Hey!
I'm a junior in high school, who loves speech & debate :). I've been competing in this activity since the beginning of high school. My main event is Congressional Debate, competing at the local district, states, and national level. I've additionally completed in other debate events, predominantly in Big Question Debate and Extemp Debate, and both the local and national level.

I value respectful and factual debating. It should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway- don't interrupt or talk over your opponents during any part of the debate. I prefer coherent and clear speeches over speeches that are fast and attempt to fit in as many words as possible in the allocated time. I tend to reject false "facts", please make sure that your evidence is true and factually correct. Keep your arguments straightforward, and if you can focus on one central argument and really support it throughout the entire debate, that will serve you better than half-supporting several different arguments.

Equity is the most important thing in an event. Discrimination of ANY SORT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED IN A WAY SHAPE OR FORM!

Congress:

Congress is HANDS DOWN my favorite event!

- Presence-Your presence in the round will have an impact on where I rank you. A common misconception that I want to correct here: Presence is NOT being the most involved with setting the docket, taking splits, or being the person who makes every motion. Presence is your round relevance: This really boils down to the impact you make on the round; there should be no way that I walk out of the round and ask myself"What did this person bring to the round".Quite simply, if I feel as though you did not add on to the round or have significance you will be dropped.

- Argumentation- Make arguments that WIN the round. I do not want to hear any speech after the author/sponsor that is just making one-off claim/warrant/impacts, BE RESPONSIVE AND INTERACTIVE. This is not to say that you should not have offense; a good speech should have offense that it also inherently responsive in that you are bringing a net-harm/positive to your side but also disproving the other side. I dislike arguments that are purely defensive (constitutionality, enforcement, etc.).Biggest thing for me argumentatively:I HEAVILY dislike when debaters 'card-spam' or solely rely on evidence without providing any logical warranting for their argument.

• Simply put, I believe that the affirmative’s job is to prove the bill is better than the status quo (and nothing else) and the negation's job is to prove the bill creates a worse world than the status quo. (this also means I will not evaluate your counter plan)

- Speaking/Delivery- I will keep this very short because I want to know you and your personal style, not what you think will get my 1. Couple things to avoid are being excessively fast/spreading, being monotone, and yelling. I really enjoy a well-placed joke, be funny and have fun with your AGDs/conclusions. Stay professional but be entertaining and light-hearted.

- Presiding Officers -It is INCREDIBLY rare that I rank a presiding officer 1st - this does not mean impossible, do not be dissuaded. Generally, a presiding officer will land anywhere from 3-7, which can be altered depending on the break. If you want to contend for my one: be ultra efficient, be assertive (NOT RUDE), and be concise (I will appreciate you more if you speak as minimally as possible). Being completely honest, the only way this really happens is if you are stellar or if the round is generally rough. If nobody in the chamber wants to PO and you genuinely do it for the sake of the chamber, I will understand and probably reward you. Making a mistake will not get you dropped depending on how you handle them, please be honest about it and move on instead of telling a bold-faced lie. The biggest thing that will make me drop a presiding officer - dropping someone (recency-wise). I have enough knowledge of presiding and this event to know when it is being done and I have ZERO tolerance for it - be equitable.

- Flipping-I love a balanced debate, so I reward people who flip. There is a caveat here that is fairly important: don't give a bad speech. Flipping will not automatically get you my 1, I still want to hear a good speech. In other words, don't give a terrible speech "for the sake of the debate." You will get points for flipping if your speech is good though.

- Weighing -I'm a fan of weighing at any point in the round where it makes sense to do so, don't just leave this to the crystallization speech if you can fit it in earlier. The best debaters can weigh without using debate jargon, but I'll be happy with any weighing.

• Refutation-Don't just tell me that someone is wrong, tell me why they're wrong and explain why you're right. Also, don't just namedrop a bunch of people and say they're all wrong. Either group their arguments or take them one by one.

Debate

I HATE it when a debate turns on yo a full out war. I know how it feels like to get frustrated in round, but please show respect to yourself and your competitors. My biggest thing is that I need to be able to understand what you're saying. I STRONGLY DISLIKE SPREADING!!!

Pennsbury High School '25

I have been involved with speech and debate around 4 years - I have competed in a large range of events from Declamation to Public Forum. My main event is Congress, I've been in the final rounds of tournaments like Harvard, Yale, Glenbrooks, Emory, etc. - needless to say, I understand this event through and through.

General rule of thumb, before you continue onward reading this paradigm is to not let it alter your performance - the best performance you can give is one that is authentically you.

Congress:

Argumentation - Make arguments that WIN the round. I do not want to hear any speech after the author/sponsor that is just making one-off claim/warrant/impacts, BE RESPONSIVE AND INTERACTIVE. This is not to say that you should not have offense; a good speech should have offense that it also inherently responsive in that you are bringing a net-harm/positive to your side but also disproving the other side. I dislike arguments that are purely defensive (constitutionality, enforcement, etc.). Biggest thing for me argumentatively: I HEAVILY dislike when debaters 'card-spam' or solely rely on evidence without providing any logical warranting for their argument.

• Simply put, I believe that the affirmative’s job is to prove the bill is better than the status quo (and nothing else) and the negation's job is to prove the bill creates a worse world than the status quo. (this also means I will not evaluate your counter plan)

Speaking/Delivery - I will keep this very short because I want to know you and your personal style, not what you think will get my 1. Couple things to avoid are being excessively fast/spreading, being monotone, and yelling. I really enjoy a well-placed joke, be funny and have fun with your AGDs/conclusions. Stay professional but be entertaining and light-hearted.

Presiding Officers - It is INCREDIBLY rare that I rank a presiding officer 1st - this does not mean impossible, do not be dissuaded. Generally, a presiding officer will land anywhere from 3-7, which can be altered depending on the break. If you want to contend for my one: be ultra efficient, be assertive (NOT RUDE), and be concise (I will appreciate you more if you speak as minimally as possible). Being completely honest, the only way this really happens is if you are stellar or if the round is generally rough. If nobody in the chamber wants to PO and you genuinely do it for the sake of the chamber, I will understand and probably reward you. Making a mistake will not get you dropped depending on how you handle them, please be honest about it and move on instead of telling a bold-faced lie. The biggest thing that will make me drop a presiding officer - dropping someone (recency-wise). I have enough knowledge of presiding and this event to know when it is being done and I have ZERO tolerance for it - be equitable.

Originality: You don't have to abide by the conventions of Congress in order to be good, you just have to do the best job of convincing me why your argument is the most important in the round. I don't want you to give copy-paste speeches that you've given before nor extensively rehearsed speeches that sound like ChatGPT. In fact, I would rather you write a speech from scratch in-round if it means you will adapt to the round, include refutation, and explain your advocacy properly. I rank speeches that are good in the context of the round, not just good in a vacuum.

Flipping - I love a balanced debate, so I reward people who flip. There is a caveat here that is fairly important: don't give a bad speech. Flipping will not automatically get you my 1, I still want to hear a good speech. In other words, don't give a terrible speech "for the sake of the debate." You will get points for flipping if your speech is good though.

Weighing - I'm a fan of weighing at any point in the round where it makes sense to do so, don't just leave this to the crystallization speech if you can fit it in earlier. The best debaters can weigh without using debate jargon, but I'll be happy with any weighing.

Refutation - Don't just tell me that someone is wrong, tell me why they're wrong and explain why you're right. Also, don't just namedrop a bunch of people and say they're all wrong. Either group their arguments or take them one by one.

LD/PF:

I rarely judge this so not much to say.

Truth > Tech (make your argument make sense - don't just card dump on me)

Speaking: One thing I often feel with 'hard'-debate events is that debaters forget that their is a lay appeal too. Your argumentation is obviously most important but I need to be able to clearly hear you. Speed is not an issue but when you have excessive fluency breaks that will impact you. (This is NOT to say that I will not listen to your content - I will weigh argumentation above all but this is still important.

Argumentation: I will flow the round. Major thing is that you should not drop anything: respond to everything, and defend every aspect of your argument. Make your framework CLEAR - this is very important to me.

General note: I tend to find the CX is often a wash as it turns into a screaming match - be respectful and maintain your calm.

tldr: I'm a speech judge by experience, but I can judge debate (pretty flay imo). Don't be a terrible person, have fun :)

About Me

I'm a sophomore at WashU. Spent four years at Unionville High School as an extemper, but I am familiar with all speech events and have some familiarity with PF and trad LD (sorry prog LD and Policy). I'm an econ and finance student, so my background in econ and such is pretty strong.

Debate

I'm almost universally tech>truth and tabula rasa. If I leave notes in the ballot about arguments (which I likely will), please know that those notes did not influence my decision, they are simply thoughts/suggestions I feel the need to point out. Please don't spread unless you want me to hear like a quarter of your words. Thanks <3. PLEASE if you want me to consider something that you say in cross as a voter, bring it up in a speech!!!!!! ALSO, if you don't weigh your impacts for me, I'll just ignore them, so please weigh the stuff you want me to consider when making my decision.

Speech

Why are you looking at my speech paradigm just talk it isn't that hard. If you talk well and your ideas make sense, you'll do well.