Hey!

Just a few quick things:

-Be adaptable to round/clash with other people's arguments

-If you're speaking about lives, you need to show me that you actually care; don't be afraid to use emphasis

-Don't lie; this one seems obvious, but I will notice if you're making things up that have no evidence to back them up

-Be respectful in questioning

-Don't be afraid to try and be a leader in your round

Ultimately, the more sense your arguments make, and the more persuasive you are, the better you will do.

Good luck, you've got this!

Summary: be clear, respectful, and make sure your arguments make sense.
As a judge, I am looking for arguments that are well-sourced, (not from biased sources) backed by logic, and make sense. I value argumentation over delivery, fancy rhetoric comes second to solid arguments that include refutation and bring the round forward.

I do not value rehash - after the first affirmation and negation speech, every speech should include refutation and also provide new insight into the round. When refuting, make sure to be respectful and courteous while mentioning other speakers.

I value presiding officers that sacrifice their speaking time to serve the chamber - be sure to know your procedures and move the round as efficiently as possible while maintaining order and clarity.

Last but not least, have fun! I really enjoy judging Congress and look forward to judging you all.

Hi!

I am so excited to be your judge for this round of congressional debate. As a debater myself, I value all of your standard highlights. I look for clash, analytical refutation, points that are TRUE, and confidence! The most important thing for me is that you have fun and show me what you're capable of because that's what elevates you as a competitor. Please be polite to your fellow students, and any rudeness will not be tolerated.

Some notes:

- Interact with the debate. Every speech after the sponsor/first aff should address points made in the round and do so uniquely

- your cards should be true, and reputable. Pro/con.org is generally advised against

- Speak confidently! your presentation really supports your advocacies!

Overall, just show me what you can do! Debate is a great event to demonstrate your skills and I'm very excited to see them :)

Congress Paradigm:

Congress debater for 4 years. 1-year out from circuit. Knew what I was doing. Please do read the whole paradigm. Will try to include all info I feel pertinent to both completely new congress debaters and experienced ones. Feel free to ask questions about my expectations at the beginning of round.

Congress is a singularly unique event in its ability to combine content and interaction with the flow with an element of presentation. It makes sense to consider and prioritize both, and that comes with really owning the congress-member role.

My 1 goes to the best overall legislator in the round, and although solid content (strong logic, concrete evidence analysis, fleshed out impacts, thought out refutation and weighing, etc.) is the foundation for a good speech, presentation is super important to me and will often be the difference maker between multiple competitors in good content standing come the end of round. This means I am cognizant of speed, pacing, rhetorical prowess, confidence, body language, inflection, and gravitas. Please do not look down at your pad and read it like a manuscript, though I know this is often the most difficult part for newer debaters.

Claims are ideally short and succinct, given substance not by making the claim itself unnecessarily long, but in a well thought out and digestible warrant that introduces some nuance to the central points of contention for the round. Speeches should ideally have some followable and identifiable structure to provide organization to the speech, though Congress does provide a ton of flexibility in structure depending on when you speak in round. Every speech after the first constructive should have some form of refutation, increasing in proportion in your speech as the round progresses, alongside weighing at the impact level.

This is crucial. It's not enough to say what is happening in the status quo or what change will happen to SQuo as a result of the legislation, you have to logically and expressively articulate how and why we should care. Terminalizing impacts helps with this.

(EX: This bill cripples our economy... --> Terminalize --> That means less food in people's pantries, less fuel in their cars, and less clothes on their backs as a stable economy is a prerequisite to financial stability for X people due to Y...). Gross generalization but just to get the point across. Good rule of thumb is right after reading a bill to just askwho, and not justwhat.

Evidence is important. Argumentation without evidence is difficult to personally buy, worse yet to credit on the flow. So use it. When you do, make sure to analyze it. Congress isn't about throwing around numbers or statistics, it's about telling the stories behind them to ultimately work towards some greater truth or realization in the back and forth. I know that sounds dramatic but you would be surprised at the ingenuity and progress that can come from truth-backed, respectful, and multi-layer argumentative conversation for topics and issues that we can universally agree are super important.

In that vein, I have zero tolerance for xenophobia, homophobia, racism, sexism, ableism, and classism. I know... a lot of ism's but debate is only as productive as it is inclusive.

I typically rank PO's well. If I don't notice you are there then you did a great job. Mistakes happen. It's not that deep. 1 or 2 won't kill you. Repeated mistakes in calling speakers and questioners dissolves speaking equity in round so I will have to dock points for that. I don't shadow preside so competitors, if you know you deserved a speech or a block, you should always point of order. Good PO's always rank well. Don't be afraid to take control of the round if speakers are not abiding by grace periods and question timings.

Questioning is important. I pay attention. Remain active in round. No questions are better than bad questions however. Questions should ideally advance debate and there are dozens of ways to ask interesting ones. Gotcha moments are always fun.

Overall, take risks, have fun, and step out of your comfort zone. Don't obsess over ranks or speaks coming from someone who did. It's a gutter game not worth feeding into. Speaking in front of crowds sucked for me but I promise it gets better. If you're an experienced competitor reading this, you'll find that my expectations are mostly in line with what should ultimately come out of a productive session.

Oh and lastly, don't be afraid of making mistakes, you can't possibly be worse than our real congress.

Good luck, see you in round!

Hi! My name is Divya Mehrotra (she/her), and I'm a third-year at the University of Chicago! I competed for Dougherty Valley in primarily Congressional Debate & Extemporaneous Speaking for 6+ years, and I still coach for the Dougherty Valley team. I do have some experience in the other debate events, but I spent most of my debate career in Congress and Extemp.

Congress:

• Presiding Officers: I highly respect you all for sacrificing speaking time to serve as a PO. However, that doesn't mean automatically being in my top 6. You are still expected to lead the chamber well and make minimal mistakes to be ranked by me. There is no guarantee that you will rank by solely serving as PO. My idea is that you've done a great job if I can't tell you were there in the first place. I will not penalize you for taking some extra time to be correct. Other things are that I'll definitely smile if I see a colorful PO sheet (it won't influence my rankings, but it does make me happy) and that I like funny and personable POs! A few occasional comments to liven up the round don't hurt! Also, as an update for the Tournament of Champions, I expect that all presiding officers are keeping track of precedence and recency on paper or on the chalkboard/whiteboard available in the room (basically, NO use of computers/tablets to track precedence and recency).

• Cross-Examination: Being ranked in my top 3 means constantly participating in cross-ex. No one is above cross-ex, so please be sure to participate whether it is before your speech or afterward. In terms of evaluation, cross-ex can be the deciding factor in my ranks. I'm not big on having to remain civil during cross-ex. This is one of the only instances where you can clash with others' arguments, so feel free to be more aggressive if that's your personality.

• Indirect: Please ask questions that are not answerable with a yes/no. Point out flaws in their argument and force them to confront any loopholes or flaws in their argument.

• Direct: Please do NOT talk over each other constantly if you can. However, if you need to cut someone off to continue your line of questioning or reclaim the ability to speak, that's all good. These questions need a strategy to them; please have a direction that you are trying to take the speaker in.

• For the TOC/Nationals: it is unacceptable for you not to participate in cross-examination. I will NOT rank you if you do not participate in questioning. You are supposed to be the best competitors in the country; there is no reason for you not to be questioning and participating in the round.

• Flow of Debate: I greatly value all types of speakers. Whether you are giving the authorship or the final crystallization speech, you are contributing to the flow of debate. PLEASE be sure to give the appropriate speech for the part of the debate that you are in. Nothing peeves me more than crystals in the 2nd & 3rd cycle and constructives in the last cycle.

• Authorship/Sponsorship: Intro should be relevant to the bill & organic. Indicate the problem to me, how your bill solves the issue, and the impact of passing this bill. The speech should set up affirmative advocacy. You need to address both the solvency and impact debates with this speech. If you set up a solid framework, I'll be incredibly happy!

• First Negative: Intro should also be relevant to the bill & organic. Tell me why the aff doesn't solve the issue and what the general net harm of passing this bill is. You NEED to address both a lack of solvency and a net harm; the absence of either will hurt you in my ranks. If a net harm is difficult on a bill, I LOVE points like complacency or the bill's failure in the political realm (being meta like that is something I enjoy). Be sure to either address the author's framework or CONTEST it.

• Constructives: I don't mind the speech structure here. Just be clear about your impacts, include refutations, address solvency if you can, and add nuance to the debate. NO rehash (I'll feel so sad). However, do not use arguments that are so nuanced that they are out of the realm of the legislation. Intros can be creative and organic here (I love humorous intros)! Overall, just do what you do best with these speeches. Everyone brings their own style to them, and they are valuable because of that.

• Refutation Speeches: These can be more line-by-line refutations. That does not mean just namedropping someone and going into your completely different arguments. You need to fulfill the FULL requirements of a refutation: address their point with evidence or logic and tie it up with why your argument therefore wins. I would also LOVE it if you weigh impacts against each other. I love the debate jargon, so feel free to use it in front of me.

• Crystallization Speeches: I'm okay with canned intros here. I prefer the content in these speeches anyways. You should either categorize the round through general arguments that have been covered or through questions that the round has been centered on. This is NOT the speech to introduce new arguments. Weigh on what the round has been focused on & tell me which side wins and why they do. If you don't weigh impacts in this speech, I just won't consider it as meeting the requirements of a crystal. You can and should introduce evidence that you use to weigh impacts. For example, "the aff wins b/c we prevent the most number of lives from being lost by decreasing air pollution" can be followed by evidence that explains how many lives can be lost to air pollution. Other than that, be VERY clear about structure in this speech & try your best to explain the round to us. The best crystallization speakers know how to posit themselves as the clarifying voice in a very confusing round.

• Motions/Parliamentary Procedure: It honestly doesn't matter to me when ranking whether you were participating a lot in pre-round discussions or proposing motions a lot. What will positively influence my ballot is someone using parliamentary procedure to help include their fellow competitors. The use of parliamentary procedure to shut out someone or to exclude someone WILL drop your rank regardless of how phenomenal your speeches were.

• Content v. Presentation: 80% content v. 20% presentation --> I firmly believe that this is a debate event. I will judge you accordingly. Please have solid warranting, arguments, refutations, weighing, and clash. Props to you for creative introductions & conclusions though (you'll definitely see me laugh if it's funny)! Though, you still need to value eye contact, an aspect of presentation that is even more important in person. It makes you all the more personable.

PF, LD, Policy:

• I'm not too familiar with progressive arguments, so you can consider me to be more of a traditional judge in that sense.

• I'm mostly comfortable with faster speakers, but I will indicate for you to slow down if I can't understand you.

• I will not flow cross, but I will be paying attention. Please be strategic with the questions you ask; they can contribute to your rebuttals if successful.

• I'm truth > tech. PLEASE make sure that you are warranting well & that you are weighing impacts.

• Speaker Points: I start off at 29 and go up or down based on your fluency and overall presentation. I will not give you below a 27 unless you have made the round unsafe or uncomfortable.

• You all can time yourselves for prep. I'll defer to your timing unless there are any issues raised.

General:

• Do NOT create an unsafe space (no sexist, xenophobic, racist, homophobic, etc. language)! I will drop you in that scenario, and your speaker points will be quite low.

• Please reach out to me if you have any questions! I'm more than willing to clarify anything said above and to add additional information. My email: divyamehrotra08@gmail.com

• I'll be flowing regardless of the event!

• Also, feel free to eat small snacks & drink any appropriate beverage as you see fit! I know that everyone has their own circumstances, plus y'all are probably prepping a lot in between rounds & forget to eat. So, I'm not going to penalize you for making sure that you're staying healthy by snacking during the round!

• Overall, have fun! I loved this activity as a competitor, and I hope that you enjoy it too!

Pronouns: he/him/his

Congress: This is a speech AND debate event. I value the debate side of things a lot more than the speech side-- if you don't have ref after the sponsorship, I'm not going to rank you over someone who does, no matter what. (and if you're the sponsor, it wouldn't hurt to also put some preref in). And when you're giving a speech last cycle, I really don't want to hear a constructive point.

The speech side of things isn't crucially necessary, but having it in your speech gives you a major advantage in my rankings.

Other than that, entertain me-- I enjoy larping and humor of all kinds in speeches as long as it isn't insensitive. On that note, don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or bigoted in any way. Doing so is the easiest way to get a 9 from me. As long as you don't use your political views to be discriminatory towards others, and your argument is well substantiated/from a source that isn't considered extremely unreliable, I'm willing to entertain very conservative or very liberal points. I'll try to not project my political views in any way on your ballot.

- In prelims, your speech should be 2:55-3:15. I'll rank you down a lot if its anything longer or shorter than that. I'll also rank you down for trying to break base 1/2 if your chamber is doing it. In out rounds, all of these things are a given.

- Also in prelims, I'll rank POs right after higher-level speakers, likely around 3rd to 5th. In out rounds, I'll give you the 3 or 4 if you don't make any major mistakes.

- Don't be aggressive in speeches/questioning-- I get that you're passionate about these issues, but I won't buy it if you're screaming.

Most importantly (besides not being a racist), have fun!

Content and speaking both matter to me.

-Content:
*clarity - easy to follow

*ref - no drive by refs; your refs need to hold significance and the other competitors arguments actually need to be addressed

*intros - pick a style that works for you, I am not the biggest fan of generic intros that work for any bill

*impacts - weighing is appreciated, consider other arguments when making your impacts, make sure they are meaningful in the context of the round!!

I want to see adaptation and integration to whatever is happening in the round. No rehash!!!! Your speech should work for where it is given - this is very important to me

-Speaking/round presence:

*tonal variation - not every part of your speech should sound the same

*Hand gestures - use them to your advantage

I want to hear you asking questions, making motions, and engaging with the round outside of your speeches. BE MEMORABLE.

Most importantly, don't be disrespectful, racist, misogynistic, homophobic, or anything of that sort. It goes without saying.

Hi! I'm Ojasvi. I'm a sophomore at Berkeley studying Data Science, Economics, and American Studies. I competed in Congress for all four years in high school, and got 3rd at Harvard my senior year. I have been coaching/judging since I graduated.

If you are reading your speech word for word, and not making any attempt to be extemporaneous or hold eye contact, I will not rank you. You should also be speaking from a legal pad or piece of paper, instead of using your laptop or iPad.

My judging is 75:25 content to delivery ratio when it comes to my ballot. I should be able to understand all of the links in your speech. If I can't understand a link, then I probably won't look too highly at everything that came after it. Make sure to warrant well. If you're asserting that something is true, I need to understand why it's true; there should be nothing in your speech that is being asserted without a clear explanation of why that thing is true. Most of the time, the argument that wins the round is the one that ties it back to the status quo because it very clearly explains how things will get better or worse. If I don't understand the present, then there is no way I can understand the impacts of the bill clearly enough.

Excellent delivery will help you, and bad delivery, especially if it's hurting my understanding of your argument, will hurt you. This paragraph applies to extemp speaking too - my biggest thing in all events is you should have very good logic + very good logic chain(s) throughout your speech.

Clash is needed if you are after the 1st AFF, and I do expect you to be performing your place in the round well (whether or not you performed your place in the round is something I do factor into ranks) – if you're giving what should be a crystal based on your place in the round, then I should be hearing a crystal. Anyone can get my 1 in the round (including the sponsor) so don't be afraid to sponsor – if no one is sponsoring/giving a speech and you offer to do it then I will take that into consideration.

I think clash has been something that was severely underdeveloped in a lot of the rounds I've judged. You should be (1) explaining why other people are wrong using logic/evidence (2) leveraging your own argument to explain how someone else is wrong so that I understood how your argument interacts with others arguments and/or (3) telling me why your argument is the most important in the round. If you state your argument in a vacuum without acknowledging/refuting anyone, then you are leaving me as the judge to decide how I think it interacts, instead of telling me what you want me to know about how your argument is more important. This becomes especially true the more a round goes on – if all of the AFFs arguments can be boiled down to one major theme, and the NEG a different theme, regardless of what side you are on, you have to tell me why your side is more important and who I should listen to. Essentially you want me to be doing as little thinking as possible about whose argument has the impact I should prioritize the most, because you as a speaker should be telling that to me in your speech.

I pay a lot of attention during questioning (especially direct questioning). While I was competing I thought questioning was the most fun part of the event! Ask good questions, and if you can poke some solid holes in your opponent's arguments (instead of just going like 'what about x argument' which has basically 0 connection to what their speech was on) that would be awesome. I really can not overstate how much I love questioning and very attentively pay attention during it.

On my ranks, I reward good - excellent POs, and drop POs who make chamber run inefficiently or unfairly.

Above all though, be respectful. If you're not respectful - in your speech, in your questioning, etc - that's the easiest way for you to get dropped on my ballot. That being said, have fun with it. As long as you're not going on ad-hominem attacks or being racist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist, if you want to make some jokes, I'll be chill with it and will probably laugh.

Have fun with it! The rounds where I did best were always when I was just having a blast.

Tl;dr: Content is king, warrant well, have clash if you're after the first AFF, be respectful, ask good questions, and have fun. Good luck!

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at ojasvi.saxena@berkeley.edu.

Hi I’m Steven!

I competed in congress during high school so I’m incredibly familiar with the event. I am the former Captain and novice director of Bronx Science

Few things about what I'm looking for:

Sound logic about how the bill and your argument interacts with the squo and the rest of the round

Evidence that I can look up (Say actual citations I need a date and source)

Rhetorical appeal (I competed a lot and for a long time so I’ve heard every intro you can imagine. Dont use anything canned - def don't use an intro you heard from a recording) - honestly if you have a really good narrative that's delivered well throughout your speech I will probably pick you up even if your content isn't super strong

Refutation and weighing (You need this in any speech cycle even if you’re the spons, I expect pre-ref (in a spons) so I know how you think your speech will interact with the round)

Speaking (Im going to flow speeches and questions, but an important aspect for this event, to me, is the presentation of your arguments) However, I will say that generally I am much more of a flow judge by all accounts, but if I'm blown away, an excellent speaker might end up being my 1

Lastly for pos, I personally loved poing when I was a competitor so I totally respect it. You’re going to be ranked well (t4) if you do a good job. If you really want to win my ballot here (or potentially avoid losing my ballot), if you do use an algorithm to track speaker order you should also be keeping track on paper.

I realize all of this sounds super nit picky but trust me my judging is gonna to be really chill

Last note: Have fun :D

Congress:

I compete in congress at the national level, and am now in my fourth year of competition.

Summary (if you don't want to read the whole thing): Flow is what gets you ranked, lay is what gets you the one.

Speeches: Solid arguments and round interaction are crucial to doing well and they're the baseline for getting ranked. Your intros and impacts, no matter how well-worded or well-delivered, don't matter if you don't have strong logical links and cards to prove that your impacts will even happen in the first place. After you've established this, in rounds where there are a lot of good arguments presented, having something like a good bar or intro, and especially cohesive speaking and round presence, is what will make you memorable. Someone who delivers their speech with confidence and clarity, perhaps adding in a bit of rhetoric, and has a strong argument will set themselves apart from everyone else in my perspective.

Ref/Weighing: Round interaction is key. You should almost always be refuting or weighing other people's arguments with your own. However, keep in mind quality doesn't equal quantity and that your refutations and/or weighing should be easy to follow. Group people's arguments together and respond in depth to it as a whole.

Questioning: Questioning won't be the difference between you getting the 1 or dropping the round entirely, in my opinion. I want to see you respond with confidence to questions after your speech. I won't pay a ton of attention to what is said, but I will notice more if you lose your confidence or someone successfully dismantles your argument. Additionally, once again, round interaction is key. Ask questions of other speakers.

POs - POs start at a 3 on my ballot and go up or down based on how the round goes. Run an efficient and organized round, lead the round through conflicts (too few speakers on one side, needing to flip, etc.), don't make an obscene amount of errors, and you will easily do well in my rankings. A few little mistakes that don't impact the flow of the round are okay in my book. We are all human, just collect yourself and move on, and I will too.

Other things: Don't be disrespectful/discriminatory/anything of the sort. That will get you dropped instantaneously. Be courteous, don't cut people off in questioning. But above all, have fun. Don't be afraid to show your personality in speeches or be passionate about a topic!

Good luck!! :)

For other debate events:

I've only ever debated in Congress, and that's where the majority of my experience is. I'll (try to) flow what you say, but given that I probably don’t know much about the nuances of your event and will become completely lost if you spread or give any tech arguments, so consider me lay.

And to reiterate what I said above, don’t be disrespectful/discriminatory/anything of the sort. That will get you dropped no matter what event I’m judging.

My email is oceanazhu@gmail.com should you need to send anything or reach out.