In Congressional Debate: Analysis is the most important factor. Sources are paramount. Clash is expected. Delivery is secondary.

In Extemp: Give a CLEAR answer to the question, need good time allocation, good sources. I consider this public speaking, not interp.

In OO/Info: Need clear structure with sources. I consider this a public speaking event, not interp.

In Interp: Need different levels, clear characterization. I need to be able to follow your story.

I've been judging various forms of speech and debate events on local, state and national levels since 2013. Head coach of St. John's School since 2020.

I have no event specific expectations on what should happen, I prefer everything to be spelled out in round. I do not like intervening.

Speaker points are a tie-breaker, so I am a bit more conservative with them, but that doesn't mean I'll tank your points unless you're unclear, have frequent speech errors, go over time, or if you're rude. Expect an average 27.5-29.5 range in PF/LD/CX and a range of 68-72 in Worlds and a 3-5 range in Congress. Perfect speaks reserved for those who truly exemplify great public speaking skills. Rudeness can also be a cause for a team losing.

Don't assume I know anything, explain as if you were talking to someone non-specialized in whatever subject matter you're speaking on.

Ask before round any further questions you might have.

-----

For WSD

I will be following the conventions and norms that asks us to:

• think about these things on a more holistic approach;
• nuance our argumentation and engage on the comparative;
• think that the principle level argumentation is key and that the practical should make sense in approaching the principle;
• not engage on tricky arguments or cherry picked examples;
• debate the heart of the motion and not conditionally proposing or opposing (that we are debating the full resolution);
• reward those that lean into their arguments and side;
• preference thinking about the motions on a global scale when applicable.

(she/they)

Who am I?
I am a social studies teacher the assistant debate coach. I mainly judge public forum and believe it is a positive space for open and healthy rhetoric. I hope you agree with my view that public forum is an event for the common person.

I am hard of hearing

I will be using a transcription aid on my phone to follow the round. It is not recording the speech and the transcript is deleted after 24 hours. Please, speak loudly and clearly for me and the transcription.

How I evaluate debate.

Treat me like a lay person who can flow. Use email chains, cut cards rather than paraphrasing, and avoid the use of debate jargon. I want to see clear defense, impacts, and links. I am a social studies teacher, so focus on your ability to use evidence and real-world understanding. I will vote on understanding of the issue, evidence, and explanation.

### Speeches

If you don't talk about it in summary, I'm not evaluating it in final focus.

### Cross

Don't use crossfire as an opportunity to bicker. I don’t pay attention to cross. In my opinion, cross is meant to examine your opponent’s case and clarify any questions. Seeing people using cross just to dunk on the opponent is not useful.

### Spreading

I am new to debate and English is not my first language so I cannot judge spreading - nor do I believe it has a place in *public* forum. I need to understand your argument and your ability to adapt to your audience will be judged.

### Theory

If your opponent does any of the Big Oofs and you read theory about it, I'm inclined to think you're in the right.

I don't want to listen to K debate - I will be honest and admit I do not know enough about debate to evaluate them fairly (except for the aforementioned exception)

Big Oofs

These are things that will make a W or high speaks an uphill battle. If you read theory against any of these (when applicable), I’m inclined to side with you. Avoid at all costs.

1. Misuse Evidence. Know the evidence and cut rather than paraphrase. Use evidence that is relevant, timely, trustworthy, and accurate. Use SpeechDoc or an email chain to keep each other accountable and save time.
2. Be late to round. Especially for Flight 2. I understand the first round of the day, but please try your best to be in your room on time. Punctuality is a skill and impressions are important.
3. Taking too long to ‘get ready’ or holding up the round. Have cards cut, flows setup, and laptops ready to go before the round. Especially if you’re going to be late.
4. Not timing yourself. Self-explanatory.
5. Not using trigger warnings. Debate is better when it’s accessible. Introducing any possibly triggering topics or references without consent is inaccessible.
6. Doing any of the 2023 no-no’s. Homophobia, misogyny, transphobia, racism, ableism, etc. is a one-way free ticket to a 25 speak and an L for the round.

The Respect Amendment

This section was added for minor offensives that rub me the wrong way. No, I will not vote on these. I might dock speaks for not following these - depending on severity.

I want to forward a respectful, fair, and accessible environment for debate. The Big Oofs are a good place to start. But I hope that every debater would…

1. **Respect their partner.** Trust that they know what they’re doing.
2. **Respect their opponent.** Don’t belittle them or talk down to them. Aim to understand and give critiques on their argument, not to one-up them on something small.
3. **Respect the judge.** All judges make mistakes and lousy calls - especially me. We can respectfully disagree, and that’s okay. However, not a single judge has changed their mind because you were a bad sportsperson.

Hi! I’m Nick.

Did Congress for 4 years in HS (2017-2021), current college student and debate coach.

Feel free to email: nicholaschen314@gmail.com if you have any questions.

Policy

Currently a middle school policy coach @ WUDL (~1 year) but am relatively new to the event otherwise. Expect me not to be very familiar with the topic + any literature. Quality over quantity. I often find myself voting for clearly warranted arguments delivered slowly with some cogent analysis attached over multiple cards spammed at supersonic speed. Clear signposting is greatly appreciated. Give me a role of ballot and tell me how I should evaluate the round.

Congress:

My overall philosophy is that Congress is a strategic game where the winner best advances the debate. Advancing the debate means creating opportunities for future speakers to give interesting speeches, usually by engaging deeply and efficiently with the existing debate. In general, this means I like the things that most congress judges like (clash, framing, good warranting, etc.) and dislike the things that most congress judges dislike (rehash, name-dropping, unwarranted arguments, etc.). I rank speeches given at all points in the round equally. Do your job well and you can get my one, whether you're a sponsor or a late-round speaker.

*A note on decorum. Be inclusive and kind, especially towards competitors who are not as familiar with the national circuit or parliamentary procedure. I've seen Robert's rules of order used as a cudgel to previous question someone out of a speech one too many times. The same goes for all the different breeds of backroom politicking. Treat your competitors like fellow human beings.

Some specific notes:

-I’ve found that I judge almost exclusively on content. Delivery matters to the extent that it helps me understand your content.

-I reward flips and speaking earlier than intended extremely highly. Expect lots of brownie points, especially for early round flips that get the debate going.

-You will never get punished for people ignoring your argument unless your argument was inherently non-interactive. If other speakers repeat an argument which you have refuted I will notice and this will be reflected in my ranks.

-Please quantify your impacts. Congressional debaters have become chronically reliant on nonspecific cards which then link to super vague impacts. This leaves us (judges) having to weigh between “many” and “a lot” or some other pair of meaningless adjectives. Speakers who call out this ambiguity and give me quantification will always get ranked highly.

Speaking of sources:

-Stop citing cards which are just warrants. Just because some NYT opinion writer says it doesn't mean it's true.

-Stop not citing cards when making constructive arguments. I accept the utility of warrant level take-outs when refuting but you cannot just make a new claim (especially a claim that would take out a significant portion of either side of the debate) and expect me to buy a hand-wavy warrant in lieu of a card.

-Stop defaulting to thousands/millions of Americans starving or dying as your impact especially when the links get tenuous. Don’t just throw it in if you haven’t properly carded or warranted the impact. Not everything has to lead to the end of the world.

*A note on PO’s: I am not the most PO friendly judge. I rank solid PO’s below all the great speakers in a round which usually means you’ll get my 3 - 4 in prelims, 4 - 6 in outrounds, 5+ in finals if you do everything right. I consider POing a strategic decision (i.e. you PO when there isn’t a good way to win the round speaking) which means that I will reward PO’s more in weaker rounds. TLDR: PO a weak round and you’ll get ranked high, PO a great round with lots of unique ground and you’ll get ranked low. Obvious exception when no one wants to PO.

Congress:

As Don Draper once said, "Make it simple, yet significant." The more understandable and well thought out your argument is, the higher points you will land, and therefore most likely higher in the room. Please do not drag on a speech, and be confident when you speak!

CX:

I am in the round to be a judge rather than a participant in the Debate, therefore I am going to listen to any argument with full attention. I would say I lean towards policy in my paradigm, but will listen to anything you want to try. Have fun, be respectful in the room, and show me a good round!

Neither speed nor file justifies lack of clarity. Slow for tags and, especially, authors if you're going fast.

I can understand and vote for anything with warrants & clear explanation

Do not clash and refute from after constructives until the absolute end of the debate. I need voters and/or weighing to vote for you

LD/CX:

Varying degrees of knowledge on diff philosophy/high theory, up to you to risk finding out whether our knowledge intersects,

but anything w/ warrant/explanation

PF:
Line-by-line, weigh

Ask in round for more specifics