Hey! I'm Garv, a freshman at Stevenson High School in Illinois.

My basic philosophy in Congress is that it is neither a debate nor a speech event. It is a game of raw persuasion. However you wish to win that game is totally up to you. So do what you are best at! I won't reward a good sponsorship more than a good late-round crystallization speech (or vice versa) just because it is a sponsorship. As long as you do a sufficient job deploying arguments in the right place (early, middle, late) and show me that you are the best legislator in the room, you'll get my 1.

Do not be boring. If you are an engaging and persuasive speaker who uses rhetoric, style, and refutations (in the later rounds) effectively, you will be rewarded on my ballot. If you aren't, I'm honestly probably not going to remember you. These days, I view effective presentation as a precondition for evaluating strong argumentation, because even if you were Aristotle himself, I won't be able to "get" what you're arguing unless you argue it in a memorable fashion. I love unorthodox play-styles, speech structures, and ways of doing Congress that go past the two-point constructive mold (but this doesn't mean you have to do these things to impress me).

I enjoy well-thought-out positions that explain the round in a perspective that hasn't been considered. I will not hyper-scrutinize every link or warrant in an argument, but if your claims are clearly unsubstantiated or flimsy, that reflects poorly. Explain every part of your argument in a way that an average viewer on C-Span could understand. Congress is supposed to be an accessible event.

If you have any more questions about my paradigms or my ballots, email me at bakshegarv@gmail.com!

strategically to capture what arguments are most important. I am an absolute sucker for strong framing, the effective use of overviews, and really acute round strategy above all else.

I'll always reward debaters who flip sides to advance the debate. I have been in this position countless times, and I know it can be stressful and frustrating. Don't worry, as long as you give a good speech -- I've got your back.

For presiding officers, don't make any mistakes and be assertive. A good PO will always be ranked high in my book, but a middling or poor PO is likely to be dropped. Make sure you know your stuff before you run.

When it comes to Congressional debate, there are four key things I’m looking for when judging: 1) Refutations. You need to have refutations because it is the building block for progressing your speech, diverging from others to avoid rehash, and proving why you are the most correct. 2) Confidence. If you struggle with eye contact or simply have a hard time getting a foundational understanding of your speech, at least have confidence in your words. 3) Content. Besides demonstrating a logical connection of your ideas and then impacting them, you should be trying to delve further into the issue and really observe all the nuanced details at hand, that perhaps other competitors hadn’t considered or known before. 4) Respect and kindness. It’s ok to be passionate about your speech and be determined in cross examination, but remember to maintain respect for your other competitors, and a simple act of courtesy goes a long way. Be kind to one another and be confident in yourselves. These speeches aren’t meant to be infallible works of art, so just go up there and do the best you can. You’ve got this!

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.