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 .

I've debated in varsity congress for 2 years, and competed in middle school congressional debate before that.

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.

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) from CR North HS in PA. I have experience in Congress, World Schools, Big Questions, Informative, Impromptu, Extemp Speaking, etc. I almost always judge or parli Congress at tournaments so here is my paradigm for Congress.

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.

Argumentation: Almost all arguments require evidence, so provide a card for every single argument you have. There are arguments that you can run with logic or morality, but usually they don't work as effectively. 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.

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. Rehash is never fun to listen to, thus I will always give those flipping a higher rank than a good speech on the same side in a row.

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. 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 

Hi my name is Parker De Deker, and I am a current Senior at Neenah High School in Wisconsin, but I am also a student at the University of Wisconsin Madison/Oshkosh. In my Speech & Debate Career, I have competed in Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Policy (1 Time and Never Again), Congressional Debate, World Schools Debate, and one Big Questions Tournament. For Speech, my primary experience is in Impromptu, Original Oratory, Program Oral Interpretation, Dramatic Interpretation, Poetry, and Extemp; however, I am also decently familiar with all the other Speech categories and know what I look for in each of them. I am super excited to judge your round, and if you are looking for a more in-depth paradigm for each category, look below!

Congressional Debate

I have competed in over 2,000 Hours of Congressional Debate in my High School Career, with 475 of those being in Presiding and I was the 2022 National Champion in Congressional Debate: House as well as the Final Round Presiding Officer. With that being said, I know just how much work all of you put into this activity, so I will always judge you based on the effort you put in!

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 individual rankings upon completion of the round.

Speaking: I am comfortable with spreading; however, this is Congressional debate, and spreading is non-sensical when it comes to 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 bly 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 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 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: I am highly experienced in the intricacies of presiding, winning numerous awards from my Presiding across the country at numerous National Circuit Tournaments, NSDA & NCFL Nationals, and the Tournament of Champions. If you are running against someone as the presiding officer, I am hoping that 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 in which all parties are held to the highest standard and will make 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 am a fan of progressive arguments in PF. Yes I know, public forum is supposed to be very accessible, and I agree, but 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 being sad, if you are trying to run a T-Shell in JV or Novice, I'm going to 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 clearly 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.

Speech

Topics: As a judge the prioritizes equity. inclusion, and mutual respect above all else in a round, there are some items regarding your speech topic that is important for you (as a competitor) to understand with me as your judge. 1.) Racial sensitivity. There a certain pieces and/or topics that are written from a certain perspective. What does this mean? I am not going to appreciate it as a judge if you are performing "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July" by Frederick Douglass as a Caucasian male. A piece like this was written to tell the story of the black experience and captivate the vicissitudes of American history. Performing this won't guarantee an effect on your rank, but it may very likely be culturally offensive to some of your competitors. This goes for all topics in speech/forensics I.E. topics that discuss race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, religion, financial status, etc. Topics that are offensive aren't okay unless you preface and can somehow rationalize it. That being said, if I find any of your comments seem disrespectful, rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc., I will drop you. 2.) Trigger warnings: if your speech contains any wording, context, or storyline that could possibly trigger past trauma for other individuals, please offer a trigger warning, because it's not that difficult. Just say: "my speech will contain mention of ______ at certain points, to ensure mutual respect I am now offering a trigger warning to my audience for _____, after the completion of my speech, I will represent I am done by {choose your action.}

Delivery: Speech is designed to be a form of expression, so please express yourself. I don't care if you are in extemp or info, I still want vocal inflection. Meaningful pauses, deep breaths, transitions in speed, changes in tone, etc. all affect my interpretation of your speech, commanding these techniques properly will be reflected in your ranks.

Presentation: While the delivery and topic of a speech are a vital component in how I perceive a speech, your presentation, specifically your posture, hand gestures, movement etc; however, I know there are circumstances where individuals need to be sitting, laying down, not-moving, etc. This will not affect your rank, there are plenty of judges all over the country who will critique you for this, but I won't. Here's how I incorporate presentation into my rankings. Everyone begins the round on the same level, your presentation can only maintain the same perception I had when you came into the room, that being said, your presentation can hurt you if it is not effective, distracting, etc.

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 did not win Vestavia Novice :( but I will try to judge your round off the flow :)

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

Give an off-time roadmap, but like "neg, aff" not like "Judge, I would like to first explain why my opponent's attacks against my case are wrong, then reexplain my case, then weigh my arguments against my opponents, then address my opponents case, then address an issue brought up in cross, then leave you with 10 voters." Like, ew, gross. Unless that's your thing for some reason; then go you. Also, don't call me judge, and just like don't address me in round at all because I'm literally 17

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, but don't aggressively post-round me!

Most importantly, HAVE FUN!!!

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 net benefits provided by the proposition. If you can link the counterplan 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, so I'm relatively well-versed with the dynamics and flow of each event-- that being said, I mostly do World Schools and Congress as of current.

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 speech & 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!

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. I tend to rank POs high until they give me a reason not to- be familiar with procedure! Stay true to yourself and have some self-confidence! 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. I want to see you at your best. I believe that my role is to listen, flow, and weigh the arguments offered in the round how I am told to weigh them by each team. I will listen to and evaluate any argument. There is no educational warrant/it is unacceptable to do anything that is ableist, anti-feminist, anti-queer, racist, or violent.

My goal is not to intervene when judging. I can do that best when you: 1) explain why your impacts outweigh your opponents' impacts; 2) do evidence comparison as necessary; and 3) do judge instruction.

Policy Affirmatives

Go for it. 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. 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 the questions of fairness. 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 fairness or how a method leads to an acquisition/development of portable skills. It doesn't have to start or end in any particular place. 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 have voted for and against framework. 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. 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: Explain how the perm works (more than "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.

• 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.

TOC Requested Update for Congress

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 in the mid/late 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 (through their side's framing) 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.

Hello all,

I am a parent judge. I have been judging the student congress debate for the 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 give a good ranking if PO runs the chamber efficiently. Good luck!

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!

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 high school congress and WSD debater. I have champed tournaments like UK Season Opener and Blue Key @ UF. I won 8 bids in 2022-2023 season. I love judging, so fret not! You will get fair ranks and detailed feedback :)

Don't lie.

In my feedback I will focus on constructive criticism, not what you did perfectly. This allows both of us to focus on what you can improve.

Speech content
- Any speaker at any point in the round can get my 1, doesn't matter if you're a sponsor, mid-round speaker, or the very last speech of the bill.
- I don't have a bias towards any format, structure, or method. All that matters is that you debate well and clearly.
- No one knows how to weigh in congress so please weigh.
- Empirical citations =/= Causal analysis.
- I appreciate original, novel, and funny rhetoric. Try to distinguish yourself from 'congress kid #4742.'
- 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.

Delivery & presentation
- I don't weigh content against presentation "70/30" or anything like that.
- Presentation is necessary to help you get your point across. If you neglect presentation that will reflect on your overall performance.

Presiding officers
- 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.
- To be honest I rank POs in final rounds kind of differently. I don't think most POs deserve to champ unless they do something especially useful or demonstrate exceptional leadership. I'm more inclined to give POs the 1 in non-final rounds.

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. That being said, questioners AND answers should keep questions AND answers concise.
- I see all the politicking for what it really is

Have fun, be nice to eachother, make a deliberate and conscious effort to be inclusive, go get those Ws

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, send me an email and I’ll be more than happy to get back to you on those as soon as I can!

if you need clarification on a ballot OR IF I JUDGED one of your rounds and you didn't recieve ANY FEEDBACK (esp with virtual tournaments it happens since I flow externally and copy-paste) please send an email ASAP to [ jvictorino0.forensicsjudge@gmail.com ] - I archive my ballots routinely!

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 - if you don’t see specific comments in your individual section (due to round pace), look for three asterisks/ three eights like: [ ***or .888], I’ll post the entire flow with [ *** or .888 ] at the end of key arguments per speech. Flow Criticism will be in parentheses +&&&, looking like this (comment)&&&

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.

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. My email is fiona.zhou2006@gmail.com if you have questions.