I debated policy in high school and in college in from 1988-1994. I have coached policy, LD, public forum and now Congressional debate. Because of my policy roots substantiating your argument with evidence and refutation are important to debate. I fundamentally see Congressional debate as debate not as another form of extemp.

I am a parent judge for Congress. My degree is in Political Science with a focus on the U.S. govt. I have lobbied Congress, written opinion pieces on behalf of a Senator, and worked closely with govt. agencies such as FDA.

I am looking for a healthy debate. Can you provide new facts or pull the facts given together and summarize? If not, please think twice about speaking. Speaking for the sake of speaking and not to further the debate, seems rather useless. Try not to read your notes. You need to have a strong open and at least three reasons we should affirm or negate a bill. Smooth language read from a page is less important than a passionately delivered, well researched piece.

Congress, overall - I am here to judge you and you are here to speak. I don't like when time is wasted not debating when that's the whole point of this event existing. Along this line, if previous question was moved and you still have a speech, maybe you should have been better prepared or chosen to speak sooner. I believe it is selfish to make an entire chamber sit through a broken cycle if your speech is not going to actually contribute to debate.

Congress Scorer- Congressional debate should be extemporaneous or have an extemporaneous feel. If I can tell that this is a pre-written speech and not your actual words, this will result in an automatic 5.

Because there is only 3 minutes per speech, the critiques I can provide are generally not the most thorough, however, I do try to provide feedback based on what I notice.

Speaker ranking is determined by conduct in chamber and questions asked. I do not necessarily take into consideration the number of speeches; however, in a competitive round, quality of speaking and speeches will be a distinguishing factor between close competitors. To break this down: You will be ranked higher in my ballot if you:
1) Use questioning time effectively both as a speaker and as a questioner (I don't mind asking question to bolster your side as long as you aren't wasting what little time is given in each block)
2) Effective and correct use of parliamentary procedure
3) Have well-spoken speeches that do not read from a page (or do not feel like they were written from a page).

Speeches scoring is determined based on this rubric on page 14 https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/2017-Congressional-Debate-Guide.pdf. I prefer this rubric to the 2020 guide due to its detail.

It is rare for PO to rank below 5th in the round on my ballot. I understand the difficulty and the difference in the role of PO vs Speakers in the Chamber. That said, if there are many people deserving higher ranks as speakers,

Congress Parliamentarian - I ensure that proper order will be kept in the chamber at all times. I am very familiar with Parliamentary Procedure and will assist the Presiding Officer as needed. For Novice and JV, I will generally hold a more interactive seat with clear and direct instruction, as well as advice. For Varsity, I will take a more observational seat (unless the PO has specifically asked for a more hands-on parliamentarian). My expectations for both are similar (being more lenient with JV/Novice), however, are also understanding of experience in Speech and Debate, as well as the category overall.

What you can anticipate from my feedback: If you are a speaker, honestly, unless I have to say something (for good or bad), don't expect to get feedback from me on your speeches. You have two other judges that are giving you feedback. If you are PO, expect very detailed feedback and suggestions. Don't be intimidated by walls of text and paragraphs (with links), because that feedback is there to share my knowledge and tips that I have had with my experience with ParliPro and POing and imparting that on you.

Scoring, overall, is based on conduct in the chamber. Generally, students will receive a higher rank if they:
1. Use proper parliamentary procedure in every role in chamber (personal privilege, point of inquiry/order, effective uses of motions, etc.)
2. Utilise questioning blocks appropriately and functionally (actually asking questions, and not bringing in more information that should be addressed in a speech and ACTUALLY follow NSDA and MSHSL, when appropriate, guidelines)
3. Ensuring fairness and efficiency from every role in chamber
4. Pet peeve of mine: If you say that you are going to follow NSDA guidelines, actually follow them. There are many things that are done that explicitly go against NSDA (and MSHSL) guidelines that no one corrects. Examples include, but are not limited to: opening the floor for debate (this has never been a thing as long as I have been alive), closing the floor for docket nominations

In competitive rounds, I am looking for competitors who are paying attention, genuinely adding to the debate, and making themselves appropriately known.

While I understand that speeches are an important aspect of debate, when I am Parliamentarian, they are my second focus while ranking. I do not score speeches in this role. Most of my feedback is provided on an as-needed basis, with the exception of PO.

Last Updated:3/9/2024

Pronouns: They/Them

Background:

• Competed for 6 years: 4.5 in LD and 1.5 in Congress. Have been judging LD and Congress for 3 years now.

Overview:

• Debate should be inclusive and available to all people. If your goal is to speak as fast as possible and run the most obscure arguments to exclude people, then this isn't a winning strategy for you. My suggestion would be to run topical arguments at a pace that is inclusive to all students. The more obscure the argument the more time you should spend on explaining it. Don't just throw out random words and assume I'll fill in the blanks for you.
• If you have questions about your ballot, feel free to ask me about it! My email address isBonBrynteson@gmail.com :)

Congress:

• This is a debate event. I reward debaters on their skill to rebuttal and crystal first and then constructives/authors. This is not to say I will not rank someone high if they give constructives but I do tend to vote for people who can mix it up and give different types of speeches/can analyze the round correctly.
• There should be no reason for you to have to put a trigger warning in your speech. We as the Parli and Judges are not able to leave the room like everyone else if you are saying stuff that could be triggering so please do not put us in that uncomfortable position. I promise you that you can make that same exact meaningful point without saying triggering things and if you cannot, that speaks more for what you need to personally work on in this activity.
• I can promise you that you will not be dropped because your speaking isn't "pretty enough" in my round :)
• I track precedence/recency in all sessions and flow.
• Remember all of your opponents, judges, and Parli are all human. The topics we are discussing may personally impact the people in the room with you. Be aware of what you are saying and the impact it can leave on others when leaving the round.

Notes for PO's:

• You will always start at being ranked 5 and will move up or down based on how well you perform. The reasoning for this is there are some POs with computer programs that will auto-order and PO for you which takes the entire skill out of the position.
• I personally do not like it when you share your PO sheet with the chamber. It is their job to also track, don't make their life easier. This is a competition.
• Please do not tell us to rank you. We are told to in judging meetings and TAB reminds us every round.
• The point of a PO is to disappear from the round. I should forget that you are next to me with how well you are running the room. Comments like "and the chair thanks you", "and we will never know the answer to that question" or any other sentence that is unneeded will poorly look on you in my eyes. You should be moving so efficiently that you can move speech to questioning to speech within seconds. In addition, the chair does not have emotions.
• I know this Paradigm is long and seems like a lot but please do not be scared to ask me questions! I have POed more times than I can count and it's nerve-racking. Let me help you succeed and grow so we can have a fun fast round.

LD:

• If you start running a K, I will just want to run back to my congress land. Please do not run them in my round.
• Please do not spread. I can not keep up and will be lost.
• I do not mind jargon or technical language but if you are being inaccessible to your opponent that is unfair to them and will reflect on you.
• Voters/Framework/Weighing are big points to me. If you weigh but lost framework, what are we actually weighing on? If you save more money but your opponents saves 100k lives, why do I care about someone missing rent for a month? Etc etc
• I love love love! a good CX

Overall I just want you kids to have fun. Let's work together to create a safe space in this round where everyone feels comfortable and enjoy the round! :D

A note to all debaters: although I try to be completely objective when scoring, remember judging is essentially just my opinion of how you did. Your own evaluation of how you debated is at least as valid as mine and probably more so. I try my best to leave constructive comments for each speaker, but time constraints while a debate is in progress can make that difficult. If you do not get feedback, it's not because I do not care, it's because I ran out of time.

Expect comments of the form:

Cycle w/ notations, for example 3A (break) (cut-off) means it was the 3rd Affirmative speech, it broke cycle and the PO cut you off at 3m10s
Strength: Something you did well
Suggestion: Something to consider when working to improve

Congressional debate
I personally consider Delivery to be the most important skill you can acquire from debate because it's a life skill. Even if you never debate again after high school, being comfortable with speaking to a group is useful forever. My comments are often heavily weighted towards Delivery strengths and suggestions for this reason.

I prefer a traditional speech with a defined introduction, main body and conclusion:
1) Tell me what you're about to tell me (30 seconds) - Introduction
2) Tell me (2 minutes) - 2 or 3 main points
3) Tell me what you just told me (30 seconds) - Conclusion/summary

I use speaker points mostly for my use in post-session ranking but in general:
6 - Outstanding (rarely given)
5 - Excellent
4 - Average
3 - Below average (rarely given)
2, 1 - I don't use these scores

I try to be as objective as possible without introducing bias, opinion or knowledge external to the debate. If you claim "The sky is purple", back it up with evidence, persuade me, show why it matters, and rebut any opposition counter-claims, then the sky is actually purple for scoring/ranking purposes.

I also take into account the overall experience level of the chamber and judge each speaker in comparison to the others present. For example, if a novice House speaker simply reads a prepared speech, I'm much more forgiving in my rankings than I would be for a Varsity Senate speaker doing the same thing.

How I judge a debate speech in detail:
Introduction
Simple, direct and concise is best. An attention-getter (like you would do at a speech tournament) is probably unnecessary and uses valuable time. For NEG speeches it's ok to agree with something in the bill as long as you immediately follow-up with what's wrong with it: "While I agree that passing this bill to get "X" is a noble goal, the enormous problem of "Y" makes passage impractical and counter-productive".
* Main point overview - "Tell me what you're about to tell me". For example, something like "The main [benefits/problems] with this bill in general are financial which I'll cover in my 1st main point and quality of life covered in my 2nd and 3rd points about health care and tax reform" This can also set up your conclusion/summary where you can echo your intro and "Tell me what you just told me".
* Bill overview - This is critical in 1st cycle speeches. State the primary [benefit/liability] for [passing/failing] this bill as written. A short and meaningful (quantified if possible) impact statement is best. For example, "Passing this bill will feed 10 million malnourished children per year who would otherwise go hungry and cost just $50 per child - that's 14 cents per day per child!" i.e. AFF should avoid stating the $500 million cost directly, and NEG should do the opposite.
Content
* Organization - Speech should have a clear intro, main body (2 or 3 main points) and conclusion with obvious and meaningful transitions.
* Credibility - mispronounced words, world leader names in particular, can indicate to me that the speaker is simply reciting a speech written by the team.
* Decorum - Never raise your voice in questioning. Always refer to actual politicians and chamber members with their honorific: "President Washington said..." rather than "Washington said...". Respect the position even if you don't respect the person currently/formerly holding that position.
* Links & Connections - Whenever possible connect your related points to a previous speaker/argument, ex. "My 1st main point about financing [supports/refutes] Senator Lincoln's argument about budgeting and Senator Jefferson's claim about debt".
* Logic, facts & evidence - Ideally, about half your main point explanation(s) should "prove" why the bill should pass/fail.
* Persuasion & passion - Ideally, the other half should convince me why you are correct and/or the opposition is incorrect.
* Answers - Simple, clear and concise answers are best. Never raise your voice no matter how aggressive the questioner gets. It's ok to subtly critique the questioner when appropriate, ex. "That was a long winded question but I'll do my best to answer in the few seconds remaining..." or "That was a statement. Do you have an actual question for me?"
Arguments
* Claim - simple, clear and concise is best. "This bill will cost $500 million dollars and the country simply cannot afford it right now!"
* Proof, experts & citations - Support your claim with evidence from subject matter experts as much as possible. Avoid long back and forth "dueling expert battles" in questioning. It's ok to point out "your" expert is stating the exact opposite of "their" expert but let it go after that.
* Impact / Explanation - Tell me why it matters! Use intro phrases like "This is important because..." or "The primary overall impact of [passing/failing] this legislation is..."
Clash (N/A for 1st cycle speeches) - Be specific and detailed when you tell me what's wrong with the opposition's case.
Closely related to "Links and Connections" above. This is most important at the Senate level. If your speech is presented like a 1st cycle speech with no clash, it will impact your ranking.
* Speakers - Name all previous speakers who made similar (but distinct) points before making your new point.
* Arguments - Group similar but distinct previous arguments together as well.
Delivery
Do not simply read your speech. I give some allowance for 1st cycle speeches, but holding a laptop with both hands, standing still, looking straight down at the screen and reading will impact your ranking.
* Extemporaneous - your prepared material should be used as notes and not as a script. Using voice technique (volume, tone and pacing) to add impact/drama to your most important points will positively impact your score/ranking
* Gestures - Use hand gestures to add non-verbal emphasis and impact to your important spoken points.
* Movement - Use meaningful movement as a non verbal signal to indicate transitions. For example, as you end your intro and start your main point 1 topic sentence, move 3-6 feet to your left or right and again at other main point or summary transition points. Avoid meaningless pacing and shifting from foot to foot as it can indicate nervousness.
* Eye contact - "Talk" to all members of the chamber - center, left and right - switching at transition points is fine. Avoid just talking to one "location" (judges and/or the floor/ceiling/back wall)
Conclusion
The word "Affirm/Negate" does not count as a conclusion if you run out of time speaking on your main points.
* Main point summary - Make the transition obvious with something like "So in conclusion..." and then add a sentence or two about the broad categories of your main points, something like "The main [benefits/liabilities] of this bill are financial as I clearly explained in my first main point and quality of life as my 2nd and 3rd main points on health care reform and fair taxation prove." The categories you choose (financial & quality of life in my example) give following same-side speakers an easy way to link back to your speech as well.
* Big Picture statement - One or two sentences on the primary impact of [passing/failing] the bill is good enough, but tell me why it matters.
Time - anything between 2:30 and 3:09 is fine.
Do not force the PO to cut you off at 3:10, this will impact your ranking. A common comment I make if you ran out of time or rushed your summary is something like "Consider using the PO's 2m30s double gavel tap as a signal to begin your conclusion to avoid running out of time."

For crystalization speeches, I strongly prefer advocacy on one side or the other. If you properly flow the debate you can simply add a statement in your intro and conclusion to support either AFF or NEG to avoid breaking cycle. For example, in your intro say something like "I'd like to focus this debate by first summarizing the AFF speakers and their arguments. Follow up by summarizing the NEG side, and conclude by telling you why [AFF/NEG] should get your vote". In your conclusion something like "Now that I've summarized both sides, let me tell you why argument "X" is the most compelling, briefly explain the Big Picture impact of this legislation and ultimately why it's important you vote for [AFF/NEG]". It is critical you reserve the last 30 seconds of your time for the conclusion and advocacy statement. Use the PO's 2m30s gavel double tap as a signal to end your main point discussion.

Presiding Officers are judged on:

Speaker Recognition (Precedence and Recency)
Fair and even distribution of speaker recognition throughout the chamber when preset precedence is not used is important, i.e. you do not constantly favor Reps. sitting on the right side of the room. Making mistakes, but catching and correcting them will impact your ranking a little, not catching and correcting them will impact your ranking a lot.
Parliamentary Procedure
You handle motions, timing and voting efficiently. It is critical you use the standard/recommended NSDA timing signals. If you confuse speakers with non-standard signals, it can and probably will negatively impact your ranking.
Delivery / Presence
You speak loud and clear. Call on speakers quickly. Shutdown post-time arguments in questioning, etc.
Running a smooth and efficient chamber is key. "You did your job so well I barely noticed you" is the highest compliment I can give.

Who am I: student at Harvard College (class of 27) and member of the college parli debate team here.

Experience: 1 year of PF (local) + 3 years of Congress (mostly national circuit) + 3 years of extemp + college parli (APDA, BP)

Overall:

Have fun and be kind.

PF:

I'm neither tech > truth or truth > tech, all arguments are introduced at some level of trueness and I'll buy them to the extent that they're warranted. Which means I can't fully blippy contentions/responses even if they're conceded.

Weigh your arguments (and I mean actual comparative weighing, not just using the word "weighing" and throwing around mechanisms)... otherwise I have to weigh them myself and that makes neither of us happy.

Signpost signpost signpost. Trust me you have enough time in your speech to do this properly.

Spreading: not a huge fan. Debate is a communication activity and if I can't understand what you're saying then you are not communicating effectively --> you are not persuading me. I can process information quickly and write quickly, and there's nothing wrong with a fast-paced speech, but I have my limits. If I couldn't get it on my flow then you never said it.

K/Theory: Everyone got the same resolution in advance and I would REALLY prefer that you debate it. There is a very low chance I will vote on Ks or theory. I am amenable to doing so if you give me legitimate reasons as to why it's relevant--it needs warranting and impacts like any other kind of argument. Try your own risk.

Framework: Give me an explicit one even if it's basic. You've taken the time to write out all your arguments, it's not much extra work to tell me what lens I should view them through. And it will make me a bigger fan of your arguments.

Off-time roadmaps: I don't mind them, but they are not a substitute for good organization within the actual speech itself, and I'd rather you just did that.

Congress:

It's called Congressional DEBATE for a reason. Beautiful speeches that don't clash or engage with arguments belong in speech tournament, not in Congress.

Please for the love of all that is good and holy:

1. Explain your links. If you do not connect the dots in your own argument I will not do it for you.
2. Explain your impacts. If you do not tell me why I should care about your argument, I just won't.
3. Weigh. You do not make your arguments in a vacuum, especially if you speak late. Please situate your argument in the context that it enters into and compare it to other arguments.

Round vision is key. If you know you know.

Authors/sponsors: PLEASE PLEASE explain both the problem in the status quo and how the legislation addresses it. That's your job.

Judge adaptation is important! It is a major variable of debate.

I am a parent judge who has become a coach and have been judging debates for many years now. I have been mostly judged Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum with experience in Congress. I see my role as a judge is to determine who has won the debate. I weigh the framework in LD most. If the debate evolves into a contention level debate, I largely determine who wins by who has presented the best case with factual evidence. In short, convince me your side is right. It is important to provide evidence and absolutely critical to think on your feet and exploit holes in the opposing debaters evidence. Most LD/PF debates are won or loss in CX/Crossfire (and what you do with this information later in the debate). Providing evidence isn’t enough though, it must be used effectively to support arguments. This is where the heart of debate is for me. I am not influenced by my personal opinion on the topic nor do I weigh debaters personal stories, although heartfelt, into the decision. I listen to what is said and do not make conclusions beyond what is communicated. I am fine with speed provided it is clear. If I am unable to understand the debater due to speed of speech or failure to enunciate, I am unable to use that portion of the debate in my decision. It is your responsibility to speak clearly. In most cases, less words with more thought will be more effective with me than cramming all you can into your time limit. I want to see you truly debate your opponent and not just read a case.

I will keep time but will not manage it for debaters. When time is complete, I will allow thoughts to be finished but do not factor in communication past time limits into my decision.

Speaker Points-I treat speaker points uniformly within a tournament based on the talent but am not consistent from tournament to tournament. What I mean by that is that in tournament A, I’ll likely provide the best speaker a 29 or 30 but in tournament B, that same speaker may have only earned a 28 due to stiffer competition. I rarely score below a 27.

Kritiks – I’m okay with Ks. I find they take skill to run and when run effectively are powerful but when run poorly are difficult and tend to be easily defeated.

Philosophy-I'm good with philosophy and can follow it.

Flow-I do not flow rounds. I do take notes. Just because your point is extended, it doesn’t mean it carries significant weight or you’ll win the round.

Attitude-There is a fine, but clear, line between confidence and contemptuousness. I am fine with aggressive debate but bullying an opponent isn’t acceptable.

Have fun. This activity will provide you tons of benefits but not if you are hating it. Enjoy your time.

My ultimate goal is to serve you well. Every debate has a winner and a loser; sometimes the difference is extremely minor. Celebrate your wins and learn from your losses. Compete against yourself and look to be better every round. There are three variables in every debate, you/your case, your opponent/their case and the judge. I won’t be perfect but there will be other judges a lot like me.

I coach speech and perviously coached debate at Eagan High School and am the librarian/media specialist there.

I enjoy debate, so I look forward to hearing your round!

In general you may want to know this about me:
I want to hear you debate about the resolution/legislation at hand. Theory is very rarely needed. I like to hear real world impacts, and I want to understand how your arguments will impact the lives of people. I have little interest in unique/trick/squirrel/non-topical arguments. Weighing is important...so give me a clear way to weigh a round. Delivery is important, so speak well and avoid speed at all costs. Speaking of speaking, there have been five times when I've given a 30 in my life, and the lowest end I've given was 10. In all situations the speaker points were earned. My typical range is 26-29. I rarely disclose and there will be no orals after the round. Finally and most importantly, have fun and debate with class.

Specifically, in terms of congressional debate: I'm probably going to vote for the best legislator. You should speak well...but not have canned speeches. You should show me you can speak in a variety of positions (author legislation, introduce arguments, refute arguments, and weigh/crystalize the round). You should advance your arguments through questions. You should use motions to advance/end debate when appropriate. You should play the role of a congressperson with the decorum it deserves. You are always on...even during recess. You should be a good person (don't be a jerk).

In terms of public forum: I'm probably going to vote for the team that does the best job of explaining the big picture of what happens in the pro and/or con world. Real world impacts are important. Weighing is important.

In terms of LD: I'm old school. I would gladly judge a value debate. I would gladly judge a round in which the criterions are debated.

In terms of policy: Good luck. Use everything written here to adapt your approach to me. I might not be the best judge for your typical approach. I do not want to have to vote on presumption.

Good luck!

When I judge Congress, not only am I looking for arguments (claim/warrant/data/impact), I am looking at the quality of your presentation. Speech still applies to Debate. I look for a confident, passionate persuasive speech that asks us to affirm or negate. As a session progresses, I look to see follow up speeches that draw in other supporting Senators/Representatives, as well as refuting the opposition - including being presented more extemporaneously. If the topic makes you angry or frustrated, I want to see and hear that. If it makes you happy or satisfied, I want to see that, too. For Q&A blocks, I expect to see the level of prep that anticipates what others will ask after your speech. I look for confident, crisp answers. Thank you.

Updated 1/6/24, pre MSHSL State tournament (post sections). Have some thoughts from sections at the top of the PF/LD paradigm.

ImpactInstituteDebate.com

Background:

Graduated Bloomington Jefferson HS in 2012. Did Policy/Extemp and a little Congress. Wasn't great at any of these events.

Coach of the Bloomington Debate team 2018-present. Our program is now exclusively a Congress team, we did some PF in 18/19. Judge mostly Congress, but get ~12 assorted PF/LD rounds a year.

I work in finance doing institutional asset management when I'm not coaching. I also play and coach ultimate frisbee in my free time and watch any and all sports, do with that what you will.

Disclosure:

I love to discuss specific feedback, either email (below) or find me after a round. Email after a tournament (Congress especially) is great if you want more feedback. I like to disclose post round when allowed, tho likely will NOT at State this year unless both teams read this and ask for disclosure. That said, will likely give you some feedback I hope to help you if it's not the last round of the day.

Two important rules (all formats)

1. Be respectful. If you say anything offensive (racist/sexist/homophobic/etc.) I will not hesitate to give you the auto-loss or the worst score I can.

2. I'm always down to give you more feedback, email is great (arthurpaulharris at gmail dot com) or just come find me at a tournament. I will answer any question about something on any ballot I put out.

Short Paradigm [PF/LD/CX] (update 1/6/24):

If there's an email chain pls add me, email above. The debate will be best if you do what you do best - I'll do my best to adapt to you.

For PF/LD: I will vote on what's on the flow (or do my absolute best to). I flow on paper but my pen is still decently fast (see below about speed). I'm probably dead center on tech vs truth if you think those are contradictory, but if you want this to be circuit LD/PF and it's a MSHSL tournament, you'll be disappointed.

PF people - If you need a shortcut for my paradigm I align with Christian Vasquez's paradigm almost exactly (I assume y'all will be more familiar as he's gotta be like 5x the judge/debate educator I am). If you want to read actual coherent thoughts on PF debate, check that out, it's probably the paradigm that's helped me (re)form my thoughts on PF in the last year.

Section 230 thought from 5 rounds at sections (idk if this will be helpful): Unlike most of the judging pool I'm not a lawyer (so am more susceptible to being bamboozled by lies/debate logic about the legal system) - even so, I think that having a good understanding and then explanation of what 230 does (and doesn't!) do would go a LONG way to establishing ground for both sides.

PF/LD thoughts:

1. Your speed is probably fine, your clarity probably needs work, you should def slow down for anything you want on my ballot at the end of the round and an argument made in your first speech needs to be extended in your other speeches to weigh at the end of the round. PF PEOPLE - I used to have a section about how y'all read your tags/cards backwards but I think I figured you out - I still would prefer if you made my life easier and didn't read everything at one speed, but increasingly that feels like a battle I will not win.

2. I def don't know any of your topic specific jargon and I almost certainly don't know any of the conventions/norms/customs of your event. That means - you probably want to explain an acronym if it'll be important and you'll want to have clear explanations and impacts to your "speed bad" theory or whatever event specific theory (disclosure theory I guess?) you read.

3. Prep time abuse is bad. If it becomes an issue in round I will insert myself and start keeping the prep time myself. When you are out of time you have about 5 seconds to start talking before I get annoyed at you wasting time or stealing prep. Also - I've noticed a huge increase in rebuttals that go 4:10 or summaries that go 3:08. I will put my pen down at the end of the allowed speaking time, you're welcome to keep talking but none of it is going on the flow. I know it seems marginal (and that you don't have enough time as is), but those extensions net you 3-5% extra speech time and someone (probably the judge!) needs to hold the line.

4. I assume that when you read evidence you are reading directly from the source. If you are paraphrasing (apparently allowed in PF) you need to make it clear you are doing so (but also just don't do that). Failure to provide the evidence you paraphrased to the other team in a reasonable amount of time when asked is grounds for a loss. If you set up ev sharing, you should 100% send all cards before you start speaking. This will save time and make everyone's life easier, please just do it this way.

5. I think teams have been most frustrated with my decision when they're read more cards/arguments but didn't spend much time in the last rebuttals/final focus explaining the role of my ballot and weighing. Condensing, weighing and explanation will get you a lot of wins in front of me. Smart cross applications and analytics will also get you a long way in front of me. Additionally, specificity of uniqueness/link and impact scenario will go a long way in front of me, and teams that read a specific scenario have beaten teams reading generic turns quite frequently.

Thoughts on things in debates (not sure how many of these are in LD, pretty sure very few are in PF):

Ks: I'm not a bright or well read individual. I understand the basics of what I believe y'all refer to now as "soft left" Ks, but my lack of substantial liberal arts education means I'm not familiar with anything more critical than them. I will do my best to judge you though, however on kritiks as with any other arguments I need to hear a clear, specific link, a reason the kritik is competitive and solvency. You can try to convince me some or none of these are needed, but it'll be an uphill battle for you. LD people - I think (think) this means that if you read a consequentialist framework I'll track you, if you go for something ontological I'm going to need some extra hand holding (rephrasing your authors will go a LONG way). If this sentence makes no sense, you see what I'm trying to say re: me being not the smartest :)

CPs: Usually fine. I think I prefer that they're not topical, but can be persuaded otherwise. Need to be competitive. Perms aren't an advocacy but I also find the perm does a good job of proving non-competitiveness most of the time.

Theory: Theory with a voter of dropping a team: really high bar, need to prove in round abuse. Theory to drop an arg: Somewhat lower bar, would still like in round abuse. As I get older I find reasonableness to be a better standard for judging theory. Your theory probably needs an interpretation, a violation, an impact and a voter. I've come to understand there's a subset of theory in PF called "tricks" - if your trick doesn't meet this burden I probably don't care for it. In PF, if you want to read "Topicality", I think the most reasonable voter is to drop any argument that isn't topical. You still need to run an interpretation, have a violation and explain what the impacts of non-topicality are. I can be persuaded you should win on T if your opponent reads non-topical advantages, but the burden is high on you to win the impact/voter level.

DAs: Obviously these are fine, need a clear uniqueness and link story. The more complicated your link chain the higher your explanatory burden will be and the lower my bar to evaluating defense for the other team will be.

Short Paradigm [Congress] :

1. Debating makes up ~80% of your rank in front of me, speaking is ~20%. Argument quality is an important sub-element of debating (note - creative link chains are acceptable, you just need to explain them well). I am a human though, so masterful rhetorical skill can get you a good rank if you have it.

2. POs - I am PO friendly in that every PO starts somewhere in the top half of my ballot (new policy for 22/23 season). I track P/R for speeches/questions. If you make no P/R mistakes (or correct yourself quickly if you do), call speakers/questioners about as fast as I can track, have a handle on the rules for motions/votes and keep the round running smoothly, you'll probably do well. You can find detailed examples of how to move up/down as the PO in my extended paradigm linked below.I think the PO leniency has bent too far in favor of POs, so mistakes in P/R will start to carry harsher penalties in Varsity/Open rounds.

3. If there is a broken cycle (i.e. no one stands for aff so there are two negs in a row or vice versa) - giving that broken cycle speech is almost always a surefire way to move to the bottom of my ballot. You need to bring new refutation to the table and it needs to be a clincher for the round. You're almost always better off moving previous question and taking your P/R to the next bill - this continues to be an issue with little movement in the right direction...maybe 24-25 season we give this some more thought?

4. I am probably one of the more friendly judges for you if you like to run critical theory arguments. I can't say this will ever be a good strat for you because I'm never your only judge, but if shooters gotta shoot - let it be you.

5. Please remember to have fun. If you aren't having fun there's really no point to any of this.

Assorted Musing/Long Paradigm:

For the 22/23 Congress season, some observations:

I think the bias in the aff/neg split has firmly entrenched itself on the neg - this is probably due to a) poor bill quality in MN and b) assuming an authorship means prepping a 1N is more "guaranteed". That said, I think going aff can be very advantageous this year, especially given the quality of neg args that folks seem to be running against legislation that is, big picture, a *good* idea.

At locals: The trend of putting every bill authored by someone in the chamber on the agenda needs to stop. The legislation people are putting out in MN is NOT good enough for authorship to guarantee the floor, and because y'all refuse to move on at an appropriate time these bills kill speech ranks for ~2-3 cycles of debaters. I promise you you will not lose ranks in front of me for being "mean" and voting against dockets that have bad bills on them just because someone wrote that bill - in fact if I observe you lobbying against poorly researched and/or "shallow cycle" bills in the face of opposition from folks "just trying to be nice" I'll probably be more inclined to use that as a tiebreaker to move you up in rank for recognizing that debate takes precedence.

PO bias seems to have bent back in favor of POs - in order to compensate I will have a much stricter tolerance for PO mistakes on precedence/recency for both questioners and speakers. Additionally I will start to judge PO speed on a stricter scale when it comes to selecting questioners in particular (obviously accounting for debaters that may take too long to stand or stand mid questioning).

Also for POs - please cut down on the words you say. We don't need to know how long the speech was. We know and TRUST YOU to know how many questioning blocks are next. We only need to know if aff or neg is next speaker, not which number it is. If you really need to thank everyone, please do it off the clock after the round.

I used to have a whole lot of words here about the way I think about and judge debate. I probably won't update it a lot but I probably won't change it a lot either. I've moved that to a google doc which you can view here. Everything is still up to date and accurate as of December 2021.

Extemp Speaking Paradigm, updated pre MN State Tournament 2023:

How to win the ballot, Extemp Speaking:

1. Answer the question.

1. Actually answer the question that was asked, not a variant or similar question. At state this is going to pick trickier than usual (probably), because the questions tend to be multifaceted.

2. Usually, the easiest way to make sure you answer the question is to have a thesis, instead of just a yes/no. You are usually then forced to make sure your subpoints of analysis always link back to the thesis, which in turn answers the question.

3. Whether or not you use a thesis, you want to spend time explaining why your subpoints reinforce or prove your thesis correct, and if you do have a thesis you need to explain why it is the best answer to the question

2. Analysis

1. Depth > breadth - that is, I’d rather see you really focus on proving the logic behind a single claim per sub point rather than having a ton of different points of analysis or facts crammed into two minutes.

1. For example, if your first subpoint is that the ECB raising rates would but European banks under pressure, my preference is for you to explain a theory for why and develop out a clear picture of how and why banks would be in trouble in a rising rate environment (using maybe 1 or 2 sources), rather than telling me that 4 different sources show that 4 different European banks said they’d have trouble with an asset-liability mismatch if the ECB raises rates.

2. Another way of saying this is - I want you to demonstrate that you have an advanced understanding of what you’re talking about, rather than that you were able to read a bunch of headlines. Whatever you can do to give me that impression, do that.

2. Source quality - this is one area of “flash” that I can be impressed - deploying underutilized sources (and explaining why they are great sources) is something I personally really like.

1. Even if you don’t have any books or papers or super underutilized sources to run out, using higher quality sources of common usage (i.e. think tanks and analysis pieces) instead of common news sources (i.e. the NYT, Reuters, etc) is usually good.

3. Delivery - I am pretty firmly in camp analysis > delivery, but am probably an outlier on any panel in this regard. If its the State final you’re all going to be delivering at a level that clears my threshold, so really the key is to not get mentally down on yourself if you stumble or aren’t as smooth as you’d like early on because I don’t care about that at all.

4. Probably the best way to think about winning a round is to treat answering the question like you’re engaging in a debate vs an imaginary opponent who is trying to disprove your answer to the question. This will force you to:

1. Defend the veracity of your claims, which in turn will make them more persuasive

2. Will likely lead you to conditioning your claims with “even-if” statements, which again will increase their persuasiveness

3. Probably means you’re presenting a more nuanced picture of the world, which is good.

Things I'm looking for in Congress:

Organization: Make your points clear and provide a roadmap.

Clash: Remember this is a debate. I want to see bold questioning, direct refutation, and adaptability.

Respect: Be tenacious, but check tone.  Come back to what's best for the constituents, and assume you are all working together for the betterment of society.  

Finally, have fun, and be yourself!  I appreciate creativity and personal flair in speeches.

Background: Current college student, 4 years of Congress. Current forensics competitor.

Paradigms (all categories)

1. Respect. Respect your opponents as people and as debaters. Don’t be rude- speaking over your opponents isn’t cool. Racism, misogyny, transphobia, ableism, classism, and any other kind of oppressive behavior or arguments are completely unacceptable.
2. I love good structure. I want clear links, roadmaps, and clarity.
3. Do not misrepresent your evidence or your opponent’s arguments.
4. Impacts are important. I’ll tend to prioritize reasonable impacts over extinction (unless that’s a likely impact).
5. If you go over time, just finish your sentence and don’t start a new one.
6. When debating, talk like the people you’re talking about are in the room. They very well might be (POC, disabled people, etc.)

You got this! Have fun and ask if you have any other questions about my paradigm.

Samuel Hoska’s Judge Philosophy

A little about myself: I have been involved with forensics for 15 years as a student, judge and coach. I am currently a coach at Edina High School, teaching Lincoln Douglas Debate. My background was originally in debate and speech where I competed and coached. I have been judging debate for the last 4 years, in all categories. I am currently a student at Minneapolis Community College for a Business Bachelors. I have a half a year remaining and then I will be working on a Bachelors in Communication and a Teaching certificate. I typically judge LD but I am capable of judging any category.

General: I enjoy a coherent arguments made with properly argued evidence. I am a “big picture” judge. I do appreciate the attention to detail, however, I don't like when it devolves into a debate that’s myopically focused on one thing. Make sure you take the time, especially in rebuttals to do a “birds eye view” of the debate. Remember, the rebuttal is the last time I hear from you before I make a decision, make it count. I appreciate good crossfire, and cross ex, specifically using information obtained in these for an argument. I try to bring the spirit of Tabula Rasa to every round I Judge.

Topicality: I like topicality, especially in varsity level debate. I think it makes a for a boring debate to have a non-topical aff. So it’s a pretty garden variety argument for the neg to make.

Critical Arguments: I was a LD and PF debater in high-school. I appreciate all critical arguments when they are understandable and explained properly. I catch on to arguments quickly, however I loathe having to have to fill in the gaps of an argument because its poorly argued. Make it logical, make it understandable.

Theory: I don’t have the background in this, so this won’t be very successful with me as a judge. I overall prefer substantive arguments over theoretical or procedural arguments. My flow can’t be muddy, and the explanation must be very logical and understandable. I pay attention when a debater uses Voters, I always want to know what each side thinks was the most important points in a round.

Speed: I have no problem with speed. I do ask two things. 1. Slow down enough on the tags so that I can understand them 2. Make your tags count. I dislike deciphering poor tags that do not tell me anything about the evidence.

Post Round Discussion: Please be respectful, I don’t appreciate a “shake down” when I’m explaining my decision. I don’t do speaker points till after the round is over and all the debaters have left the room and I take decorum into account. I am a bit of a non-traditional judge and I do make a concerted effort to bring up constructive criticism and positive comments. Please take these comments as an opportunity to learn!

Last Updated: 11/30/2018

Congressional Debate

Content/trigger warnings: when using content/trigger warnings, contestants should ask why they need one in the first place. Rather than using graphic imagery to describe traumatizing issues, it is far more meaningful for contestants to explain the scope and scale of the impact of the root causes of the problem and how the legislation will either remediate or exacerbate the problem and its causes; that approach provides a safer space for all participants in the chamber. That said, any participant in a chamber should feel free to excuse themselves at any time if they are feeling unsafe or emotionally traumatized – without any judgment.

The nature of Congressional Debate is an intellectual exercise in analyzing an issue from a multitude of perspectives, which are threaded together through the clash of ideas, and moderated by parliamentary procedure. While its discourse intellectually functions as debate, it operates with sectioning chambers and comparatively evaluating students in the same manner as interscholastic speech rather than the binary nature of head-to-head debate entries. Of all the speech and debate events, it models a real world process as a way for students to engage one another in a truly authentic and dynamic manner. As someone who has been a part of shaping rules and standards in Congressional Debate for over two decades, I understand how comparative ranking allows me to take the full picture of how a student contributes both to the intellectual richness of debate, as well as the circumstances by which debate happens – parliamentary procedure. Hence, the focal point of arguments should be on how people are affected by potential passage or defeat of legislation.

Role playing is a mindset that goes beyond simply "playing a part" as a member of Congress. Debaters should understand how issues impact constituents, citizens, residents, and the global community alike, and who and what should be prioritized at any given time and why. Members of Congress represent demographically and geographically diverse constituents as well as serve our country at-large. Therefore, debaters should consider how they frametheir advocacy and avoid such possessive phrasing as "our low-income Americans" to make blanket statements about entire groups of people, rather than describing circumstances for which they do not have personal experience (see first section, above). I highly recommend the Conscious Style Guide for guidance on appropriate language when discussing marginalized communities, and that debaters consider their own privilege when they address the nuanced issues in constituencies most vulnerable within problems addressed by legislation.

Organization and clarity: contestants should briefly seize attention in a memorable and meaningful way by connecting to the issue at-hand without trivializing it. Previews are inconsequential and waste time in a brief, 3-minute speech; rather, points should be signposted, and connect to a central, unifying thesis beyond just "supporting" or "opposing" the legislation at-hand. Speeches should be easy to follow, articulately crisp, and plainly explained, without needless jargon. Contestants should be concise, dynamic, and nimble with their language, and not repeat the same filler phrases and "debate-speak." Effective clarity also means avoiding unnecessary delving into "debate-speak," where a student uses such filler language as "take you at your highest ground," rather saying, "if your central intention is..." Other examples of concision alternatives filler phrases:
• Say "argued" instead of "came up here and said"
• Say "consider" instead of "we can look to"
• See "understanding" instead of "seeing as how"
• Omit "we can see that"
Finally, be elegant. Say "defeat" a bill instead of "fail.""Move the previous question, don't "motion to the previous question." Correct phrasing goes a long way toward demonstrating command of language in a linguistic activity utilizing the framework of parliamentary procedure.

Evidence: contestants should support arguments with cited, credible sources warranted to their own analysis. They should indicate a firm analytical understanding of the legislative/policymaking process, and the efficacy and jurisdiction of government agencies in addressing issues.

Impacts: speeches should explain how people are affected by policies and positions. Practical application and pragmatic interpretation is much more relevant that theoretical musings on an issue. Rhetoric should show sensitivity to people whose identities may differ from their own; a speech may address issues that impact real people, and shouldn't conjecture lived experiences for which the legislator may not have a personal frame of reference. Contestants should avoid overusing terms like "constituents," and consider as a national-level legislator, how policies impact both their own theoretical constituents, residents throughout the United States for whom their policies will impact, and for international relations – global citizens beyond the U.S.

Advancing debate: each speech should exhibit how it fits within the flow of debate on given legislation:

Authorship/sponsorship speeches should outline the problem, its causes, and why the legislation at-hand solves or mitigates the problem and its causes. The background is more important than the legislation itself, as we can all read the bill. I want to know the why behind the solvency.

First negative speeches should establish ground for the opposition to the legislation: why it exacerbates the problem and its causes, fails to address them effectively, or creates new or worse conditions.

Constructive speeches, often the first 4-6 speeches in a debate, should indicate a sound understanding of how legislation is introduced to solve/address a problem and its causes, deeply investigating important issues with detailed evidence.

Rebuttal speeches should defend a legislator's advocacy, extend complementary arguments by colleagues, and/or refute the opposition – acknowledging how those arguments are being built upon or fall short. As debate on legislation moves forward, there will be more extension and refutation and fewer constructive arguments. This is where a contestant can be nuanced with their advocacy, connecting arguments that respond to others with their own, unique ideas.

Crystallization speeches should come at the end of debate on legislation and summarize and weigh impacts to distill the debate to central voting issues and why one side wins over the others, and subsequent speeches on the same side should either explain why a preceding crystallization was premature/incomplete, or advance it further in a more sophisticated manner. Crystallizing prematurely, at best shows a lack of restraint and understanding of the "big picture" of the issue; at worst, it shows an impatient desire to weigh the debate before all the elements have had time to be explored rhetorically.

Questions should be substantive and carefully selected to help advance debate beyond superficial questions that are mere "gotchas." The dynamism of Congressional Debate requires legislators to respond within the flow of debate, so all speeches after the authorship/sponsorship speech introducing legislation should be more extemporaneous/spontaneous in nature. Exchanges should be a courteous give-and-take.

When to quit: it is entirely unimportant to me whether each contestant in a room speaks on each legislation; I'd rather debate stay fresh and dynamic than to get stale and mired in rehash because there's nothing new to say (and rehashing thoroughly debated arguments will negatively impact your ranking severely). I also place a higher premium on quality over quantity of speeches given -- as long as a contestant still stays active in questioning and other facets of a round.

Delivery: given the dynamic nature of exchange of myriad perspectives in Congressional Debate, debaters – especially those after the author/sponsor and first negative – should be more extemporaneous and spontaneous in their delivery, referring more to bulleted notes and their flow of the debate than reciting from a word-for-word manuscript. I don't care if a student transitionally walks between points (obviously, that doesn't/didn't happen in online debate and it's certainly not real-world); what matters to me is that the student engages their peers and judges through an appropriate projection of their voice, dynamic intonation and pause to convey meaning, meaningful eye contact, vivid facial expression, and natural gestures for emphasis.

Parliamentary procedure: rules of order exist to provide fairness and an opportunity for participation in sharing ideas before majority rules. Through a lens of accessibility and inclusivity, procedure should never be used by legislators to manipulate for personal advantage; rather, those students who advocate for fairness to others demonstrate the spirit of fostering involvement by others. This applies to all students in the room, and how they utilize procedure within a round, and includes decorum of using honorifics, third person references to others, and professional courtesy over snarky demeanor. This is especially important during questioning periods. Also, remember: recesses are a temporary reprieve from active debate, but the round is still happening.

Presiding officers: a PO whose priority is uplifting others in a fair, efficient, and transparent manner exhibits the values expressed in the "parliamentary procedure" section above. They are mindful of different schools and regions and do whatever they can to share and balance recognition, beyond those with whom they are most closely associated. I really appreciate when POs share some type of live document that shows how they are tracking precedence and recency of both speeches and questions. Effective POs should avoid needless phrases, such as "seeing as how..." and instead simply say, "those opposed (or 'in favor'), please raise your placards." Further, such elegant language shows command of procedure, such as "the ayes have it and the motion (or bill) carries," or "the noes have it and the motion (or bill) is defeated."

So here are the few things I think are important in round.

1.) Please use all of or close to all of your speaking time

2.) As Aff in rebuttal I want to hear more attacks against Neg not going over your own case. This doesn't accomplish anything for Aff in rebuttal.

3.) Use all of your cross time and ask good questions

4.) Be respectful to one another. This is the most important don't interrupt one another.

That's all, good luck!

Content & Analysis:
An interesting introduction – grabs the listeners attention
• Impact statement
• Statement of how senators should vote (affirmative or negative)
• Two (or three) areas of analysis (distinct reasons for an affirmative or
negative vote)
o Each of these areas of analysis need to be supported by specific
evidence and analysis
• Affirmation and refutation
o Extends the debate – does not simply restate what has already been
said
Refutation:
• Refers to other senator’s (by name) statements
o Summarizes statements and either expands upon the analysis or
refutes the statement
Logic & Organization:
• Preview of areas of analysis
• Clear topic sentences
• Clear connection between points
• Review of areas of analysis
• Reminder of how Senators should vote
Evidence:
• Citation of sources or experts – both from where it was retrieved as well as
the date of the source
Presentation:
• Makes eye contact with the members of the chamber (fellow students)
• Good pace
• Good articulation and enunciation
• Good energy/persuasive tone

Experience: 7 years of judging PF and Congress, Juris Doctor with Legal background.

Philosophy:

I approach debate as an educational activity that fosters critical thinking, effective communication, and the exploration of various perspectives. My role is to evaluate the round based on the arguments presented, the quality of evidence and analysis, and the overall coherence of the debate.

Roles of the Debaters:

1. Clarity and Organization: I value clear, concise, and organized speeches. Debaters should articulate their points effectively, signpost, and provide a clear roadmap for the round.

2. Argumentation: I prioritize well-developed and supported arguments. Provide strong evidence and analysis to back up your claims. Quality over quantity; I prefer a few strong points to numerous weak ones.

3. Rebuttal and Clash: Engage with your opponent's arguments. Effective rebuttal involves addressing the core of the argument, not just the surface-level claims.

4. Flexibility and Adaptability: Be prepared to adapt your strategy based on your opponent's arguments and the direction of the round.

Evidence and Sources:

From my legal education and background, I pay very close attention to sources. Cite reliable and credible sources. The quality of evidence is more important than the quantity. If a source is questionable, make sure to highlight this in your argumentation.

Cross-Examination:

I consider cross-examination to be an integral part of the debate. It's an opportunity to clarify, challenge, and extract concessions from your opponent. Effective cross-examination can significantly strengthen your case. I will pay close attention to challenges to opponents' arguments and how it is used to strengthen your case.

Speaker Points:

I will assign speaker points based on clarity, argumentation, strategic choices, and overall contribution to the round. Be respectful and professional throughout the debate.

Role of the Judge:

My role is to fairly and objectively evaluate the arguments presented. I will not inject my personal opinions into the decision-making process. I will assess the round based on what transpires in the debate.

Speed and Delivery:

While I can handle a moderate pace, I value clarity over speed. If your arguments become unclear due to rapid delivery, it may hinder your overall assessment.

Respect and Decorum:

Maintain respect for your opponents, partner, and the judge throughout the round. Be mindful of time limits and follow the established rules. I do not tolerate arguing over each other or unnecessary interjections as it muddles and slows the debate.

Final Thoughts:

Remember, debate is an educational activity, but don't forget to have fun! Embrace the opportunity to learn, grow, and engage with different perspectives. I look forward to a productive and insightful round!

When judging a debate, I want to see that you are following the rules established by the National Speech and Debate Association for whichever debate form you are competing in. Honestly, if I catch that you have broken a rule it will not flow kindly in your favor.

Other very important things to note:

• I want you to stay on topic: You have a given topic for a reason.

• Be respectful: This is an educational forum established for students to benefit educationally and no one benefits from disrespect. How you present yourself and how you treat your opponent(s) will be considered when choosing a winner.

• Presenting a solid case that is backed by credible resources is also imperative. Furthermore, there should be plenty of evidence to back up your claims especially in the rebuttals. You the debater are not a credible source. Logical arguments are great if you can back them up

• Plans/Counterplans: In Public Forum Debate, the Association defines a plan or counterplan as a formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation. Neither the pro or con side is permitted to offer a plan or counterplan; rather, they should offer reasoning to support a position of advocacy. Debaters may offer generalized, practical solutions (Direct quote from the National Speech and Debate Association.)

• “Non-existent evidence” means one or more of the following:

1. The debater citing the evidence is unable to provide the original source or copy of the relevant pages when requested by their opponent, judge, or tournament official.
2. The original source provided does not contain the evidence cited.
3. The evidence is paraphrased but lacks an original source to verify the accuracy of the paraphrasing.
4. The debater is in possession of the original source, but declines to provide it to their opponent upon request in a timely fashion.
(Direct quote from the National Speech and Debate Association.)

Another note to consider, I do not support the blending of the debate styles. LD is not Policy debate, nor is PF. They are all unique styles of debate with their own educational value. Trying to make LD or PF like Policy Debate will not be voted on favorably.

Spreading offers no educational value to debate. Talking fast I am cool with if you have the diction for it!

THIS IS A COMMUNICATION ACTIVITY.  Your goal is to effectively communicate your arguments to me.  If you are talking too fast to be intelligible, you are not effectively communicating.

If you make my hand cramp taking notes, I'll be crabby. I am a visual person and my notes are how I will judge the round. If I miss an argument because you were talking at light speed, that's your fault, not mine! :)

Attitude / Aggressiveness

100%, above all, you are human beings and citizens of the world. I expect you to act like it. I HATE rudeness or offensive behavior in any debate format. Be kind, be inclusive. By all means, be aggressive, but don't be rude.

Public Forum: I am a huge framework fan. You have the evidence, frame the story for me. If you give me a framework and explain why, under that framework, your evidence means I vote for you, I will. Don't make me do summersaults to get to a decision. If only one team gives me a framework, that's what I'll use.

Re: Summary / FF - I expect the debate to condense in the summary / final focus - and I expect you to condense the story accordingly. Look for places to cross-apply. I do need arguments to extend through every speech to vote for them - but I do not expect you to reiterate all evidence / analysis. Summarizing and weighing is fine for me. No new arguments during ff.
WEIGH arguments for me. Especially if we're talking apples and oranges - are we comparing money to lives? Is there a Risk-Magnitude question I should be considering?

Good day to all of you! My name is Joseph, and I will be your judge today. I have experience in Public Forum and Congressional debate all the way up to the national tournament level. I loved debate in high school and my goal as a judge is to ensure that as many young people as possible get to experience the sense of belonging that it gave to me.

General paradigm:

Reliable, relevant, recent, and unbiased sourcing is extremely important to both categories. Cite your sources using at least two of these three: author's name, date, publication/article name. Likewise, poise and professionalism as a speaker are extremely important to success in debate and in life. If you drop professionalism with personal attacks, abusive rhetoric, foul language, or general misconduct, don't expect to score very well with me. I appreciate tenacity but don't make it personal. I am stylistically agnostic, meaning I find value in many different styles of debate. Your ranking will not be impacted by your speaking style as long as it does not interfere with your ability to articulate your points.

Congressional debate paradigm:

First, a note on the presiding officer. The PO will begin as having the rank of two. They can move up in rankings if the chamber struggles to provide good debate or down if they don't do their jobs to a sufficient level. I do not want to punish presiding officers and I know a lot of judges don't make their procedure for ranking the PO clear. 

Congress is first and foremost persuasive. The goal is to persuade as many of your fellow participants to vote with you once the previous question is moved. In order to get someone to really listen to your points and take them in you need to build an ethos around you. You get the floor for three minutes of speech time. Don't waste it spewing pure research. You need to analyze your sources in a nuanced way to be successful in this category of debate. Explain the research you have in a manner that proves its relevance to the debate. This is to say that clash is extremely important. On a final note, speechcraft is far from the most important aspect of congressional debate but that isn't to say that it bears no importance. The best speaker will not usually score the highest with me unless they also prove themselves to be an excellent debater. Still, however, there is a baseline level of speaking ability which I expect. If you struggle to articulate your points effectively it becomes difficult to justify giving you a high rank because your speaking style or ability limits how effectively, you accomplish your goal.

My name is Dave Pitts and by trade I am a Management Consultant with a large public accounting and consulting firm. My job requires me to helping large companies to grow and operate more efficiently to improve outcomes for their shareholders and importantly, their customers.  To succeed, myself and the staff that I work with have to be effective storytellers. We need to make clear-cut points, supported by tangible facts and figures, to convince a diverse group of executives, staff, and maybe even their customers, to work a different way... together.  It's not an easy task!

Amanda Soczynski’s Judge Philosophy

A little about myself; I have been involved with forensics for 19 years as a student, judge, and coach. I am currently in my 8th year as the congressional debate coach at Edina High School. My background was originally in speech where I competed and coached. In High School, I learned policy debate as a class rather than competition on a local level, so I competed but not in a typical local circuit. I have been judging debate for the last 13 years, in all categories. I judged CX for the first 5 years and the last 7 years in LD, PF and mostly Congress. I graduated with a Mass Communications degree from University of Minnesota School of Journalism and a J.D. graduate from William Mitchell College of law in 2014. I work at Thomson Reuters on legal software & research, as a content expert. I really love congress, watching, coaching. I always try to strive to do my best! If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask. My goal is always to be an educator and help you succeed!

If for some reason my parli notes don't end up in your results packet, email me at amandasoc@gmail.com or amanda.soczynski@edinaschools.org. I will send you my google doc. I parli a lot and I always take lots and lots of notes and try to give RFD's when I can. If you don't get the link. Please ask, I put a lot of work into them. ????

I have a congress paradigm and CX,LD,PF one included in here.

Evidence / Citations / Warrants for all categories: *note - Statista is not a source, it's like Wikipedia, it's a congregation website not actually doing any of the studies that are on there. If you copy and paste the title of the stat you're looking at it will likely take you to the original source. Also the little (i) icon often will tell you where it can from. DON'T USE STATISTA as a source with me. I am a professional researcher by trade, so I care about citations! They matter and if they are from a source I don't know or if they're suspicious to me, I will google them.

Congress Paradigm:

General:

One thing to remember - judging congress is hard! It's just as exhausting for us as it is for you. We're trying really hard to compare a lot of people who have vastly different styles! I try to write as much as I can, but I spend a lot of time listening, so sometimes my comments can be lite at times. I'm working on that, the three mins go so fast. I'm hoping this will help shed some light on how I evaluate debaters.

When it comes to national level tournaments, at this point, almost everyone is a proficient speaker, so I really focus on the quality of arguments and ability to be flexible in round. Being a well rounded debater is important for me, especially as a Parli. I want to see a variety of type of speeches, and ability to switch sides, and flex to what the round demands. Make sure you are listening and not rehashing, if you're doing a rebuttal make sure you are extending or further attacking an argument.

I REALLY APPRECIATE A GOOD AUTHORSHIP OR SPONSORSHIP. Nothing is worse than judging or watching a semi-final round where there is no first aff, and having to take an in house recess immediately. Come prepared, have one. Spend the rest of your time doing great questions and defending your position there. I feel like people don't like to do this because they feel like they will be dropped. Rebuttals and Crystals are great, but there's a lot of them. If you can do this well, we'll know. It comes with the most amount of questioning time that if you know a lot about the topic you can show boat.

Linking: This is a debate skill you should have, you should able to link your impacts with others, link arguments together for rebuttal. Most national level congress debaters are great at linking within their own argument, but make sure you link and contextualize to the round. I want to see that they go together rather be a stand alone. That being said, contextualizing by: "I want to separate myself from the other AFF or NEG arguments", that's okay because you are still contextualizing within the round. Do not operate as an island in the debate, it's a good way to be dropped by me. Also remember, you can have great speeches, but if you don't ask questions, you're going to find your way to the middle of my ballot. It's a crucial part of debate.

Impacting:

THIS IS SO IMPORTANT. Again, at the national level, most people can impact to lives or economy etc. But what I find people aren't as good, is contextualizing the impact. Example: You tell me that thousands of lives are being lost in Yemen, take it one step further tell me what percentage of that population is being killed, or how that compares to another genocide for context. Make it hit home for all of us. Just giving generic #'s, sure it's the impact, but it doesn't show me the impact. Make sense? Remember I come from a policy background where pretty much everything leads to nuclear war.

Questioning:

Direct questioning is great, but make sure you're not too long winded or too brief, there's a nice sweet spot, where you have maybe a sentence or two question and answer. I've seen people basically run out the time by doing a really long answer, and I've also seen debaters ask such long questions that there's no way the opponent can answer. You only have 30 seconds, make it count.

Participation in Round:

Leadership is important. Remember, I'm comparing a lot of kids, participation with motioning and making sure that all students get to talk is important. This can help make up for bad presidency etc.

PO:

I almost always rank P.O.s in the top 5. It's a hard job, and as a parli, we appreciate good POs. A good way to get to the top 1/2 of my ballot as a PO. The round runs so smoothly I barely know you're there. You are able to solve issues of people not being prepared / docket issues. (This happens so often, time restrictions make things complicated. Especially since lots of tournaments have their own rules).

Mistakes happen, one mistake is not going to tank you. Continuous mistakes, or failing to help chamber resolve issues. This makes it harder. Fairness is also important, I notice when you pick your teammates repeatedly or if you always start in the middle of the room.

Inclusiveness - especially on the local circuit. I don't like parliamentary procedure used to limit people talking. It is also important to encourage those who haven't talked to go. Do your best to make sure the chamber is inclusive.

DON'T ALWAYS PICK YOUR FRIENDS FIRST. I know this happens. And it's easier to pick up than you think it is. Presidency means a lot in congress. Make it fair.

There's a reason I love coaching congress, it's a fun event!

CX/LD/PF Paradigm

General: As I’ve previously mentioned I come from a legal background. I am a “big picture” judge. I do appreciate the attention to detail, however, I don't like when it devolves into a debate that’s myopically focused on one thing. Make sure you take the time, especially in rebuttals to do a “birds eye view” of the debate. Remember, the rebuttal is the last time I hear from you before I make a decision, make it count. I appreciate good crossfire, and cross ex, specifically using information obtained in these for an argument.

Topicality: I like topicality, especially in varsity level debate. I think it makes a for a boring debate to have a non-topical aff. So it’s a pretty garden variety argument for the neg to make.

Critical Arguments: As I wasn’t a debater in high school, I don’t have the technical experience dealing with these arguments, however, I don’t mind critical affs on-face. Since I don’t have the technical experience, I appreciate all critical arguments to be understandable and explained properly. I catch on to arguments quickly, however I loathe having to have to fill in the gaps of an argument because its poorly argued. Make it logical, make it understandable. I generally dislike affs that are anti-topical or affs that critique the topic. I’m not saying I’ll never vote for a critical aff, whiteness aff, performance aff’s, etc, but its the one area where an affirmative is asking the most out of me as a judge. Again, I have less experience with these types of aff’s so extra explanation of sources and philosophies. For kritiks from the negative, I prefer ones that are topic-specific rather than K’s that are broad or philosophical. I’m pretty familiar at this point with cap k, neolib, fem, eco-k, anything outside of these again you’ll have to communicate more effectively as it is a bigger burden for me to decipher.

Theory: I don’t have the background in this, so this won’t be very successful with me as a judge. I overall prefer substantive arguments over theoretical or procedural arguments. My training in law, and my work, deals almost exclusively with substantive arguments, so I tend to prefer and understand those better. If you do decide to go this route, it must be very well done. My flow can’t be muddy, and the explanation must be very logical and understandable.

Speed: I have no problem with speed. I do ask two things. 1. Slow down enough on the tags so that I can understand them 2. Make your tags count. I dislike deciphering poor tags that do not tell me anything about the evidence. Keep tags like 5-8 words, long tags suck.

Post Round Discussion: Please be respectful, I don’t appreciate a “shake down” when I’m explaining my decision. I don’t do speaker points till after the round is over and all the debaters have left the room and I take decorum into account. I am a bit of a non-traditional judge and I do make a concerted effort to bring up constructive criticism and positive comments. Please take these comments as an opportunity to learn!

(scroll down for congress and public forum specific info!)

Hello everyone! My name is Allison (she/her) and I am a graduate of Elk River High School! Im currently taking a gap year before going to school for a veterinary science degree! I spent multiple years competing, as well as coaching congressional debate so I am well aware of what a respectful and successful debate should look like. Outside of congress I've spent much of my time preparing to judge by observing and researching other forms of debate such as: Policy, LD and PF. I promise to you that I will ensure you all be treated with respect and feel comfortable in your rounds, and I expect you to treat myself and your peers with the same respect. I will leave you with some general information of what I look for and I wish you the best of luck! See you in rounds!

First and foremost: BE RESPECTFUL

I have absolutely 0 tolerance for any form of offensive/hurtful speech (racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.) I have absolutely no problem giving out a bad score when it's deserved.

In all forms of debate I look for a few key things:

-I may not have read every single topic you are debating today (although I try my hardest), so please clarify any information that may need further explanation!

-Using current and relevant statistics to back your arguments.

-Using reliable sources.

-Verbally citing your sources with a minimum of two pieces of information. (i.e. Author, Publication Date, Website, etc.)

-Remaining professional. A little humor is appreciated at times however it's important to remember that you are being judged as if you are a professional, and must still present that way.

-Be kind to your competition inside and outside of the debate room.

-Not repeating the same information over and over again.

-Try not staring at an ipad/chromebook/notepad the entire time! The goal should be to feel as though you are speaking to your audience, not at them (obviously check and make sure you are using the correct statistics and sources if need be).

Public Forum Specific:

-I'm used to judging for congress however do not think this means I don't know what to look for!

-A solid roadmap is always a great starter (especially since i'm used to judging congress and am not always up to date with what you guys are debating).

-Making sure your final focus speech is simple and effective! It is the entire reason why you believe you should win, make it count!

-Let me know if you need time signals!!! It is your responsibility to let me know and I will happily use them!

-I'll give you about a 10 second grace period unless the tournament rules say otherwise.

-Overall in a tough round I will always be drawn to who seems to be the "better speakers," for me a pair of good speakers is a duo that: doesn't always stare at their notes, speaks clearly with minimal mistakes (I know stuttering happens sometimes, don't make it obvious and address it and keep it moving) and clearly shows they are prepared to debate!

-If there is any negativity or hostility during cross I wont hesitate to speak up :) Don't be a bully, its not cool dude. (it will also 1000% effect your points and my overall decision)

-I promise i'm not scary and i'm excited to see you debate! Good luck and be kind!

Congress Specific:

POs:

-I will be timing (especially in the beginning of the round) in order to ensure you are not giving any more or less time than expected. I may stop timing as I see fit, however if I feel that time is not being given fairly/correctly I will begin timing again.

-I will also keep track of precedence and recency in order to ensure a fair chamber, as well as to ensure you are scored accordingly as you deserve to be judged fairly even when POing.

-I look more strictly at POs in varsity, whereas I understand that in-house representatives are still learning. I also judge POing harsher in varsity, as it is still part of debate.

Congress Debate:

-Be prepared! You have had enough time to prepare and should not ask to call a recess in between each piece of legislation in order to prepare for the next bill.

-Keeping an even split in the chamber. Even if you prefer to debate on a topic one way, you should have enough evidence prepared in the off chance there is an uneven break in the chamber.

-I know especially in congress that oftentimes you are forced to debate on a side you don't morally/politically agree with, however I still expect to give your best argument and remain respectful! I am able to respectfully put my own views aside in order to correctly and fairly assess your chamber, and I expect the same.

-Remembering you are supposed to be acting as representatives/senators! Some judges are very strict with this rule, and it only benefits you to remain professional!

If you have any questions or clarification is at all needed, ASK! I am here to ensure you all are treated equally with respect and get to speak your words freely (as long as they are nice words)!

General Considerations:

Kindness rules!

Listen to your opponent and demonstrate you understand their arguments; then present better arguments than theirs. Show a command of the whole topic.

Don't ask me about my meager paradigm unless you are committed to adjusting your debating to accommodate it. If you ask, I expect you to adjust to it. Failure to do so will lower your speaker points.

I can handle some speed; I very much prefer not to.

Congress:

I expect your arguments to pursue an answer to the legislation's purpose. It's so much easier to tear things down than it is to build things up. If you're affirming, explain how there is solvency in affirming. If you're negating, explain what would be needed to solve; don't just list reasons why the legislation won't work. Solvency is everyone's burden because you're legislators. Move society forward.

Extend arguments. Dueling oratories isn't debate. Respond to the responses of other speakers on the issues.

I actually find it compelling when you represent a particular constituency. Applying your arguments to how they impact actual citizens is the point, after all.

Lincoln/Douglas:

I'll listen to circuit argumentation, but if it isn't clear to me, I won't vote for it. That being said, sticking to the topic is much safer with me.

If you are prepping arguments, your prep time clock needs to be running. Don't stall through any tactics to get more.

If you want to start an email chain, do so before the round begins. Be ready by attaching your files to a reply ahead of time and just send at the appropriate moment.

Time yourself. Call out your prep time. You may time your opponent, but for goodness sake, do NOT set an alarm. That's just obnoxious.

I competed in four years of Public Forum in high school and am now the head coach at Andover High School in Minnesota. We primarily focus on Congress and Public Forum in our program.

Congress:

If you contribute meaningfully to the debate (rather than reading a pre-written speech repeating arguments), that's a good way to rank highly with me. I want to see clash and rebuttals, even if those rebuttals are logic-driven and not necessarily evidence-driven. I want to see that you're following the round and thinking critically about it.

I understand wanting to stay relevant in the round, but please be mindful of the questions you ask. I am unimpressed by questions that are really a statement that you end with "wouldn't you agree?" or "what's your response to that?" Please don't use questioning periods as time to bring up other evidence or preface. And ask questions that are relevant to the speaker you're asking them of. If they didn't talk about an argument, a question about that argument doesn't make sense.

Public Forum:

Arguments that are well-warranted go further for me than an argument you try to fiat your way out of. Almost always, I think that's a cheap way of dictating the round and avoiding a question.

Don't make me do the work of making arguments for you because I won't and a half-baked argument isn't going to generate you a lot of offense on the flow.

On the topic of weighing- do it. Give me quantification, a weighing mechanism, magnitude, an impact calc, I don't care. This goes along with the whole judge intervention thing- I want you to be pretty clear what I should flow as most important in the round.

I'll take a logical rebuttal to an argument if that logic is very sound. If that logic is sound, I may not necessarily need evidence read to clunk up the argument.

I enjoy giving feedback after the round and I'll usually disclose if I've made my decision at that point. Feel free to ask me anything else you'd like to know. But don't shake my hand please I'm v not a fan.

Competition Background

High School Speech: Eden Valley - Watkins HS, MN (6 years): Drama, Original Oratory, and Great Speeches

College Speech: Gustavus Adolphus College (4 Years): Informative, After Dinner Speaking, and Extemporaneous Speaking

College Debate: Gustavus Adolphus College (2 years): Parliamentary Debate

Coaching Experience

Wayzata High School - Speech (3 years): Great Speeches & Original Oratory

Watzata High School - Debate: (2 years): Congressional Debate