To whom it may concerns in the "National Speech & Debate Association"

I am looking for participating through your website for the online debate round which will be held May 13-15 , and I decided to take the role for the LD Debate , Sunday May 15 2022, which will start at 10:00 am till afternoon.

Thank you .

Iffat Anisha (she/her)

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

My judging philosophy centers on a balanced evaluation of substance and style. I believe in fostering an environment where respect, critical thinking, and effective communication thrive, so I will rank you on such.

• I value well-organized speeches. Provide relevant context, and use transitions for a coherent flow. I always appreciate roadmapping.

• I won’t take a point into account unless you cite evidence, which means author, date, publication, etc… Make sure your evidence is relevant and not only supports your arguments, but strengthens them.

• Clash is key. Sure, new arguments are great, but moving the debate forward with successful rebuttals really showcases your grasp of the issues and your ability to dissect opposing views, so I will rank you higher on my ballot if you can do that effectively.

• I want to see impacts for every argument you bring up. Illustrate the real-world implications of your arguments. How do they affect policies, communities, or individuals?

• I do pay attention to your engagement in round. Keep your placards up to ask questions and demonstrate use of parliamentary procedure as much as you can. This will establish a stronger round presence, so I’ll pay attention to you more.

• For presiding officers: Y’all should be very well versed in parliamentary procedure, and I expect to see little to no mistakes in precedence and recency, which I will also keep track of on my own. Keep the round going as smoothly, fairly and efficiently as possible, and I can rank you a 1 on my ballot.

• Most importantly, be respectful. I don't care how good you are. I will happily drop you if you use any sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc… language any time in round.

Feel free to ask me any questions or contact me about your ballots at ianisha194@gmail.com

I've debated in varsity congress for 2 years, and competed in middle school congressional debate before that. My last year in Congressional Debate, I got 3 bids to the TOC. I was 4th in the state for extemp last year, and I've also competed in the IPDA National Championships. I'm now the captain of the LRCH mock trial team. In other words, I know and love speech and debate, and not much gets past me.

Speaker Paradigm:

1. I want to see debate that is actually debate. I do not want to see competing oratory. You should address other speakers, and create clash in the round.
2. I want clear signposting as well as CWDI. All of your points should have data, and your source should be clear. Your impact should be an actual impact.
3. Intros and Outros are a must. Also, sponsors and first negs need framework.
4. You should know parliamentary procedure, and use it.
5. Ask hard but fair questions, and please don't talk over each other.
6. Remember, you are a congressperson, so act like one should.
7. Don't speak too fast. If I can't understand you, you're not persuading me.
8. Remember: Ethos, Logos, Pathos.
9. I would rather you have fluency issues than read a speech word for word.
10. A good preround is appreciated by all.
11. Out rounds and high level tournaments (Invitationals, TOC, Nats) multiply all these factors.

TLDR: Clash, Good and Clear Speeches, Parliamentary Procedure, Decorum.

Presiding Officer Paradigm:

1. I believe a good PO should always be ranked.
2. I believe a great PO should almost always be ranked 1st.
3. If you are the only person in your chamber willing to PO, I can excuse some mistakes.
4. If you got elected, you should be ready to perform.
5. Be fast, clear, concise, and fair no matter what.
6. Online PO sheets are preferred.
7. You need to know parliamentary procedure, and I will not hesitate to correct you.
8. Out rounds and high level tournaments (Invitationals, TOC, Nats) multiply all these factors.

TLDR: Be Concise and Precise, Be Ready To Perform, Parliamentary Procedure, Decorum.

IPDA Paradigm

1. The P in IPDA stands for public. This debate form should be understandable by the general public, so no esoteric arguments or spreading. Furthermore, by all means use flowery rhetoic. This isn't a policy round, this is a PUBLIC debate.
2. You must have good clash, I don’t want to sit through a debate where y’all don't respond to each other's arguments.
3. Please for the love of all that is holy, signpost.
4. I think at the novice level line by line is best for rebuttals.
5. Don’t be disrespectful to your opponents, but I love a bit of sassiness in cross. I'm all about style points.
6. LET people answer your questions in cross, cross ex is a time to poke holes in your opponent’s arguments, not for you to just read case arguments that aren’t questions.
7. Do impacts please. I judge on solvency and weighing. I also judge on rhetorical ability and style.
8. If you need to use the restroom during a round, we can take a bathroom break between speeches.
9. Things that are bad: racism, sexism, homophobia, falsifying evidence, discriminator behavior, not being kind to the other team OR your teammate.
10. Comply with all AI Rules. I am a big AI optimist, so I support it's use within the rules set by ACTAA and the NSDA.
11. Things that are generally good: Garfield References (the cat or the president), line by line, solid argumentation, clash, having fun, and being a good speaker.

TLDR: Speak Clearly, Rhetoric, Clash, Be Respectful, Style Points, and Have Fun!

Novice Policy Paradigm:

1. Email Chain, Email Chain, Email Chain : Lukewbeck2005@gmail.com
2. I’m good with spreading. I just ask you to prioritize clarity over speed, make sure what you’re saying is flowable, intelligible, etc.
3. Stick with the aff you’ve prepared, I have no preference on the aff or neg arguments you read.
4. You must have good clash, I don’t want to sit through a debate where y’all don't respond to each other's arguments.
5. Don’t spread your rebuttal, I think at the novice level line by line is best for rebuttals.
6. Don’t be disrespectful to your opponents, but I love a bit of sassiness in cross.
7. LET people answer your questions in cross, cross ex is a time to poke holes in your opponent’s arguments, not for you to just read case arguments that aren’t questions.
8. Do impacts please. I judge on solvency and weighing.
9. If you need to use the restroom during a round, we can take a bathroom break between speeches.
10. Things that are bad: racism, sexism, homophobia, falsifying evidence, discriminator behavior, not being kind to the other team OR your teammate.
11. Things that are generally good: Garfield References (the cat or the president), line by line, solid argumentation, clash, having fun, and being a good speaker.

TLDR: Email Chain, Clarity, Clash, Be nice, Have fun, Impacts!

Hey debaters! I’m Skyler and I focus on congressional debate at American Heritage PB in South Florida. I know nobody likes to read through massive paradigms, so I’ll just list out some things I would like to see from you this round.

- Clear Speech: Try to get through your speech as cleanly as possible, with good enunciation and fluctuation of vocals. Although I’m very active in politics and know what you are addressing in your speech, many other judges may not be. Explain to me the problem, and address the bill in an easy-to-understand manner.

- Clever Rhetoric: In short, I want you to wow me with clever uses of intros and outros, and to tie in rhetoric throughout your speech

- Clear Argumentation: Tell me what you are arguing, why you are arguing for it, and the impact of your argument. Pretty simple.

- Activity: Ask questions that make the other side reconsider their position. Be polite, but very active in the chamber (but always remember, quality over quantity!)

- Response: unless you are giving one of the first few speeches, I want to see you respond to other debaters’ arguments. Show why your side’s arguments are better than the other side’s. DO NOT REHASH, OR REPEAT, ARGUMENTS THAT PEOPLE HAVE BROUGHT UP BEFORE!

- Power: Let your voice be felt, not heard. Don’t yell, but make sure what you say is powerful (a good way to do this is to make your impacts very powerful).

Good Luck!

Hi! My name is Sarayu Cheemalapati (she/her). I graduated high school in 2023 and am currently a student at Pitt studying Political Science. I debated all through middle school and high school, having topped the TOC bid scoreboard and the NSDA National Rankings in Congressional Debate during my senior year. I also have experience coaching, judging and competing in World Schools, Big Questions, Informative, Impromptu, and Extemp.

Congress:

TLDR: I am 55% presentation and 45% argumentation, ultimate ranking comes down to doing your job as a speaker based on when you speak, refuting is important. If a bill has one-sided debate, flip or move on.

Presentation: Make it sound like you are persuading me to pass or fail. At the end of the day, anyone can have good arguments, but presenting them well is what is mainly going to help me as a judge differentiate you from other competitors in the round. Add personality into your speaking! Don't be monotone and make it look like you're just reciting. Be funny, tell jokes, do whatever makes you a unique speaker!

Argumentation: Try to provide a card for arguments where you NEED it. Today, there are arguments that many can run with logic, but be careful. Don't rehash other people's arguments unless you are using it to weigh or to crystal. It shows how much you are actually paying attention to the round. I will pay attention to well-crafted and structured arguments with good rhetoric. Also, structure your arguments depending on when you are speaking! I rank based on if you fulfill your role as a speaker/debater given the time at which you are speaking (ex. strong constructive for authorship, crystals for late round, etc.)

Flipping: I will always give those flipping a higher rank than an okay speech on the same side in a row. There are exceptions to this, but it's simple. I do not think anyone wants to hear to same aff argument for an hour.

Refutation: One of the most important things to me in getting my rank is refutation. Anything after the first aff should refute, recognizing their opponents and telling me why they are wrong. Strong constructives, in my opinion, only hold value until the second neg, otherwise, it does not contribute anything to the round.

Presiding Officers: In order to rank high, POs should run the chamber in a fast, efficient and unbiased way. I trust you to be able to follow the procedure you set, follow the standard/tournament rules, and make minimal mistakes, especially when you make it known for the start that you want to preside/run in a PO election in order to preside. POs tend to rank generally high from me if you do your job. I will probably let some of these rules slide if you are the only one willing to preside in a round/being forced to preside.

Any questions about in round issues, feedback, paradigm, etc, email me: cheemalapatis@gmail.com. Be confident and have fun!

Hi, my name is Parker De Dekér (He/Him), I'm a Student at Columbia University in New York where I study Latin American & Caribbean Studies and Cognitive Science and I work as a Research Advisor at the Bahamian Mission to the UN and IDB. I'm also the Assistant Coach for Congress at Taipei American School, and do a lot of committee and organizational work throughout the Speech & Debate Community.

While in High School, I got some variety of exposure to any and every event that our community has to offer, so rest-assured I come from an experience background where I'm happy to see you run whatever you want, as long as it's respectful and has a place in the round.

Congressional Debate

Repetition & Refutation: The recurrence of similar ideas in the first two cycles of debate is okay; subsequently, I either want to hear new points that highlight the issues brought forward to focus on achieving a resolution or I want to be listening to you refute your opponent's points. I respond to engaging speeches with dynamic responses to specific arguments mentioned earlier in the round and points of note referenced by the speaker’s name; it demonstrates you are actively listening to others and formulating new material as the round progresses. A memorable speech that I can flow assists me when filling out my rankings upon completing the round.

Speaking: I am comfortable with spreading; however, this is a Congressional debate, and spreading is non-sensical when getting your point across, especially if you are trying to emphasize or embolden certain points. I prefer to see open, engaging dialogue over a flurry of nonsensical interjections. I enjoy speakers that show a genuine passion for what they are talking about.

As the round goes on and the material becomes more repetitive, I WILL flow less of what is presented. If you are debating in a later cycle and still want a place on my ballot, you need to fight for it, that comes by distinguishing yourself stylistically. Refute your opponents' arguments, weigh the round, and if you are one of the final speakers PLEASE CRYSTALIZE. I will give you higher speaker points if you attempt on crystal speech and do okay, rather than give a constructive one with no refutation and do great. In my opinion, crystallizing the round is a difficult task; if you do it well, I'll remember you!

Decorum: As a judge, I appreciate your ability to respect your PO, Parliamentarian, Competitors, and Judges with formal language and modest amounts of well-timed humor. It is your responsibility to ensure you monitor time signals and adhere to PO policies.

Equity and inclusion are integral points in how I judge a round. I expect to hear demonstrated efforts to make a round more inclusive for others through the usage of correct terminology, proper pronouns, etc. Explicit acts to infringe upon a person's identity, including, but not limited to, their race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, religion, or other such disregard, will result in an immediate drop in ranking status.

Presiding: As an experienced Parliamentarian (and High School PO) I'm very familiar with the intricacies of presiding. If you are running against someone as the presiding officer, I hope you are decently experienced. If you are stepping up to preside, I will take that into account when filling out my rankings; however, if you say you are an experienced PO, list a whole bunch of tournaments you've presided at, and then still fail to provide efficient presiding, I'm going to consider that a bluff, and include comments about it in your RFD. Even if I'm not the parliamentarian, I will still be keeping track of precedence and recency and your employment of Roberts Rules of Order. I consider efficient, organized, and experienced POs equivalent to quality speakers and will rank my POs on the same level during the round. I appreciate a well-run chamber where all parties are held to the highest standard and will make a note of those who rise to the occasion.

Public Forum:

I will flow everything in the round, even Cross-Ex, so if your opponent asks a question in cross-ex and you don't carry that argument through the round, I'm going to believe that you either weren't paying attention in Cross or you are not responding to the question; however, if you are the one answering the question and your counter never appears later in the round, I'm also dropping it from the flow. I encourage you to run whatever you like; however, I enjoy progressive arguments in PF. Yes I know, a public forum is supposed to be very accessible, and I agree. Still, it should also be a learning opportunity, so responding to abuses of the debating environment (T-Shell), introducing frameworks (I wish I didn't have to mention this, but I do), moral imperatives and interpretations are all appreciated. That said, if you are trying to run a T-Shell in JV or Novice, I will be a little concerned; save this for varsity. In terms of speed, I've competed in almost every debating style, so I am very familiar and comfortable with spreading; however, I'm not a big fan of spreading in PF, so fast paces are okay, spreading to a point that puts your competitor and a disadvantage will be labeled as abusive, please don't do this.

What I Love to See: Impact calculus- it is the most important thing to me; please weigh & please tell me how to vote so I don’t have to intervene in any capacity. I also like to see super high respect for your opponent. This is such an underrated part of PF that is not nearly as present in LD or Policy, and it totally should be.

A few things I hate in rounds:

- Swearing, I wish it were obvious but you would be surprised. This lacks professionalism if it is not needed to make points. Same goes for using basic filler such as like, um, literally, err, but, stupid, etc. If you use these, your not going to get a 30 from me for your speaker points.

- "Stealing" prep- if you need prep take it, if you are sitting for more than 15 seconds without telling me that you are taking prep, having tech issues, etc, I'm going to start the prep clock.

- Experienced debaters being overly hard on novices- we want to keep them in the activity, don't discourage them by running super dense over the top arguments- you will probably win if you just run a standard argument simply by being more experienced.

-Straight Theory Arguments: Are done to death, and aren't making either debater better. If it wins, I'll still pick you up, but I would prefer to see educational rounds.

-Do not run a "fairness" argument that you couldn't prep against your opponent, and then you have a case completely against your opponent. This demonstrates that you lied about the fairness argument; I'm dropping it.

-DEBATE SHOULD ALWAYS BE INCLUSIVE! The usage of any verbiage or dialogue that is racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, anti-semitic, islamophobic, nativist, xenophobic, classist, or abusive will result in an immediate loss of the round, and a speaker score below 20, this is not tolerated while I am a judge.

Lincoln Douglas & Policy:

1. I will be flowing all of the debate, but I appreciate it when you slow down on the authors and taglines, even if you are spreading. I'm very comfortable with spreading, but I ask that you put me on the email chain parker.dedeker@gmail.com

2. Even in complex debates in LD and CX, I want to see the debate a clear storyline that properly compares the resolution to the context of the squo, and explains how arguments within the round interact with one another. I'm a huge lover of Phil. debate, but not framework debate. I don't want to make it to the 2AR and still be arguing about what the Value/VC is for the round. If there is no way for you to adopt the same value for the res then just provide a holistic approach to explaining how your args can suffice both values and criteria for the round.

3. Do what you do best. While I do not believe that affirmatives have to be topical, I am often more invested when you approach the aff case with new and innovative arguments that still engage with the topic.

4. Please know what you’re talking about. The easiest way for you to lose a round is to look for an argument that is "irrefutable," "shiny" or non-topical because it sounds good and like an easy win, but then have no tangible way of continuing the argument without sole reliance on the card. When students are well-read/versed on the things that they are reading, and have an ability to care and genuinely understand them, I am easily engaged and feel better positions to vote for you. That being said, being well-read does equate to using complex jargon all the time. This is not really appealing to me, and can also come off as an unfair approach to the round, especially because not every team/school has the resource to equip them with these complexities. If your wording doesn’t make sense or if I don’t understand it at the end of the debate, I will have a hard time evaluating it.

5. Progressive Debate: So this has become a huge debate in recent years on the circuit, and coming from Wisconsin, I'm used to competitors being dropped for running prog, but surprisingly, I absolutely love progressive debate. I will vote for Theory, T debates, Kritik, plans, CPs, etc, but I do not believe that running a progressive approach is a necessarily substantive response to certain arguments. This being established, if you choose to run a Prog case, there are a few things you need to do: prove actual in-round abuse, actual ground loss, and actual education lost for T debates. Establish why the resolution cannot be debated and why you have to run a CP/Plan (your DAs need to be crystal clear and need to be used to set up the case before you move into the CP in the 1NC) or provide me with genuine context about why the philosophy, theory, or kritik holds more validity to be debated over the topicality within the round. While I love prog debate, my caveat is--you need to know your audience. If you have a competitor who is in a position where they cannot respond to your arguments because of their complexity/lack of literature to disprove or position your competitor within the round where they cannot logistically win the round in your own opinion, then I cannot vote for the prog arguments, because it doesn't allow the debate to be educational.

All Events: If you ever need an explanation of your feedback, or want a more in-depth response, email me parker.dedeker@gmail.com I WILL NEVER leave you a blank ballot. If this happens, it is a mistake, please send me an email, and I'll see what I can do.

Best of luck to you in your rounds today and tomorrow. Your speaking will change lives, even if it is just one, I promise.

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.

I’m a high schooler who’s done debate since middle school :)
Respect others; any discriminatory comments will result in an auto drop and I'll contact tab

Please be nice. Debates are not fun at all to judge when people are being rude/condescending in cross and I will give you the L if you're too mean.

I'll disclose only if everyone in the round is comfortable with it. I really hate how competitive debate is, so if you don't want to hear the results, power to you and just say so!

Try to speak for the whole speech time and weigh (tell me why to prefer your impacts over your opponents') and I'll be happy

Please extend arguments!! Tell me the reasons why something happens not just that it happens, and I’m so so much more likely to vote for you. Basically, just warrant what you’re saying and extend arguments properly

Give an off-time roadmap, like "neg, aff"

I think it's my job to adapt to how y'all are debating and that's what I'll try to be doing. As long as you're erring on the side of over-explaining things which aren't problematic in any way, I'd love to vote for you! Please just debate the way you debate best in front of me

My email is Wphahn05@gmail.com if you have any questions after/before round or want to add me to the email chain

Please ask me any questions before round if you have any, and don't aggressively post-round me!

Most importantly, HAVE FUN!!!

Hi everyone!

I mainly judge congress and that was the event I did for five years; however, I do have a lot of competitive experience in extemp and have been in outrounds for it as well. I've also competed in extemp, PF, interp, impromptu, and oratory, so I'd say I have a wide depth of knowledge of different events.

I've had success across all these events, so I promise I know what I'm doing when I'm judging and do my best to be fair.

I do flow.

For congress:

First and foremost, I'm looking for respect to other members of your chamber especially during questioning. Please don't speak over one another. Some amount of friendly fire is ok but it cannot be offensive or rude in any way, neither can your speeches.

In your speeches, make sure that you are incorporating the rest of the debate. This is not an oratory event. You should not have your speech memorized or say what you had written from home. Engage with your peers, include refutation and rebuttal. If you are not the first speaker on the bill, it is your responsibility to mention previous speakers!!! Your points should be well organized, so we can understand what you're trying to convey.

Congress is as much a speech event as it is debate, and I evaluate you as such. Your argumentation is equally as important as your presentation. That being said, I will rank you higher if you have a great argument but some stylistic errors, but if you have great style with shallow arguments, I will rank you lower than the type of speaker I mentioned previously.

Start your speech with some type of attention getter instead of just saying "this is the side of the bill I am on." Don't read directly off of your pad, make some eye contact with your audience. If you stumble, that is FINE. I will not penalize you, simply keep going with the rest of your speech. Always be ready to speak or to flip sides. You should have prepped both sides, so it shouldn't be a huge deal if you need to flip. I despise when rounds have to be put on hold because there are too many speakers on one side or no one wants to get up and give a speech.

There is nothing wrong with being the presiding officer (PO)!!! I will judge you based on how fair and efficient you are. Be as invisible as possible when it comes to argumentation, but add some spice in between when calling for speakers or questions. Rounds can easily get boring with repetitive arguments, but a PO has the luxury of engaging in a more conversational tone. If there is a PO election, I will have higher expectations of you. Also, I would highly prefer it if you have an online spreadsheet.

If you wish to amend the bill, please know the procedure before doing so otherwise the chamber goes into chaos.

Please have fun when participating in rounds! Become friends with the other congress people in your chamber because congress kids have a special advantage of having an event that is inherently social.

If you want feedback, I'm happy to talk to you after round or can give you my email if you would like and can message you my commentary.

Good luck!

Hey everyone! My name is Fidencio Jimenez, and I am currently the head congressional debate coach for Modernbrain Academy. I have competed in a variety of individual and debate events during my time as a competitor in the high school and collegiate circuits of competition. My general approach to judging follows as such:

Email for document sharing: fidencio.jimenez323@gmail.com

Congressional Debate

Make sure your claims are linked and warranted with evidence. If you don't make it clear how your sources and information connect, you just sound like you are listing sources without contextualizing them in the round. This usually results in speakers presenting impacts that were not explicated thoroughly. I do not flow arguments that fail this basic requirement.

Incorporate the legislation in your arguments. I read the topics before each round, make sure you do too. If your points do not connect with the actual plan (that being I don't buy that the topic viably solves the problems or creates claimed harms), I will not flow them.

Keep the debate topical. If the link between your claims and the bill is obvious there isn't much to worry about here. If you don't think the grounds for the link between your harm/benefit are clear, justify yourself by explaining what mechanisms in the legislation make it so that your claims come to fruition. This makes it so you avoid mistranslation and prevent judges (myself included, it can happen to anyone) from overlooking/misunderstanding something in the topic.

For presiding officers, I ask you to be firm, deliberate, and clear in your instructions. The more a PO demonstrates the ability to take control over the round to avoid complications, the more they will be rewarded.

EX: Round does not have anyone who wants to speak so you call for recess, call for splits, and urge people to swap sides or speak.

Policy/LD/PUFO/Parli

Spreading- I do not mind if you spread. However, if your speed makes it so you become audibly incomprehensible I will clear you. Spread at a pace you can actually handle and perform stably.

Counterplans (for where it is relevant)- I am not a fan, too many times it seems like the plans do not tackle the benefits provided by the proposition. If you can link a counter-plan that establishes a harm, run it, but if it doesn't tackle their actual case, you are better off avoiding it.

K's- Same thing as counter plans. There is a time and place but if the K is not extremely fleshed out or justified, I will not consider it. There has to be substantial real-world harm clearly established. Make sure to weigh why the educational value of the discussion is not worth the consequences it creates.

IE's

I evaluate based on performance and the educational value of a competitor. For instance, if someone has a cleaner performance, but does not have a topic that is educationally substantive or as critical as someone with a slightly less clean performance, the person with the more substantive topic will get a higher mark. This is why for interpretation events I ask your thesis is made clear within your introduction and for events like impromptu and platform speaking to avoid surface-level theses or topics.

Hey everyone! I'm Arik (he/him), a debater from Dreyfoos School of the Arts in Florida.

I've competed in numerous speech & debate events (Congress, WSD, PF, XDB, BQ, Parli, OO, IMP, EXT, etc.) over the past five years of my experience in the activity, finaling and semifinaling the likes of NSDA, Harvard, Stanford, Emory, Blue Key, Sunvite, GMU, and more. In short, I'm very well-versed with the dynamics and flow of each event, especially Congress & World Schools Debate (my main events).

OVERARCHING THOUGHTS ABOUT STYLISTIC PREFERENCES & EQUITY

No debate round or ballot should be contingent on extremely narrow preferences for what judges like stylistically/what they're biased toward. Trust me, I've seen it win (and lose) rounds on my side; I will always prioritize your content & strategy for a debate round and will NEVER weigh what someone sounds like or what they look like in a ballot*. The stylistic preferences I include in the event-specific sections of this paradigm is optional & certainly not one that is mandatory.

THAT BEING SAID, I will not hesitate to drop you or bring an equity concern for individuals who display any trace of sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, etc. behavior or action. That's my one non-negotiable. My priority as a judge is to make a round as safe and inclusive as possible before casting a ballot: the conclusion of this section is just to be respectful to the maximal extent :)

WORLD SCHOOLS

In Worlds, I adjudicate on content, strategy, and style (in that order). Content and strategy is what wins you rounds, style is what determines speaks. I believe that doing well in all three categories is what makes good debaters great persuasively and substantively. A couple of notes from the top of this paradigm for Worlds:

- Make & take POIs! It's the best (and only) form of direct engagement with the other side, make use of it! I'm cool with 1-2 POIs being taken in a speech.
- Stylistically*, I think conversational tone/pace speeches are the most enjoyable to listen to as long as you cover what you need to!
- Have clear signposting & flag sections of your speech + its strategic importance in the round to make it easier on me to understand what we're getting into/why it's important.
- In First, cover all of the important things in framing (i.e. a counterfactual if THR, model if THW, etc.) & prove that you analyzed the motion well! I always love a bit of pre-emption & give me clearly structured and understandable substantives with robust mechanisms and accessible illustrations!
- In Second, open and delete paths to victory for your side- what are you winning on? How do you deal with the other side's material (refute) and how do you expand and maintain your side's arguments (rebuild)?
- In Third, tell me the clashes to consolidate & organize this debate: why is the clash important, what did they say (and how did you respond), what did you say (and how did it hold throughout the round), and how you explicitly win on the material & in the round. Weigh up your arguments against theirs and show me how your side has won the debate!
- In Reply, provide the voter issues/areas of the debate you won & give me a biased OA/RFD for ways your side won and how the debate developed from First.

CONGRESS

My perspective: Congress is a combination of speech AND debate, not just one or the other. Your approach to how you attempt to win a round may differ from person to person, so I don't mind how you go about it; I encourage you to play to your strengths. A key factor that plays into my decisions as to who gets ranked where is round adaptation- a speech that is well-placed in a round (be it early, middle, or late) that effectively contributes to the debate speaks to your ability to adapt to the needs of the round. In my eyes, that's what the best legislator in the room looks like.

What I look for in a debater: I'm a fan of extremely clear arguments that are easy to understand and is distinguished from other speeches preceding you. Refutation is an absolute must in every speech following the first affirmative. Outstanding delivery is a prerequisite for evaluating your arguments; it's far more beneficial to have a distinctive style and use of rhetoric because it's what differentiates Debater A and Debater B (who may have similar argumentative/analytical skills). Additionally, I like speeches that break out of the two-point structure and take on a fluid form that is intended to cover other necessary content in the round (but a great two-constructive speech gets the job done as well). Be active in the round & make sure to stay engaged! As always, no rehash.

Round adaptation/POs/final thoughts: For speeches- don't be afraid to flip! It reflects well on you to do a service to a chamber, so I won't mind if your speech is a little lower in quality than the speech you intended on giving because you adapted to the round; if anything, you'll get rewarded for taking up the task (as I've had to for countless debate rounds). For POs- avoid making mistakes and make sure the round flows as smoothly as possible. As a PO for high-level rounds at Harvard, NSDA, Yale, Sunvite, Blue Key, etc., I understand the value of a good PO for the round; that said, I rank POs in the middle-to-high end at the beginning (and it moves up or down according to your performance). Stay true to yourself, have some self-confidence, and bring some humor to the presidency! You got this.

I am a debate coach at Little Rock Central. Please put both on the email chain: jkieklak@gmail.com; lrchdebatedocs@gmail.com

General

You do you. Let it rip. Seriously. A judge does not exist without the debaters, and I view my role as a public servant necessary only to resolve arguments in a round to help empower young people to engage in meaningful discourse. I believe that it is important for me to be honest about the specific things I believe about common debate arguments, but also I find it more important to ensure I am prepared for debaters to persuade me away from those beliefs/biases. Specifically, I believe that my role is to listen, flow, and weigh the arguments offered in the round how I am persuaded to weigh them by each team. I will listen to and evaluate any argument. It is unacceptable to do anything that is: ableist, anti-feminist, anti-queer, racist, or violent.

I think debates have the lowest access to education when the judge must intervene. I can intervene as little as possible if you:

1) Weigh your impacts and your opponents' access to risk/impacts in the debate. One team probably is not most persuasive/ahead of the other team on every single argument. That needs to be viewed as a strength rather than a point of anxiety in the round. Do not be afraid to explain why you don't actually need to win certain arguments/impacts in lieu of "going for" the most persuasive arguments that resolve the most persuasive/riskiest impacts.

2) Actively listen and use your time wisely. Debaters miss each other when distracted/not flowing or listening. This seems to make these teams more prone to missing/mishandling arguments by saying things like, "'x' disad, they dropped it. Extend ____ it means ____;" yet, in reality, the other team actually answered the argument through embedded clash in the overview or answered it in a way that is unorthodox but also still responsive/persuasive.

3) Compare evidence and continuously cite/extend your warrants in your explanations/refutation/overall argumentation. Responses in cross that cite an individual warrant or interrogate their opponents' warrants are good ethos builders and are just in general more persuasive, same in speeches.

Policy Affirmatives

Go for it. Your pathway to solving a significant harm that is inherent to the status quo with some advantageous, topical plan action is entirely up to you. There are persuasive arguments about why it is good to discuss hypothetical plan implementation. I do not have specific preferences about this, but I am specifically not persuaded when a 2a pivot undercovers/drops the framework debate in an attempt to weigh case/extend portions of case that aren't relevant unless the aff wins framework. I have not noticed any specific thresholds about neg strats against policy affs.

Kritikal Affirmatives

Go for it. Your pathway/relationship to the resolution is entirely up to you. I think it’s important for any kritikal affirmative (including embedded critiques of debate) to wins its method and theory of power, and be able to defend that the method and advocacy ameliorates some impactful harm. I think it’s important for kritkal affirmatives (when asked) to be able to articulate how the negative side could engage with them; explain the role of the negative in the debate as it comes up, and, if applicable, win framework or a methods debate. I don't track any specific preferences. Note: Almost all time that I am using to write arguments and coach students is to prepare for heg/policy debates; I understand if you prefer someone in the back of the room that spends a majority of their time either writing kritikal arguments or coaching kritikal debate.

Framework

This is all up to how it develops in round. I figure that this often starts as a question of what is good for debate through considerations of education, fairness, and/or how a method leads to an acquisition/development of portable skills. It doesn't have to start or end in any particular place. The internal link and impact are up to you. If the framework debate becomes a question of fairness, then it's up to you to tell me what kind of fairness I should prioritize and why your method does or does not access it/preserve it/improve it. I vote for and against framework, and I haven't tracked any specific preferences or noticed anything in framework debate that particularly persuades me.

Off

Overall, I think that most neg strats benefit from quality over quantity. I find strategies that are specific to an aff are particularly persuasive (beyond just specific to the overall resolution, but also specific to the affirmative and specific cites/authors/ev). In general, I feel pretty middle of the road when it comes to thresholds. I value organization and utilization of turns, weighing impacts, and answering arguments effectively in overviews/l-b-l.

Other Specifics and Thresholds, Theory

• Perms: Be ready to explain how the perm works (more than repeating "it's perm do 'X'"). Why does the perm resolve the impacts? Why doesn't the perm link to a disad?

• T: Normal threshold if the topicality impacts are about the implications for future debates/in-round standards. High threshold for affs being too specific and being bad for debate because neg doesn't have case debate. If I am in your LD pool and you read Nebel, then you're giving me time to answer my texts, update a list of luxury items I one day hope to acquire, or simply anything to remind myself that your bare plurals argument isn't 'prolific.'

• Case Debate: I am particularly persuaded by effective case debate so far this year on the redistribution topic. Case debate seems underutilized from an "find an easy way to the ballot" perspective.

• Disclosure is generally good, and also it's ok to break a new aff as long as the aff is straight up in doing so. There are right and wrong ways to break new. Debates about this persuade me most when located in questions about education.

• Limited conditionality feels right, but really I am most interested in how these theory arguments develop in round and who wins them based on the fairness/education debate and tech.

• Please do not drop condo or some other well-extended/warranted theory argument on either side of the debate. Also, choosing not to engage and rely on the ethos of extending the aff is not a persuasive way to handle 2NRs all in on theory.

TOC Requested Update for Congress (April 2023)

General

Be your best self. My ranks reflect who I believe did the best debating in the round (and in all prelims when I parli).

The best debaters are the ones that offer a speech that is appropriately contextualized into the debate the body is having about a motion. For sponsors/first negs, this means the introduction of framing and appropriate impacts so that the aff/neg speakers can build/extend specific impact scenarios that outweigh the opposing side's impacts. Speeches 3-10 or 3-12 (depending on the round) should be focused on introducing/weighing impacts (based on where you are in the round and where your side is on impact weighing) and refutations (with use of framing) on a warrant/impact level. I value structured refutations like turns, disadvantages, presumption, PICs (amendments), no solvency/risk, etc. The final two speeches should crystallize the round by offering a clear picture as to why the aff/neg speakers have been most persuasive and why the motion should carry or fail.

The round should feel like a debate in that each speaker shall introduce, refute, and/or weigh the core of the affirmative and negative arguments to persuade all other speakers on how they should vote on a pending motion.

Other TOC Requested Congress Specifics/Randoms

• Arguments are claim, warrant, impact/justification and data when necessary. Speeches with arguments lacking one or more of these will not ever be rewarded highly, no matter how eloquent the speech. It is always almost more persuasive to provide data to support a warrant.

• Impacts should be specific and never implied.

• Presiding officers should ensure as many speeches as possible. The best presiding officers are direct, succinct, courteous, organized, and transparent. Presiding officers shall always be considered for ranks, but ineffective presiding is the quickest way to a rank 9 (or lower).

• More floor debaters are experimenting with parliamentary procedure. Love it, but debaters will be penalized for misapplications of the tournament's bylaws and whichever parliamentary guide is the back up.

• Nothing is worse in floor debate than repetition, which is different than extending/weighing.

• Decorum should reflect effective communication. Effective communication in debate often includes an assertive tone, but read: folx should always treat each other with dignity and respect.

Arkansas Debate

Woo Pig. I am not here to force you to capitulate a paradigm that you find in someway oppressive to what your coach is teaching you to do. I will drop you for clipping/cheating, and I do not reward (and will rank low in congress) bad/no arguments even if they sound as rhetorically smooth as Terry Rose and Gary Klaff singing "Oh, Arkansas."

Hello all,

I am a parent judge. I have been judging the student congress debate for last three years.

For the contents of your speech, I would like to hear the debate about the harm and benefit analysis of the bill based on the flow of the chamber arguments and your data. I also look at the type of speeches you present during the round. I expect an argumentative speech if you speak later. If you bring an applicable real-life impact to your speech, that also counts for a good ranking. For the delivery, it matters to me if a student speaks with a clear sound, a persuasive tone, and a natural talking style. I give a favor to a student who participates in the debate actively with critical questions to weigh the side of the bill. I rank PO well if the PO runs the chamber efficiently. Good luck, and have fun!

Filipp Krasovsky
UCLA, Economics BA 2019

I have about 8 years of competitive debating experience in congress, parli, APDA, and BP (College level world schools).
I can tolerate speed but prefer quality over quantity of arguments. I'm a little less strict on warranting using citations
and prefer in-depth logical explanations rather than stating an authority. If an argument is not impacted out explicitly,
I probably won't vote for it even if it gets dropped.

Because of my BP background, I'm less stern about the burden of rejoinder in debate; I don't believe that a dropped argument
automatically wins a team the debate, especially if that argument becomes tangential to the motion itself.

I'm generally against pre-fiat Ks and will drop any argument that targets a debater because of his/her gender, skin color, race, etc. as these are absolutely counterproductive to the debate. I'm otherwise fine with theory, Topicality, and other shells.

Hello!
Thank you for competing!

I judge under the notion that you debate as the best debater you are, and I will evaluate you on that metric. Please engage with each other's arguments, and be intentional in both cross and speeches.

Don't overcomplicate points that should be simple, and don't drop arguments, and have refutations that logically link. As a congress debater and competitor I do value a good presentation and speaking, if that helps.

Please don't go too fast as in spreading if it harms your delivery. I appreciate a good framework and roadmaps.

Have fun! Be nice!

Hello, my name is Tyler Luu. I did Congress for a little bit and Triple Crowned. I like it when people are good speakers and debaters. If you make a claim back it up with evidence. Well-warranted cases that are stock do better than a "flow" case that is just a bunch of weird claims with no logic. Stock arguments win when they are simple, well-explained, and have good evidence. Don't be rude in cross-examination. Please have fun with your speech or at least look like you are having fun because if it looks like you don't want to be here then my ranks will reflect that you probably shouldn't be here.

Everyone’s paradigm is too long and this one is also too long sorry abt that y'all

-

-Vista Ridge ‘23 + TXST ‘27

-Congress 4 years, PF 3 years, oratory 3 years, extemp 2 years and did LD a handful of times. In total accumulated 8 TFA State quals and 9 TOC bids throughout these events.

-Impromptu, Extemp + informative in college. AFA Quarterfinalist

-Ask me about joining the TXST speech and debate team :)

-

PF / LD

See Jonathan Daugherty‘s paradigm it sums up how I vote in a round perfectly.

Only difference is I’ll vote off theory or a K (topical or not) if it’s well-warranted. Everything else applies. I would veer on the side of the less spreading the better. This is your game, remember this is supposed to be fun!

-

WSD:

Please weigh. If you don’t weigh I have to intervene. I do not want to intervene. Simplify the round and I will be happy to vote for whatever the path of least resistance to the ballot is.

-

Congress:

Will rank someone who gave a mediocre speech but heavily participated in chamber higher than someone who gave one amazing speech but then didn’t participate in chamber. Congress is not just about speeches, it's about how you present yourself.

-

Speech :

I don’t think this needs a paradigm but this is what I mainly judge so if you’re curious just do your event as you would normally. If you need, I can follow speed more than other speech judges especially in extemp.

-

email - smcstabs@gmail.com

reach out if you have questions

-

sometimes tabroom doesn’t save ballots, I always leave ballots no matter what. if you are not seeing a ballot tell your coach to email me and I will forward it to them. I pre-write and save all of my ballots in word.

I am a parent judge of a 7th and 9th grader at American Heritage school in Palm Beach Florida. I have never competed as a student, however I've judged debate since 2019 when my first child started middle school.. I judge pretty much every month for our school in Palm beach County and I enjoy contributing to this amazing after school program. I am able to judge speech as well as congress, PF and LD.

I am observant and tend to be impartial based on evidence presented. I listen carefully and try to refrain from imposing my own perspectives, beliefs and philosophy. Note taking is a tool I use readily when judging congress, PF and LD. Oratory speeches can be determined as I go and usually placement ranking determined easily during sessions. Debate skill is highly valued by way of a student's creativity vs truthful arguments. However, truthful arguments, if they outweigh should be supported by referenced materials, statistics , quotes etc. to provide credibility and hard substantial relevance. The evidence and counters are used as tools to cure positions of opposing sides.

Open to Policy making legislative model, weighing advantages vs disadvantages. Hypothesis testing of any social science model where a negative position can put the affirmative position to the test.

Political topics, environmental problems or concerns, Economic shifts with strained relationships with the US, Free trade policies, Human Rights, Terrorism, etc. are some heavy and controversial topics I welcome..

Evaluating solvency arguments of Counterproductivity, Insufficiency and Impracticality are some types of arguments I have been challenged by and many times enjoyed the discourse students provide in their arguments.

Points are generally awarded on skill, but conduct, rudeness, offensive commentary, prejudicial statements and lack of respect will generally impose point deductions. Allowing consideration for opposing teams to complete thoughts is generally considered in awarding points.

Hey All! Glad you're reading this. I'm Eamonn (any pronouns).

Speech-wise, remember that this is Congress, and we're debating bills with serious weight. Passion in your advocacy is key. If you don't firmly believe in everything you say (or, at a very minimum, are good at convincing people you care), then you cannot expect anyone else to believe in your cause. Clinical, evidence-heavy speeches never convinced anyone of anything. Obviously, well-sourced speeches are important (reputable news sources and the bare minimum should include the month/year of publication), but that evidence means nothing if it cannot be connected to quantifiable human impact. I would be willing to forgive an evidence-light speech if your rhetoric carries the slack. I am also a sucker for a funny introduction - do not be afraid to be obscure! I have dropped in everything from 60's ecological horror novels to Rina Sawayama lyrics in the first 25 seconds.

How you deliver your speech is just as important as what is in it - clear voice and enunciation, varied pacing, and purposeful phrasing. If it's too fast, your audience will probably only catch every third word, and then you're up creek. Too slow, and you'll lose the emotional core. This category blends performance and debate - tell me a story!

As the round goes, aggressive and purposeful questioning is key. This is where the contours of the debate show as time progresses, and you should be right there in the thick of it. Please be sure to keep questions brief: If it is direct questioning and you're speaking for longer than 10 seconds on first go, you're doing something wrong. Avoid trap questions - you're here to debate, not embarrass.

PO wise - the best PO is one that you don't notice. Feel free to throw in a joke here or there, but if you can run the round without me ever having to look up, you're golden.

Lastly, a huge pet peeve of mine - avoid implementation arguments. Anything to do with how the bill is funded, who's enforcing it, etc, etc. Unless there is some huge, glaring issue with the bill (and even then, it better be the best speech you've ever written). They often ring lazy, and as a way to avoid actually engaging with the merits of the topic at hand.

Hi! I'm a junior at FAU HS and this is my 6th year competing in congressional debate.

Debate is not a game
You're usually discussing matters of life and death -- this entire activity is a dialectic about how to improve the nation and the world. Your rounds are about more than just getting the 1 or a W. Similarly, debate affects the lives of people who participate in it. Success can mean scholarships or admittance to great colleges. Please don't trivialize how important that can be for people.

"Principally!!!" is a trendy new filler word in congress
I WILL mark you down for saying this. It adds nothing to your content and does not make you sound smarter. Also a nice little litmus test to see if you actually read my paradigm lol.

Speeches & style -- I'm judging you based on the result, not the process.
"Constructive," "rebuttal," and "crystallization" speeches are a social construct! They are a lens to understand your role as a speaker, not a strict blueprint for a speech. I don't care if you use CWDI, block structure, or just freestyle. I don't care if you use a legal pad or an iPad or nothing. These are just your tools -- I'm judging you based on the result, not the process.

If I've heard your exact speech before I will literally drop you even if it's the best speech in the round. Do not pawn other people's prep off as your own.

No one knows how to weigh in congress so please weigh.

Empirical citations =/= Causal analysis. Telling me why your arguments are true and why they matter are different things entirely. Don't mix em up!

In terms of congressional debate, most rounds have two issues: the debate is surface-level yet pretty damn confusing. I love speakers who can cut through to the heart of a topic and implicate that back to the debate as a whole.

I appreciate original, novel, and funny rhetoric. Try to distinguish yourself!

Delivery & presentation
Presentation is necessary to help you get your point across. If you neglect presentation that will reflect on your overall performance.

OK so people have started using iPads a lot more since I first wrote this paradigm. For context, I don't know anyone who has been using an iPad for longer than I. If you use an iPad, you need to look and sound like a fluent speaker with a legal pad. Bulky cases will weaken your performance. Having to hold the iPad in front of your face the whole time will weaken your performance. Pad dependency, as always, will seriously count against you. The iPad is a tool, not a crutch.

Laptops are a flat out no. You won't get a rank from me speaking off a laptop.

Love padless performances, they're impressive af.

Presiding officers
POs are the worst part of congress. There is no way to fairly rank a room of speakers against someone whose entire job is to update a spreadsheet and bang a gavel. If I had it my way, every round would have a tournament-provided PO. But don't worry. I have a fair way to evaluate POs regardless of anything else: Bad POs will be dropped, good POs will at least get a rank good enough to advance to the next round.

A good PO is fast, fair, aware of parliamentary procedure & tournament-specific rules, and serves as a leader and problem-solver in the round.

I rank POs in final rounds differently. I don't think POs deserve to champ unless they do something brilliant or demonstrate exceptional leadership. I've never seen a final round where I thought the PO deserved to champ, even though they often do. I will never give a PO the 1 in a final round. Think that's unfair? Not really. POs often champ without getting a single 1. If I'm judging a debate tournament, I'd rather give the 1 to a debater.

If you're a PO and get no feedback from me, that means you did a good job. Fret not.

Other stuff
"Automatic previous question after 3 speeches on the same side" is not a rule unless we're at TOC or tournaments that specifically use TOC rules.

Speech equity is great and important, but there is no such thing as a formal base system. I have nothing against someone getting the chance to speak more than everyone else if it keeps debate going and fresh.

Don't yell or be mean in cross-ex. Avoid talking over eachother. If someone starts yelling or talking over you in cross-ex, let them. I promise it's more strategic to let them look bad and perhaps call them out for it, compared to fighting fire with fire. That being said, questioners AND answers should keep questions AND answers concise.

I see all the politicking for what it really is

UPDATED 6/1/2022 NSDA Nationals Congress Update

I have been competing and judging in speech and debate for the past 16 years now. I did Parli and Public Forum in High School, and Parli, LD and Speech in College. I have judged all forms of High School Debate. Feel free to ask me more in depth questions in round if you don't understand a part of my philosophy.

Congress

Given that my background is in debate I tend to bring my debate biases into Congress. While I understand that this event is a mix of argumentation and stylistic speaking I don't think pretty speeches are enough to get you a high rank in the round. Overall I tend to judge Congress rounds based off of argument construction, style of delivery, clash with opponents, quality of evidence, and overall participation in the round. I tend to prefer arguments backed by cited sources and that are well reasoned. I do not prefer arguments that are mainly based in emotional appeals, purely rhetoric speeches usually get ranked low and typically earn you a 9. Be mindful of the speech you are giving. I think that sponsorship speeches should help lay the foundation for the round, I should hear your speech and have a full grasp of the bill, what it does, why it's important, and how it will fix the problems that exist in the squo. For clash speeches they should actually clash, show me that you paid attention to the round, and have good responses to your opponents. Crystallizations should be well organized and should be where you draw my conclusions for the round, I shouldn't be left with any doubts or questions.

POs will be ranked in the round based off of their efficiency in running and controlling the round. I expect to POs to be firm and well organized. Don't be afraid of cutting off speakers or being firm on time limits for questioning.

Public Forum

• I know how to flow and will flow.
  • This means I require a road map.
  • I need you to sign post and tell me which contention you are on. Use author/source names.
• I will vote on Ks. But this means that your K needs to have framework and an alt and solvency. If you run a K my threshold for voting on it is going to be high. I don't feel like there is enough time in PF to read a good K but I am more than willing to be open to it and be proven wrong. For anyone who hits a K in front of me 'Ks are cheating' is basically an auto loss in front of me.
• I will vote on theory. But this doesn't mean that I will vote for all theory. Theory in debate is supposed to move this activity forwards. Which means that theory about evidence will need to prove that there is actual abuse occurring in order for me to evaluate it. I think there should be theory in Public Forum because this event is still trying to figure itself out but I do not believe that all theory is good theory. And theory that is playing 'gotcha' is not good theory. Having good faith is arbitrary but I think that the arguments made in round will determine it. Feel free to ask questions.
• Be strategic and make good life choices.
• Impact calc is the best way to my ballot.
• I will vote on case turns.
• I will call for cards if it comes down to it.

Policy Debate

I tend to vote more for truth over tech. That being said, nothing makes me happier than being able to vote on T. I love hearing a good K. Spread fast if you want but at a certain point I will miss something if you are going top speed because I flow on paper, I do know how to flow I'm just not as fast as those on a laptop. Feel free to ask me any questions before round.


LD Debate

Fair warning it has been a few years since I have judged high level LD. Ask me questions if I'm judging you.

Framework
You do not win rounds if you win framework. You win that I judge the round via your framework. When it comes to framework I'm a bit odd and a bit old school. I function under the idea that Aff has the right to define the round. And if Neg wants to me to evaluate the round via their framework then they need to prove some sort of abuse.

Parent judge, extremely little experience.

I don't understand debate very well, make things clear.

Crossfire is really important in the round--It shows how much you know.

Presentation is the main point of debate, be sure to present yourself well, speak slowly and be persuasive.

I will vote on the argument that I believe to be the most true.

When voting, I will take presentation first before arguments because the point of debate is to persuade people.

Hi! I'm Rani Vakharia and I've been competing in speech and debate for 5-6 years. I mainly compete in congress and extemp, but mostly judge congress so that's what I'll be focusing on.

I evaluate congress as 75% debate and 25% speech, meaning I care a lot more about what you say rather than how you say it. Make sure you back up all your points with evidence and use that to tell me why your side wins the debate. Also, it's important to stay involved in the debate by asking questions and incorporating refutations in your speech. That also means that you should be adapting your speeches (please don't give a constructive in the last cycle of debate, this will drop your ranks no matter how good your speech is).

Additionally, when dealing with sensitive topics, please use trigger warnings and give everyone who needs to exit the room a moment to do so. Besides that, remember to have fun with the activity and always be respectful of the other competitors. If you would like any extra feedback or have any questions, my email is ranivakharia05@gmail.com and I'll definitely help you out!

I’ve been Involved with Speech and Debate since 2015, although I’ve been judging almost nonstop since 2019. Available as a judge-for-hire via HiredJudge per request.

9.9/10 if you did not receive commentary on your ballot after the tournament, you (hopefully) would get my judge email on there instead.

I don’t currently operate from a laptop so my ballot speed is not ideal atm; I’m usually typing out paragraphs from a doc until the last allowable minute, but my timing is not the most perfect. You won’t always get a pageful but its my personal policy to give a minimum of 5 sentences. If you send over an email asking about your round; it might take up to 24 hours post tournament but I -will- reply back.

_____

Ballot Style:

Where possible I add timestamps to help students pinpoint exact moments in their speech that address the issue as noted by comment.it is a personal philosophy of mine to try never have less than 5 sentences on any ballot.

Debate Philosophy: I can comfortably judge parli, LD, PF, SPAR & Congress due to judging almost nonstop since the start of the pandemic. I don't have a lot of experience with policy debate as of this writing, I’m working on understanding spread speak as I do more tournaments. [current speed: 2 notches down from the fast verse in Rap God ]

I LOVE it when students are able to be fully themselves and have fun in a round
Debate Judging: I’m not the biggest fan of utilitarian as a value metric, but otherwise I try to approach the round as a blank slate. I like hearing both Ks & Traditional Argumentation however my rfd really depends on how you use them (or inverse thereof) in the debate.

Sportsmanship (like, dont lower your performance/ be rude on purpose, please) > Argumentative Cohesion & Organization > CX utilization & Clash > Framework Discourse > Delivery > Structural Presence, but I am a little stricter on citation~ doesn’t need to be the full date but it needs gotta be there

Congress: (also see above) but I like those who can flip arguments in their favor;You dont need to be extroverted to be PO, but POs should be attentive with overall energy in the chamber and facilitating ethical and intentional inclusion beforesilence becomes a huge issue in round, in addition to strict yet -visible- timekeeping.

RFD FLOW - I try to have at least a paragraph summary explaining my flow (sometimes it’ll be copy/pasted)

Speech Judging: I can judge any speech event across all levels!

I would sincerely appreciate if students could self time so I can focus on ballots.

(For those who have read all the way through, some free interp gems that will be erased in a month, besides the basics: storyboarding, stop animation, pixar’s “inside out,” samurai jack, sound track your pieces.)

I prefer a clear, evidenced-based debate.

Don't let my experience fool you into thinking I like fast, jargony debates.

Use an email chain - include me (lizannwood@hotmail.com) on it, and be honest about the evidence. Paraphrasing is one of my biggest pet peeves. (Post-rounding and making me wait for endless exchanges of evidence are the others).

I will leave my camera on, so you can see me. You can trust you have my full attention, and if connectivity issues affect any of the speeches, I'll audibly interrupt you and stop the timer till connections improve (within reason, of course).

If the timer is stopped, no one is prepping.

Avoid talking over each other online -it makes it impossible for your judges to hear either of you.

Don't be rude or condescending. You can be authoritative while also being polite.

Experience:

Mountain Brook Schools Director of Speech and Debate 2013 - current

Mountain Brook High School debate coach 2012-2013

Thompson High School policy debater 1991-1995

Hi! My name's Fiona (she/her), Westridge '25. I mainly have experience in congress.