High school debate: Baltimore Urban Debate League ( Lake Clifton Eastern High School).

College debate: University of Louisville then Towson University.

Grad work: Cal State Fullerton.

Current: Director of Debate at Long Beach State (CSU Long Beach), former Director of Debate a Fresno State.

Email for chain: Devenc325@gmail.com

Speaker Point Scale

29.5-30: one of the best speakers I expect to see this year and has a high grade of Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve, Talent, and Swag is on 100. This means expert explanation of arguments and most arguments are offensive.

29 - 29.5: very good speaker has a middle grade of Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve, Talent, and mid-range swag. Explanation of arguments are of great quality and many of the arguments are offensive.

28.4 - 28.9: good speaker; may have some above average range/ parts of the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym but must work on a few of them and may have some issues to work out. Explanation of arguments are of good quality and several of the arguments are offensive.

28 - 28.3: solid speaker; needs some work; probably has average range/ parts of the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym but must work on a few of them and may have some issues to work out. Explanation of arguments are of okayish quality and very few of the arguments are offensive.

27.1 - 27.5: okay speaker; needs significant work on the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym. Not that good of explanation with no offensive arguments.

< 27: you have done something deeply problematic in this debate like clipping cards or linguistic violence, or rhetorically performed an ism without apology or remorse.

Please do not ask me to disclose points nor tell me as an argument to give you a 30. I wont. For some reason people think you are entitled to high points, I am not that person. So, you have to earn the points you get.

IF YOU ARE IN HIGHSCHOOL, SKIP DOWN TO THE "Judging Proper" section :)

Cultural Context

If you are a team that reads an argument based in someone else's identity, and you are called on it by another team with receipts of how it implicates the round you are in, its an uphill battle for you. I am a fan of performing your politics with consistency and genuine ethical relationships to the people you speak about. I am a fan of the wonderful author Linda Martin Alcoff who says " where one speaks from affects both the meaning and truth of what one says." With that said, you can win the debate but the burden of proof is higher for you....

Post Rounding

I will not entertain disrespectful or abrasive engagement because you lost the round. If you have questions, you may ask in a way that is thoughtful and seeking understanding. If your coach thinks they will do this as a defense of your students, feel free to constrain me. I will not allow my students to engage that way and the same courtesy should be extended to EVERYONE. Losing doesn't does not give you license to be out of your mind and speak with malice. Keep in mind I am not from the suburbs and I will not tolerate anyone's nasty demeanor directed at me nor my students.

"Community" Members

I do not and will not blindly think that all people in this activity are kind, trustworthy, non-cheaters, good intentioned, or will not do or say anything in the name of competition or malice towards others. Please miss me with having faith in people in an activity that often reveals people engaging in misconduct, exploitation, grooming, or other inappropriate activities that often times NEVER get reported. MANY of you have created and perpetuated a culture of toxicity and elitism, then you are surprised when the chickens come home to roost. This applies to ALL forms of college and high school debate...

Judging Proper

I am more than willing to listen to ANY arguments that are well explained and impacted and relate to how your strategy is going to produce scholarship, policy action, performance, movement, or whatever political stance or program. I will refer to an educator framework unless told otherwise...This means I will evaluate the round based on how you tell me you want it to be framed and I will offer comments on how you could make your argument better after the round. Comparison, Framing, OFFENSE is key for me. Please indict each other's framework or role of the ballot/role of the judge for evaluation and make clear offense to how that may make a bad model of debate. OR I am down with saying the debate should not be a reflection about the over all model of debate/ no model.

I DO NOT privilege certain teams or styles over others because that makes debate more unfair, un-educational, cliquey, and makes people not feel valued or wanted in this community, on that note I don't really jive to well with arguments about how certain folks should be excluded for the sake of playing the "game". NOR do I feel that there are particular kinds of debate related to ones personal identity. I think people are just making arguments attached to who they are, which is awesome, but I will not privilege a kind of debate because some asserts its a thing.

I judge debates according to the systematic connection of arguments rather than solely line by line…BUT doesn’t mean if the other team drops turns or other arguments that I won’t evaluate that first. They must be impacted and explained. PLEASE always point out reason why the opposing team is BAD and have contextualized reasons for why they have created a bad impact or make one worse. I DO vote on framework and theory arguments….I’ve been known to vote on Condo quite a bit, but make the interp, abuse story, and contradictions clear. If the debate devolves into a theory debate, I still think the AFF should extend a brief summary of the case.

Don’t try to adapt to how I used to debate if you genuinely don’t believe in doing so or just want to win a ballot. If you are doing a performance I will hold you to the level that it is practiced, you have a reason for doing so, and relates to the overall argument you are making…Don’t think “oh! I did a performance in front of Deven, I win.” You are sadly mistaken if so. It should be practiced, timed well, contain arguments, and just overall have a purpose. It should be extended with full explanation and utility.

Overall I would like to see a good debate where people are confident in their arguments and feel comfortable being themselves and arguing how they feel is best. I am not here to exclude you or make you feel worthless or that you are a "lazy" intellectual as some debaters may call others, but I do like to see you defend your side to the best of your ability.

GET OFF THEM BLOCKS SOME! I get it coaches like to block out args for their students, even so far as to script them out. I think this is a practice that is only focused on WINNING and not the intellectual development of debaters who will go on to coach younger debaters. A bit of advice that I give to any debater I come across is to tell them to READ, READ, READ. It is indeed fundamental and allows for the expansion of example use and fluency of your arguments.

A few issues that should be clarified:

Decorum: I DO NOT LIKE when teams think they can DISRESPECT, BULLY, talk RUDE to, or SCREAM at other teams for intimidation purposes in order to win or throw the other team off. Your points will be effected because this is very unbecoming and does not allow this space to be one of dialogue and reciprocity. If someone disrespects you, I am NOT saying turn the other cheek, but have some tact and utility of how you engage these folks. And being hyper evasive to me is a hard sell. Do not get me wrong, I do love the sassiness, sarcasm, curtness, and shade of it all but there is a way to do it with tact. I am also NOT persuaded that you should be able to be rude or do whatever you want because you are a certain race, class, gender, sex, sexuality, or any other intersection under the sun. That to me is a problematic excuse that intensifies the illegit and often rigid criticism that is unlashed upon "identity politics."

Road maps: STICK TO IT. I am a tight flower and I have a method. However, I need to know where things go so there is no dispute in the RFD that something was answered or not. If you are a one off team, please have a designed place for the PERM. I can listen well and know that there are places things should go, but I HATE to do that work for a team. PLEASE FLOW and not just follow the doc. If you answer an arg that was in the doc, but not read, I will take it as you note flowing nor paying attention to what is going on.

Framework and Theory: I love smart arguments in this area. I am not inclined to just vote on debate will be destroyed or traditional framework will lead to genocide unless explained very well and impacted based on some spill over claims. There must be a concrete connection to the impacts articulated on these and most be weighed. I am persuaded by the deliberation arguments, institutional engagement/building, limits, and topical versions of the Aff. Fairness is an interesting concept for me here. I think you must prove how their model of debate directly creates unfairness and provide links to the way their model of debate does such. I don't think just saying structural fairness comes first is the best without clarification about what that means in the context of the debate space and your model of debate.

Some of you K/Performance folks may think I am a FW hack, thas cute or whatever. Instead of looking at the judge as the reason why you weren't adequate at defending your business, you should do a redo, innovate, or invest in how to strategize. If it seems as though you aren't winning FW in front of me that means you are not focusing how offense and your model produces some level of "good." Or you could defend why the model approach is problematic or several reasons. I firmly believe if someone has a model of debate or how they want to engage the res or this space, you MUST defend it and prove why that is productive and provides some level of ground or debatability.

Winning Framework for me includes some level of case turn or reason why the aff produces something bad/ blocks something good/ there's a PIC/PIK of some kind (explained). This should be coupled with a proficient explanation of either the TVA or SSD strategy with the voter components (limits, predictability, clash, deliberation, research burden, education, fairness, ground etc.) that solidify your model of debate.

Performance: It must be linked to an argument that is able to defend the performance and be able to explain the overall impact on debate or the world/politics itself. Please don’t do a performance to just do it…you MUST have a purpose and connect it to arguments. Plus debate is a place of politics and args about debate are not absent politics sometimes they are even a pre-req to “real” politics, but I can be persuaded otherwise. You must have a role of the ballot or framework to defend yourself, or on the other side say why the role of the ballot is bad. I also think those critics who believe this style of debate is anti-intellectual or not political are oversimplifying the nuance of each team that does performance. Take your role as an educator and stop being an intellectual coward or ideology driven hack.

Do not be afraid to PIK/PIC out of a performance or give reasons why it was BAD. Often people want to get in their feelings when you do this. I am NOT sympathetic to that because you made a choice to bring it to this space and that means it can be negated, problematized, and subject to verbal criticism.

Topic/Resolution: I will vote on reasons why or why not to go by the topic...unlike some closed minded judges who are detached from the reality that the topics chosen may not allow for one to embrace their subjectivity or social location in ways that are productive. This doesn’t mean I think talking about puppies and candy should win, for those who dumb down debate in their framework args in that way. You should have a concrete and material basis why you chose not to engage the topic and linked to some affirmation against racism/sexism/homophobia/classism/elitism/white supremacy and produces politics that are progressive and debatable. There would have to be some metric of evaluation though. BUT, I can be persuaded by the plan focus and topic education model is better middle ground to what they want to discuss.

Hella High Theory K: i.e Hiediggar, Baudrillard, Zizek, D&G, Butler, Arant, and their colleagues…this MUST be explained to me in a way that can make some material sense to me as in a clear link to what the aff has done or an explanation of the resolution…I feel that a lot of times teams that do these types of arguments assume a world of abstraction that doesn’t relate fully to how to address the needs of the oppressed that isn’t a privileged one. However, I do enjoy Nietzsche args that are well explained and contextualized. Offense is key with running these args and answering them.

Disadvantages: I’m cool with them just be well explained and have a link/link wall that can paint the story…you can get away with a generic link with me if you run politics/econ/tradeoff disads. But, it would be great to provide a good story. In the 2NC/1NR retell the story of the disad with more context and OFFENSE and compartmentalize the parts. ALWAYS tell me why it turns and outweighs case. Disads on case should be impacted and have a clear link to what the aff has done to create/perpetuate the disad. If you are a K team and you kick the alt that solves for the disads…that is problematic for me. Affs need to be winning impact framing and some level of offense. No link is not enough for me.

Perms: I HATE when people have more than 3 perms. Perm theory is good here for me, do it and not just GROUP them. For a Method v Method debate, you do not get to just say you dont get a perm. Enumerate reasons why they do not get a perm. BUT, if an Aff team in this debate does make a perm, it is not just a test of competition, it is an advocacy that must be argued as solving/challenging what is the issue in the debate.
Additionally, you can kick the perms and no longer have to be burden with that solvency. BUT you must have offensive against their C/P, ALT, or advocacy.

Counterplans/Advocacies: They have to solve at least part of the case and address some of the fundamental issues dealing with the aff’s advantages especially if it’s a performance or critical aff…I’m cool with perm theory with a voter attached. I am cool with any kind of these arguments, but an internal net benefit is not enough for me in a policy counterplan setting. If you are running a counter advocacy, there must be enumerated reasons why it is competitive, net beneficial, and is the option that should be prioritized. I do love me a PIK/PIC or two, but please do it effectively with specific evidence that is a criticism of the phrase or term the aff used. But, know the difference between piking out of something and just criticizing the aff on some trivial level. I think you need to do very good analysis in order to win a PIC/PIK. I do not judge kick things...that is your job.

Affs in the case of PIK/PICs, you must have disads to the solvency (if any), perm, theory, defend the part that is questionable to the NEG.

Race/ Identity arguments: LOVE these especially from the Black/Latinx/Asian/Indigenous/Trans/Sexuality perspective (most familiar with) , but this doesn’t mean you will win just because you run them like that. I like to see the linkage between what the aff does wrong or what the aff/neg has perpetuated. I’m NOT likely to vote on a link of omission unless some structural claim has risen the burden. I am not familiar with ALL of these types of args, so do not assume that I know all you literature or that I am a true believer of your arguments about Blackness. I do not believe that Blackness based arguments are wedded to an ontology focus or that one needs to win or defeat ontology to win.

I am def what some of you folks would call a "humanist and I am okay with that. Does not mean you can't win any other versions of that debate in front of me.

Case Args: Only go for case turns and if REALLY needed for your K, case defense.…they are the best and are offensive , however case defense may work on impacts if you are going for a K. If you run a K or performance you need to have some interaction with the aff to say why it is bad. Please don't sandbag these args so late in the debate.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am of the strong belief that Congressional debate is a DEBATE event first and foremost. I do not have an I.E or speech background. However, I do teach college public speaking and argumentation. The comments I leave will talk about some speech or style components. I am not a judge that heavily favors delivery over the argumentation and evidence use.

I am a judge that enjoys RECENT evidence use, refutation, and clash with the topics you have been assigned.

STRUCTURE OF SPEECHES

I really like organization. With that said, I do prefer debaters have a introduction with a short attention getter, and a short preview statement of their arguments. In the body of the speech, I would like some level of impacting/ weighing of your arguments and their arguments ( if applicable), point out flaws in your opponents argumentation (lack of solvency, fallacies, Alternative causes), cite evidence and how it applies, and other clash based refutation. If you want to have a conclusion, make sure it has a short summary and a declarative reason to pass or fail.

REFUTATION

After the first 2 speeches of the debate, I put heavy emphasis on the idea that these speeches should have a refutation component outside of you extending a previous argument from your side, establish a new argument/evidence, or having some kind of summary. I LOVE OFFENSE based arguments that will turn the previous arguments state by the opposition. Defensive arguments are fine, but please explain why they mean the opposition cannot solve or why your criticism of their evidence or reason raises to the level of rejecting their stance. Please do not list more than 2 or 3 senators or reps that you are refuting because in some cases it looks like students are more concerned with the appearance of refutation than actually doing it. I do LOVE sassy, assertive or sarcastic moments but still be polite.

EVIDENCE USE

I think evidence use is very important to the way I view this type of debate. You should draw evidence from quality sources whether that is stats/figures/academic journals/narrative from ordinary people. Please remember to cite where you got your information and the year. I am a hack for recency of your evidence because it helps to illuminate the current issues on your topic. Old evidence is a bit interesting and should be rethought in front of me. Evidence that doesn't at some level assume the ongoing/aftermath of COVID-19 is a bit of a stretch. Evidence comparison/analysis of your opponent is great as well.

ANALYSIS

I LOVE impact calculus where you tell me why the advantages of doing or not doing a bill outweighs the costs. This can be done in several ways, but it should be clear, concise, and usually happen in the later speeches. At a basic level, doing timeframe, magnitude, probability, proximity, or any other standard for making arguments based on impact are great. I DISLIKE rehash....If you are not expanding or changing the way someone has articulated an argument or at least acknowledge it, I do not find rehash innovative nor high rank worthy. This goes back to preparation and if you have done work on both sides of a bill. You should prepare multiple arguments on a given side just in case someone does the argument before you. There is nothin worse to me than an unprepared set of debaters that must take a bunch of recesses/breaks to prepare to switch.

IF YOU DID NOT GET FEEDBACK ON YOUR BALLOT FROM ME, PLEASE EMAIL ME AT EVANRFELDMAN@GMAIL.COM

Background:

HS Competitor at Sherman Oaks Center for Enriched Studies (SOCES) from the West LA district in California. High School Competitive Experience : Mainly in Congress, Impromptu, Parli, Spar and Duo. Qualified to states in Congress, Duo, Original Prose and Poetry, and TOC bid in congress.

Collegiate and Professional Competitive Experience:

CC Competitor at Los Angeles Valley College (LAVC) from AFA D1

Uni Competitor at Eastern Michigan University (EMU) from AFA D5

Pro Competitor at Archers, Acolytes, and Associates from LA

DEBATE:

1. Parli: NPTE Qualifier, 2nd seed and Semifinalist at CA State (2016) , 8th best Speaker & Semifinalist at Phi Rho Pi Nats (2016), Awarded best CC Parli team in the country as voted on by competitors (Bossard Twohy Award 2016).

2. IPDA: Semifinalist and 9th Spkr at CA State(2017), Co-National Champion at NOFC (2021)

IE'S/SPEECH:

CA Community College (CCCFA) States: (2016-2017) 2x champ in IMP(1 picket-fence) and Extemp, Finalist in ADS/STE (2016). Individual Sweepstakes Winner in non interp events (Tabor Collins Award 2016)

MI States (MISL) : Runner Up in Imp and Poetry, 3rd in Extemp and Persuasion, Individual Sweeps Winner (2021). State Champ in Poetry and Extemp, 3rd in After Dinner Speaking (2022)

Phi Rho Pi Nationals: Finalist in Imp Semifinalist in Ext (2016).

AFA: Quarter in ADS/STE and Poetry (2022), Semi in Persuasion/Oratory (2021)

NFA: 2x Semi in ADS/STE (2021-2022), Quarterfinal in Persuasion/Oratory (2021) , 2x Octofinal in both Impromptu and Poetry (2021-2022)

NOFC: National Champ in Persuasion & in Poetry, Silver in ADS/STE (All 2021)

Interstate Oratorical Association (IOA): National Qualifier (2021)

Professional Speech and Debate Association (PSDA): Season 2 Champion in Prepared Speech, Runner Up in Spontaneous Debate and Spontaneous Speech, 3rd in Indy Sweeps (All 2022)

Coaching Experience:

Coached middle school speech and debate for nine years, high school for eight years, elementary school for three years and community college for two years.

Congress: Champions/Runners Up at Harvard, Stanford/Palm Classic, NSDA, CHSSA State, CSULB (Jack Howe) and La Costa Canyon (Winter Classic). Finalists at Yale, Berkeley, UK Season Opener, MLK, Nova Titan, The Tradition, TOC Digital Series, ASU, Palos Verdes Peninsula, CMSF States, TOC, MS TOC

Impromptu: Finalists at Stanford, Berkeley, CSULB, La Costa Canyon, ASU, CHSSA States, CCCFA State, Phi Ro Pi Nats, NSDA Nats

PARLI: Finalists at CSUN, Grossmont, Pasadena City College, UOP, CCCFA States, Phi Ro Pi Nats

Extemp: Finalists at CSULB, La Costa Canyon, ASU, Yale, CCCFA State

POI: Champion/Runner Up at CHSSA State/ NSDA Nats Finalists at Stanford, Berkeley, NIETOC

OO: Finalists at CSULB, La Costa Canyon, CSUF, CLU, CHSSA States

THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW WHEN I JUDGE YOU:

1. Role of the debate space: This activity should be a safe and inclusive place for EVERYBODY. I am open to progressive and identity based arguments, and I want ya'll to be comfortable in the round. Although I've faced my own discrimination as a member of the Jewish community, I will never know what it's like to deal with the marginalization that POC, Women/Womxn, and the LGBTQ face on a daily basis. Thus, if there is anything I can do to make you feel more comfortable in the debate space, please let me know.

2. Evidence

A. Recency

I am a sucker for recent evidence, the more topical the the evidence the better. It's hard for me to trust that evidence from 6 or more years ago is still relevant (everything 1/1/2017 and beyond is fine until 12/31/2022).

B. Citing

Please at LEAST cite the year of the evidence, month is fine, and date is only necessary if it's extremely recent or if the date has some significance. Each contention should have evidence (this also applied in Extemp, Info, OO/Pers).

C. Sourcing

PLEASE TELL ME WHERE THE INFO WAS PUBLISHED. Johnson 20' could easily be someone's parent or a random blog writer. Tell me if it's from The Brookings Institute, or Vox, or PBS, or the National Institute of Health. I also value source diversity, don't repeat the same publication if possible, some other publication has probably said the exact same thing.

D. Conflicting evidence

I am happy to hear arguments about why yours is better than your opponents' (Recency of publication, larger sample size, more diverse sample size, more credible publication, misuse of evidence, conflict of interest in publishing etc).

E Quality/Bias:

I personally don't like Fox, CNN, MSNBC, The Daily Wire, and other sources that have had too many problems with fake news. I won't accept evidence from conspiracy theory or white supremacist sites like Breitbart, InfoWars, The Daily Stormer, or anything from Q-ANON.

3. Delivery:

A. Speed: I have a fine motor skill issue that prevents me from flowing super fast. I will listen to some speed, but not full spreading. I can handle more speed than lay, but less than the avg flow judge. If I call speed 4x and you don't slow down you will lose the round.

I am less willing to deal with speed in Congress, IPDA or BQ where the point is to be conversational.

B. Speaker Points: Rounds should be fun. I want ya'll to be able to use your wit and humor, thus I will take that into account if you are looking for a way to improve your speaker points. I like puns, Childish Gambino, Hamilton, Lil Dicky, Rick and Morty, sports, and silly analogies. You won't win just for being funny, but you'll up your spks for sure.

C. Standing/Movement: I expect all competitors to stand when they speak (not required during cx). It's better for your vocal projection, confidence and overall presentation. If you are doing Congress, Spar or an IE (not including interp), I expect you to also do a speaker's triangle/three step walk.

ONLINE TOURNAMENTS ONLY: Please don't look down at the camera, place it on a higher platform so that it can be at eye level when you stand. Make sure you look at the camera to simulate eye contact and not stare at yourself or a second monitor... Also please make sure you are fully in camera when you're speaking.

4. Argumentation

Types of Arguments I will and won't listen to

A. All events:

Debate is a game so run what you want, but here is a tip sheet if you have me.

a. Counter-plans: Make sure they aren't perm-able, that they are non topical and that they don't bite into your own disadvantage

b. Perm: Show why both plan and cp can be done. I won't allow everything to be permed just because it's a "test of competition"

c. Ideology: I'm not only from a metropolitan city, I'm from a metropolitan COASTAL State, not only am I from a metropolitan COASTAL state, but that State is California... you do the math on where my politics lie. Jokes aside, speech and debate is already a progressive activity, but I'm a 20-something year old adult from the most liberal place in the country who is an intersectional feminist and is part of a marginalized minority...like I'm pretty far left. I will listen to conservative leaning arguments, but be careful. I recommend framing them within a progressive lens, and how your impact will protect the disenfranchised.

d. Structure: If you do a status quo, link/change, impact type structure you improve your chances of me voting for you/ranking you well. Also, if you're using an opponents argument against them SAY TURN. If you don't have an argument to turn it, then de-linking (showing why it doesn't apply) or saying it's non unique (that their impact is already happening without the resolution/topic) is helpful. I really appreciate when people number their responses.

It's in your best interest to give impacts (why we should care/the result of your argument). Please state the name and number of your contentions. Say the word impact, tell me what the TANGIBLE impact is, then explain it (hopefully with evidence).

Event Specific Notes

A. PARLI, PF, LD, CX, IPDA and BQ Only..... If you have me in congress, keep scrolling.

a. Conditionality: Kick whatever you want as long as there isn't offense on it. I'll listen to condo theory

b. Topicality: If you're being abused by the aff, run it. I'm also okay with seeing it as time strategy. Show the articulated abuse.

c. Reverse Voting Issues: They usually aren't very persuasive but I will buy them more than the average flow judge.

d. Spreading Theory: If you're calling speed and/or clear and the team refuses to slow down I will probably vote for this if you do an okay job running it.

e . Kritik's: Will listen to them if the structure is very organized. I want to be told the role of the ballot, the framework, the link, the impact, the alt etc... I've only voted on four k's ever.

f. No New Points in Rebuttal Theory: I'm a fan, but you have to earn it.

g. No Neg Fiat: I'll laugh, but hey, if you can do it, good for you.

h. Trichotomy: Bleh, you better make some really compelling arguments.

Overall: Be organized, use sub-points, number your responses, explain your impacts. I will listen to complex arguments but please explain them clearly. Hard for me to vote for you if you don't give me voters. HAVE FUN.

B. Congress ONLY:

1. CLASH is the most important part of congress.

Even if you're the first speaker, tell me what opposition speakers are going to say. When you CLASH, tell me which opponents you are responding to directly (Senator Trololol or Representative DankMemez YOU said). Yes I am okay if you clash with members of your side as long as you don't contradict yourself.

2. DO NOT repeat points made by others without contributing to the conversation.

If someone makes a point that is even REMOTELY similar to yours, you can't just pretend that they didn't say it. Like if you have an economic point about job growth and someone else on your side talked about gdp growth you can address them (Senator Renegade YOU brought up how this legislation increases the nation's gdp, and while I agree that this is important, we also need to understand the economic implications of how this bill impacts job growth).

3. Speaking order

Any person can win from any spot. However, the later you go, the more I expect you to clash, and the more I expect your points to be unique. If you are nervous about clashing or have generic stock points, I'd recommend going early and predicting the round. If you're one of the last speakers to speak on a bill, please compare the aff and neg (like a two world scenario), and give summaries of why your side has won.

4. Organization

A. Within a speech

Attention Getting Device, Quick Preview (pass/fail this bill and there's a few reasons why), Contentions and Clash (preferable to do them as the same time), Quick Conclusion.

B. Within an argument

State the name of your argument as you start that contention. Then you can kinda do whatever you want as long as you explain why your argument connects back to the bill and clash if possible.

If you do a status quo, link/change (if we pass/fail this legislation then), impact type structure I'll be impressed.

5. PO'S

Be efficient, be personable, be confident, be organized, follow Parliamentary Procedure, and it's in your best interest to tell us how many questions/speeches we got in while you presided.

Congress Overall: Overall: Be organized, CLASH WITH OTHER SPEAKERS, number your responses, HAVE FUN.

I focus on how convincing, straightforward and organized the arguments are. Clear diction is important. I also judge based upon how well debaters deliver their speeches and get their points across. Don't be afraid to ask questions and be active in the debate!

Traditional judge - Ask me in round.

I have about 12 years of experience in competing, coaching & judging both speech and debate. I competed on the collegiate level and tend to go for strong topical arguments and clear, persuasive, and passionate speakers. I’ll keep detailed notes and normally vote on impacts, magnitude & topicality. Feel free to ask anything else before and/or after the round.

faith.lopiccolo@gmail.com

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

I am a second year parent volunteer judge of Congressional Debate and Public Forum, representing American Heritage School in Delray, Florida. I have judged Congressional Debate at TOC in 2023 and Public Forum online in 2022. 2023 is my first Nationals judging.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

The first affirmative author should clearly and confidently outline the legislation and set the standard for the round. The first con speaker should be equally confident to present a counter-argument. A variety of clearly articulated pieces of evidence and quantitative and factual citations are always preferred to any vague, theoretical and qualitative statements. After the first two speeches, I look for additional evidence that augments the argument or a counter argument instead of re-stating previous arguments. Citing previous debaters and building on their key arguments adds value and shows that the speaker is alert and comprehends the legislation on a deeper level.

Ability to ask targeted questions is important. Quality of the question matters. Similarly, ability to carry the debate, answer concisely an to the question at hand and refer to the previous facts and metrics during the response is very important. In fact, this is the most important factor for me in judging the debator. When the Q&A time runs out, it usually becomes clear who held an advantage in that argument. Concise arguments win.

Presentation style matters also but to a lesser degree. It is finding that balance of being confident and assertive, yet not going overboard with screaming or trying too hard. Measured, confident delivery wins. Timing the speech close to the alloted time limit is a plus. Significantly short or a run-on speech is a negative.

Professional conduct and respect to other debaters and judges at all times is paramount. Ethics and values is table stakes. Else, you are out.

For a PO, I look for the ability to maintain order. The PO is in control of the Congress session. Show it. Run it and ensure that the rules are enforced at all times. Whiteboarding of debate topics and order of aft and con presenters for each legislation topic throughout the session helps.

I do not shake hands with presenters but try to maintain a positive, encouraging tone. Equal treatment to all participants.

Throughout each round, I maintain the count of key arguments, Q&A encounters, etc for each debator. At the end of each round, ranking becomes obvious based on the body of data gathered throughout the round for each participant. I usually make a fast ranking decision without major hesitations.

I am a junior high speech and debate coach. While I do tolerate some speed please do not spread. Please make sure to signpost. Impacts are important please make sure you connect them back to your value/criterion. Have fun and be kind to each other.

I care more about the clarity and organization of your arguments and want to see how impactful they are through the flow. I prefer your arguments to be straightforward to reflect your points. Use your body languages appropriately will definitely be a plus. Don't be nervous and just enjoy your debate!

Congressional Debate:

General Ideas to Keep in Mind: I strongly prefer clear speakers that are easy to understand and follow. I would also like a respectful debate, so during the round and cross examination especially, please limit cutting off other competitors. The side you stand on does not matter to me as long as you are a good speaker with proper argumentation and persuasion skills.

Speeches: I prefer clear speakers who I can understand well - if I have any trouble understanding you, you will not be getting a high score. Please include vocal variety and some hand gestures, or else the speech seems very bland. I also would like to see clear argumentation that is backed up with solid evidence. And finally, unless you are the sponsorship or authorship speaker, I expect some clash in your speech, though canned rebuttal will lose you points.
I recognize crystallization speeches and that they are harder to present, so if you do it well, I will give you a higher score. However, if you do it poorly, do not expect me to rank you very high.

Cross Examination: During direct cross examination, I would like both competitors respecting each other and allowing the other to speak. Please do not continuously cut off other competitors as that makes it harder to follow and understand - I will give you a lower score for that.
And during indirect cross examination, please keep your questions short but meaningful, with solid answers - leading questions, preface questions and other fallacies should not be present in the round and will you get a lower score.

Presiding Officers: I expect that Presiding Officers can move the round along quickly and smoothly - if as a judge I can clearly see otherwise, I will not give Presiding Officers a high score. However, if the Presiding Officer is particularly good, expect a top 5, or at the very least, top 8 score.