long story short, id recommend NOT reading them in front of me)

The most important thing in the round is that your arguments are accessible, and inclusive to everyone. That being said, be inclusive to your opponent inside the round. If your opponent doesn't understand speed, slow down. If an argument is not clear and is hard to understand, explain it. If you don't do these things, I will have a hard time voting for these arguments. That being said, I am pretty much open to any argument (regardless of event) as long as it is warranted, and impacted (as long as it is not exclusionary or violent). This includes critical arguments in public forum. Don't lie about evidence. This is a very good way to automatically lose the round with me, and more often than not almost any other judge, or judge panel.

Decision-Making:

Framing:

If you tell me to look at a certain framework and it is fair and reasonable, then I will do so. If I don't think it is fair I probably wont evaluate under it, but I will tell you why I think it's unfair, and how to make it fair. For LD, it is more about warranted framing. I don’t like/understand phil framing when it’s spread, and I literally have no idea how to evaluate it when it’s read at 200+ wpm

K's are cool.

Decorum: You should do what makes you comfortable in round, if you want to sit down for cx cool, stand up, cool. Sit down for speech, yeee, stand on your head. Let people know if there is anything you need to make the round more accessible or more comfortable for you.

Speaker points: Being kind in round is the best way to get 30's with me. Also, if I learn something new or interesting, you will probably get good speaks

winners get probably 28-30, then the losing team .5 less

30: you were cool in round

I don't always remember to time, so please be honest and hold yourselves accountable.

•Encourage clash

•Move debate forward--continue to examine impact (cause-effect relationships)

•Synthesis of prior speakers as debate rounds ensue

•Questions that probe for clarification of key terms and implications of key choices

LD:

If you seem like you are having fun and not making the round a terrible place to be, I will listen to pretty much any argument that isn't intentionally obnoxious or repugnant (death good, racial equity bad, etc.). I prefer lines of argument that don't rely on nuclear war or extinction, but if your case is strong, go for it. Creativity and experimental arguments are awesome. Please run them.

Clash and analysis are key. Use your case to analyze and refute your opponent's arguments. Don't just toss out cards; explain WHY and HOW. If your logic/reasoning is sound, you don't need to extend every card to win. I prefer strategic condensing over shallow line by line rebuttal.

Fairness - Theory arguments about fairness in LD are, by and large, arguments debaters fall back on when they don't know their opponent's literature well enough to engage with it. Running fairness while spreading or engaging in other behaviors that exclude people from debate is unlikely to get my ballot.

K's - I thoroughly enjoy critical debate. It fits very well with the intent of LD and forces debaters to examine assumptions. Logic must be sound and you should make a concerted effort to use the conceptual framework of your K as the basis for your argumentation (i.e. don't read "We can't draw conceptual lines between people," and then respond to case with arguments that draw lines between peoples). I have a pretty high threshold for what is topical so be prepared to engage with your opponent's lit. I don't enjoy rounds that devolve to T.

Phil - Critical arguments are based on differing philosophical views of the world. The phil authors we roll our eyes at today were often the radicals of their times. I find the debate community's distinction between Phil & K debate silly to the point of absurd and based on an incredibly reductive idea of who counts as a philosopher.

Performance - Go ahead, just make sure you have clear link stories.

Make sure you weigh your impacts for me. I may have a different perspective so if you don't make the weighing explicit, you are leaving it up to my interpretation. This includes ROBs, etc.

I expect timers and flashing to work without much delay. Having issues more than once in a round will lose speaks.

My speaks start at 28 for circuit tournaments. I'll dock a varsity debater more often for nonsense or rudeness than a JV debater. Making me laugh is a good way to bump up your points a few tenths. Enunciation is also a bonus.

I studied linguistics. If you are going to talk about plurals and indefinite articles, please have read more of the article than just the card you are citing.

CX is important and clarifies for me how well you understand your own arguments. I will dock points for badgering novices. Kindness is never the wrong move.

**Virtual debate notes: WiFi strength is not universal. Audio lags make it CRUCIAL that you speak clearly and don't talk over each other.

Speed/Spread:

I don't mind speed, as long as you are clear. I will only call "clear" twice in a varsity round. Taglines, authors, and card interp should be noticeably slower. It is up to the speaker to communicate their arguments and be aware of the audience's attention level. Language has a natural rhythm. Using that to assist you will make you easier to understand than cutting all the linking words out of your cards.

**Virtual debate notes: if I can't follow your speed on a video chat, getting those extra two cards in doesn't matter. Strategy has to adapt to the medium.

Congress:

I evaluate the full participation of the chamber, from docket maneuvers to quality and variety of questions. Successful legislators are those who drive the debate, present new/unique arguments, extend/refute/deepen previous arguments, choose sources carefully, and use parliamentary procedure appropriately. Debate on the merits/flaws of the specific legislation is given more weight than general issue arguments. Delivery style can enhance the persuasiveness of your analysis, but will not make up for canned speeches, poor supporting materials, or rehashed arguments.

POs are an essential part of the chamber. They set the mood, pace, and attitude of the chamber. It is a risk, and that is taken to account when I score. POs with a good pace and no major errors are very likely to be ranked.

Note on authorships/first pros: The price for establishing recency is that your speech must provide some background for the debate and at least one reason why this legislation in particular is/is not the answer.

Evidence

The purpose of evidence in all forms of debate is to support your arguments with expert testimony, not to BE your arguments. I will only ask for cards if something sounds exceptionally wonky. Have some understanding of the bias of your sources (Are they all from conservative think tanks?, etc.). It is generally up to your opponent(s) to point out blatantly wrong evidence, but I will dock for egregious offenses.

This is my 39th year teaching and most of that I have also coached speech and debate. As far as debate goes, I coached LD starting in the mid 80's running on and off through 2017. I coached policy on and off from 1990-2000. I have coached PF on and off since its inception. I have coached congressional debate since the early 80's. I don't have a paradigm for Speech events, but I have coached and judged all speech events since the early 80's as well.

As a Congress Judge:

Delivery: I embrace the role play. You are all portraying legislators from across the country and should behave with the decorum that role suggests. That being said, we have legislators from across the country with various styles and habits -- that makes congress debate AWESOME! There is no single, perfect way to deliver!

Evidence Usage: CD is, at its core, a debate event. Arguments should have sound, sourced evidence that follows NSDA rules. Empirical claims require empirical evidence.

Analysis - If I am judging Congressional Debate, chances are the tournament is a national caliber tournament (otherwise I would be working in some capacity in tab). I expect high level analysis at a high level tournament. If you are the 4th speaker and beyond - I expect unique arguments and I expect analysis and refutation of earlier speakers. Crystallization speeches do not merely mention every speaker that spoke earlier on a piece of legislation. It literally crystallizes the two sides, weighs the impacts of the two sides, and persuades me of their chosen position.

Argument Impacts: Please identify who or what is impacted. Be specific. In CD, please explain real world impacts. The narrative of impacts is as important (if not more) as the numerics of impacts.

On the topic of cost benefit analysis and weighing... Be careful of playing the numbers game. A large number of persons harmed may not necessarily outweigh a single person harmed, if the single person's harm is total and complete and the larger number still enjoy existence.

Decorum: Behavior in and out of chambers is important. Respectful, educational, kind, and full of fun... these should be in balance! (I don't like boring debate)

I don't have a calculator on the above. Very seldom is there a debater who is awesome at them all... But all need to be part of the mix. If I am judging a top round, I suspect that all speakers will be amazing! That means the final ranking will come down to relevance in the round. If all speeches were brilliant, questioning and answering were spot on, and knowledge of topics is at the top, who stood out as the genuine, 'real deal'?

PF Paradigm - I embrace the notion that the event is intended to be judged by an informed public forum. That does not mean dumbing down arguments because you think the judge is dumber than you because they didn't go to camp (adults don't go to camp). I think most judges want to hear good arguments that pertain to the resolution and want to hear clash between positions. That being said, here is my more specific paradigm:

Speed - I love an energetic debate, but save spreading for policy (and sadly LD). You should have written a prima facie case that either affirms or negates. It should be written so that the first speaker can energetically deliver it. Most PF spread isn't really spread, it is spewing and incoherent choking due largely to the student's failure to adequately cut their case. I am fine with clean, clear, speed. Can I hear arguments delivered at 385 wpm? yes. Will I flow them? probably not.

Frameworks - Sure, if you really are running a framework. If it is legit (and stays up in the round throughout), both sides will be weighing impacts within that framework.

Observations - Sure, if they are observations. Observations are not arguments. They are observations. "It is raining - observation: things are wet." "If Trump wins the election it will trigger nuclear war" is an argument, not an observation.

Warrants and Impacts are your friends!! Numbers are just numbers - how do they happen? why do they happen? who is affected and why them? is there possible counter causality? Really good logic if well explained will beat blippy numbers. Well explained statistics that are connected and clear will beat poor logic.

Flowing - Yes, I flow. I expect you to do so as well. I don't flow card names and dates - so make sure when you refer to a piece of evidence you reference what it says, not a name.

Jargon - I am not a fan. Don't say de-link. It is often unwarranted. Explain how and why. Unique is a noun, not a verb. You cannot 'non-unique' something. I love turns, but don't just spout 'turn.' Explain why their argument works against them. Or show how their impacts actually are good, not bad. At its heart debate is a communication education activity; I take your education seriously.

Kritiks - They are arguments. I was okay with them in policy when they were a 'thing,' largely because policy is more game than debate. I was not okay with them in LD when used as a gimmick. I am the LD judge that still clings to the notion that we should have value debate. However, a well thought out K that communicates the impact of the issue must be answered in any debate! In PF, I might be okay if a team ran a kritik that they truly believed in, and they clearly had the ethos and pathos to convince me it wasn't just a gimmick, I MIGHT vote on the K if it is argued well. OR, if their opponents clearly understood the K but just didn't want to deal with it. A K is still an argument, and the premise of the K needs to be responded to as an argument. If not, chances are I am going to vote for the K.

I am not a fan of: rude behavior, gender put-downs, dog whistle language, or individuals being mean/cocky just for the heck of it. =26s-27s. I would go lower, but most tournaments won't let me.

I love intense and lively debate. I love true arguments that are well researched, argued, and impacted. I love smart. Smart gets 29.5s and 29.9s. It has been a very long time since I gave 30's but I do give them!

Greetings everyone! My name is Timothy Huth and I'm the director of forensics at The Bronx High School of Science in New York City. I am excited to judge your round! Considering you want to spend the majority of time prepping from when pairings are released and not reading my treatise on debate, I hope you find this paradigm "cheat sheet" helpful in your preparation.

2023 TOC Congress Update

Congratulations on qualifying to the 2023 TOC! It's a big accomplishment to be here in this room and all of you are to be commended on your dedication and success. My name is Timothy Huth and I'm the director at Bronx Science. I have judged congress a lot in the past, including two TOC final rounds, but I have found myself judging more PF and Policy in recent years. To help you prepare, here's what I would like to see in the round:

Early Speeches -- If you are the sponsor or early speaker, make sure that I know the key points that should be considered for the round. If you can set the parameters of the discourse of the debate, you will probably have a good chance of ranking high on my ballot.

Middle Speeches -- Refute, advance the debate, and avoid rehash, obviously. However, this doesn't mean you can't bring up a point another debater has already said, just extend it and warrant your point with new evidence or with a new perspective. I often find these speeches truly interesting and you can have a good chance of ranking high on my ballot.

Late speeches -- I think a good crystallization speech can be the best opportunity to give an amazing speech during the round. To me, a good crystal speech is one of the hardest speeches to give. This means that a student who can crystal effectively can often rank 1st or 2nd on my ballot. This is not always the case, of course, but it really is an impressive speech.

Better to speak early or late for your ballot? It really doesn't matter for me. Wherever you are selected to speak by the PO, do it well, and you will have a great chance of ranking on my ballot. One thing -- I think a student who can show diversity in their speaking ability is impressive. If you speak early on one bill, show me you can speak later on the next bill and the skill that requires.

What if I only get one speech? Will I have any chance to rank on your ballot? Sometimes during the course of a congress round, some students are not able to get a second speech or speak on every bill. I try my very best to evaluate the quality of a speech versus quantity. To me, there is nothing inherently better about speaking more or less in a round. However, when you get the chance to speak, question, or engage in the round, make the most of it. I have often ranked students with one speech over students who spoke twice, so don't get down. Sometimes knowing when not to speak is as strategic as knowing when to speak.

Questioning matters to me. Period. I am a big fan of engaging in the round by questioning. Respond to questions strongly after you speak and ask questions that elicit concessions from your fellow competitors. A student who gives great speeches but does not engage fully in questioning throughout the round stands little chance of ranking high on my ballot.

The best legislator should rank first. Congress is an event where the best legislator should rank first. This means that you have to do more than just speak well, or refute well, or crystal well, or question well. You have to engage in the "whole debate." To me, what this means is that you need to speak and question well, but also demonstrate your knowledge of the rules of order and parliamentary procedure. This is vital for the PO, but competitors who can also demonstrate this are positioning themselves to rank highly on my ballot.

Have fun! Remember, this activity is a transformative and life changing activity, but it's also fun! Enjoy the moment because you are at THE TOURNAMENT OF CHAMPIONS! It's awesome to be here and don't forget to show the joy of the moment. Good luck to everyone!

2023 - Policy Debate Update

I have judged many debates across all events except for policy debate. You should consider me a newer policy judge and debate accordingly. Here are some general thoughts to consider as you prepare for the round:

Add me to the email chain: My email is huth@bxscience.edu.

Non-Topical Arguments: I am unlikely to understand Ks or non-topical arguments. I DO NOT have an issue with these arguments on principle, but I will not be able to evaluate the round to the level you would expect or prefer.

Topicality: I am not experienced with topicality policy debates. If you decide to run these arguments, I cannot promise that I will make a decision you will be satisfied with, but I will do my best.

Line-by-line: Please move methodically through the flow and tell me the order before begin your speech.

Judge Instruction: In each rebuttal speech, please tell me how to evaluate your arguments and why I should be voting for you. My goal is to intervene as little as possible.

Speed: Please slow down substantially on tags and analytics. You can probably spread the body of the card but you must slow down on the tags and analytics in order for me to understand your arguments. Do not clip cards. I will know if you do.

PF Paradigm - Please see the following for my Public Forum paradigm.

Add me to the email chain: My email is huth@bxscience.edu.

Cheat sheet:

General overview FOR PUBLIC FORUM

Experience: I've judged PF TOC finals-X------------------------------------------------- I've never judged

Tech over truth: Tech -------x------------------------------------------- Truth

Comfort with PF speed: Fast, like policy fast ---------x--------------------------------------- lay judge speed

Theory in PF: Receptive to theory ------x------------------------------ not receptive to theory

Some general PF thoughts from Crawford Leavoy, director of Durham Academy in North Carolina. I agree with the following very strongly:

- 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 be very 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.

Now, back to my thoughts. Here is the impact calculus that I try to use in the round:

Weigh: Comparative weighing x----------------------------------------------- Don't weigh

Probability: Highly probable weighing x----------------------------------------------- Not probable

Scope: Affecting a lot of people -----------x------------------------------------ No scope

Magnitude: Severity of impact -------------------------x----------------------- Not a severe impact

(One word about magnitude: I have a very low threshold for responses to high magnitude, low probability impacts. Probability weighing really matters for my ballot)

Quick F.A.Q:

Defense in first summary? Depends if second rebuttal frontlines, if so, then yes, I would expect defense in first summary.

Offense? Any offense you want me to vote on should be in either case or rebuttal, then both summary and final focus.

Flow on paper or computer? I flow on paper, every time, to a fault. Take that for what you will. I can handle speed, but clarity is always more important than moving fast.

What matters most to get your ballot? Easy: comparative weighing. Plain and simple.

I think you do this by first collapsing in your later speeches. Boil it down to 2-3 main points. This allows for better comparative weighing. Tell me why your argument matters more than your opponents. The team that does this best will 99/100 times get my ballot. The earlier this starts to happen in your speeches, the better.

Overviews: Do it! I really like them. I think they provide a framework for why I should prefer your world over your opponent's world. Doing this with carded evidence is even better.

Signpost: It's very easy to get lost when competitors go wild through the flow. You must be very clear and systematic when you are moving through the flow. I firmly believe that if I miss something that you deem important, it's your fault, not mine. To help with this, tell me where you are on the flow. Say things like...

"Look to their second warrant on their first contention, we turn..."

Clearly state things like links, turns, extensions, basically everything! Tell me where you are on the flow.

Also, do not just extend tags, extend the ideas along with the tags. For example:

"Extend Michaels from the NYTimes that stated that a 1% increase in off shore drilling leads to a..."

Evidence: I like rigorous academic sources: academic journals and preeminent news sources (NYT, WashPo, etc.). You can paraphrase, but you should always tell me the source and year.

Theory in PF: I'm growing very receptive to it, but it really should be used to check back against abuse in round.

Pronouns: I prefer he/him/his and I kindly ask that you respect your opponents preferred gender pronoun.

Speed: Slow down, articulate/enunciate, and inflect - no monotone spreading, bizarre breathing patterns, or foot-stomping. I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary. I think this is an important check on ableism in rounds. This portion on speed is credited to Chetan Hertzig, head coach of Harrison High School (NY). I share very similar thoughts regarding speed and spreading.

Congressional Debate

Content/trigger warnings: when using content/trigger warnings, contestants should ask why they need one in the first place. Rather than using graphic imagery to describe traumatizing issues, it is far more meaningful for contestants to explain the scope and scale of the impact of the root causes of the problem and how the legislation will either remediate or exacerbate the problem and its causes; that approach provides a safer space for all participants in the chamber. That said, any participant in a chamber should feel free to excuse themselves at any time if they are feeling unsafe or emotionally traumatized – without any judgment.

The nature of Congressional Debate is an intellectual exercise in analyzing an issue from a multitude of perspectives, which are threaded together through the clash of ideas, and moderated by parliamentary procedure. While its discourse intellectually functions as debate, it operates with sectioning chambers and comparatively evaluating students in the same manner as interscholastic speech rather than the binary nature of head-to-head debate entries. Of all the speech and debate events, it models a real world process as a way for students to engage one another in a truly authentic and dynamic manner. As someone who has been a part of shaping rules and standards in Congressional Debate for over two decades, I understand how comparative ranking allows me to take the full picture of how a student contributes both to the intellectual richness of debate, as well as the circumstances by which debate happens – parliamentary procedure. Hence, the focal point of arguments should be on how people are affected by potential passage or defeat of legislation.

Role playing is a mindset that goes beyond simply "playing a part" as a member of Congress. Debaters should understand how issues impact constituents, citizens, residents, and the global community alike, and who and what should be prioritized at any given time and why. Members of Congress represent demographically and geographically diverse constituents as well as serve our country at-large. Therefore, debaters should consider how they frametheir advocacy and avoid such possessive phrasing as "our low-income Americans" to make blanket statements about entire groups of people, rather than describing circumstances for which they do not have personal experience (see first section, above). I highly recommend the Conscious Style Guide for guidance on appropriate language when discussing marginalized communities, and that debaters consider their own privilege when they address the nuanced issues in constituencies most vulnerable within problems addressed by legislation.

Organization and clarity: contestants should briefly seize attention in a memorable and meaningful way by connecting to the issue at-hand without trivializing it. Previews are inconsequential and waste time in a brief, 3-minute speech; rather, points should be signposted, and connect to a central, unifying thesis beyond just "supporting" or "opposing" the legislation at-hand. Speeches should be easy to follow, articulately crisp, and plainly explained, without needless jargon. Contestants should be concise, dynamic, and nimble with their language, and not repeat the same filler phrases and "debate-speak." Effective clarity also means avoiding unnecessary delving into "debate-speak," where a student uses such filler language as "take you at your highest ground," rather saying, "if your central intention is..." Other examples of concision alternatives filler phrases:
• Say "argued" instead of "came up here and said"
• Say "consider" instead of "we can look to"
• See "understanding" instead of "seeing as how"
• Omit "we can see that"
Finally, be elegant. Say "defeat" a bill instead of "fail.""Move the previous question, don't "motion to the previous question." Correct phrasing goes a long way toward demonstrating command of language in a linguistic activity utilizing the framework of parliamentary procedure.

Evidence: contestants should support arguments with cited, credible sources warranted to their own analysis. They should indicate a firm analytical understanding of the legislative/policymaking process, and the efficacy and jurisdiction of government agencies in addressing issues.

Impacts: speeches should explain how people are affected by policies and positions. Practical application and pragmatic interpretation is much more relevant that theoretical musings on an issue. Rhetoric should show sensitivity to people whose identities may differ from their own; a speech may address issues that impact real people, and shouldn't conjecture lived experiences for which the legislator may not have a personal frame of reference. Contestants should avoid overusing terms like "constituents," and consider as a national-level legislator, how policies impact both their own theoretical constituents, residents throughout the United States for whom their policies will impact, and for international relations – global citizens beyond the U.S.

Advancing debate: each speech should exhibit how it fits within the flow of debate on given legislation:

Authorship/sponsorship speeches should outline the problem, its causes, and why the legislation at-hand solves or mitigates the problem and its causes. The background is more important than the legislation itself, as we can all read the bill. I want to know the why behind the solvency.

First negative speeches should establish ground for the opposition to the legislation: why it exacerbates the problem and its causes, fails to address them effectively, or creates new or worse conditions.

Constructive speeches, often the first 4-6 speeches in a debate, should indicate a sound understanding of how legislation is introduced to solve/address a problem and its causes, deeply investigating important issues with detailed evidence.

Rebuttal speeches should defend a legislator's advocacy, extend complementary arguments by colleagues, and/or refute the opposition – acknowledging how those arguments are being built upon or fall short. As debate on legislation moves forward, there will be more extension and refutation and fewer constructive arguments. This is where a contestant can be nuanced with their advocacy, connecting arguments that respond to others with their own, unique ideas.

Crystallization speeches should come at the end of debate on legislation and summarize and weigh impacts to distill the debate to central voting issues and why one side wins over the others, and subsequent speeches on the same side should either explain why a preceding crystallization was premature/incomplete, or advance it further in a more sophisticated manner. Crystallizing prematurely, at best shows a lack of restraint and understanding of the "big picture" of the issue; at worst, it shows an impatient desire to weigh the debate before all the elements have had time to be explored rhetorically.

Questions should be substantive and carefully selected to help advance debate beyond superficial questions that are mere "gotchas." The dynamism of Congressional Debate requires legislators to respond within the flow of debate, so all speeches after the authorship/sponsorship speech introducing legislation should be more extemporaneous/spontaneous in nature. Exchanges should be a courteous give-and-take.

When to quit: it is entirely unimportant to me whether each contestant in a room speaks on each legislation; I'd rather debate stay fresh and dynamic than to get stale and mired in rehash because there's nothing new to say (and rehashing thoroughly debated arguments will negatively impact your ranking severely). I also place a higher premium on quality over quantity of speeches given -- as long as a contestant still stays active in questioning and other facets of a round.

Delivery: given the dynamic nature of exchange of myriad perspectives in Congressional Debate, debaters – especially those after the author/sponsor and first negative – should be more extemporaneous and spontaneous in their delivery, referring more to bulleted notes and their flow of the debate than reciting from a word-for-word manuscript. I don't care if a student transitionally walks between points (obviously, that doesn't/didn't happen in online debate and it's certainly not real-world); what matters to me is that the student engages their peers and judges through an appropriate projection of their voice, dynamic intonation and pause to convey meaning, meaningful eye contact, vivid facial expression, and natural gestures for emphasis.

Parliamentary procedure: rules of order exist to provide fairness and an opportunity for participation in sharing ideas before majority rules. Through a lens of accessibility and inclusivity, procedure should never be used by legislators to manipulate for personal advantage; rather, those students who advocate for fairness to others demonstrate the spirit of fostering involvement by others. This applies to all students in the room, and how they utilize procedure within a round, and includes decorum of using honorifics, third person references to others, and professional courtesy over snarky demeanor. This is especially important during questioning periods. Also, remember: recesses are a temporary reprieve from active debate, but the round is still happening.

Presiding officers: a PO whose priority is uplifting others in a fair, efficient, and transparent manner exhibits the values expressed in the "parliamentary procedure" section above. They are mindful of different schools and regions and do whatever they can to share and balance recognition, beyond those with whom they are most closely associated. I really appreciate when POs share some type of live document that shows how they are tracking precedence and recency of both speeches and questions. Effective POs should avoid needless phrases, such as "seeing as how..." and instead simply say, "those opposed (or 'in favor'), please raise your placards." Further, such elegant language shows command of procedure, such as "the ayes have it and the motion (or bill) carries," or "the noes have it and the motion (or bill) is defeated."

bellaire '21 | rice '25

Email is: saumyajhaveri17@gmail.com

PF:

Tech > Truth

Defense is sticky

I don't like progressive arguments

Won't call for evidence unless the team explicitly asks me too

Good extensions are key, including a claim, warrant, and impact.

Comparative Weighing wins the round

Congress:

1. Sponsors are underrated, so there's a good chance I score them high. The sponsor should be able to set the tone for the rest of the round. A great sponsor > late-round rehash speech.

2. Argumentation is the most important thing in this event, so your speech needs to have a clear link chain

3. Use strong passionate rhetoric smartly. Meaning, the whole speech shouldn't be full of metaphors and hyperbole.

4. Please don't say "right now in the status quo." It's the same thing.

5. Have fun and find ways to make yourself stand out from the chamber.

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:

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'm a debate coach at Riverside HS in SC. I believe debate is an educational activity where the skills you learn should help you for the rest of your life. Delivery is important. Respect for your opponent is a must.

Public Forum:

I don't think K's have a place in PF. This isn't policy. I also think theory has devolved from it's original purpose, and in most cases, has become a tool for teams to try to get a cheap win. If you think there was a serious evidence violation, do an official evidence challenge (check the NSDA rules if you don't know what this is) or call it out and tell me to read it if you're nervous about hinging an entire round on this one violation. If your opponent is being rude or malicious, I'll intervene.

While I flow everything and understand the lingo, treat me as a lay judge. Please do not spread. Please weigh.

Weighing is just a comparative analysis, so be sure to engage your opponents arguments when you weigh. If your weighing is all about your case, it tells me nothing about how it compares to your opponent's (so you didn't actually weigh anything). Also include why we should favor your weighing mechanism versus your opponent's if they differ.

I'm not a fan of extending anything through ink. If it's important enough for you to try to win off of it, you should be bringing it up well before FF.

Please sign post during your speeches.

When extending evidence, please also include the warranting behind the evidence. I’m human and don’t always catch everything about your evidence on my flow the first time around.

Please be quick about sharing evidence during rounds. It shouldn't take you more than a couple minutes to pull a card and send it (should be almost immediate if its from case).

Also I think crossfire is the most interesting part of most debate rounds. I'm definitely listening and may vote off of it if your weighing isn't comparative.

If you want clarification on anything on (or not on) my paradigm please don't be afraid to ask before the round.

I did Congress for four years at Dreyfoos School of the Arts in South Florida (C/O 2018), was good at it, and I now study linguistics and political science at the University of Florida and coach/judge (often) for Bronx Science in NYC.

I love POs and am looking for a reason to rank the PO high. If you mess up recency/precedence once it's not going to kill you, but if it's a consistent issue, or you mess up parliamentary procedure, you'll fall pretty quickly down my ballot.

Don't be cocky or rude (poking fun and jokes are totally cool and make things interesting). Make good arguments; if you don't have an impact, which means explaining the effect of the legislation and why it's good/bad, it doesn't count, no matter how pretty you sound. Just as importantly, you need to care about what you're saying. Finally, there needs to be some sort of clear speech structure. I'm totally cool with, and actually a fan of, speeches with alternative structures from the typical speech with two points, but you need to make that structure clear through signposting.

The most common feedback I give is about evidence. Remember, your job is to prove why a certain piece of legislation will do good or bad things for the world, so you not only need credible, relevant, and (ideally) recent data, but that data MUST be comprised of fact. Facts, as opposed to opinions, are a qualitative or quantitative assessment of either an ongoing process or something that happened. Facts may include numbers and statistics found in research, descriptions of an event or system/process, statements made by relevant government officials or organization leaders, existing/former laws or court decisions, etc. Facts are not unquantified descriptions of a numeric value; for example, statements saying something saw a "substantial increase" or was "significantly harmed" are relative and not factual. Those statements are an analysis of data rather than the data itself. If your whole speech is based on expert opinions and non-factual statements, I am left with no metric to actually weigh the importance of your impacts against those of other speakers.

Speaking well matters on my ballot, but only to the point that your presentation isn't distracting. I weigh speaking this way because a lot of metrics we traditionally use to assess speaking are pretty ableist and/or difficult for students for whom English isn't their first language or who use non-"standard" dialects.

If you say something blatantly problematic or harmful to any marginalized community, purposefully misgender someone (or continuously call them Mr./Ms. after being asked to not do so), or, as PO, clearly show bias toward any one group of people (that includes geographic prioritization, or prioritization of people from your school/district), you will be dropped.

also PLEASE refute oml

Congressional Debate Paradigm:

Be clear, concise, don't rush arguments, quality over quantity of arguments. Be ready to debate aft's and negs should a bill need more of one or the other. If you are a PO be fair and do not call on the same representative or senators repeatedly, give everyone a chance to refute.

Be confident, have fun and remember to be yourself! Being yourself always shines through!

I am the assistant debate coach at Taylor High School and was the Mayde Creek Coach for many years in Houston, TX. Although I have coached and judged on the National Circuit, it is not something I regularly do or particularly enjoy. I was a policy debater in high school and college, but that was along time ago. My experience is primarily congress and LD. In the past several years I have been running tab rooms in the Houston area. That said, here are a few things you may want to know:

Congress

I am fairly flexible in Congress. I like smart, creative speeches. I rate a good passionate persuasive speech over a speech with tons of evidence. Use logos, pathos, and ethos. Clash is good. I think it is good to act like a member of Congress, but not in an over the top way. Questions and answers are very important to me and make the difference in rank. Ask smart questions that advance the debate. Standing up to just ask a dumb question to “participate “ hurts you. I don’t like pointless parliamentary games (who does?). I like a P.O. who is fair and efficient. The P.O. almost always makes my ballot unless they make several big mistakes and or are unfair. (Not calling on a competitor, playing favorites etc.) . If you think your P.O is not being fair, call them on it politely. Be polite and civil, there is a line between attacking arguments and attacking competitors. Stay on the right side of it.

LD & Policy

Civility: I believe we have a real problem in our activity with the lack of civility (and occasional lack of basic human decency). I believe it is discouraging people from participating. Do not make personal attacks or references. Be polite in CX. Forget anything you have ever learned about "perceptual dominance." This is no longer just a loss of speaker points. I will drop you on rudeness alone, regardless of the flow.

Speed: I used to say you could go 6-7 on a 10 point scale... don't. Make it a 3-4 or I will miss that critical analytical warrant you are trying to extend through ink. I am warning you this is not just a stylistic preference. I work tab a lot more than I judge rounds, and do not have the ear that I had when I was judging fast rounds all the time. Run the short version of your cases in front of me. This is particularly true of non-stock, critical positions or multiple short points.

Evidence: I think the way we cut and paraphrase cards is problematic. This is closely related to speed. I would prefer to be able to follow the round and analyze a card without having to read it after it is emailed to me (or call for it after the round). That said, if you feel you have to go fast for strategic reasons, then include me on the chain. I will ignore your spreading and read your case. However, be aware if I have to read your case/evidence, I will. I will read the entire card, not just the highlighted portion. If I think the parts left out or put in 4 point font change the meaning of the argument, or do not support your tag, I will disregard your evidence, regardless of what the opponent says in round. So either go slow or have good, solid evidence.

Theory: I will vote on theory where there is clear abuse. I prefer reasonability as opposed to competing interpretations. Running theory against a stock case for purely competitive advantage annoys me. Argue the case. I don't need a comprehensive theory shell and counter interpretations, and I do not want to see frivolous violations. See my assumptions below.

Assumptions: I believe that debate should be fair and definitions and framework should be interpreted so that both sides have ground and it is possible for either side to win. Morality exists, Justice is not indeterminate, Genocide is bad. I prefer a slower debate focusing on the standard, with well constructed arguments with clash on both sides of the flow. Fewer better arguments are better than lots of bad ones. I am biased towards true arguments. Three sentences of postmodern gibberish cut out of context is not persuasive. Finally, I think the affirmative should be trying to prove the entire resolution true and the negative proves it is not true. (a normative evaluation). You would need to justify your parametric with a warrant other than "so I can win."

Progressive stuff: I will not absolutely rule it out or vote against you, but you need to sell it and explain it. Why is a narrative useful and why should I vote for it? A K better link hard to the opponents case and be based on topical research not just a generic K that has been run on any topic/debater. If you can not explain the alternative or the function of the K in CX in a way that makes sense, I won't vote for it. I am not sure why you need a plan in LD, or why the affirmative links to a Disad. I am not sure how fiat is supposed to work in LD. I do not see why either side has to defend the status quo.

Conclusion: If you want to have a fun TOC style debate with tons of critical positions going really fast, preference a different judge. (Hey, I am not blaming you, some of my debaters loved that sort of thing cough-Jeremey / Valentina / Alec/ Claudia -cough, It is just that I don't).

Dabbled in Congress and trad LD in High School (zero PF experience)

- don't run anything progressive (K's, Theory shells, etc.) - you're welcome to do LD or policy if you want to

- pls pls don't spread - if I can't understand you (a little faster than speaking pace), I won't flow you, it's pretty simple

- tech > truth - I'm looking for clear link chains and clear warranting - whoever does that best wins the round (esp considering I have zero prior topic knowledge)

- pls pls pls signpost - If I have no clue where I am on the flow, well rest in peace to you

- on timing, feel free to do whatever, but my time is the law of the land - pls don't be a bum and go way over (I will cut you off)

- unless one side really really messes up cross, it won't be a huge factor in my decision - I won't flow it either, but I'll be listening

- weigh weigh weigh

On PF:

- constructives go over contentions with clear warranting and IMPACTING

- rebuttals - just go down the flow and refute (jumping around the flow makes my life so much harder as a judge and I could miss something so it's up to you)

- summary I honestly don't prefer line by line - pls just collapse on the biggest args and WEIGH - also know that unless you're the first team and you're frontlining, you shouldn't be bringing up new stuff (bc ideally as the second team you would frontline in rebuttal)

- final focus - your time should be spent on voter issues, impact analysis, and weighing - all your offense HAS to be extended from summary - if it isn't then I'm probably not flowing it

Obviously, all this is assuming you are polite and courteous in round. Being rude gets you the L, so maybe don't be rude.

Lastly, have fun! Whether you're a new debater or a pretty experienced one, I've been there trust me. Just make sure you learned something walking away.

I'm looking forward to judging you all!

I debated in Public Forum debate (2013-2017) at Western Highschool in Florida.

I have a Bachelor's degree in Political Science from the University of Florida and a Master's degree in Liberal Studies from Georgetown University. Attending Northeastern University Law School in the fall.

a couple of things:

-Y'all should be timing the debate. I am the judge, not a babysitter. I like when teams hold each other accountable.

- don't read a new contention in rebuttal. that's not going on my flow

- The first summary should extend defense if the second rebuttal frontlines the argument. I think it is strategic for the second rebuttal to respond to turns and overviews.

- My attention to crossfire will probably depend on the time of day and my current mood. Please use it strategically if not I'll probably switch to watching youtube videos. - do not just read evidence explain the evidence in your own words. Tell me why the evidence matters to me at the end of the day.

- the summary is cool and all but don't go for everything on the flow, condense the round and give me a narrative. Quality of voters> Quantity of voters.

- Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh.

-any other questions ask me before the round

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

"30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior."

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

if you want to learn more about debate and get better under my guidance.

Click on the link below and sign up now!!!!

https://vancouverdebate.ca/intrinsic-debate-institute-summer-camp-2022/

ABOUT ME -

I have been judging in Speech Events (HI, DI, DUO, EXT, OO), Debate Events (LD, PF, Policy) and Congressional Debate since 2018.

I enjoy judging Congressional Debates where I can see many debaters debate on numerous topics in the student chamber.

I favor to give points and rank high upon following skills even though congressional leaders need to be successful in passing legislation.

- Assertiveness – Standing up for one’s beliefs and being able to confidently take charge of difficult situations, making tough decisions despite opposition. In a politically charged environment where everyone is vying for their opinion to be heard, being assertive is key.

- Building Alliances – Earning trust and respect from others and taking the time to build effective working relationships with individuals.

- Commitment - Passionately and enthusiastically demonstrating a dedication to the causes and beliefs you espouse.

- Conflict Resolution - Effectively resolving misunderstandings, disagreements, and disputes with other individuals. Directly addressing issues with others in a non-threatening manner. Being willing to compromise in order to maintain effective working relationships.

- Influence - Using a variety of persuasion tactics, interpersonal skills, and communication and presentation strategies to convince others to make decisions that are mutually beneficial to all parties involved.

- Presentation Skills - Using effective verbal and nonverbal communication skills to clearly deliver information to a variety of audiences. Being confident and comfortable when speaking in front of groups. Making presentations that are clear, engaging and impactful.

JUDGING HISTORY-

- Barkley Forum for High Schools 1/29 - 1/31/2021

- Sunvite 2021

- Cavalier Invitational at Durham Academy 1/16 - 1/18/2021

- Florida Sunshine District Tournament 12/5

- FGCCFL December Tournament

- Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/21 - 11/23/2020

- FGCCFL November Tournament

- Florida Blue Key 2020 10/30 -11/1 Congress Debate

- Duke Invitational 2020 9/19 -9/20 Congressional Debate

- National Speech and Debate Season Opener Hosted by UK 2020 9/12 -9/14 Congressional Debate

- FGCCFL Grand Finals 2020 2/28 -2/29 Congress Debate

- FGCCFL February All Events 2020 2/8 IE & Congress Debate

- FGCCFL January All Events 2020 1/18 -1/18 IE & Congress Debate

- Florida Sunshine District Tournament 2019 12/14 -3/28 Congress Debate

- The Sunvitational 2020 1/10 -1/12 Congress Debate

- FGCCFL December All Events 2019 12/7 IE & Congress Debate

- Barkley Forum for High Schools 2020 1/24 -1/26

- Congressional Debate FGCCFL September All Events 2019 9/28 -9/28 IE & Congress Debate

- Florida Blue Key 2019 11/1 -11/3 Congress Debate

- Yale Invitational 2019 9/13 -9/15 Speech

- FGCCFL Grand Finals 2019 2/22 -2/23 Lincoln-Douglas

- Barkley Forum for High Schools 2019 1/25 -1/27

- Congressional Debate Florida Sunshine District Tournament 2018 12/8 -3/9

- Congressional Debate FGCCFL November All Events 2018 11/17 -11/17 IE and Congress Debate

- FGCCFL October All Events 2018 10/13 -10/13 Lincoln-Douglas

- FGCCFL September All Events 2018 9/22 -9/22 Public Forum Yale Invitational 2018 9/14 -9/16 Varsity Public Forum

BACKGROUND

Undergraduate:

- MBBS, University of Medicine, Yangon, Myanmar.

Post graduate:

- MPH, London School of Hyigene and Tropical Medicine, University London, UK

- MSc. Computer Science, Western Illinois University

- Post Doc Medical Informatics Fellowship, Health Science Technology, Harvard-MIT

I am looking for a balance between quality of the speech itself and your delivery.

For the speech:

-Creativity- please bring your own personality into these speeches--begin with an interesting hook, use metaphors, and make your argument engaging

- Clear reasoning and argumentation--show Claim Vs Warrant Vs Impact

-Organization-sign post when possible and with your conclusion, highlight your key contentions

- Demonstrate research! Show that you have investigated this topic so that you can speak authoritatively and show clear evidence

- Be polite and demonstrate respect when addressesing the other competitors--don't be rude or condescending

-Context--I like to see that you are listening to other speakers, so you gain points with me by referencing previous arguments to build your case as well as rebutting previous arguments to strengthen your case

On Delivery:

- Speed for the sake of speed is big no. If your audience can't follow what you're saying, the impact of your speech is lost.

- Speak with energy and passion that shows your engagement with the topic.

-Show good eye-contact

- Speak clearly with a confident volume and avoid filler words

Have fun! Enjoy the process and really engage as a creative participant.

I expect competitors to have a strong delivery, emphasized impact, and well constructed arguments. Speeches should be professionally articulated and constituent focused.

Updated 4/17 for the Tournament of Champions

Congrats on qualifying for the TOC! Being at this tournament is a substantial accomplishment on its own, and one that you should be extremely proud of.

Topic thoughts:

Both teams should spend more time explaining the mechanism by which they resolve their impacts. For instance - how does the UNSC prevent conflict? What would the UNSC do absent a veto to resolve x conflict? I think that the team that best explains those internal links has a better shot of winning in front of me. Using past examples of UN intervention (or lack thereof) seems to be important to explain warrants to me.

In short:

Put me on the email chain before I show up. Send speech docs (i.e., Word docs as attachments) before any speech in which you are going to read evidence. Read good evidence. Debate about what you want. I'd strongly prefer it have some relation to the topic. Speed is fine so long as you're clear, slow down/differentiate tags, and clearly signpost arguments. I will not read the document during your speech. Theory is silly and I'd rather vote on anything else. Critical arguments are fine, if grounded in topic lit and you can articulate what voting for you is/does. Debaters should read more lines from fewer pieces of evidence. If you have time, please read everything in my paradigm. It's not that long.

--

he/him

I've been involved in competitive speech and debate since 2014. I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas. I competed in PF and Congress in high school and NPDA-style parliamentary debate in college at Minnesota.

I am also a Co-Director of Public Forum Boot Camp (PFBC) in Minnesota. If you do high school PF and you want to talk to me about camp, let me know.

I am conflicted against Seven Lakes (TX), Lakeville North (MN), Lakeville South (MN), Blake (MN), and Vel Phillips Memorial (WI).

Put me on the email chain. Please flip and get fully set up before the round start time. My email is my first name [dot] my last name [at] gmail. Add sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com, sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com, or sevenlakescx@googlegroups.com depending on the event I am judging you in. The subject of the email chain should clearly state the tournament, round number and flight, and team codes/sides of each team. For example: "Gold TOC R1A - Seven Lakes CL 1A v Lakeville North LM 2N".

In general:

Debate is a competitive research activity. The team that can most effectively synthesize their research into a defense of their plan, method, or side of the resolution will win the debate. I would like you to be persuasive, entertaining, kind, and strategic. Feel free to ask clarifying questions before the debate.

How I decide rounds/preferences:

I can judge whatever. I will vote for whatever argument wins on the flow. I want to judge a small but deep debate about the topic.

I've judged or been a part of several thousand debates in various formats over the past decade. I have seen, gone for, and voted for lots of arguments. My preference is that you demonstrate mastery of the topic and a well-thought-out strategy during the round and that you're excited to do debate and engage with your opponents' research. The best rounds consist of rigorous examination and comparison of the most recent and academically legitimate topic literature. I would like to hear you compare many different warrants and examples, and to condense the round as early as possible. Ignoring this preference will likely result in lower speaker points.

I flow, intently and carefully. I will stop flowing when my timer goes off. I will not flow while reading a document, and will only use the email chain or speech doc to look at evidence when instructed to by the competitors or after the round if the interpretation of a piece of evidence is vital to my decision. There is no grace period of any length. I will not vote on an argument I did not flow.

There is not a dichotomy between "truth" and "tech". Obviously, the team that does the better debating will win, and that will be determined by arguments that I've flowed, but you will have a much more difficult time convincing me that objectively bad arguments are true than convincing me that good arguments are true. In other words, an argument's truth often dictates its implication for my ballot because it informs technical skill.

I will not vote for unwarranted arguments, arguments that I cannot explain in my RFD, or arguments I did not flow. I have now given several decisions that were basically: "I am aware this was on the doc. I did not flow it during your speech time." Most PF rounds I judge are decided by mere seconds of argumentation, and most PF teams should probably think harder about how to warrant their links and compare their terminal impacts than they do right now.

Zero risk exists. I probably won't vote on defense or presumption, but I am theoretically willing to.

An average speaker in front of me will get a 28.5.

Critical arguments:

I am a decent judge for critical strategies that are well thought out, related to the topic, and strategically executed. I am happy to vote to reject a team's rhetoric, to critically examine economic and political systems of power, etc. if you explain why those impacts matter. In a PF context, these arguments seem to struggle with not being fleshed out enough because of short speech times but I'm not ideologically opposed to them.

I am not a great judge for strategies that ignore the resolution. I will vote for arguments that reject the topic if there are warrants for why we ought to do that and you win those warrants. But, if evenly debated, relating your strategy to the topic is a good idea.

I am a terrible judge for strategies that rely on in-round "discourse" as offense. I generally do not think that these strategies have an impact or solve the harms with debate they identify. I've voted for these arguments several times, and I still find them unpersuasive - I just found the other team's defense of debate worse.

Theory:

Theory is generally boring and I rarely want to listen to it without it being placed in a specific context based on the current topic.

I am more than qualified to evaluate theory debates and used to go for theory in college quite a bit.

I would strongly prefer not to listen to debates about setting norms. Disclosure is generally good. Paraphrasing is generally bad.

Here is a list of arguments which will be very difficult to win in front of me: violations based on anything that occurred outside of the current debate, frivolous theory or other positions with no bearing on the question posed by the resolution, trigger warning theory, anything categorized as a trick or meant to evade clash, anything that is labeled as an IVI without a warranted implication for the ballot.

I recognize the strategic value of theory and that sometimes, you need to go for it to win a debate. If you decide to do that, you might get very low speaker points, depending on how asinine I think your position is. I will be persuaded by appeals to reasonability and that substantive debate matters more than your position.

Evidence:

Evidence ethics arguments/IVIs/theory/etc. will not be treated as theory - I will ask the team who has introduced the argument about evidence ethics if I should stop the debate and evaluate the challenge to evidence to determine the winner/loser of the round. The same goes for clipping. This is obviously different than reasons to prefer a piece of evidence or other normal weighing claims. I reserve the right to vote against teams that I notice are fabricating evidence during the round even if the other team does not make it a voting issue.

You should read good evidence and disclose case positions after you debate.

I have lots of other thoughts on speech and debate that you can read here if you would like - it encompasses some past paradigms, etc.

I judge multiple formats of debate, so I will try to provide a baseline for each of events. You can always reach out with questions at glennprince3@gmail.com.

LD:

I think LD's continual move to a poor version of 1 on 1 policy debate is probably not for the best, but we are where we are. If you want a traditional V/C framework, great. If you want to have a plan, that's fine too. My background is policy debate, so it's not that I'm unable to evaluate these arguments, it is that I find that there are too many tricks, RVIs, and barely warranted theory arguments that debaters want me to vote for. I will not vote for those arguments unless they have a clearly articulated interpretation, violation, standards, and a voting issue.

Really, I love debate, but I don't like blippy, unwarranted, "crafty" arguments. If your strategy is dependent on tricks or badly formulated theory arguments, strike me. Also, I won't vote on disclosure theory. I find I won't be offended.

I do believe the affirmative should affirm the resolution, but when you are negative you can do whatever you want that negates in whatever way that means to you.

Most importantly, have fun, say smart things, and I'll do the best to evaluate the debate you present to me.

PF:

Most important note: If it doesn't appear in summary, it won't be evaluated in final focus.

2nd important note: I prefer FULLY cut cards over paraphrasing. I find that too many cases are a series of citations without warrants. I'm a great judge for you if you cut cards that have warrants. I'm a less than great judge for you if you think stringing together 10-15 word "cards" makes a fully developed argument. Also, tag lines are your friend. All of your evidence should have a tagline.

Having said that, I think the rate of speaking should be moderate to moderately fast. I'm not sure what you are accomplishing in PF with anything faster. If your opponent asks you to slow down, you should make reasonable accommodations to that request. You can look to me to see whether or not I think the team making the request is being ridiculous.

The pro should feel free to affirm the resolution in whatever way you'd like as long as you are actively talking about the resolution.

If you only have defense in the debate, it will be difficult to win my ballot. For example, on the Medicare for All topic, the negative has to prove that the affirmative makes the world worse in a world where it were to become law.

Other than that, be sure to start narrowing the debate in summary. I prefer more line by line until the Final Focus, but I understand that many people will start weighing in summary. That's fine, but your summary should NOT just be weighing.

POLICY: I'm fairly old school when it comes to this event. I think the affirmative should probably be an example of the actual resolution, although kritikal affs are welcome. I was more of a DA/CP debater, so take that for what it is worth. On the negative, feel free to do whatever you want because I think that's the freedom you get being negative. On specific arguments:

Topicality: I don't think you have to prove abuse to win. You can just prove that they aren't topical. Whoever wins the interpretation controls the direction of this debate.

CP: I think everything is conditional, but I can be persuaded otherwise. You can run multiple Cps if you'd like. Have fun.

K: I think if you are running on the aff that it should still be a discussion of the topic. On the neg, I think you should indicate and make as many links to the affirmative as possible and make those known in the most meaningful way possible.

Besides the affirmative being topical even when kritikal, I'm not quite the dinosaur I may appear. You should have fun and make arguments and I'll do my best to evaluate them.

Congress:

I did congress for four years and graduated from Plano West in 2020. For speakers, just make it a good debate and not boring. I feel like the idea of a good congress speech is self-explanatory. Also don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc. I want to believe that kids in congressional debate have a better ability to be kind than those in the actual congress.

I notice when competitors are super cliquey in the round. It's really obvious when a group of debaters already know the PO well and all get good precedence.

For POs -- Please don't waste time, don't let the speakers waste time either, don't be biased, and you can expect T3 from me.

Extemp:

My high school was pretty good at extemp so while I personally wasn't really competing much in the event, I know what a good extemp speech looks like. A good structure in your points will take you a long way.

For any other event:

I am a lay judge. :)

I'm a recent PhD from Binghamton University in Political Science (pronouns are she/her). Research focus is in American Politics (identity and pol behavior in particular) but you can safely assume I have at least average substantive knowledge on the topic even if it isn't americanist. I'm currently working for the intelligence wing of a company focusing on the digital economy. I was an extemper, normally judge PF and LD (or parli congress), occasionally judge speech. I'm comfortable with circuit debate, but not super involved anymore.

Update for virtual nat circuit: take the spread from an 8 to a 6.5 , share your case doc, slow on theory. When you aren't sharing a doc, don't spread. If I don't catch it, it won't go on my flow.

Add me to the thread: tara.s.riggs@gmail.com

LD

- I can (and frequently do) hate your arguments but still vote you up on them. You need to have a legitimate warrant and be reasonable, but you need to win the flow and some times that means winning on greyhound racing in space or something absurd. I'm inclined tech>truth but warrants still matter when I weigh rounds.

-I've grown to really appreciate a good K. You need to be really explicit in the argument. I am familiar with the lit on feminism/identity/racism, but I am an empiricist at heart not a political theorist. The more obscure your K is, the more your explanation and depth matters. I won’t vote off of theory that’s not explained. Make it clear what the alt does, whether or not you affirm/negate the resolution, and any stances you take. If you can't explain your K, you shouldn't be reading it. I'm most familiar with identity based K's and set col.

-If we end up together and you are dead set on running a CP, don't make it a PIC. I will not evaluate it. I won't flow it. You just wasted x amount of time. PICs are inherently abusive. This is the one place I will intervene on the ballot.

-I like theory rounds.

-I also like Theory rounds.

PF

- I flow but I am more relaxed on tech>truth. I am more inclined to believe an impactful truth than blippy tech. Don't consider me tech>truth if your plan is to run spark or argue climate change/ extinction/economic collapse good.

- I need to see a strong link level debate. You NEED to materialize your links if you want to access impacts. Don't make me question the links.

- Make your impacts clear. Often times, rounds come down to impacts.

- Plans and CPs in PF are inherently against the event( and against NSDA rules). I will not flow them. You may win them, but I'm not flowing it and will not consider it in round. Strike me if this is your strategy. PF isn't Policy.

- I like K's but stock K's are lazy. Don't run a capitalism K just to run a capitalism K. If you are running K, you need to be able to explain what happens if the alt is true. Weigh whether or not you want to spend the time on the K given how short speeches are in PF.

- First summary should extend defense- but does not need to extend defense UNLESS the second rebuttal frontlined their case. In that scenario, first summary MUST extend defense. Regardless, first summary needs to extend turns if you want me to vote on them.

-I do not flow CX-anything that comes up in cross-examination that you want considered in the round needs to be mentioned in your speeches.Don't be rude in grand cx. That's my one problem with gcx. I have given low point wins because a team was rude in gcx.

Parli

-Be strategic. If GOV frames the resolution in a way that makes it impossible to debate, go for theory. If OPP let's GOV slide on something obviously egregious, run with it. I'm looking for the team that best plays the game here.

** If your strategy is to frame the debate where OPP must defend slavery, sexism, homophobia, invasion, etc. I will drop you. There has to be a reasonable limit. I'm non-interventionist until you make someone defend something truly abhorrent. It doesn't show you are a great debater, it shows you are a scuzzy person.

********Live and let debate BUT if you are openly sexist, racist, abelist,xenophobic, homophobic, or insert discriminatory adjective here you WILL lose the round.********

1. This is just a heads up--I am from a district that does very traditional debate. However, I am open to any type of argument as long as it is argued clearly and is backed up with evidence.

2. Please do not use excessive speed. I want to understand your points and cards.

3. If you bring up any new arguments in the final speech, I will not consider them when making my decision unless there is some extreme circumstance (opponent lies about evidence, makes outrageous claim).

4. Racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, transphobia etc. will not be tolerated by me when judging the round. Debate leaves a lot of room for disagreement, but I will not vote for a competitor who says that an entire group of people are not deserving of dignity and respect.

5. Please treat your opponent with kindness! Attack their arguments, not their character.

6. Please give the author and date for evidence.

7. I am a bit biased against super calamitous impacts if there aren't enough cards to back it up. For example, nuclear war. To me, nuclear war is pretty unprecedented, so you would need a lot of cards to justify that nuclear war could happen, and spend a significant amount of time on exploring this idea. Don't just mention nuclear war at the tail end of a case--justify that it could happen

For Public Forum:

I will flow the round to the best of my ability, but I can't write that fast -- so if you spread, I may not catch everything.

I'm skeptical of evidence that defies common sense -- if you claim an impact of, say, 100 million deaths from something, it should be plausible and derived from a reputable source of evidence.

In summaries and final focus, I'm looking more for the forest than the trees. If you drop or don't sufficiently engage with an opponent's major argument, that'll definitely be a voting issue -- but in general, I'd rather hear you offer a compelling overall framework into which you fit the major points of contention in the round than a rapid-fire list of points that lack prioritization or context.

For Congressional debate:

I'm a fan of both rhetorical competence and common-sense arguments -- a unique or unusual argument is great, but only to the extent that it's also plausible/reasonable (although I might make an exception for an implausible argument that's delivered with sufficient rhetorical verve).

The longer the round goes on, the more heavily I'll weight direct engagement with the major arguments of prior speakers on *both* sides of the topic (don't neglect your own side's best arguments even if they didn't originate with you).

My default is to be generous in ranking P.O.'s who do the job well.

For Lincoln-Douglas:

I did a lot of L-D debate (and some policy) in the 1980's - but modern L-D bears very little resemblance to the 1980's version, and in the handful of rounds I've watched since 2016, I'm frequently bewildered by what's going on.

If you have the misfortune of drawing me as an L-D judge, please do not spread, as I not only can't flow it, I find it emotionally unsettling to witness.

That said, I'm willing to entertain almost any variety of argument, as long as you can explain it to me like you'd explain it to your grandparent.

I am an experienced coach and judge. I have competed, coached and judged in all areas of speech & debate.

I am a 'tabula rasa' judge, which for me means that I will listen to any reasonable argument. I am always interested in hearing creative approaches to any resolution. However, I fully support the format, style and philosophy of each debate and speech event.

I am not adverse to rapid speaking, because debate time is limited. BUT I will not condone 'spreading' as a tactic. If you insist you win because the opponent did not address all of your issues, I may or may not accept your premise.

Evidence is primary to any good argument. You should be able to coherently present your evidence with citation in every instance. Referencing 'cards' in a case is ambiguous, since I will not have your case in front of me.

In all Cross Ex portions, LISTEN to your opponent. Address their concerns and their rationale for opposing you. Be civil and understand they have as much a right to be here as you do.

I will not make your case for you. I may be very familiar with the resolution, strategy and line of reasoning you are using, but I will not assume you even know what you are talking about. You have to know your case and be able to defend it.

In Congress, competitors must listen to the line of argument and offer unique and relevant arguments. Repeating points or delivering a prepared speech that does not advance the debate is poor practice and means you do not know the bill. Logic and analysis are fine, but a warrantless argument will not have a very big impact.

I do not rank POs particularly high. A competent PO will score near the middle of a typical Congress round.

In Extemp, I want to learn new things, hear unique ideas and understand my world better.

In LD, I am neither a traditionalist or progressive; I want to hear a values-based argument founded on a good philosophical framework. Values are precursors to behaviors, so there is no solving of problems or plans of action.

Congress - Argument is well-organized, points are clearly developed and supported by a variety of credible sources, evidence is analyzed, compelling language, smooth transition between points, movements are purposeful and signal a new point, easy to follow your argument, introduction and conclusion are clearly connected, purpose is established throughout your argument. Responds to questions with confidence and clarity, responds to previous speakers' points to either refute or affirm with new arguments and evidence, speaks clearly, is active in questioning throughout the round

Have been an assistant coach for several years and has recently taken on the responsibility of head coach, has been active in speech and debate since 2009, have judged numerous local tournaments, invitational tournaments, and national tournaments.

Completed the National Speech and Debate Association Adjudicating Speech and Debate course.

Hello! Graduated Congressional Debater (2021 House Champion) with experience in other debate and speech events here.

Debate

Fully fleshed and logically linked arguments backed by coherent rebuttal will help you win. I value style and confidence during delivery, and frankly don't care how much you spread as long as you clearly signpost your points and slow down for tags/cards/anything you really need me to hear.

Your job is to explain the scope of the resolution and explain why I am voting for you. Don't forget to weigh! The credibility of sources, explaining why cards are relevant/applicable, and using direct evidence to refute your opponents is essential.

No ad hominem attacks or you will lose. Do not yell.

Speech (Interp)

I see speech as a performance more than a presentation. Be creative with your facial expressions and body language, show that you understand your piece inside and out. Effectively capture the audience's attention and work to maintain it at the speech progresses.

PA kiddos should be aware that everything above applies to you, plus the formal aspect. Control your pacing, tone, and be sure to engage your audience.

I critique both your piece and your performance, make sure that your timelines/characters/sources are all relevant and useful to your intended purpose.

Congress

When judging congress, I rank primarily off of how well you play the game. Anyone speaking past the author/sponsor should have extemporaneous rebuttal. Constructives past cycle three will be judged harshly, especially if you're not bring anything new to the debate. Well executed crystallization are impressive, especially if you can build your case in prior questions. Signpost, please!

Good questioning periods will not get you a higher rank, but being unable to defend your points/getting flustered in questioning could impact your speaker points and justify a lower rank than someone with a comparable speech and better responses in Q.

Presiding Officer - take control of the round and show me what you can do. I watch you just as closely as the other competitors.

Humor and sass are amusing, bullies get dropped.

Background: 1 year High School Debate and Speech (Policy, Poetry Interp, Extempt). 1 year debate at Hawaii Pacific University (World Schools and British Parliament). 2 Years Debate at Middle Tennessee State University (IPDA/NPDA). 5 years teaching and developing high school and middle school curriculum for Metro Memphis Urban Debate League (Policy), 2 years as assistant debate coach at Wichita East High (Policy, LD, Speech), currently Head Debate Coach at Boston Latin School (Congress, LD, PF & Speech)

Go ahead and add me to the email chain: MEswauncy@gmail.com

Quick Prefs:

Phil/Trad - 1

K - 2 or 3

LARP/Theory- 4

Tricks - 5/Strike

Overall Philosophy: I do not believe "debate is a game". I believe in quality over quantity. Clear argumentation and analysis are key to winning the round. Narratives are important. I like hearing clear voters in rebuttals. While I don't mind a nice technical debate, I love common sense arguments more. This is DEBATE. It isn't "who can read evidence better". Why does your evidence matter? How does it link? How does it outweigh? These things matter in the round, regardless of the style of debate. Pay attention to your opponent's case. Recognize interactions between different arguments and flows and bring it up in CX and in speeches. Exploit contradictions and double-turns. Look for clear flaws, don't be afraid to use your opponent's evidence against them. Be smart. You need to weigh arguments.

I am typically a "truth over tech" judge. I think tech is important in debate and I pay attention to it but tech is simply not everything. Meaning unless the tech violation is AGGREGIOUS, you won't win obviously questionable or untrue arguments just because you out teched your opponent. Arguments need to make sense and be grounded in some sort of reality and logic.

I am one of those old school coaches/competitors that believes each debate event is fundamentally different for good reason. That means, I am not interested in seeing "I wish I was policy" in LD or PF. Policy is meant to advocate for/negate a policy within the resolution that changes something in the SQ; LD is meant to advocate for/negate the resolution based on the premise that doing so advances something we should/do value as a society; PF is meant to effectively communicate the impacts of whatever the resolution proposes. This is not in flux. I do not change my stance on this. You will not convince me that I should. If you choose to turn an LD or PF round into a policy round, it will a) reflect in your speaks b) probably harm your chances of winning because the likelihood that you can cram what policy does in 1.5 hours of spreading into 1 hour of LD/PF while ALSO doing a good job doing what LD/PF is SUPPOSED TO DO (even if you spread) is very low.

Theory I will not vote on:
Disclosure theory, Paraphrasing Theory, Formal Clothes Theory, Dates Theory. All of these are whack and bad for debate. If your opponent runs any of the above: you can literally ignore it. Do not waste valuable time on the flow. I will not vote on it.

Spreading theory: Feel free to run it in LD or PF. It is the only theory I really consider. Do not run it if you are spreading yourself, that is contradictory.

I "may" evaluate a trigger warning theory IF your opponents' argument actually has some triggering components. Tread VERY carefully with this and only use it if there is legitimate cause.

Kritieks:
I am not amused by attempts to push a judge to vote for you on the vague notion that doing so will stop anti-blackness, settler colonialism, etc etc. As a black woman in the speech and debate space, IMO, this approach minimizes real world issues for cheap Ws in debate which I find to be performative at best and exploitative at worst. That being said, I am not Anti-K. A K that clearly links and has a strong (and feasible) alt is welcome and appreciated. I LOVE GOOD, WELL DEVELOPED Ks. I am more likely to harshly judge a bad K in LD as LD is supposed to be about values and cheapening oppression and exploiting marginalized people for debate wins is probably the worst thing for society.

Tricks: No.

Conditionality: I believe "Condo Bad" 89% of the time. Do not tell me "Capitalism Bad" in K and then give me a Capitalism centered CP. Pick one.

Decorum: Be respectful, stay away from personal attacks. Rudeness to your opponent will guarantee you lowest speaks out of all speakers in the round, personal attacks will net you the lowest speak I can give you. I recognize that being snarky and speaking over your opponent and cutting them off in CX is the "cool" thing to do, particularly in PF. It is not cool with me. It will reflect incredibly poorly on your speaker points. Do not constantly cut your opponent off in CX. It's rude and unprofessional. WORDS MATTER, using racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic or any other type of biased phrases unintentionally will reflect on your speaks. We need to learn to communicate and part of learning is learning what is offensive. Using it intentionally will have me in front of tab explaining why you got a 0.

Lastly, there is no reason to yell during the round, regardless of the format. I love passion, but do not love being yelled at.

Public Forum Debate

Speed/Spreading: While I accept spreading in Policy rounds; I DO NOT ENTERTAIN SPREADING IN PF. I will absolutely wreck you in speaks for trying to spread in PF, and I will stop flowing you if it is excessive and you don't bother to share the case. That is not the purpose of this format.

Weighing: You must weigh. I need to know why I should care about your argument and why it matters. If you do not do this, you might lose no matter how great the evidence.

Impacts: If your argument has no impact it is irrelevant. Make sure your impact makes logistical sense.

I will ignore any new arguments presented in second summary (unless it is to answer a new argument made in first summary), first final focus or second final focus.

Lincoln Douglas Debate

I am somewhat annoyed by the trend in LD to become "We want to be policy". LD cannot do policy well due to time constraints and things LD is actually supposed to do. That being said if you choose to present a plan: I will judge that plan as I would judge a policy debate plan. You must have inherency, you must have solvency for your harms, etc etc. If your opponent shows me you have no inherency or solvency and you can't really counter within your four minute rebuttal, you lose by default. If you choose to run a K: I will judge you like I would judge a K in a policy debate. Your link must be clear, your alt must be well developed and concise. If your opponent obliterates your alt or links and you cannot defend them well and did not have time to get to strong A2s to their case, you most likely will lose. I am well aware that you probably do not have "time" to do any of this well within LD speech constraints. But so are you before you make the decision to attempt to do so anyway. So, if you opt to be a policy debater in an LD round; do know that you will be judged accordingly. :)

LD is meant to be about values, failure to pull through your value, link to your value, etc will likely cost you the round

Speed/Spreading: Spreading in LD will reflect in your speaker points but I can flow it and won't drop you over it.

Value/Criterion: Even if I do not buy a particular side's value/criterion, their opponent MUST point out what is wrong with it. I do not interventionist judge. I base my decision on the value and/criterion presented; make sure you connect your arguments back to your criterion.

Framework: UNDERSTAND YOUR FRAMEWORK. I cannot stress this enough. If your framework is absolutely terribly put together, you will lose. If you blatantly misrepresent or misunderstand your framework, you will lose.

I will ignore all new arguments after the first AR.

Policy Debate

Solvency: THE AFF PLAN MUST SOLVE

Topicality: I am VERY broad in my interpretation of topicality. Thus, only use Topicality if you truly have a truly legitimate cause to do so. I am not a fan of hearing T just to take up time or for the sake of throwing it on the flow. I will only vote for T if is truly blatant or if the aff does not defend.

Ks: If you are unsure how to run a K, then don't do it. I expect solid links to case, and a strong alternative. "Reject Aff" is not a strong alternative. Again, use if you have legitimate cause, not just to take up time or to have something extra on the flow.

Critical Affs: If you are unsure how to run a K, then don't do it.

DAs: Make sure you link and make your impact clear.

CPs: Your CP MUST be clearly mutually exclusive and can NOT just piggy back off of your opponent's plan. Generic CPs rarely win with me. (Basically, "We should have all 50 states do my opponent's exact plan instead of the Federal Government doing it" is just a silly argument to me)

Speed/Spreading: I don't mind speed as long as you're speaking clearly.

Fiat: I don't mind fiats AS LONG AS THEY MAKE SENSE. Please don't fiat something that is highly improbable (IE: All 50 states doing a 50 state counterplan on a issue several states disagree with). "Cost" is almost always fiated for me. Everything costs money and we won't figure out where to come up with that money in an hour and a half debate round.

Tag Team Debate/ Open CX: For me personally, both partners may answer but only one may ask. UNLESS tournament rules state something different. Then we will abide by tournament rules.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me before the round begins.

For PF: Speaks capped at 27.5 if you don't read cut cards (with tags) and send speech docs via email chain prior to your speech of cards to be read (in constructives, rebuttal, summary, or any speech where you have a new card to read). I'm done with paraphrasing and pf rounds taking almost as long as my policy rounds to complete. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that do read cut cards and do send speech docs via email chain prior to speech. In elims, since I can't give points, it will be a overall tiebreaker.

For Policy: Speaks capped at 28 if I don't understand each and every word you say while spreading (including cards read). I will not follow along on the speech doc, I will not read cards after the debate (unless contested or required to render a decision), and, thus, I will not reconstruct the debate for you but will just go off my flow. I can handle speed, but I need clarity not a speechdoc to understand warrants. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that are completely flowable. I'd say about 85% of debaters have been able to meet this paradigm.

I'd also mostly focus on the style section and bold parts of other sections.

---

2018 update: College policy debaters should look to who I judged at my last college judging spree (69th National Debate Tournament in Iowa) to get a feeling of who will and will not pref me. I also like Buntin's new judge philosophy (agree roughly 90%).

It's Fall 2015. I judge all types of debate, from policy-v-policy to non-policy-v-non-policy. I think what separates me as a judge is style, not substance.

I debated for Texas for 5 years (2003-2008), 4 years in Texas during high school (1999-2003). I was twice a top 20 speaker at the NDT. I've coached on and off for highschool and college teams during that time and since. I've ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some favorite memories include "china is evil and that outweighs the security k", to "human extinction is good", to "predictions must specify strong data", to "let's consult the chinese, china is awesome", to "housing discrimination based on race causes school segregation based on race", to "factory farms are biopolitical murder", to “free trade good performance”, to "let's reg. neg. the plan to make businesses confident", to “CO2 fertilization, SO2 Screw, or Ice Age DAs”, to "let the Makah whale", etc. Basically, I've been around.

After it was pointed out that I don't do a great job delineating debatable versus non-debatable preferences, I've decided to style-code bold all parts of my philosophy that are not up for debate. Everything else is merely a preference, and can be debated.

Style/Big Picture:

• I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author+claim + warrant + data+impact" model) over breadth (the "author+claim + impact" model) any day.

• When evaluating probabilistic predictions, I start from the assumption everyone begins at 0%, and you persuade me to increase that number (w/ claims + warrants + data). Rarely do teams get me past 5%. A conceeded claim (or even claim + another claim disguised as the warrant) will not start at 100%, but remains at 0%.

• Combining those first two essential stylistic criteria means, in practice, many times I discount entirely even conceded, well impacted claims because the debaters failed to provide a warrant and/or data to support their claim. It's analogous to failing a basic "laugh" test. I may not be perfect at this rubric yet, but I still think it's better than the alternative (e.g. rebuttals filled with 20+ uses of the word “conceded” and a stack of 60 cards).

• I'll try to minimize the amount of evidence I read to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). In short: don't let the evidence do the debating for you.

• Humor is also well rewarded, and it is hard (but not impossible) to offend me.

• I'd also strongly prefer if teams would slow down 15-20% so that I can hear and understand every word you say (including cards read). While I won't explicitly punish you if you don't, it does go a mile to have me already understand the evidence while you're debating so I don't have to sort through it at the end (especially since I likely won't call for that card anyway).

• Defense can win a debate (there is such as thing as a 100% no link), but offense helps more times than not.

• I'm a big believer in open disclosure practices, and would vote on reasoned arguments about poor disclosure practices. In the perfect world, everything would be open-source (including highlighting and analytics, including 2NR/2AR blocks), and all teams would ultimately share one evidence set. You could cut new evidence, but once read, everyone would have it. We're nowhere near that world. Some performance teams think a few half-citations work when it makes up at best 45 seconds of a 9 minute speech. Some policy teams think offering cards without highlighting for only the first constructive works. I don't think either model works, and would be happy to vote to encourage more open disclosure practices. It's hard to be angry that the other side doesn't engage you when, pre-round, you didn't offer them anything to engage.

• You (or your partner) must physically mark cards if you do not finish them. Orally saying "mark here" (and expecting your opponents or the judge to do it for you) doesn't count. After your speech (and before cross-ex), you should resend a marked copy to the other team. If pointed out by the other team, failure to do means you must mark prior to cross-ex. I will count it as prep time times two to deter sloppy debate.

• By default, I will not “follow along” and read evidence during a debate. I find that it incentivizes unclear and shallow debates. However, I realize that some people are better visual than auditory learners and I would classify myself as strongly visual. If both teams would prefer and communicate to me that preference before the round, I will “follow along” and read evidence during the debate speeches, cross-exs, and maybe even prep.

Topicality:

• I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.

• Abuse makes it all the better, but is not required (doesn't unpredictability inherently abuse?).

• Treat it like a disad, and go from there. In my opinion, topicality is a dying art, so I'll be sure to reward debaters that show talent.

• For the aff – think offense/defense and weigh the standards you're winning against what you're losing rather than say "at least we're reasonable". You'll sound way better.

Framework:

• The exception to the above is the "framework debate". I find it to be an uphill battle for the neg in these debates (usually because that's the only thing the aff has blocked out for 5 minutes, and they debate it 3 out of 4 aff rounds).

• If you want to win framework in front of me, spent time delineating your interpretation of debate in a way that doesn't make it seem arbitrary. For example "they're not policy debate" begs the question what exactly policy debate is. I'm not Justice Steward, and this isn't pornography. I don't know when I've seen it. I'm old school in that I conceptualize framework along “predictability”; "topic education", “policymaking education”, and “aff education” (topical version, switch sides, etc) lines.

• “We're in the direction of the topic” or “we discuss the topic rather than a topical discussion” is a pretty laughable counter-interpretation.

• For the aff, "we agree with the neg's interp of framework but still get to weigh our case" borders on incomprehensible if the framework is the least bit not arbitrary.

Case Debate

• Depth in explanation over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant will do more damage to the 1AR than 5 cards that say the same claim.

• Well-developed impact calculus must begin no later than the 1AR for the Aff and Negative Block for the Neg.

• I enjoy large indepth case debates. I was 2A who wrote my own community unique affs usually with only 1 advantage and no external add-ons. These type of debates, if properly researched and executed, can be quite fun for all parties.

Disads

• Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments are less so.

• From an offense/defense paradigm, conceded uniqueness can control the direction of the link. Conceded links can control the direction of uniqueness. The in round application of "why" is important.

• A story / spin is usually more important (and harder for the 1AR to deal with) than 5 cards that say the same thing.

Counterplan Competition:

• I generally prefer functionally competitive counterplans with solvency advocates delineating the counterplan versus the plan (or close) (as opposed to the counterplan versus the topic), but a good case for textual competition can be made with a language K netbenefit.

• Conditionality (1 CP, SQ, and 1 K) is a fact of life, and anything less is the negative feeling sorry for you (or themselves). However, I do not like 2NR conditionality (i.e., “judge kick”) ever. Make a decision.

• Perms and theory always remain a test of competition (and not a voter) until proven otherwise by the negative by argument (see above), a near impossible standard for arguments that don't interfere substantially with other parts of the debate (e.g. conditionality).

• Perm "do the aff" is not a perm. Debatable perms are "do both" and "do cp/alt"(and "do aff and part of the CP" for multi-plank CPs). Others are usually intrinsic.

Critiques:

• I think of the critique as a (usually linear) disad and the alt as a cp.

• Be sure to clearly impact your critique in the context of what it means/does to the aff case (does the alt solve it, does the critique turn it, make harms inevitable, does it disprove their solvency). Latch on to an external impact (be it "ethics", or biopower causes super-viruses), and weigh it against case.

• Use your alternative to either "fiat uniqueness" or create a rubric by which I don't evaluate uniqueness, and to solve case in other ways.

• I will say upfront the two types of critique routes I find least persuasive are simplistic versions of "economics", "science", and "militarism" bad (mostly because I have an econ degree and am part of an extensive military family). While good critiques exist out there of both, most of what debaters use are not that, so plan accordingly.

• For the aff, figure out how to solve your case absent fiat (education about aff good?), and weigh it against the alternative, which you should reduce to as close as the status quo as possible. Make uniqueness indicts to control the direction of link, and question the timeframe/inevitability/plausability of their impacts.

• Perms generally check clearly uncompetitive alternative jive, but don't work too well against "vote neg". A good link turn generally does way more than “perm solves the link”.

• Aff Framework doesn't ever make the critique disappear, it just changes how I evaluate/weigh the alternative.

• Role of the Ballot - I vote for the team that did the better debating. What is "better" is based on my stylistic criteria. End of story. Don't let "Role of the Ballot" be used as an excuse to avoid impact calculus.

Performance (the other critique):

• Empirically, I do judge these debate and end up about 50-50 on them. I neither bandwagon around nor discount the validity of arguments critical of the pedagogy of debate. I'll let you make the case or defense (preferably with data). The team that usually wins my ballot is the team that made an effort to intelligently clash with the other team (whether it's aff or neg) and meet my stylistic criteria. To me, it's just another form of debate.

• However, I do have some trouble in some of these debates in that I feel most of what is said is usually non-falsifiable, a little too personal for comfort, and devolves 2 out of 3 times into a chest-beating contest with competition limited to some archaic version of "plan-plan". I do recognize that this isn't always the case, but if you find yourselves banking on "the counterplan/critique doesn't solve" because "you did it first", or "it's not genuine", or "their skin is white"; you're already on the path to a loss.

• If you are debating performance teams, the two main takeaways are that you'll probably lose framework unless you win topical version, and I hate judging "X" identity outweighs "Y" identity debates. I suggest, empirically, a critique of their identity politics coupled with some specific case cards is more likely to get my ballot than a strategy based around "Framework" and the "Rev". Not saying it's the only way, just offering some empirical observations of how I vote.

I am a communications teacher (I was never a debater) therefore I focus more on the educational aspect of the debate. Please do not assume that I understand all debate terminology and techniques. I need you to educate and persuade me through organized speeches and clear explanations.

PF: I am a lay judge. I judge based on quality of arguments, weighing impacts, and extending arguments. Most importantly, speak slowly and clearly in all speeches, not just the constructive. Please signpost and do not spread. It is important to me that you are debating the argument and not just offering contradicting pieces of evidence. I will not call for cards at the end of the round. Please add me to your email chain if you have one: xwang2713@gmail.com .I take cross into account more than the average judge. The team that wins is the team that 1. Narrows down the debate 2. Outlines why you win the argument and the significance of your argument 3. Has arguments that are logical and easy to follow.