Tabroom.com

49th Harvard National Forensics Tournament

2023 — Cambridge, MA/US

Congress (HS-In Person) Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Jacob Abraham Stoneman Douglas High School

Samantha Adams FAU High School None

Katharine Allan Lyons Township Independent None

Aditi Ambravan Adlai E Stevenson High School

Last changed on Sat February 11, 2023 at 12:29 PM CDT

Hi all! I'm very excited to be one of your judges this tournament. Please read my paradigms below regarding what I will be looking for when evaluating speakers in round. Best of luck!

Content: If you are not the FIRST speaker (sponsor/author) of the legislation, I will expect you to have refutations in your speech. Even as the first negation, you need to do a good job of refuting the basic premises brought up by the sponsor while introducing the neg arguments that you plan on. If you are going to rehash points, I would suggest doing some in-round research to make sure that you are not giving the same contention and impacts as a speaker before you. If you are rehashing exactly, it will be reflected in your ballots, speech scores, and ranking for the round. Crystals should be well structured and need to weigh arguments. Do not be the person to crystal halfway through the round-- these speeches are reserved for the last cycle.

Presentation: I highly value clear speaking and making eye contact with other speakers in the round. Do not look at the judges the entire time, but rather be precise with eye contact (ie. body language should reflect the speakers you might be currently referencing). Be careful about posture and repetitive hand gestures that can distract from the content of your speech. You don't have to speak perfectly and it is okay to pause at times; however, if you do trip on your words, aim to move forward and don't let one mistake dictate the remainder of your speech. Emphasis of words, evidence, and tone are all important factors in your presentation as well.

Rhetoric: Be original. Canned (one-intro-fits-all) rhetoric is not going to make you stand out. Also, as a former debater, I am aware of the "stock" intros that have gone around the circuit. Avoid using this kind of rhetoric that is not yours, and it is easy to tell when this happens.

Signposting: I have no preferences regarding signposting. Please just ensure that your arguments are easy to follow and well-organized regardless of whether you signpost or not.

Sonia Armijo Summit HS None

Sudeep Arya Hunterdon Central Regional High School None

Bryan Bacon Pinecrest High School None

Marie Bakke Thomas Jefferson HSST

Last changed on Fri April 22, 2022 at 4:40 AM EDT

For Congressional Debate, my primary focus is on logical arguments that are well-constructed with quality evidence to support your claims. I appreciate rhetoric and impacts, but I will discount scores if these replace analysis and evidence. Refutations are essential to a strong score but require more than just a claim – give me the analysis and back it up with evidence.

I highly respect constitutional arguments and discount for affirmations of an unconstitutional bill.

It is essential to me that competitors remain in the role of a congressperson, showing respect to the chamber and following proper parliamentary procedure. I encourage everyone to remember to address their colleagues with the proper honorarium (Representative/Senator) at all times, and to avoid using Mr./Ms. personal titles as they both assume gender identity and may be considered dismissive at times.

I respect competitors who are active in the chamber and strongly disagree with the trend of some competitors to press for a base-2 model. Finally, while our U.S. congresspeople may lack persuasive speaking skills, I highly value presentation skills in congressional debate.

As a parliamentarian, I value a presiding officer who is, of course, familiar with both Roberts Rules and the rules set forth by the tournament. However, I do not mind if the PO asks questions to confirm procedures or tournament preferences. The PO should always strive to run a fast and fair chamber to allow everyone opportunities to speak. I prefer to remain as quiet as possible giving the PO the control of the chamber. I will intervene only if the PO makes an incorrect ruling that will impact the results of the session, makes an error in precedence/recency (though I will certainly give the chamber a chance to catch this first), or to insure fairness to everyone in the chamber. I encourage the PO to take charge of the chamber, to rule motions dilatory when appropriate, and to remind the congresspeople of proper procedures when needed. However, I do believe these corrections can be done with respect and kindness.

Though I strive to allow the chamber to function without my input, I will step in if I suspect there is bullying in play, or if I sense discrimination within the chamber, either intentional or unintentional.

Hema Balasubramanian William G. Enloe HS None

Jordy Barry Millburn High School

Last changed on Mon April 10, 2023 at 8:57 AM PDT

A little bit about me: I coach for Millburn High School in New Jersey. I completed on the circuit in high school and college.

I do my very best to be as non-interventionist as possible, but I know some students like reading judges paradigms to get a better sense of what they're thinking. I hope that the below is helpful :).

Overall: You can be nice and a good debater. :)

Here are some things to consider if I'm your Parliamentarian/ Judge in Congressional Debate:

- I am a sucker for a well-executed authorship/ sponsorship, so please don't be afraid to give the first speech! Just because you don't have refutation doesn't mean it isn't a good speech. I will be more inclined to give you a better speech score if you stand up and give the speech when no one is willing to do so because it shows preparedness.

- Bouncing off of the above bullet point, two things I really dislike while at national circuit tournaments are having no one stand up to give the earlier speeches (particularly in out rounds) and one-sided debate. You should be prepared to speak on either side of the legislation. You're there to debate, so debate. I'm much more inclined to rank you higher if you flip and have fluency breaks than if you're the fourth aff in a row.

- Asking the same question over and over to different speakers isn't particularly impressive to me (only in extreme circumstances should this ever be done). Make sure that you are catering the questions to the actual arguments from the speech and not asking generic questions that could be asked of anyone.

- Make my job easy as the judge. I will not make any links for you; you need to make the links yourself.

- Warrants are so important! Don't forget them!

- If you are giving one of the final speeches on a piece of legislation, I expect you to weigh the arguments and impacts that we have heard throughout the debate. Unless there has been a gross negligence in not bringing up a particular argument that you think is revolutionary and changes the debate entirely, you shouldn't really be bringing up new arguments at this point. There are, of course, situations where this may be necessary, but this is the general rule of thumb. Use your best judgment :).

- Please do your best to not read off of your pad. Engage with the audience/ judges, and don't feel as though you have to have something written down verbatim. I'm not expecting a speech to be completely flawless when you are delivering it extemporaneously. I historically score speeches higher if delivered extemporaneously and have a couple of minor fluency lapses than a speech read off of a sheet of paper with perfect fluency.

- Be active in the chamber! Remember, the judges are not ranking students based upon who is giving the best speeches, but who are the best legislators overall. This combines a myriad of factors, including speeches, questioning, overall activity, leadership in the chamber, decorum, and active listening (i.e. not practicing your speech while others are speaking, paying attention, etc.) Keep this in mind before going into a session.

- Please please please don't speak over the top of one another. This being said, that doesn't mean you have a right to monopolize the questioning time, but there is a nice way to cut someone off if they're going too long. Use your best judgment. Don't cut someone off two seconds after they start answering your question.

- I rank based on who I think are the overall best legislators in the chamber. This is a combination of the quality of speeches, questioning, command of parliamentary procedure, preparedness, and overall leadership and decorum in the chamber.

Let me know if you have any questions! :)

Here are some things to consider if I'm your judge in Public Forum:

- I am really open to hearing almost any type of argument (except K's, please don't run K's in PF)). Do your thing, be clear, and enjoy yourselves!

- Please debate the resolution. It was written for a reason.

- It's important to me that you maintain clarity throughout the round.

- Take advantage of your final focus. Tell me why I should vote for you, don't solely focus on defensive arguments.

- Maintain organization throughout the round - your speeches should tell me what exact argument you are referring to in the round. Signposting is key! A messy debate is a poorly executed debate.

- I don't weigh one particular type of argument over another. I vote solely based on the flow, and will not impose my pre-existing beliefs and convictions on you (unless you're being racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, or xenophobic). It's your show, not mine!

- Please please please don't speak over the top of one another. This being said, that doesn't mean you have a right to monopolize the questioning time, but there is a nice way to cut someone off if they're going too long. Use your best judgment. Don't cut someone off two seconds after they start answering your question.

- Be polite!

- Make my job easy. I should not have to (and will not) make any links for you. You have to make the link yourselves. There should be a clear connection to your impacts.

- Weighing impacts is critical to your success, so please do it!

Any questions, please feel free to ask!

Victoria Beard Spring Woods High School

Meg Bratt Fordham Preparatory School

Alyssa Brown Southlake Carroll None

Tracy Brown The Bronx High School Of Science

Daryl Brownell Cardinal Newman High School None

DJ Brynteson Robbinsdale Area Schools

Last changed on Mon April 10, 2023 at 9:36 AM CDT

Background: Head Coach at Robbinsdale Armstrong and Robbinsdale Cooper HS in Minnesota. There I coach LD, PF and Congressional Debate.

Most Important: Debate should be about comparing and weighing arguments. In LD (and optional in PF) there should be a criterion (standard) which argument are weighed through. The purpose of the criterion is to filter out arguments. So simply winning the criterion does not mean you win the debate. You should have arguments that link to the winning criterion and those arguments should be weighed against any opposing/linking arguments. If the debaters do not weigh the arguments, then you force the judge to do that weighing for you and that is never good.

Overall: 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 ever 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. Speed within limits is ok. 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. No need to ask if I want to be on the email chain, job of debate is to communicate the evidence to me.

Congressional Debate: Read everything above because it is still valuable information. Congressional Debate is debate by nature. It is not a dueling oratory round. In general, the first cycle is there to set up arguments in the round. The author/sponsor speech should be polished. All other speeches should have elements of refutation to other students and arguments in the round. If you are giving a speech in the fourth cycle and never refer to another person's argument, you are not going to score well in front of me. Simply dropping a person's name isn't refutation. You should tell me why their argument is wrong. With evidence it is even better.

You should do everything in your power to not go back-to-back on the same side. I will flow little of a second speech back-to-back on the same side. If you are the third speaker on the same side in a row, I'm not flowing any of it. Debaters should be prepared to switch sides if necessary. Lastly, there is a trend for no one to give an author/sponsor speech as they are worried, they will not score well. That isn't true in front of me. All parts of the debate are important.

The questioning period is about defeating arguments not to make the person look good. Softball questions are not helpful to debate. Do it multiple times and expect your rank to go down. All aspects, your speech, the quality of sources, refutation and questioning all go into your final rank. Just because you speak the prettiest does not mean you are the champion. You should be able to author/sponsor, refute, crystalize, ask tough questions, and defend yourself in questioning throughout the debate. Do all in a session and you are in decent shape.

Presiding Officers (PO): The PO will start with a rank of five in all chambers for me. From there, you can work your way up or down based on your performance. PO's who are clearly favoring the same school or same circuit students will lose rank. A PO can absolutely receive the one in my ranks likewise they can be unranked if you make many errors.

The current trend is for "super wordy" PO's. You do not need to say things like "Thank you for that speech of 3:09. As this was the 3rd Affirmative Speech, we are in line for 1 minute block of questioning. All those who wish to ask a question, please indicate." If you add up the above through an entire session, that adds up to multiple speeches that were taken by the PO. Watch how many words you say between speeches, question blocks, etc. A great PO blends away in the room. Extra language like "The chair thanks you", "this is speech 22", etc. All of this is just filler words for the PO taking time away from the debate. Lastly, a "chair" doesn't have feelings. It is not rude to be efficient.

I track precedence/recency in all sessions. I keep a detailed flow in all rounds debate - Congress, LD and PF.

Disclosure: I typically do not give any oral critiques. All the information will be on the ballot.

Zack Budzichowski Charlotte Latin School None

Calen Cabler Seven Lakes High School

Last changed on Mon April 10, 2023 at 12:00 PM CDT

I am the Director of Interp and Oratory/Assistant Director of Forensics at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas. I did speech in high school in Texas, and I am also a thespian -- I have a BFA in acting and I was a theatre director prior to specializing in Speech and Debate.

Conflicts: Seven Lakes (TX), Wimberley (TX)

First and foremost, I am a theatre person and a speech coach by training and by trade.

Congress (As of 4/10/2023)

Don't speed through your speeches, speed matters to me. Style matters to me as well, I am looking for structured arguments with clean rhetoric that comes in a polished package. Introduce new arguments. In questioning, I look for fully answering questions while also furthering your argument. I notice posture and gestures -- and they do matter to me. Evidence should be relevant and (for the most part) recent. Evidence is pretty important to me, and outweighs clean delivery if used properly. A clean analysis will rank you up on my ballot as well. Don't yell at each other. Overall, be respectful of one another. If I don't see respect for your fellow competitors, it can be reflected on my ballot. Don't rehash arguments. An extra speech with something I have already heard that round is likely to bump you down when I go to rank. As far as PO's go, I typically start them at 4 or 5, and they will go up or down depending on how clean the round runs. A clean PO in a room full of really good speakers will likely be ranked lower on my ballot. As far as delivery goes...as it says above, I am a speech coach. Your volume, rate, diction, etc are important. Make sure you are staying engaged and talking to the chamber, not at the chamber -- I want to be able to tell that you care about what you are speaking on.

Interp (As of 3/09/2022):

I am looking for honest connection to character and to text. Blocking should be motivated by the text and make sense for the character. I look for using vocal variety to add to the text and really paint a picture. I want you to really connect and tell the story. I also look for an overall arc of the story, clear beat changes, and clear emotion. I also look for clean diction and an appropriate rate of speech. Additionally, environment should be clear and blocking should be clean. In single events, I want to see the connection to your “other” (who are you sharing this with in the context of the story). In partner events, I want to see you really connect to each other. If you play more than one character, I am looking for clear and clean differences between the characters. Overall, tell your story. Connect to character, and share that with the audience.

Public Speaking (As of 3/09/2022):

Delivery is very important to me. Be careful of overusing gestures, make sure they have a purpose and enhance what you say. I want to see you connected to sharing your speech, not simply reciting something you memorized. While I do tend to notice style before content, it is important that your content is accurate and adequately supported. The content of the speech and the way it flows is important. I also look at diction and rate of delivery. In info, I do like fun interactive visuals—but they need to enhance your speech, not be there just to fill space. Overall, I want you to be excited about your speech and to have fun delivering it.

PF (As of 1/21/22):

I try to flow pretty carefully, but please make sure you reiterate important points as they become useful to your argument.
Speed is okay, as long as I can understand you.
Articulation matters to me. I would rather you speak a little slower and not get caught up in what you are saying.
I really look for you to answer each other’s attacks on cases, not just repeat what you have already told me if it doesn't address the opposing case.
Giving me a clear road map and sticking to it always helps.
If a team is misrepresenting evidence, make it clear to me and tell me how they are doing so.
Overall, I want you to tell me why you are right AND why they are wrong. Make sure you are backing up your claims with evidence and statistics.

Albert Cepeda West Broward High School None

Becky Chabot Hire

Last changed on Tue June 14, 2022 at 6:19 AM CDT

Racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, transphobic, etc. comments and/or arguments and/or behavior are not tolerated. You WILL lose the round and receive 0 speaker points. Don't do it. And that includes coded language. The debate/speech space must be open and safe for all.

If you use stereotypes of identities (particularly race, gender, disabilities, and/or ethnicities) that aren’t yours, especially for comedic effect, you will be ranked last. There is no place in the speech and debate space for that kind of behavior.

General note for both speech and debate: how you behave in a round matters. I expect you to be cordial and collegial to your opponents. If you are not, your speaker points and/or ranking will reflect it.

A little about me: I was a policy debater in high school (20+ years ago). Currently, I am the Head Congress Coach for Lakeville North and Lakeville South High Schools in MN. I also teach Congress and PF for Potomac Debate Academy. I was the Head Coach at Wayzata High School for two years where I coached policy. I also coach speech (all categories), most recently at Edina High School. I've literally coached and judged it all. I also have a PhD in social ethics.

Here’s the TL;DR version:
Clash is necessary. I love Ks and critical argumentation (but know your theory!). Give me the ballot in every speech after the constructive! And don’t conflate ethics and morals!

CONGRESS

Each speech should have proper argumentation (claim, warrant, impact(s)). IMPACT OUT YOUR EVIDENCE!!! You should know why the evidence you’re reading or the statistic you’re citing matters and you should communicate that! Road map your speeches. Signpost during them. If you are not the first speaker on either side of a bill, make it clear that you're following what's come before you. Acknowledge your fellow representatives when you're building on their point or when you're refuting it. CLASH IS IMPORTANT! I expect crystallizations and rebuttals to include weighing/impact calc. I rank POs unless the round is chaotic/incredibly poorly run. Precedency and recency matter. I track the number of questions you ask in addition to scoring your speeches. The person who gets my top rank is the person who performed best in the round. I'm looking for cordiality and collegiality, strength and uniqueness of arguments, and excellent in-round engagement with the thoughts and arguments of others. Generally, I care more about the content of your speech than your delivery, unless the delivery makes it impossible for your arguments to land.

LD/POLICY/PF DEBATE
In a round, I'm paying close attention to whether arguments are complete and if they're well supported by the cards used. It's not just about cramming as much as will fit into an X-minute speech; it's about making sure that your evidence says what you're saying it does and using information to make your argument stronger. I'm looking for claims, warrants, and impacts. I will vote on impacts, so make sure you extend them. ***Trigger warnings are not enough; you need to have a non-explicit case that you can run.***

I'm not a strict flow judge, but I am tracking all the arguments. If questions are raised in rounds that are a priori (need to be addressed prior to addressing the resolution), I'm paying special attention to how they're run and responded to; T and K are voters that, for me, always take precedence over case. RFDs will not be tech heavy.

Clash is important! Rounds where the sides talk past each other and don’t engage with the arguments of the other side are not good rounds

Tell me why you should get the ballot in all post-constructive speeches. Make your case for why you win the round. But please do not tell me that I have an ethical obligation to vote a certain way, unless you're giving me the ethical paradigm from which you want me to vote. Otherwise, the phrase "you have an ethical obligation to vote for us" means nothing. Ethics and morals are not the same thing, so please don't conflate them. Morals are an appeal to shared values, while an ethic is simply a way of being in the world. Knowing how to make these arguments successfully will make you better debaters.

While I am an old school policy debater, my doctoral studies were continental philosophy, critical theory, cultural theory, and social ethics. Bring on your critical arguments! I love critical argumentation in both LD and Policy when it's done well. I welcome it in PF, too. I expect students to understand the theory that underlies their critical arguments, as that is the only way to successfully defend arguments of that kind. My decisions in many rounds come down to a priori questions to the resolution, especially Ks.

Speed, in and of itself, is not a problem; speed without clarity is. If I can't understand you, I will say “Clear” once. Slow down and enunciate. If I still cannot understand you, it's an issue that will impact speaker points. Please slow on your tags and citations.

This is the single best advice I can give you if I am your judge: do not conflate ethics and morals. An ethic is a way of being in the world; it does not require morals. Morals, conversely, are principles by which one lives one’s life. While many ethics include morals as part of their structure, ethics and morals aren’t the same thing. If you’re making a moral appeal argument, you need to tell me what the morals to which you’re appealing are and why they’re important. If you’re making an ethical argument, you need to tell me what the ethical framework is that I should use. Otherwise, telling me that I have an ethical or moral obligation to vote in a particular way means nothing; you need to give me the framework or the values you want me to use to evaluate the round. When you don’t, it means that I am using my own ethical or moral framework to evaluate rounds and, because no two people have the exact same ethic (way of being in the world), it lowers the persuasiveness of your argument.

PF-Specific Preferences:
Evidence ethics matter!!! DO NOT PARAPHRASE IN FRONT OF ME. Read the actual card. It doesn't take any longer to read the card than it does to paraphrase it. There are no excuses for not reading the actual card. If you take longer than a minute to provide a card that's called, I will strike it from the flow. If the card is called and you were paraphrasing it, I reserve the right to drop you, especially if there are any discrepancies between what you said and what the source says. Critical arguments are always welcome, but make sure you can prove a violation if you’re running T or a norms violation (disclosure, trigger warning, spreading, etc).

SPEECH
I’ve coached every NSDA category and regularly judge them. There are a couple big things that I’m looking for when I judge a speech round.

1) Performance: Can I hear you? Do your movements make sense? Are you comfortable with the material? Do you wait for the judge before beginning? Does entire performance fit with the material? How well do you perform or present your piece? Are you off book? Do you speak with confidence and authority?

2) Category specific things: For interp generally, I pay close attention to transitions, pops, and character work. Are they clean? Are they distinct physically and vocally? Getting those to a point where they’re clean is a huge hurdle, but one that matters.

In humor, do the jokes land? Are they told well? Does the performance include pauses after jokes that elicit a laugh? Do you know what your laugh lines are? Is the piece funny? Are you relying on racial/ethnic, gender, or other stereotypes for comedic effect? (If you do, you'll rank last!)

TRAUMA FOR THE SAKE OF DRAMA IS NOT OKAY! Pieces that include descriptions sexual assaults will not rank highly; there is no reason for the details of an assault to be included in a piece or portrayed during a performance. Trigger warnings must be delivered properly; if I am your judge and your piece needs a trigger warning, you need to communicate that to me prior to the start of the round. I will take care of alerting the room and allowing time and space for people to take care of themselves. Do NOT turn the trigger warning into a performative action that does not allow time and space for people to take care of themselves.

In POI, I’m looking for a cohesive piece that has a clear narrative arc throughout it. Do the piece selections fit with each other? Is each piece identifiable? In other words, can I tell when you’re popping between pieces? Does the theme carry through? Have the cuttings been done well?

In Info, OO, and other student-written categories, does the text make sense? How well written is the piece? Does it succeed in being interesting and engaging? In an OO round, is the speech persuasive or is it dramatic? Does the solutions fit the problem? And in an Info round, is it an informative speech or is it persuasive? I want persuasion in OO and informative in Info.

For extemp, I want to see both an understanding of the prompt and an understanding of the arguments advanced. Are arguments complete (claim, warrant, impact) or are they missing a piece? Does the argument have ground? Impact out your evidence!

3) Category requirements: do the piece and its performance adhere to the NSDA rules or the operative rules for a tournament? If you’re not sure what they are, you can find that information on the NSDA website or the tournament website (NSDA rules are used widely, so start there).

4) Respect and collegiality: do you treat everyone with respect? Are you on your phone or engaged in watching your peers? Put simply: don’t be a jerk. No one likes a jerk. If you’re disrespectful in a round, it will impact your ranking.

Make my ranking decisions hard for me! The best rounds are the ones where I have a hard time figuring out how to rank you.

Zachariah Chou American Heritage Palm Beach HS

Last changed on Tue May 30, 2023 at 9:15 AM EDT

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away:

Ranked 4th in Congressional Debate

USA World Schools Debate Invitational Champion Team

Got my degrees in political science and journalism

Now:

I work as a ghostwriter & as a speech and debate coach for American Heritage Schools, Palm Beach Campus. I'm probably your prelims parliamentarian this weekend. I like to think I'm a pretty laid-back parliamentarian, relative to your perception of me after you read the rest of my paradigm. The only reason my paradigm is so detailed is specifically to reward the students who know to read paradigms.

My rankings tend to be pretty spot-on for the top four students in my prelim chambers before varying a little bit going down from there, as they should, so try not to overthink where I rank you. I would say to focus on the feedback.

Boxes to check off in order to move from Congressional Debate prelims to elimination rounds:

Content:

☐ Good arguments & avoid rehash

☐ Full (with the date) citations & high-quality sources

☐ Signposting your arguments/clear taglines

☐ Ability to refute

☐ Ability to crystalize

☐ Strong analysis

☐ Strong questioning

☐ Strong introductions

☐ Strong conclusions (that relate to your intro and last for longer than 5 seconds)

☐ Rhetoric & humor

☐ Appeals to pathos

Delivery:

☐ Effective hand gestures

☐ Eye contact

☐ Volume/presence

☐ Passion, not aggression

☐ Vocal variation (tone & volume & speed)

☐ Fluency of speech

☐ Walking on points

☐ DISPLAYS PROPER TIME MANAGEMENT & DOES NOT SPEAK TOO QUICKLY. THIS IS MY NUMBER ONE PET PEEVE. YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ELOQUENT IN THIS EVENT AND THAT MEANS STAYING UNDER 200 WPM. STARTING YOUR SECOND ARGUMENT AFTER 2:30 IS PROBABLY NOT GOOD FORM AND GOING OVER TIME AND GIVING A 2.5 SECOND CONCLUSION IS USUALLY BAD FORM. 3:00 IS THE BULLSEYE. WHILE 3:10 IS WITHIN THE "GRACE PERIOD" YOU ARE LITERALLY RUNNING OUT OF GRACE BY THEN AND IT GENERALLY IS BAD FORM TO GET GAVELED DOWN HARSHLY BY THE PO. IF I LOOK AT ALL YOUR SPEECHES FROM AN ENTIRE DAY AND NOT A SINGLE OF YOUR SIX SPEECHES ARE UNDER 3:08 THAT'S JUST GOING TO LOOK VERY WEAK COMPARED TO SPEAKERS WHO CAN ACTUALLY END ON TIME. BE CONVERSATIONAL, JUST AS IF YOU ARE TALKING TO A FRIEND AT SCHOOL.

Style:

☐ Leadership/influence in the chamber

☐ In-round strategy (overcoming bad pre-set recency, getting a third speech in without losing the respect of your peers)

☐ Decorum

☐ Use of a legal pad or non-technological equivalent

☐ Maintaining the roleplay (you are not a middle/high schooler)

A note on presiding:

If you're going to be a presiding officer while competing in Congressional Debate, be a great one. I am very strict as a parliamentarian when it comes to judging POs because I understand the harmful effect a sloppy or disengaged PO can have on the way a round runs.

Above all, time your fellow competitors accurately. If you mistime or misgavel your colleagues, I consider that to be a critical failure. I will independently be keeping track of timing, precedence, and recency. While doing so hampers my ability to flow/give as detailed feedback as I'd like, paying enough attention on my end to give the PO a nudge when they forget to give you your first gavel is honestly a lot more important (and happens a lot more often than you'd think). I consistently catch POs mistiming students in almost every round I'm also keeping time. Pay attention to your timer and if you don't, be honest about your mistakes at least.

POs should demonstrate authority and leadership through problem-solving, managing the chamber when conflict and confusion arises.

I keep a close eye to see if a PO appears to have read the tournament-specific rules.

I highly value word economy. The more you speak as a PO, the more time you are wasting.

If you have an online PO spreadsheet. I probably will audit every aspect of it, for your future benefit.

Dockets and agendas are not the same thing. The words are not interchangeable.

Finally:

Remember why we are all here: Speech and Debate is an educational activity. This is about you becoming the best, most capable version of yourself (and using those talents to make the world a better place). Five years from now, the confidence, talent, and knowledge you cultivate through this activity will be useful to you, every single day. The plaques and trophies will either still be on display at your old school or sitting in a box at home somewhere, out of sight and out of mind.

Tim Christensen Pinecrest High School

Lauren Cookson Thales Academy Rolesville Speech and Debate

Sean Cosgrove Delbarton School

Grant Davis Robbinsdale Area Schools

Last changed on Tue May 9, 2023 at 6:24 PM CDT

Bullies get dropped

If your argument needs a trigger warning, either ask before the round S T A R T S or don’t read it. Don't say mid speech "trigger warning!" because judges cannot just up and leave a round the same way you can, and you're not actually giving any students time to react. I think like 90% of tw are super performative and framed as “imma read this, deal w it”

FULL PARADIGM CAN BE FOUND HERE!

www.ImpactInstituteDebate.com

@Impact.Institute_ on Instagram for 100% free, high quality, virtual Congressional Debate resources.

Skim the paradigm and read the bold parts if you want

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Any pronouns work, but do not call me mister

Competed in Congress 2016-2019 for Eagan High School in MN, traveled a little bit but certainly wasn't a circuit kid

Congress coach 2019-present at Armstrong and Cooper High Schools in MN

Congress judge first, but pls don’t assume I'm not a "debate" judge :)

Parli (NPDA) for the University of Minnesota 19-20, 20-21. PNW CARD Debate for 1 semester.

Overall, I prefer chess over checkers. But both are valuable games!

Email chain or questions/critiques/whatever AFTER the round: Davi3736@umn.edu

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LD:

-I guarantee I can't understand your spreading. Go slower than you would in front of a circuit judge. You don't need to go lay, but you def can't go 100%. Idk the bright line exactly but I’ll “clear/slow” you until you slow down enough

-STRAIGHT UP NOT FLOWING OFF A SPEECH DOC HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA GIMME PEN TIME !!!!!!!

-Things you should keep tucked away when you're in front of me: anything bigoted, "get good", graphic descriptions, Malthus, and friv theory. I just, quite simply, will not vote for teams who do these things. Otherwise, you do you.

-"Jargon/theory/progressive debate bad" IS AN ARGUMENT

-Personally I'd rather hear "on topic" case debates but hey, links are links

-I can get down w a theory debate, but I am very unlikely to vote on your IVI unless there is pretty good reason. I'm really, really sick of people accusing each other of things that are gravely serious w minimal proof. If your opponent truly did something like commodify Indigenous culture or perpetuate sexism in the debate space, I do not care abt the flow. Articulate it, and I'll vote on it. Seriously, go hard on it bc if you actually prove that your opponent was actively doing bad things, that's all I care abt. Bullies get dropped.

-"Get good," "speed up," or "it's not my problem you're slow" is nowhere near the response you think it is. I will no longer be accepting this as a valid answer to theory. Ever.

-AGAIN, If you do end up spreading, please do not go your top speed...... No matter how long/hard I carbo-load, I will never be a computer.

-Run whatever on whatever side. Rejecting the topic is only fun if you give me a good reason to. Just tell me my role as a judge and I’ll listen

-Ks can be dope but PLEASE explain the obscure buzzwords to me. I DOUBT I HAVE READ YOUR THEORY UNLESS IT’S RELATIVELY BASIC. I'll vote against any k if you're clearly being unclear as a tactic, all it takes is an overview (or a t shell!) and I'll evaluate it.

-I think academia jargon to confuse your opponent is so silly

-Feel free to ask me questions post-round! Don't get mean bc I'll be :( but I'm definitely down to sift through my flow with you, assuming the tournament allows it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PF (as of Penn 2022):

I usually judge LD/Congress, but I know how to flow. So debate well, and I decide strictly on the flow. Tech over truth unless you're saying some really wonky stuff

Overviews that address topicality can definitely be the independent reason I vote.

Things I need: Impact calculus, timestamps on cards, CLEAR IMPACTS, and a clean decision made FOR ME in the ff

In the ff, I need you to BRING THE DEBATE TO IT'S SIMPLEST TERMS. Show me why, at the end of the day, your side has holistically won the round. What arg/s are you going for, and why are they most important?

Not in a speech, not on my flow. Cross isn't a speech.

SIGNPOST AND GIVE ME A ROADMAP SIGNPOST AND GIVE ME A ROADMAP SIGNPOST AND GIVE ME A ROADMAP

You get like 5-10 seconds of grace time.

Weigh if you wanna win.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Congress:

TLDR: I see it all

If you're reading this right now, it's likely right before round bc I probably said something like "please read paradigms", so good for you. Good start, now read this until there aren't any words left. Do this before every single round you'll ever have in your entire life.

I hate that thing POs do that's like "I presided in Florida and New York and on Mars blah blah blah". Say it if you want but I will 10000000% have a shifted impression of you. Good presiding has quite literally nothing to do with the circuit, and getting elected IS NEVER ABOUT SKILL ANYWAY HAHAHAHAHA

Root cause claims almost always suck in congress idc

5 Easiest ways to get on my ballot as a speaker: giving the right speech at the right time, weighing, good dq, being prepared/well read, give different types of speeches (a good sponsor and a good crystal is much more impressive than 2 good early speeches, for example)

5 Easiest ways to get off my ballot as a speaker: same sided questioning (with no goal/trap), rehash w/o differentiation, monopolizing dq through aggression, wrong speech at the wrong time, and messing around/not listening during other's speeches.

POing: I have a "high threshold" for ranking POs, but I couldn't think my threshold could be any lower. Track the round and be fair, you will finish well. No errors + expediency guarantees t5, no question. However, literally stop talking. Please. I do not care if the chair thanks you and I do not care if your spreadsheet is super colorful and I do not care if "that was the Xth aff speech, now follows x questioning etc". I don't care about quite literally anything you have to say outside of when students can speak. I will time your extra nonsensical monologues and move you down very harshly if you're making us lose speech time. Every single quirky thing you do to appeal to parent judges will move you down in front of me, I'm so serious. If you use a PO algorithm/app/something that does the work for you, instant drop. Don't tell me to rank you. Addressing the chamber is not a motion nor a grantable privilege.

You don't "start at rank and move up or down". I weigh your value as a PO against speakers that furthered the debate. Sometimes a good PO just isn't as valuable to the round as x amount of great debaters, and sometimes a good PO is more valuable to the round than the speakers.

-I am a HARSH JUDGE. Mostly bc I prefer to point out what to change as opposed to what you're good at already. I'm usually a parli though:)

-I judge Congress very holistically. Anyone from the person who opens the floor for PO nominations to the PO who calls orders of the day can get my 1.

-I judge you on the basis of two categories; 90% what you do (includes refutation, questioning, speech content, and good parlipro) and 10% how you do it. I really just do not care how gorgeous your voice is, and it is not my job to randomly p*lice your style. You do you. This is a debate space before it's anything else. Think of "speaking really pretty" as extra credit, not the main assignment. I guess it could teeter your grade one way or another a tiny bit, but it will not flip you from an F- to an A+. Not even to an F+

-That doesn't mean I don't care about presiding officers. I have given many POs the 1, but I have given more DFL. Presiding matters. Be fair and I'll rank you well, be unfair and I will rank you very very low. Just track the round and do it right. All the extra sprinkles and stuff you throw on just gets in the way.

-That also doesn't mean I don't care about constructive speeches. I have given many sponsors the 1. Every speech has an integral role to offer the chamber. Do it RIGHT and get rewarded.

Peep @Impact.Institue_ on Instagram or www.ImpactInstituteDebate.com to check out a completely free online congress space with some amazingly qualified coaches

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Seriously, idk how to make it any more clear. My job titles are "debate coach", "debate judge", and "restaurant cook and Foodsby deliverer". This is not competitive oratory. This is not extemp. This is not discussion.

This is Congressional Debate. Don't mess up that "debate" part in front of me.

Bob Dolan Lake Mary Prep

Last changed on Sat April 15, 2023 at 8:26 AM EDT

CONGRESS PARADIGM IS BELOW THIS PF Paradigm

PF:

ALMOST EVERY ROUND I HAVE JUDGED IN THE LAST 8 YEARS WOULD HAVE BENEFITTED FROM 50% FEWER ARGUMENTS, AND 100% MORE ANALYSIS OF THOSE 50% FEWER ARGUMENTS. A Narrative, a Story carries so much more persuasively through a round than the summary speaker saying "we are going for Contention 2".

I am NOT a fan of speed, nor speed/spread. Please don't make me think I'm in a Policy Round!

I don't need "Off-time roadmaps", I just want to know where you are starting.

Claim/warrant/evidence/impact is NOT a debate cliche; It is an Argumentative necessity! A label and a blip card is not a developed argument!

Unless NUCLEAR WINTER OR NUCLEAR EXTINCTION HAS ALREADY OCCURED, DON'T BOTHER TO IMPACT OUT TO IT.

SAVE K'S FOR POLICY ROUNDS; RUN THEORY AT YOUR OWN RISK- I start from ma place that it is fake and abusive in PF and you are just trying for a cheap win against an unprepared team. I come to judge debates about the topic of the moment.

YOU MIGHT be able to convince me of your sincerity if you can show me that you run it in every round and are President of the local "Advocacy for that Cause" Club.

Don't just tell me that you win an argument, show me WHY you win it and what significance that has in the round.

Please NARROW the debate and WEIGH arguments in Summary and Final Focus. If you want the argument in Final Focus, be sure it was in the summary.

There is a difference between "passionate advocacy" and anger. Audio tape some of your rounds and decide if you are doing one or the other when someone says you are "aggressive".

NSDA evidence rules require authors' last name and THE DATE (minimum) so you must AT LEAST do that if you want me to accept the evidence as "legally presented". If one team notes that the other has not supplied dates, it will then become an actual issue in the round. Speaker points are at stake.

In close rounds I want to be persuaded and I may just LISTEN to both Final Focus speeches, checking off things that are extended on my flow.

I am NOT impressed by smugness, smiling sympathetically at the "stupidity" of your opponent's argument, vigorous head shaking in support of your partner's argument or opposition to your opponents'. Speaker points are DEFINITELY in play here!

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE:

1: The first thing I am looking for in every speech is ORGANIZATION AND CLARITY. 2. The second thing I am looking for is CLASH; references to other speakers & their arguments

3. The third thing I am looking for is ADVOCACY, supported by EVIDENCE

IMPORTANT NOTE: THIS IS A SPEAKING EVENT, NOT A READING EVENT! I WILL NOT GIVE EVEN A "BRILLIANT" SPEECH A "6" IF IT IS READ OFF A PREPARED SHEET/TUCKED INTO THE PAD OR WRITTEN ON THE PAD ITSELF; AND, FOR CERTAIN IF IT IS READ OFF OF A COMPUTER OR TABLET.

I value a good story and humor, but Clarity and Clash are most important.

Questioning and answering factors into overall placement in the Session.

Yes, I will evaluate and include the PO, but it is NOT an automatic advancement to the next level; that has gotten a bit silly.

Geetha Dwarakapuram CR North High School

Ross Eichele Eagan High School

Last changed on Thu December 8, 2022 at 2:34 PM CDT

I coach speech and 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!

Hans Elasri Petal High School

Last changed on Sun February 12, 2023 at 8:29 AM CDT

I am a college first-year at Harvard College who competed for 4 years in high school. Most of my national experience is in congress, so I prefer traditional arguments, but I am open to all styles. If you choose circuit debate styles, you should know that I am likely unfamiliar with them, and I may need an explanation. I am very familiar with PFD and LD. If you have any questions at all, ask me before the round starts. I am willing to answer any questions about my judging. If you have any questions about my RFD, email me at hanselasri@gmail.com after the tournament is over.

PFD

- I vote off of CBA unless a team tells me otherwise. If you dislike your opponents framework, then argue against it. If you do not argue against it, I will default to that framework.

- I will call evidence that is crucial to the round or seems too good to be true.

- Speak at a moderate pace: it's best for all of us.

- Use tag-lines, or I will get confused.

- Whoever wins the value-criterion debate determines how I will vote. This means that if you lose the VC debate I will use your opponents framework to vote. I recommend showing how you win both your own and your opponents VC.

- I will call evidence that is crucial to the round or seems too good to be true.

- Speak at a moderate pace: it's best for all of us.

- Use tag-lines, or I will get confused.

CON:

- I know a lot about congress, my senior year I was national runner-up in the House at NSDA, so I absolutely love congress
- Please study the three types of congress speeches: constructive, rebuttal, and crystallization.

- A good questioner sometimes has to interrupt, but there is a fine line between making your point and acting impolite (on the inverse side of this, if someone is rudely interrupting don't be rude back it just makes both of you look bad; if instead you act politely it really makes the questioner look bad and makes you look solid)

- I will call your sources if they seem fishy.

- Please tell me the location of the source, author, author's credentials, and date (this is a good habit to get into; judges at the national level love this)

- Please explain your impacts and quantify if possible.

- If you are on the affirmative, and you ask the question "what is the net harm in passing" you are not making a good argument. Congress doesn't pass bills because they aren't bad, they (try to) pass good bills. Congress defaults to passing no legislation if the legislation doesn't seem good, so you should advocate for your bill's merits on the aff not just disprove potential harms.

- POs, if I forget that you are a competitor until I am ranking that means that you did a good job. I also think POs can have fun as long as it doesn't detract from the chamber's integrity or seriousness and doesn't take up much time.

CX:

- If they call me to judge CX, know that I know very little.

- I use general debate rules to judge policy (see LD and PF).

Jomi Epoyun Neenah High School

Last changed on Thu January 14, 2021 at 7:18 AM EDT

Heyoo and Howdy, Its Jomi,

I have been Competing, Coaching, and Judging for going on 8 years now and I'm 21 so that says a lot about my wild amount of commitment I have towards this activity.

Mainly competed and coached extemp and congress so that is where my best critiques would come from since those are the events that I know the most about, however, I am proficient in knowing PF and LD since I have judged tons of elimination rounds for those events and have friends in the events so they teach me the game.

I would say no matter the event it always comes down to three solid principles for me

Logic without evidence

Quality of evidence

Speaking and execution of rhetoric

Logic without evidence meaning how solid on a logic understands deductive or inductive reasoning is the argument, to the point that at the least from a basic philosophical level can I consider that argument valid but not being true because that would require evidence.

Quality of evidence is what sets an argument to being a good argument because if your evidence is timely, relevant, and flows within the speech or case then that sets you apart from the round. Good evidence balances arguments, Bad Evidence breaks arguments

Speaking and execution of Rhetoric meaning simply how well are you conveying your speech and case in your delivery, even in Policy debate, if you want the judge to hear something import and round defining then you slow down and say it with conviction. How well do your voice and your inflections convey your narrative especially on the impact analysis which to me is the most important parts of arguments especially;y on a human level is to be important

Most of all, be respectful and courteous to your judges and especially to your opponents because if you are rude, condescending, sexist, racist, you know the deal if it's bad and I catch it, expect the worst result from me and expect for me to back it up. So just be a respectful person and we will be all good.

Sofia Espinosa Christopher Columbus High School None

Shadi Farokhzad Milton Academy None

Javier Figueroa Pompano Beach High School None

Ananya Ganesh Hire

Last changed on Fri February 17, 2023 at 8:29 AM EDT

I am a first-year at Harvard competing in APDA and British Parliamentary. I primarily did WSDC and BP in high school. I have no affiliation with any school in the US.

Rules

Be respectful. This doesn't just mean "don't be rude", it means do your best to create a welcoming and inclusive environment where everyone, regardless of debate experience or identity, can feel safe, comfortable, and empowered to perform to the best of their capabilities.

Paradign/General Preferences

I do not have major PF, Lincoln-Douglas, or Congress experience - this means that I am not familiar with common buzzwords/jargon. Please ensure the way you are expressing your arguments takes this into account because I will not be able to credit what I don't understand.
I am okay with responses that go in the order of the flow - I am also okay with responses that are sorted into themes or that go in any different order. As long as I can comprehend the point you are responding to and the point you are making, I will credit it.
As a judge, I will attempt to position myself as the "average voter". This, for me, describes a person who is moderately informed about the events in the world but does not know their nuances/details. This means that any reference to articles/papers or assertion of details about the situation will not be credited, especially if the other team is able to provide robust argumentation.
Please weigh. I will DEFINITELY keep an ear out for weighing and take it into account in my adjudication.
I do as a person believe that human suffering should be minimised. In the absence of alternate weighing, I will default to "which side causes the most benefit/least harm to humanity as a whole". However, I am always ready to listen to and be swayed towards other ways of judging the debate.
I adore puns. The worse the better.
I do not think human extinction is likely to occur. I have a slight preference towards arguments about higher probability impacts as opposed to arguments about nuclear war.

Pranav Garigipati Hire

Last changed on Fri April 7, 2023 at 3:55 PM PDT

Background:

Competed for all of HS (2018-2022) mainly in Congress and World Schools in high-level national circuit elimination rounds. I know what I'm talking about, don't try and do my job for me. Now I compete in collegiate Parliamentary debate at Rutgers University.

If you have any questions want further feedback, etc. you can ask me after round or reach me at:
garigipatipranav@gmail.com

*I'll add other events later, sorry. If you have any questions ask me at the start of round (for Congress, too).

All Events:

BE CONSIDERATE AND NICE. If you're condescending, outwardly mean, disrespectful, and especially inequitable (racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, etc.) I'm dropping you so fast.

Congress:

"Is he a flow judge?????"

Very broadly, Congress is a debate event with aspects of speech, not a speech event with aspects of debate. I generally prioritize argumentation, strategy, etc. over style or speaking quality. That being said, both flow and lay are important, do your best to not sacrifice either. I‘d say there's a bar for how good your lay and speaking are before I start caring about you content. This typically means not being monotone, having a level of confidence, professionalism, minimal fluency errors, not being aggressive/condescending, etc. From this point, I don't really care about lay unless you have mind-boggling rhetoric, incredible vocal inflections, or something like that, and will pretty much only care about the quality of your arguments + how you interact with the round. This being said, please don't just ignore all lay or I'll get super bored. I still really enjoy quality rhetoric and appealing deliveries.

How I evaluate arguments

I try to avoid intervention as much as possible but given that each person only gets one speech on a bill and isn't guaranteed a questioning block, I do have to do some intervening. Based on this philosophy there are a few key things to note:

1) I don't want to do any extra work for the debate. Please terminalize impacts, have ultra-clear links and warrants, and don't assume that I'm going to make any logical leaps for your argument to work that you aren't explicitly laying out for me. If an argument is missing some of these pieces I evaluate it as its weakest possible state.

2) If you make a really bad argument, even if no one addresses it, it's hard for me to give you a high rank. Ideally, every argument interacts with the stock or some key issue/impact in the round so there is no argument that is completely unresponded to, if you make a unique argument, still have it tied into the core issues. If rounds operate this way I can be less interventionist which I like and you should too. Arguments that are completely left-field in the pursuit of being 'unique' aren't important to the round and are probably not going to rank high for me.

3) Offense wins rounds, defense is just to knock down the other side's offense so yours is comparatively better. Have some offensive material in our speech, whether it's weighing, a unique argument, an impact extension, etc. If your speech is only refutation it's missing something super important and it's almost impossible for you to get my 1.

4) If your argument doesn't have uniqueness on some level (impacts that are distinct from the status quo), I'm not going to evaluate it. Debate is a comparative activity so not only do you have to compare your impacts to the other side, you have to compare how the world in which the bill is passed is distinctly different from the status quo.

Roles of Speakers

Every speech needs to add something to the round, if it doesn't you're not ranking well. However, different speeches are meant to add different things, if you're acting outside your speeches role it'll, again, be hard for you to rank high.

1) Sponsorships: This isn't any aff constructive. Set the stage for the debate and explain to the judges how everything works and give them necessary status quo information. A lot of the judges probably didn't debate Saudi Arms Sales 50 times so make sure everyone can understand what's going on. Solvency is super important. Explain why the legislation improves the squo you outlined on a very specific level. Give impacts that aren't super specific but not too broad that I can't evaluate them either. It should be pretty obvious what the important impacts in the round will be when I read a bill and I should hear them set up in your sponsor.

2) Early Round: Every speech after the sponsor needs some refutation/weighing but it's still not your primary purpose. Build up the stock and if it's already been said give some nuance, maybe new warrants, front lining solvency, stronger impacts, etc. Your goal, like every speech, is to advance your side's advocacy, but at this point, in a constructive way. If you want to be unique take a niche, but relevant, issue and tie it into the key impacts of the round. Stock is your friend, rehash is not. Engage with the stock without rehashing.

3) Mid-Round: Start breaking down and simplifying the round more. You're obviously going to have much more argument interaction so pick the most important arguments to interact with and make it clear why you're picking those. You still do want some constructive material, though. These speeches have the least guidelines and are most subject to what the round needs because there's not a definitive split for when the beginning/middle/end is. I typically want to start seeing overviews at this point in the round (a line or two about what specifically your speech is going to achieve and add to the round) or something that achieves the same purpose.

4) Late Round: These speeches are the highest risk and highest reward. The best late round speeches are some of the best speeches ever and the worst can be completely forgettable. It goes without saying that constructive material is the least viable here and, for the most part, all of your speech should focus on engaging with existing arguments. That being said, constructive material can still work if it is inherently engaging with other arguments, like offensive responses or turns (Rohit Jhawar's second speech in TOC Finals 2020 is a perfect example). Since there's so much to work with I need you to tell me what's important and why that's so. Write my ballot for me in this speech. Tell me what I vote on, why I vote on your side, and why you, specifically, deserve my 1 (don't say this exactly just prove it to me with the content). I don't need a standard 2 question crystal, any format works as long as you clearly signpost the organization of the speech and achieve the same things content-wise. You also don't need to touch every single argument, it's okay if you don't address ones that aren't super relevant or important. Please weigh.

POs:

If you get my 1 consider it the biggest compliment in the world, I'm anti-POs winning but also anti-good POs not breaking. Great POs for me get between 2-4, okay is 5-6, and bad is 7-9. Your job isn't just to pick the right speakers and questioners but to also lead the chamber when things go off the rails. If there's an uneven amount of speeches on each side and someone calls for a recess to figure out who's flipping, you need to be leading the discussion. You're a facilitator AND leader. Excessive and uncorrected errors in parliamentary procedure, recency, etc. will have me drop you a lot. Being slow is not great either. If the parli has to intervene a lot, it's not a good look on you. If you make a mistake be apologetic, fix it, and move on. If I'm parli and you POed one session the way I rank you as a PO isn't just on the quality of how you POed but is also relative to the other POs in the round. So even if you were decent, if the other POs were incredible, it'll tank you a little bit.

Miscellaneous

1) I'm fine with debate jargon, but I'll boost people who can explain complex debate jargon concepts with normal people words.

2) Kendrick was my #1 artist on Spotify Wrapped, if you make a Kendrick reference I'll bump you up one rank.

3) I love it if you can do a unique speech structure, only if it makes sense for the round. If you can pull it off well, it goes a long way.

4) I like people who have the initiative to flip, but this isn't a free pass to give a bad speech just because you didn't have that much time. That being said, I'm probably going to mark you down more if you stay on your side out of fear that you might screw up a flipped speech if you have had a lot of time to flip.

Patricia Gete Palm Beach Independent None

Dustin Greenberg Adlai E Stevenson High School

Austin Groves Brentwood Academy None

Bei Guan Naperville North High School

Erin Guiney Phoenix Country Day School

Amit Gupta McDowell HS

Jessica Hilbrich Munster High School

Jacob Ho Stuyvesant High School None

Charles Hou Hire

Timothy Huth The Bronx High School Of Science

Last changed on Thu April 13, 2023 at 5:34 AM EDT

Greetings everyone! My name is Timothy Huth and I'm the director of forensics at The Bronx High School of Science in New York City. I am excited to judge your round! Considering you want to spend the majority of time prepping from when pairings are released and not reading my treatise on debate, I hope you find this paradigm "cheat sheet" helpful in your preparation.

2023 TOC Congress Update

Congratulations on qualifying to the 2023 TOC! It's a big accomplishment to be here in this room and all of you are to be commended on your dedication and success. My name is Timothy Huth and I'm the director at Bronx Science. I have judged congress a lot in the past, including two TOC final rounds, but I have found myself judging more PF and Policy in recent years. To help you prepare, here's what I would like to see in the round:

Early Speeches -- If you are the sponsor or early speaker, make sure that I know the key points that should be considered for the round. If you can set the parameters of the discourse of the debate, you will probably have a good chance of ranking high on my ballot.

Middle Speeches -- Refute, advance the debate, and avoid rehash, obviously. However, this doesn't mean you can't bring up a point another debater has already said, just extend it and warrant your point with new evidence or with a new perspective. I often find these speeches truly interesting and you can have a good chance of ranking high on my ballot.

Late speeches -- I think a good crystallization speech can be the best opportunity to give an amazing speech during the round. To me, a good crystal speech is one of the hardest speeches to give. This means that a student who can crystal effectively can often rank 1st or 2nd on my ballot. This is not always the case, of course, but it really is an impressive speech.

Better to speak early or late for your ballot? It really doesn't matter for me. Wherever you are selected to speak by the PO, do it well, and you will have a great chance of ranking on my ballot. One thing -- I think a student who can show diversity in their speaking ability is impressive. If you speak early on one bill, show me you can speak later on the next bill and the skill that requires.

What if I only get one speech? Will I have any chance to rank on your ballot? Sometimes during the course of a congress round, some students are not able to get a second speech or speak on every bill. I try my very best to evaluate the quality of a speech versus quantity. To me, there is nothing inherently better about speaking more or less in a round. However, when you get the chance to speak, question, or engage in the round, make the most of it. I have often ranked students with one speech over students who spoke twice, so don't get down. Sometimes knowing when not to speak is as strategic as knowing when to speak.

Questioning matters to me. Period. I am a big fan of engaging in the round by questioning. Respond to questions strongly after you speak and ask questions that elicit concessions from your fellow competitors. A student who gives great speeches but does not engage fully in questioning throughout the round stands little chance of ranking high on my ballot.

The best legislator should rank first. Congress is an event where the best legislator should rank first. This means that you have to do more than just speak well, or refute well, or crystal well, or question well. You have to engage in the "whole debate." To me, what this means is that you need to speak and question well, but also demonstrate your knowledge of the rules of order and parliamentary procedure. This is vital for the PO, but competitors who can also demonstrate this are positioning themselves to rank highly on my ballot.

Have fun! Remember, this activity is a transformative and life changing activity, but it's also fun! Enjoy the moment because you are at THE TOURNAMENT OF CHAMPIONS! It's awesome to be here and don't forget to show the joy of the moment. Good luck to everyone!

2023 - Policy Debate Update

I have judged many debates across all events except for policy debate. You should consider me a newer policy judge and debate accordingly. Here are some general thoughts to consider as you prepare for the round:

Add me to the email chain: My email is huth@bxscience.edu.

Non-Topical Arguments: I am unlikely to understand Ks or non-topical arguments. I DO NOT have an issue with these arguments on principle, but I will not be able to evaluate the round to the level you would expect or prefer.

Topicality: I am not experienced with topicality policy debates. If you decide to run these arguments, I cannot promise that I will make a decision you will be satisfied with, but I will do my best.

Line-by-line: Please move methodically through the flow and tell me the order before begin your speech.

Judge Instruction: In each rebuttal speech, please tell me how to evaluate your arguments and why I should be voting for you. My goal is to intervene as little as possible.

Speed: Please slow down substantially on tags and analytics. You can probably spread the body of the card but you must slow down on the tags and analytics in order for me to understand your arguments. Do not clip cards. I will know if you do.

PF Paradigm - Please see the following for my Public Forum paradigm.

Add me to the email chain: My email is huth@bxscience.edu.

Cheat sheet:

General overview FOR PUBLIC FORUM

Experience: I've judged PF TOC finals-X------------------------------------------------- I've never judged

Tech over truth: Tech -------x------------------------------------------- Truth

Comfort with PF speed: Fast, like policy fast ---------x--------------------------------------- lay judge speed

Theory in PF: Receptive to theory ------x------------------------------ not receptive to theory

Some general PF thoughts from Crawford Leavoy, director of Durham Academy in North Carolina. I agree with the following very strongly:

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should be very good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

Now, back to my thoughts. Here is the impact calculus that I try to use in the round:

Weigh: Comparative weighing x----------------------------------------------- Don't weigh

Probability: Highly probable weighing x----------------------------------------------- Not probable

Scope: Affecting a lot of people -----------x------------------------------------ No scope

Magnitude: Severity of impact -------------------------x----------------------- Not a severe impact

(One word about magnitude: I have a very low threshold for responses to high magnitude, low probability impacts. Probability weighing really matters for my ballot)

Quick F.A.Q:

Defense in first summary? Depends if second rebuttal frontlines, if so, then yes, I would expect defense in first summary.

Offense? Any offense you want me to vote on should be in either case or rebuttal, then both summary and final focus.

Flow on paper or computer? I flow on paper, every time, to a fault. Take that for what you will. I can handle speed, but clarity is always more important than moving fast.

What matters most to get your ballot? Easy: comparative weighing. Plain and simple.

I think you do this by first collapsing in your later speeches. Boil it down to 2-3 main points. This allows for better comparative weighing. Tell me why your argument matters more than your opponents. The team that does this best will 99/100 times get my ballot. The earlier this starts to happen in your speeches, the better.

Overviews: Do it! I really like them. I think they provide a framework for why I should prefer your world over your opponent's world. Doing this with carded evidence is even better.

Signpost: It's very easy to get lost when competitors go wild through the flow. You must be very clear and systematic when you are moving through the flow. I firmly believe that if I miss something that you deem important, it's your fault, not mine. To help with this, tell me where you are on the flow. Say things like...

"Look to their second warrant on their first contention, we turn..."

Clearly state things like links, turns, extensions, basically everything! Tell me where you are on the flow.

Also, do not just extend tags, extend the ideas along with the tags. For example:

"Extend Michaels from the NYTimes that stated that a 1% increase in off shore drilling leads to a..."

Evidence: I like rigorous academic sources: academic journals and preeminent news sources (NYT, WashPo, etc.). You can paraphrase, but you should always tell me the source and year.

Theory in PF: I'm growing very receptive to it, but it really should be used to check back against abuse in round.

Pronouns: I prefer he/him/his and I kindly ask that you respect your opponents preferred gender pronoun.

Speed: Slow down, articulate/enunciate, and inflect - no monotone spreading, bizarre breathing patterns, or foot-stomping. I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary. I think this is an important check on ableism in rounds. This portion on speed is credited to Chetan Hertzig, head coach of Harrison High School (NY). I share very similar thoughts regarding speed and spreading.

Duane Hyland Lake Braddock Secondary High School

Last changed on Thu May 25, 2023 at 4:52 PM EDT

Pronouns: Him/He

Since it's NCFL Weekend and, after a 15 year absence, I'm in the Policy Debate judge pool, here is what you should know (Don't worry, I'm a very experienced policy judge who, when coaching policy debate, and at times had teams in the out-rounds of most major circuit tournaments and here at NCFL as well. I'm very familiar with policy debate and its norms. I am a former college NDT debater and a former college assistant coach, and I coached high school policy debate for 20 years. However, age, disability, and time caught up with me and now I coach LD at the circuit level).

Saturday, May 27 is my birthday, any speaker wishing me happy birthday will receive .5 more points than those who do not. It also shows you read my paradigm and the time I took to write it out was warranted :)

This is A-Priori - You are here to have fun and to debate. Please do those things. Do not be rude, don't be angry, NO PROFANITY! Just chill and have fun. For some of you this will be the start of your debate career, for others of you it will be the end. Go out on a good note and make the most of these two days! Congratulations to each of you for making to NCFL! (More amplification of this idea can be found in #2 of Non-Negotiable Things, below.)

At the Top

I don't mind speed, but I do adore clarity. If I can't understand you, I will yell "CLEAR!" If I have to do that more than once, you lose a full speaker point EACH AND EVERY TIME. You can't speak faster than I can flow, but you can speak faster than I can comprehend you if your delivery isn't on point.

Also, I reward depth in debate, not breadth. If you are reading more than five (5) arguments on the Negative, you're reading way to many arguments. Adjust accordingly. Deeper debates are more enjoyable to me than you spewing 11 off.

T is a voter (see #8 below).

Inherency is a voter too. It's a stock-issue and this is NCFL! I will vote on it if urged to.

Plan text is mandatory, and you only get one counterplan (see the end of #10 below)

Ks are meh, performance is fine. (#11 and #12 below)

Some Non-Negotiable Things

1. Do not misrepresent your evidence. If you have to isolate a word per sentence for a paragraph to get a card, don't do it. Entire sentences are best, especially when they are in the context of the original paragraph. I punish cross-reading, card clipping, and card forgery severely. I will track down your cites if I think you are cheating.

2. Politeness is a must. I disdain arrogance. Be polite to your opponents. Be merciful to opponents who are obviously not as well trained or skilled as you - this is not Cobra Kai! Your arrogance and running over opponents will result in meager points (VHSL: nothing above a 39; WACFL: Nothing above a 19; National Circuit: nothing above a 19). You can win debates and be kind and friendly - please do so. I also enjoy punishing sexism and racism. Engage in those things, and you will receive a loss with the lowest amount of points the tournament allows me to give. So, pick your words carefully. (I will confess to not knowing what classism is, but if you mock your opponent's dress, equipment, etc., I will punish that too). Also, not a fan of profanity. We all swear, I just don't like it when it's done in front of me by someone trying to persuade me to vote for them.

3. I try my hardest to remember personal pronouns, but I'm 54 years old as of Saturday, and I have cognitive dysfunction, so if I forget, please believe it wasn't on purpose. If you can't live with my cognitive failings, strike me. But, on the other hand, if you seriously think my slip-up was on purpose and completed some evil plan of mine, you're wrong. We all make mistakes. I will, of course, apologize for my mistake but I do not think a slip is the end of the world either.

4. Add me to the email chain and send me your speech doc, but I will not read it while you are speaking - you need to communicate in a way I can understand. Duanedjh@aol.com.

The Rest of It

1. Warrants will impress me. Make sure your evidence has them.

2. Impact calculus is critical - if you can't weigh impacts, you will probably not like my voting. And an impact is not, "Racism is bad," or "Nuclear War is Bad," I know it's terrible. You need to take it to the next level and explore the harm that results in allowing racism to continue to exist. Do the work.

3. Cards > Analytics. I prefer well-developed, carded positions over random blippy analytics. However, the operative word there is "well developed" if you read lousy evidence, then, perhaps, an excellent analytic is better.

4. I'm a flow judge primarily, so if it's on the flow and you tell me to weigh it and vote on it, I will. It's best to make answers to arguments and not let things slide.

5. No racism, good, genocide, good, etc. I assure you those arguments are not good, and I won't vote on them. However, I will vote on things like Spark or Nuke War Good, etc., as long as you argue them well.

6. I prefer theory that is actually warranted with clear demonstrations of an actual violation, with an explanation of why I weigh it and why I vote on it. Just because you think X is abusive doesn't mean it is. I give wide latitude to the other side to explain why it's not (often not), and I seldom vote on it. I'm all ears and flow if you think the abuse was actual.

8. Topicality is an absolute voting issue, but a challenge has to have good warrants for the violation, and I need to understand why the violation matters. It also has to be impacted by why I vote on it. T is not violence; I'm an editor by trade, so to me, words matter. If you want to argue T, I expect you to have very clear explanations of the violation and the ground is limited, etc. Show me some real harm through the attack. Arguments like "grammar is genocide" are non-starters, don't waste my time with that.

9. Conditionality is fine. I'm open to the debate. Dispo is fine. I am open to the debate.

10. I prefer non-topical counterplans. I will listen to any type of counterplan, I have no biases toward them as long as they are non-topical. If you want to run a topical counterplan, it will require a lot of hard work on the theory to convince me I should weigh it, it is probably not worth your limited time to try that approach. PICs are fine, consultation is fine, veto-cheato is fine, etc. I prefer ONE counterplan, and ONE plan text. (Plan text is mandatory!)

11. I'm probably not your judge for the K. I can flow it, but the odds are I will not understand it. If you run them, please make sure you slow down on the tags and that you really explain the link, impact, and the alternative. I am not a fan of "word salad, K of the week" type arguments," especially if you sound like "my coach just gave me this to read." If you can't answer cross-examination questions on it, forget about running it. I will always give my best efforts to judging the K debate fairly, but it really isn't my thing. To kind of quote Elrond - "I was there, Gandalf, 3,000 years ago when this argument was unleased on the debate world." Doesn't mean I actually know much about them though.

12. I am pretty open to performance debating/project debating/or alternative debating styles if grounded in reasons why this approach is good for debate and why a more traditional form of debate is worse for the activity. Here's a hint, if you are on the negative and your opponent runs such arguments, and you do not clash with them but instead simply engage with traditional practices, you will probably lose. You can, of course, argue the framework of the debate and which framework is best for consideration of the activity. My point is that the argument is "traditional debate emphasizes speed and speed excludes people from the activity, and that exclusion is harmful" then meeting this argument with the spread will not help you.

13. I don't know where I sit with ablest arguments. I have a cognitive brain disorder, hearing loss, and multiple learning disabilities. So, I'm not sure that "debate is ableist" arguments persuade me. But, like all arguments (other than the ones noted above), I will listen, flow them, and weigh them as you instruct me. If you win them, I will vote for you (provided you have done the proper amount of impact analysis, etc.) I might just not agree with you.

14. I appreciate debaters who can tell me how I will vote and explain why they are winning. Leaving it to me is not what you want. The 2AR and 2NR are key speeches - DO NOT LEAVE THEM WITHOUT TELLING ME HOW AND WHY YOU ARE WINNING AND WHAT I'M GOING TO VOTE ON!

15. Off-time roadmaps are fine. Off-time orations are not! It will help you to know the difference. Plus, I ABOSLUTELY hate being asked if off-time roadmaps are OK. Yes, they are. Now you know, no need to ask! I would hope your coach has educated you about the importance of roadmaps and that you will give me one.

16. Ask questions in CX, do not make speeches - but know that CX is really for you, and I will seldom really and intently listen to it. I certainly don't flow it.

17. NCFL does not allow me to read cards after the round. . Your job is to communicate the evidence to me as a speaker, not to hand me the evidence as a reader (and, with a reading comprehension disability, I'm not sure I'll always realize what I'm reading.) Slow down, draw out the warrants, explain what the card means if you have to.

18. I do not shake hands with anyone after the round, please do not approach me for that reason. It's a personal thing. I will, of course, wish you the best of luck and thank you for debating in front of me.

All of that said - I really just want debaters in front of me to have fun and learn and grow from the activity. So if I didn't cover anything you need to know, let me know.

New Additions Please Read

The current status of what qualifies as an evidence citation is appalling. Over 85% of the debaters I judge make zero effort to source their evidence ethically, which is a serious shortcoming. A proper citation of evidence is the author's name, the year of publication, and the source. From now on, if I do not hear that, I will do one of two things - if it's just one or two instances in a round, I will flow that "evidence" as an analytic and give it the appropriate weight to what I give all analytics - not much. But, if it's a serious issue - like every other card or something in a speech, I will start deducting one entire speaker point per instance of improper citation. You cannot say that I have not warned you; miscite at your peril.

The Associated Press has withdrawn its tweet, and the Associated Press stylebook (which I've used for over two decades in my job) is not the final or best arbiter on the English language. Also, phrases like "the French," "the Romans," and "the poor" are OK. They are mass nouns, and "the" is a proper article for those nouns. If you don't want to use "the French," that is fine too. It is a matter of choice, but I will not dock you if you use the term.

A bit of Background

I am an experienced debate coach and judge. I have coached debate on the local, regional, and national circuits and judged on those circuits. My primary background and training were in policy debate, but I have coached and judged LD debate pretty much exclusively since 2009. I am old, though, and cognitively disabled - so far, that disability hasn't impacted my ability to judge debates, but it is there, and you need to be aware of it.

Is He a Person Who Should be Judging Me?

Complicated question. I have coached many State Champions in LD, Congress, Policy Debate, and Speech. I have coached TOC bid earners in Policy Debate, LD Debate, and Student Congress. I have coached one NCFL National Champion in LD Debate. I have coached one TOC quarterfinalist in Congress. I have coached numerous students to the elimination rounds at NCFL Nationals (LD, Congress, Policy, Extemp, OO, OI). And I have coached more than a few students to NSDA, including a three-time final-round participant in Extemp and semi-finalist in Impromptu. Yet, I have never once been asked to teach a summer workshop and am very rarely asked to give lectures, etc. I think this is because I am, essentially, the Dr. House (seasons 1-4 are still some of the best TV out there, prove me wrong!) of the forensics world. I don't play politics, don't care that your coach is some debate legend, I am not awed by your school's team budget, and I mostly just have a lot of friction with folks I find around the forensics world - most of it is me, some of it is the activity, some of it is the personalities that surround the activity. So, if you can handle a person who knows the game but also has serious problems with the game, then yes, I should be judging you.

On the other hand, if you can't handle the fact that your multiple TOC bids, etc., won't wow me or suggest that I should, somehow, be in awe of you or your coach, or if you assume that your school's name means I'll vote for you on-face, then no, I guess I shouldn't be. I'm me. I'm comfortable with me, and that's that. If you are a debater who asks for my preferences and then disregards them to do things your way, strike me too.

In short, I've played this game my way for a long, long time in terms of my thoughts and my standards and they won't be changing. A day may come when I leave this game, but as long as I'm playing it, I won't be changing :) And yes, I do realize the contradiction between what I am and what I do not like - but that's for another discussion.

Some Basics that are Not Negotiable

1. Be clear. I don't care how fast you are; I can flow you. BUT, if you are not clear, I will yell "clear" once, and then when I have to do it again, you lose a whole point, and you continue to lose an entire point every time I have to yell it. Most debaters confuse speed for skill - I'd prefer you to equate clarity with skill.

2. Do not misrepresent your evidence. If you have to isolate a word per sentence for a paragraph to get a card, don't do it. Entire sentences are best, especially when they are in the context of the original paragraph. I punish cross-reading, card clipping, and card forgery severely. I will track down your cites if I think you are cheating.

3. Politeness is a must. I disdain arrogance. Be polite to your opponents. Be merciful to opponents who are obviously not as well trained or skilled as you - this is not Cobra Kai! Your arrogance and running over opponents will result in meager points (VHSL: nothing above a 39; WACFL: Nothing above a 19; National Circuit: nothing above a 19). You can win debates and be kind and friendly - please do so. I also enjoy punishing sexism and racism. Engage in those things, and you will receive a loss with the lowest amount of points the tournament allows me to give. So, pick your words carefully. (I will confess to not knowing what classism is, but if you mock your opponent's dress, equipment, etc., I will punish that too). Also, not a fan of profanity. We all swear, I just don't like it when it's done in front of me by someone trying to persuade me to vote for them.

4. I try my hardest to remember personal pronouns, but I'm 53 years old, and I have cognitive dysfunction, so if I forget, please believe it wasn't on purpose. If you can't live with my cognitive failings, strike me. But, on the other hand, if you seriously think my slip-up was on purpose and completed some evil plan of mine, you're wrong. We all make mistakes. I will, of course, apologize for my mistake but I do not think a slip is the end of the world either.

5. Have fun - debate is about fun and education. So much more important than winning.

6. Add me to the email chain and send me your speech doc, but I will not read it while you are speaking - you need to communicate in a way I can understand.

Things for LD and Policy Debate

1. Warrants will impress me. Make sure your evidence has them.

2. Impact calculus is critical - if you can't weigh impacts, you will probably not like my voting. And an impact is not, "Racism is bad." I know it's terrible. You need to take it to the next level and explore the harm that results in allowing racism to continue to exist. Do the work.

3. In LD, you need a value and a criterion. If it's the circuit, I would appreciate a plan text as well. LD is still LD to me, and I'm not ready to declare it one-debater policy. I need to understand how your criterion interacts with your value. If you say "Social Contract," then I'm going to be wondering which version of the Social Contract you are defending. I give extra points to debaters who exploit a debater's failure to specify these things (like ASPEC in a way, but a lot more relevant to LD. If you want to talk about Util, are we talking about Bentham or Mill (and, points deducted if you say "Mills," unless it's "Mill's theory of Util."), if you want to talk about the Social Contract, is it Hobbes', Rousseau's, or Locke's? Know your criterion :) Points also to debaters who attack values. Who says, for instance, that 'democracy' is a net good? I miss these types of debates, and if you engage in them, I will reward them.

4. Cards > Analytics. I prefer well-developed, carded positions over random blippy analytics. However, the operative word there is "well developed" if you read lousy evidence, then, perhaps, an excellent analytic is better.

5. I'm a flow judge primarily, so if it's on the flow and you tell me to weigh it and vote on it, I will. It's best to make answers to arguments and not let things slide. Debate means flowing; I'm afraid I have to disagree with this prevailing attitude on the Virginia circuit that LD means "no flowing or little flowing." If you get me, it's 100% flow.

6. No racism, good, genocide, good, etc. I assure you those arguments are not good, and I won't vote on them. However, I will vote on things like Spark or Nuke War Good, etc., as long as you argue them well.

7. I prefer theory that is actually warranted with clear demonstrations of an actual violation, with an explanation of why I weigh it and why I vote on it. Just because you think X is abusive doesn't mean it is. I give wide latitude to the other side to explain why it's not (often not), and I seldom vote on it. I'm all ears and flow if you think the abuse was actual. In LD, where the time-skew is real, I seldom, if ever, want to hear theory debates. It's rarely warranted, and it eats up too much time, really magnifying the skew.

8. Topicality is a voting issue, but a challenge has to have good warrants for the violation, and I need to understand why the violation matters. It also has to be impacted by why I vote on it. T is not violence; I'm an editor by trade, so to me, words matter. If you want to argue T, I expect you to have very clear explanations of the violation and the ground is limited, etc. Show me some real harm through the attack.

9. Conditionality is fine. I'm open to the debate. Dispo is fine. I am open to the debate.

12. I am pretty open to performance debating/project debating/or alternative debating styles if grounded in reasons why this approach is good for debate and why a more traditional form of debate is worse for the activity. Here's a hint, if you are on the negative and your opponent runs such arguments, and you do not clash with them but instead simply engage with traditional practices, you will probably lose. You can, of course, argue the framework of the debate and which framework is best for consideration of the activity. My point is that the argument is "traditional debate emphasizes speed and speed excludes people from the activity, and that exclusion is harmful" then meeting this argument with the spread will not help you.

14. I appreciate debaters who can tell me how I will vote and explain why they are winning. Leaving it to me is not what you want.

16. Ask questions in CX, do not make speeches - but know that CX is really for you, and I will seldom really and intently listen to it. I certainly don't flow it.

17. I do read cards after rounds if the tournament allows it, but I don't like to. Your job is to communicate the evidence to me as a speaker, not to hand me the evidence as a reader (and, with a reading comprehension disability, I'm not sure I'll always realize what I'm reading.)

All of that said - I really just want debaters in front of me to have fun and learn and grow from the activity. So if I didn't cover anything you need to know, let me know.

Public Forum

Public Forum Debate

Please strike me. PF is a waste of time, encourages too many ethical shortcuts, and is barely, if at all, educational. I mean it. I do not think this activity is valid, and I will not give my time or energy to it. (I used to coach it, can judge it - just feel that I can't really support something that I find to be intellectually abominable.) Now, if I am judging this event for some reason, then look at all my notes below and don't spread. I still believe that PF is supposed to be the alternative to LD and Policy Debate, not its clone. Also, properly cite your evidence - see the next note below. I wish I could be nicer about this whole event, but I can't bring myself to be nice about something I can't stand. Don't worry though, if you get me - you can be assured of an attentive judge, who will flow, and render decisions from the flow. I am not anti-PF debater, just anti-PF Debate.

Congress

1. Clash is crucial, and I will reward it. Congress is debate, not dueling oratories. Also, I like debaters who find flaws in the bills, etc. I used to be a lobbyist, and I know how one word or misstep can sink a piece of legislation.

2. Evidence is vital. Most Congress topics are generic enough that your evidence has little excuse to be more than a few months old. Debating in 2022 with evidence from 2011 or even 2020 indicates that you have not done your research. If you run less than six citations and if they are primarily old, I won't reward you. Also, proper citation of evidence matters a great deal. Saying "as the Washington Post noted in September of last year" is inappropriate. If the source is a daily, you should cite the complete date. I weigh the quality of your sources too. Peer-reviewed journals are much better than, say, the USA Today. If your speech lacks solid, properly cited evidence, it probably won't get higher than a three.

3. Know when to use procedure and when not to use procedure. You will move up in my thoughts if you use procedure correctly and strategically.

Speech

I have coached every speech event that NCFL, NSDA, and VHSL, offer. I have multiple students advance to the elimination rounds of these tournaments. I will no longer judge DP, DDuo, Prose, or Poetry, though, as I cannot manage my PTSD with some of the themes speakers explore in those events. I can handle HI and HDuo, though. My preferred events are Extemp (I will flow you and I will hold you to the debate evidence standards talked about above), Impromptu (I will flow you), and OO (I am not a big fan of gimmicks, but it is what it is).

Lora Jackson Paul J. Hagerty

Last changed on Tue April 11, 2023 at 6:02 PM EDT

I am a parent judge; however, I am also a 30-year educator in English. Speech and Theater, so I appreciate the art of a strong debate and the nuances of a strong speaker. What will stand out in a round?

Hubris: Check your ego at the door; pride that brings about a fall is called that for a reason. Humility is much more impressive; your skills should speak for themselves and your respect of your competitors will NATURALLY flow from a humble place.

Evidence: NSDA rules dictate that an author and year must be cited. Research that is not your own will be clear.

Rhetoric: This is what I love most about Congress; there is an element of theater to it. Many can spit facts and research like a robot; few can give impassioned arguments that not only persuade but also elevate and further the discourse on the topic.

Structure: Your argument’s structure should be clear. You are either discussing a problem and proposing a solution or you are refuting that proposal with solid reasoning and evidence.

Respect: It should be given and received. You should consider yourself on equal footing with everyone walking in the room to begin the round. If you prove in your approach to your competitors in direct questioning that they do NOT deserve your respect by your cutting them off or attempting to discount them or dismiss them just by speaking more loudly or OVER them, it will affect your speaker points and rank.

Round: Contribute what’s NEEDED to the round and not what you have. IE: If you’re the last speaker, I expect a crystal; if you’re the sponsor, I expect you to lay a solid framework.

PO: It’s a tough job, but somebody’s got to do it. The indispensable nature of a great PO to a round is not lost on me. Someone who banks on being a PO because he/she is unprepared for the round should think twice about running for PO. A great PO is fair, efficient and confidently runs the round so that fellow competitors can showcase their strengths; an ineffective PO can derail the round just as easily. I will always consider the importance of the PO in rankings.

The “It” Factor: If I am still thinking about your previous statement before you speak your next because it was THAT compelling, you likely have “it.” If your research is thought-provoking and catches my attention because it is the only approach to the topic I’ve seen in the round, you likely have, “it.” If your presence and power as a speaker is so strong that even your competitors stop typing on their laptops to simply listen to what you are saying, you likely have, “it.” And the “it” factor makes me remember your name from the first time you speak. The rank will reflect this. Do you have “it?”

Adam J Jacobi Hire

Last changed on Sat October 29, 2022 at 4:58 AM CDT

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 for "shock value" to describe traumatizing issues, it is far more sensitive for contestants to explain the scope and scale of the impact of that traumatizing issue and how the legislation will either remediate or exacerbate the issue; that approach provides a space 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.

My central philosophy: 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 makes it function as debate, it operates with sectioning chambers and comparatively evaluating students in the same manner as interscholastic speech. 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 close to 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.

Organization and clarity: contestants should 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 dynamic and nimble with their language, and not repeat the same crutch phrases and "debate-speak."

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. Constructive speeches should indicate a sound understanding of how legislation is introduced to solve/address a problem and its causes; 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; crystallization speeches should 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. 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. 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.

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, equity, belonging, and justice, procedure should never be used by legislators to manipulate for 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 and efficient 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.

Fidencio Jimenez ModernBrain

Last changed on Sat April 16, 2022 at 2:12 PM EDT

Hey everyone! My name is Fidencio Jimenez, and I am currently the head congressional debate coach for Modernbrain Academy. I have competed in a variety of individual and debate events during my time as a competitor in the high school and collegiate circuits of competition. My general approach to judging follows as such:

Email for document sharing: fidencio.jimenez323@gmail.com

Congressional Debate

Make sure your claims are linked and warranted with evidence. If you don't make it clear how your sources and information connect, you just sound like you are listing sources without contextualizing them in the round. This usually results in speakers presenting impacts that were not explicated thoroughly. I do not flow arguments that fail this basic requirement.

Incorporate the legislation in your arguments. I read the topics before each round, make sure you do too. If your points do not connect with the actual plan (that being I don't buy that the topic viably solves the problems or creates claimed harms), I will not flow them.

Keep the debate topical. If the link between your claims and the bill is obvious there isn't much to worry about here. If you don't think the grounds for the link between your harm/benefit are clear, justify yourself by explaining what mechanisms in the legislation make it so that your claims come to fruition. This makes it so you avoid mistranslation and prevent judges (myself included, it can happen to anyone) from overlooking/misunderstanding something in the topic.

For presiding officers, I ask you to be firm, deliberate, and clear in your instructions. The more a PO demonstrates the ability to take control over the round to avoid complications, the more they will be rewarded.

EX: Round does not have anyone who wants to speak so you call for recess, call for splits, and urge people to swap sides or speak.

Policy/LD/PUFO/Parli

Spreading- I do not mind if you spread. However, if your speed makes it so you become audibly incomprehensible I will clear you. Spread at a pace you can actually handle and perform stably.

Counterplans (for where it is relevant)- I am not a fan, too many times it seems like the plans do not tackle the net benefits provided by the proposition. If you can link the counterplan that establishes a harm, run it, but if it doesn't tackle their actual case, you are better off avoiding it.

K's- Same thing as counter plans. There is a time and place but if the K is not extremely fleshed out or justified, I will not consider it. There has to be substantial real-world harm clearly established. Make sure to weigh why the educational value of the discussion is not worth the consequences it creates.

IE's

I evaluate based on performance and the educational value of a competitor. For instance, if someone has a cleaner performance, but does not have a topic that is educationally substantive or as critical as someone with a slightly less clean performance, the person with the more substantive topic will get a higher mark. This is why for interpretation events I ask your thesis is made clear within your introduction and for events like impromptu and platform speaking to avoid surface-level theses or topics.

Christian Kasten Little Rock Central

Last changed on Sat April 22, 2023 at 5:27 AM CDT

For Congressional Debate,

most importantly: WEIGH EVERYTHING YOU SAY. You need to spell out for me why your links and impacts matter more than your opponents, and consistently connect every argument you make back to the main debate.

Reminder that each competitor ought to respect the chamber and follow proper parliamentary procedure. Everyone should address their colleagues with the proper honorarium (Representative/Senator) at all times.

I do take activity into account and although many of our U.S. congresspeople may lack persuasive speaking skills, I value presentation skills in congressional debate.

Refutations are essential to a strong score but require more than just a claim – give me the analysis and back it up with evidence when possible.

As a parliamentarian, I value presiding officers familiar with both Roberts Rules and the rules set forth by the tournament.

I do not mind if the PO asks questions to confirm procedures or tournament preferences. The PO should always strive to run a fast and fair chamber to allow everyone opportunities to speak.

I try to give the PO as much control of the chamber as possible. I will intervene only if the PO makes an incorrect ruling that will impact the results of the session, or to ensure fairness to everyone in the chamber. I encourage the PO to take charge of the chamber, to rule motions dilatory when appropriate, and to remind the congresspeople of proper procedures when needed.

Though I strive to allow the chamber to function without my input, I will step in if I suspect there is bullying or discrimination within the chamber, either intentional or otherwise

Just a few small things as well

I always love constitutional arguments and will highly value them in a round.
I am a sucker for a well-executed authorship, so please don't be afraid to give the first speech!
Asking the same question over and over to different speakers isn't particularly impressive to me (only in extreme circumstances should this be done). Make sure that questioning is pertaining to the actual arguments from the speech and not asking generic questions that could be asked of anyone.
Make my job easy as the judge. I will not make any links for you; you need to make the links yourself.
Warrants are so so so important! Don't forget them!
If you are giving one of the final speeches on a piece of legislation, you have to do cleanup. I expect you to weigh the arguments and impacts that we have heard throughout the debate. Unless there has been a nearly revolutionary point missed that changes the debate entirely, you shouldn’t be bringing up new arguments at this point. There are, of course, exceptions but use your best judgment :).
Please do your best to not read off of your pad. Engage with the audience/ judges. I historically score speeches higher if delivered extemporaneously and have a couple of minor fluency lapses than a speech read off of a sheet of paper with perfect fluency.
My rankings aren’t simply based upon who is giving the best speeches, but who are the best legislators overall. This means I’m taking into account speeches, questioning, overall activity, leadership in the chamber, decorum, and everything else that happens as soon as you walk into the chamber.

W. Kay Berkeley Carroll School

Last changed on Sat May 27, 2023 at 3:43 AM EDT

My name is WK (they/them).

I have 10 years of competitive and coaching experience. 3 years of mediocrity in novice/JV PF 2012-2015, and then as a senior in 2015-2016 I got 1 bid (Penn), 2nd at NY States, and Semis at NCFLs in Congress. Did 2 years of Parli in college to minimal competitive success, but did attend 2018 WUDC. I have coached pretty much all events since graduating HS in 2016, and have been a teacher since graduating college in 2020. In my current position, I teach debate full time to grades 5-12. I am also pursuing an MA in political science.

I mostly judge PF and Congress these days, so extensive paradigms follow for those two events, respectively. If anything below, for either event, doesn't make sense, ask me before the round! We are all here to learn and grow together.

Public Forum

Yes, please put me on the email chain (wkay@berkeleycarroll.org)

T/Theory/K/Prog: This is a paradigm that I have rewritten at the start of the 2022 season (and have updated regularly since) after seeing some of the most egregious judging of my life at a regional tournament, where ostensible preferences for lay debate were used as an excuse for blatant judge intervention and dog whistling of problematic worldviews. Given this, I have recently become open to T/Theory/K/Prog. But let me be specific: if you can run any T/theory/prog/Ks that sufficiently criticizes competitive debate as an institution (fem K, tournament K, team K, SV, etc.), I am more open to it than I am to other T/Theory/K/Prog (as long as you read/provide real warrants and not just pre-written docs you don't understand from camp/your expensive private coach). All that said, I am simply not as adept at adjudicating T/Theory/K/Prog as I am substance. If you care enough/run enough T/Theory/K/Prog to read this much about it in my paradigm, you'll probably think I'm not tech-y enough of judge in a T/Theory/K/Prog round. Like if you read any theory that has anything to do with discourse, my threshold for voting against you drops a lot at the point at which your opponent says anything close to "running theory isn't good for discourse." If you're not sure about what I might think about the theory you wanna run, feel free to ask me before round. In short, as long as the theory/K is executed well, meaning you actually link in and your impacts are very very well warranted, you should be fine. Prog is not an excuse to be blippy. All of that said and true, I think paraphrasing is bad for debate and am more open to paraphrasing theory

Speed: speed is mostly fine but if I signal to slow down (either a hand wave or a verbal “clear”) then slow down. 2 signals and then I stop flowing. Share speech docs if you’re worried about how speedy you are (again, wkay@berkeleycarroll.org).

Evidence: I know what cards are really garbage and/or dishonest since I am coaching every topic and judging most of the time (Example: Don't read O'Toole in the HSR topic, or Chinese state media about BRI). That said, I am as non-interventionist as possible. I am pretty straightforward and flow centric: if you say it, it’s on my flow, if you don’t say it, it doesn’t exist in the world of the debate. I will stop writing at the time limit of the speech, you will see me put my pen down and you should know to stop, in addition to the fact of your and, likely, your opponents' timers going off. Author or Publication and Date is sufficient in speeches (and is the bare minimum by NSDA rules), and just author and/or publication after the first mention (and year if the author/publication is a repeat). If your evidence sounds sus, I will make note of that, but won't drop you unless it's challenged. It will probably hurt your speaks, though. I expect honesty and integrity in rounds. Evidence ethics in PF is really really messy right now, so I'll appreciate well-cited cases (but cards are not the same as warrants. You should know that, but still).

Framework debate: Try your best to engage with the other side’s framework, as that to me is fundamental to any debate and I have decided many rounds on it: it frames the round for a reason. Don’t just say it because it’s traditional/you’re expected to and then not engage with it or believe in it. If both teams present framework, you have to tell me why to prefer yours; if you do and they don't extend it, and that can help me clarify voters later. If both sides read FW but then no one extends/interacts, I'm just not gonna consider it in my RFD. If you read framework, I better hear how your impacts specifically link to it; that should happen in case, but if you need to clean up your mess later that's possible. If you can win your case and link into your opponent's FW and then weigh, you've got a pretty good shot of picking up my ballot.

Rebuttals: Frontlining needs to happen in rebuttals. IMO Second Rebuttal is the hardest speech in a PF round, and so I need you to leave yourself time to frontline or else they're gonna kill you in Summary (or at least they should, and I probably won't look favorably upon lots of unresponded to ink on the flow coming out of Rebuttals). Defense in rebuttal isn't sticky. I'm also a fan of concessions/self kick-outs when done well, but use the extra time to start weighing early on top of dumping responses/frontlines on whatever you are covering. That said, you'll probably get higher speaks if you do all the things on all the points.

Summary: defense in rebuttal isn't sticky, extend it if you want me to adjudicate based off of it. I like when summaries give me a good notion of the voting issues in the round, ideally with a clear collapse on one or two key points of clash. If you can sufficiently tell me what the voting issues are and how you won them, you have a real strong chance of winning the round. In so doing, you should be weighing against your opponent’s voting issues/best case (see above) and extending frontlining if you can (hence why it has to happen). If I have to figure out what the voting issues are and, in cases where teams present different voting issues, weigh each side's against the other's, I may have to intervene more in interpreting what the round was about rather than you defining what the round was about, which I don't want to do. Weigh for me, my intervening is bad. Comparative weighing, please. In both backhalf speeches, I want really good and clear analytics on top of techy structure and cards.

Final Focus: reminder that defense isn't stick so extend as much as you can when you need to. Final should then respond to anything new in summary and then write my ballot for me based on the voters/collapses in Summary. I am going to ignore any new arguments in your Final Focus. You know what you should be doing in that speech: a solid crystallization of the round with deference to clearing up my ballot. Final Focuses have won rounds before, don't look at it like a throwaway.

Signposting/Flow: I can flow 250-300 WPM if you want me to, but for the love of all things holy, sign post, like slow down for the tag even. I write as much as I can hear, and am adept at flowing, and I'll even look at the speech doc if you send it (and you probably should as a principle if you're speaking this quickly), but you should make my life as easy as possible so I can spend more time thinking about your arguments. Always make your judges' lives as easy as you can.

Speaker points: unless tab gives me a specific set of criteria to follow, I generally follow the traditional “30 means I think you’re the platonic ideal of the debater, 29 means you are one of the best debaters I have seen, etc…” In novice/JV rounds, this is a bit less true: I generally give speaks based on the round’s quality in the context of the level at which you’re competing. If you are an insolent jerk, I will drop your speaks no matter how good you are. Insolence runs the gamut from personal put-downs of your opponent(s) to outright bigotry. If I am ever allowed to do so again, I have no issue with low point wins. Sus-sounding evidence will also drop your speaks.

Equity: Though it should go without saying, I will make myself clear: I have a zero tolerance policy for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and all other forms of bigotry, prejudice, hatred, and intolerance. You are smart enough to find impacts for the most esoteric and outlandish of arguments, I am certain you are aware of the impact of your words and actions on other people. Simply put: respect each other. We are all here to learn and grow together.

If you have any questions that haven't been answered here, feel free to ask them before the start of the round.

Have fun, learn something, and respect one another. Good luck, and I look forward to your round!

Congress

I WILL BUMP YOU UP AT LEAST ONE FULL RANK IF YOU DO NOT READ OFF OF A FULLY PRE-WRITTEN SPEECH

I am a bit old school insofar as I believe Congress is very much a hybrid between speech and debate events: of course I want the good arguments, but you should sound and act like a member of Congress. The performative element of the event matters very much to me. Be respectful of everyone in the room and be sure that your arguments are not predicated on the derogation or belittlement of others (see the last paragraph of this paradigm for more on respect and its impact on my judging).

Your speeches are obviously most important, assuming you're not POing. I'm looking for solid and logical warranting (cards are important but not a replacement for warranting, especially in a more rhetorically oriented event like Congress), unique impacts (especially to specific constituencies) and strong rhetoric. Your argumentation should leave no big gaps in the link chains, and should follow a clear structure. Arguments that are interdependent obviously need that linkage to be strong. Obviously, avoid rehash. Good extensions, meaning those that introduce meaningully new evidence/context or novel impacts, are some of my favorite speeches to hear. I also value a real strong crystal more than a lot of judges, so if you're good at it, do it.

I also give great weight to your legislative engagement. Ask questions, make motions, call points of order when appropriate. If you're good at this, I will remember it in your ranking. The same goes if you're not good at it. I have no bright-line for the right/wrong amount of this: engage appropriately and correctly and it will serve you well. Sitting there with your hands folded the entire session when you're not giving a speech will hurt you.

I highly value the role of the PO, which is to say that a great PO can and will get my 1. A great PO makes no procedural errors, provides coherent and correct explanations when wrongly challenged, runs a quick-moving and efficient chamber, and displays a command of decorum and proper etiquette. Short of greatness, any PO who falls anywhere on the spectrum of good to adequate will get a rank from me, commensurate with the quality of their performance. Like any other Congressperson, you will receive a detailed explanation for why you were ranked where you were based on your performance. While you may not get the 1 if you are perfect but also frequently turning to the Parli to confirm your decisions, I would rather you check in than get it wrong and be corrected; you'll still get ranked, but perhaps not as highly. The only way I do not rank a PO is if they make repeated, frequent mistakes in procedure: calling on the wrong speaker when recency is established, demonstrating a lack of procedural knowledge and/or lack of decorum, et cetera.

My standards are the same when I Parli as when i judge, the only difference being I will be comparing POs and speakers across the day, so POing one session does not guarantee a rank on my Parli sheet, since it is an evaluation of your performance across all sessions of the tournament. When I am Parli, I keep the tournament guidelines on me at all times, in case there are any regional/league-based disparities in our expectations of procedure/rules.

Above all else, everyone should respect one another. If you are an insolent jerk, I will not rank you no matter how good you are. Insolence runs the gamut from personal put-downs of your fellow Congressmembers to outright bigotry. Though it should go without saying, I will make myself clear: I have a zero tolerance policy for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and all other forms of bigotry, prejudice, hatred, and intolerance. You are smart enough to find impacts for the most esoteric and outlandish of policy decisions and their related arguments, so I am certain you are aware of the impact of your words and actions on other people. Simply put: respect each other. We are all here to learn and grow together.

Have fun, learn something, and respect one another. Good luck, and I look forward to your round!

Brendan Kelly Lake Highland Preparatory School

Markal Kelly Barringer High School None

Cam Kettles Hire

Kenzo Kimura American Heritage Palm Beach HS

Timothy Kirchman Boston Latin School None

Min Ko Ko Hire

Last changed on Mon February 20, 2023 at 9:59 AM CDT

minkoko@college.harvard.edu

Hello! My name is Min, and I'm currently a sophomore at Harvard studying government, economics, and social theory. I competed in debate all four years of high school, where I focused primarily on World Schools-- but am familiar with PF and IE events as well. I currently am a member of the Harvard College Debating Union, where I compete in American Parliamentary.

General norms

Please be respectful and reasonable. High school debate can get really nasty at times, and we're all here to have a fun and educational experience. Don't use personal attacks against your opponents, use prejudiced language, or make sweeping generalizations (all of which are signs of poor argumentation as well).
I am not a huge fan of spreading. However, I understand the need to get all the arguments in for formats like PF and LD, so I can definitely listen to fast-paced speeches.
Dislike theory

Public Forum

It's been a while since I've done PF, so I might not be as familiar with the timing/prep/showing cards aspects.
Speed is okay if you need it to fit in quality arguments.
I dislike evidence wars. Don't nitpick at the validity of one source back and forth.
WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. Impact weighing is crucial.
Roadmaps are helpful. Anything that makes my life as a judge better will help with a flow, which will help with a ballot.
I come from World Schools, where reasonability is king. However, in PF I have to consider all points on the flow especially if the other team drops it. That being said, just because you manage to link your tiny policy change to nuclear war or climate change or AI or whatever doesn't mean I will give you the win automatically (well, if the opposing team actually does its job). Low probability high impact risks does not necessarily mean the biggest impact in the round. In these instances, weigh probabilities as well.
CX is mostly useless for me.

Truth be told, I have never debated in LD. I have seen a few rounds, but am far from an expert at the format. I am somewhat familiar with the vocabulary such as "criterion"
Speed is fine, full-on spreading might mean I miss a few of your points during a speech.
I have a background in political philosophy and social theory, so feel free to utilize those constructs when discussing values.
Low probability high impact risks does not necessarily imply automatic win--weigh probabilities and magnitudes as well.
Standard debate procedures apply- weigh impacts, consider the two worlds, give roadmaps etc.

Congress

Never competed in Congress but have judged it before
I will rely on the PO to keep things orderly, not too familiar with parliamentary procedure
A good speech can be many things--keep it organized (typical intros, arguments, conclusion)
I enjoy rhetorical flairs and style--it keeps things interesting in an otherwise very long session
One thing that annoys me if the speeches keep saying the same thing or same argument over and over again. Be creative and come up with some novel arguments (even if it's nonstandard, it's better than you regurgitating a previous speaker's points)
I expect later speakers to respond to the statements earlier speakers have made

World Schools

I absolutely love World Schools and it's my favorite format of debate because it's accessible, current, and meaningfully engages with real world issues--so I hope rounds continue to operate in that way! I mainly operated as a First and Reply speaker.

I think tabula rasa judging is a bit vague at times, and this paradigm opens up the potential for a lot of weird stuff said in the round to stand. For the most part I am tabula rasa, so YOU should do the work of telling me WHAT to prioritize when voting. But because reasonability is an inherent part of WSD I'm not going to let really bizarre stuff dictate the round, even if a team drops that argument. I'd rather a team makes an argument on reasonability than me intervening.
Assume that I as the judge am a moderately well-informed member of society (like a New York Times Reader). Explain anything requiring specialized knowledge out to me, but there's no need to tell me that India is a country in Asia or that the U.S. invaded Iraq.
Try to adhere to traditional norms of speaker roles--aka first speaker offers the first 2 substantives and potentially a model, second speaker focuses more on line by line rebuttal, third speaker on collapsing and weighing. However, I'm not going to penalize you if you buck the norm and have innovative argument construction.
Ideally, POIs should be offered around every 30 seconds and each speaker takes 2.
Use global examples if relevant to the topic.
One of my pet peeves is when people try to fill up the whole 8 minutes of a speech by repeating stuff they already said. If you find there is nothing more to be said, please just end the speech.
This isn't a huge problem in WSD but I also hate evidence wars. Nitpicking on a particular warrant isn't particularly helpful to me as a judge, and focusing on bigger picture ideas will most likely be a better use of your time.
Be mindful of actors/stakeholders and voters. Look at clashes in the round. Clarify the different worlds of Prop and Opp.
Be mindful of both practical and principle concerns, and smart WSD teams will focus on the area that is stronger to their side.
WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. Impact weighing is crucial.
I enjoy creative arguments that suggest that you researched well and thought about these ideas deeply. Of course I will be expecting stock arguments in a particular motion, but an innovative argument that makes me see the round in a new light will be rewarded. On the other hand, arguments can get TOO creative and have no basis in political or economic reality.
Ballot: Content will focus on evidence-based reasoning and whether your impacts outweighed the other team. Style will focus on well-structured arguments and clarity. Strategy will focus on how well the three of you work as a team, good POI strategy, and the ability to capitalize on your opponents' weaknesses as they appear in the round.

Josef Kovacs Collegiate School

Pawan Kumar Revere HS

Sofia Kurd Hire None

Jared Lee Spring Woods High School None

Matthew Lee Spring Woods High School None

Katy Yifan Lin Hire None

David Long Southern Lehigh

Joshua Lowe TC Roberson High School

Becca Marks The Potomac School

Last changed on Sat January 16, 2021 at 11:12 AM EDT

Updated for 2020-21

Pronouns: she/her/hers

If you have questions about anything here, just ask!

Congress:

-I don't have a preference between early/mid/late round speeches - just give the best speech. I evaluate each speech for the role it needs to serve in the round. So, if you're sitting on a neg and we go to a 2-minute recess because you're insistent on doing a crystallization speech and no one else has a neg, I'll be annoyed. If you're able to show me multiple types of speeches throughout the session (especially if I'm the parli), that's great.

-I hate one-sided debate - it isn't debate. I don't have a set rule "if you speak on the same side as the previous person I'll mark you down x # of ranks," but it definitely has a negative impact on the final ranks. If you speak on the same side as the previous person, it is very, very unlikely (albeit not impossible) I will rank you in the top 3. This is even more true for a crystallization speech.

-Expectations for authorship/sponsorship/1st aff: problem/solution; identify a framework/burden/scope to evaluate debate; have a central narrative

-Expectations for mid-round speech: Refute; have a central narrative

-Expectations for late speech: Refute & boil the debate down to a main issue or 2; have a central narrative

-Have a clear, specific, and offensive thesis coming out of the introduction.

-Have clear warrants; if they stem from the legislation directly, even better. Particularly in mid/late speeches, weighing/clash is super important.

-Clear, humanized impacts are key.

-I'm not going to open the legislation packet - it's your job to bring it to life for me. If I know a detail of the leg from coaching my own students but you don't mention it, it won't help you - I'll be as tabula rasa as possible with the docket.

-No rehash. It's possible to extend something from your own side with new warrants/impacts, but new data is just rehash.

-Neg speeches can't say the leg is bad because it doesn't do something unless that thing is mutually exclusive with the action of the legislation; if the leg is that we should all eat more bananas and your neg is no we should eat more apples, unless you can prove that we can't eat apples AND bananas the point doesn't work. I also don't love points about complacency - they generally feel stock to me (unless you're talking about a social issue when the issue attention cycle is a legitimate concern). Both of these types of points (do x not y; complacency) feel like avoidance of engaging with the actual legislation - neg speeches must demonstrate the inherent harm(s) of passing.

-No stock intros/conclusions - if it could work for any piece of legislation, it's too vague. I like an attention-grabbing intro of some kind and when the conclusion ties a bow with the opening.

-I don't have a preference for being in the simulation or avoiding it. If you start talking about your constituents and your office in D.C., I will likely roll my eyes. On the other hand, talking about your current high school Bio class doesn't work either.

-Stay involved throughout the entire session. If you give an A+ speech but ask zero questions, you'll get ranked below an A- speech and strong, well-spaced questions.

-I will rank you as the PO if you're a strong PO (fast & efficient, knowledgeable about RR, clear command of chamber). Being the PO is neither a guarantee of a rank nor of a drop for me - if you do an A job as the PO, it'll be ranked the same as if you did an A job as a speaker.

PF:

-I don't flow cross; if you want me to evaluate something out of cross, you need to mention it in a later speech.

-If you want me to evaluate something from FF, it also needs to appear in the summary.

-Make sure to identify moments of clash. Don't let the two ships just pass in the night; tell me where the boats crash and why yours stays afloat.

-Make sure to weigh arguments. Tell me what the key points of the debate are so that I don't have to determine them myself.

-I won't make a decision based on politeness, but being excessively rude/abrasive in cross annoys me and will negatively impact your speaker points.

-Unless there's true abuse in the round, I won't vote on theory.

-I haven't judged circuit PF since Stanford 2019, so you're better off avoiding "progressive" PF stuff. Treat me as more flay.

Joseph Maucieri Tmi Episcopal

Last changed on Thu April 13, 2023 at 11:59 AM PDT

First off, I believe this is a debate event before anything. That means you should be adapting to the round as it goes. Everyone from the sponsor to the closer has an equal shot at my one as long as they do their job. The job for the sponsor and first negative speaker is to set up the round for strong debate. The sponsor should state the problem, how this bill fixes the problem, give one or two impacts from solving it, and if you're a superstar give me a framework for the round moving forward. The first negative should give us the main idea of what we should expect from a strong negation argument. This should take the problem the sponsor laid out and then give us the negative thought process on whether or not this legislation fixes it. After that I should see an increasing amount of refutations mixed with original arguments as to why this legislation is good or bad. Once we are 3/4 of the way through I should be seeing a lot of extensions as the debate is coming to an end. Still give an original POV but keep it within the frame of the debate. At the end, I should see nothing but refutation and crystalized speeches. Once again I want your own original analysis but use it to end the debate through a refutation of the other side instead of individuals. No matter where you speak I want to see your personality/style shine through. Take risks and you'll likely be rewarded.

All effective argumentation is based around a solid understanding of the status quo. If you cant properly depict the status quo then I cant buy an argument from you. What's happening right now? Is the effect that this legislation has on it good or bad? How well you answer these questions will dictate your ranking from me.

Effective cross examination is when you attack the flaws in your opponents argument or set up refutations for your own. As long as you have a clear goal for your cross examination period, I'll appreciate your time. Overall, I tune out when both sides start over talking each other and I prefer a calmer style of cross x.

When it comes to speaking I don't have a preferred style. I can respect all styles as long as it suits you. Picking a speaking style is like picking a baseball batting stance in that there isn't a wrong way as long as you're doing what is best for you based on your natural voice, range, and variation. If you stick to that then I'll probably think you're a great speaker. DONT BE AFRAID TO TAKE RISKS.

I do rank presiding officers pretty well as a scorer and if I'm a parli it can serve as a tie breaker between two debaters. If you do it well then I'll boost you but if you don't then I'll drop you pretty far.

This next part should go without saying but your arguments need to be backed by evidence at all times and have clear logic behind them. Remember that your logic creates the argument then the evidence backs it up. Your evidence isn't your argument.

Lastly, be respectful and have fun. If you aren't having fun then you're doing this activity wrong. Best of luck!

Meghan McDonald Rock Canyon High School

Clare McIntyre Woodbury High School

Last changed on Sun February 19, 2023 at 9:15 AM CDT

I’m a Congress Coach for East Ridge High School in Woodbury, Minnesota

Background:

-I competed in Congressional Debate for all four years of high school. I am extremely well versed in Robert’s Rules of Order and the NSDA rules. I was ranked first in Congress in Minnesota, went to Nationals and broke to out rounds three times, qualified for the Tournament of Champions, and competed on both the national and local circuits during my time as a debater. I coached policy for the MNUDL for one year, then in 2022, I started coaching Congress.

Congressional Debate:

-Above all else, treat everyone with respect and civility. If you are rude, condescending, insensitive, or have unsportsmanlike behavior, then it will be reflected in your ranks

Speeches

-Congress isn’t a Speech event; I want to hear good argumentation that furthers the debate

-I value quality over quantity, 1 amazing speech will always beat out 3 mediocre speeches

-I expect refutation, rebuttal, and clash in speeches

-You need to include cited evidence, you can’t rely on logic alone

-The delivery of your intro should be smooth and include a clear roadmap

-I appreciate clever jokes or puns but make sure it’s appropriate and relevant

-Author/sponsorship speeches should explain the problem the legislation is trying to solve and how the legislation uniquely solves it

-Mid-round speeches should offer something new, clarify or expand on arguments that have been said, or refute arguments

-If you’re giving a late-round speech, you should not be bringing up new arguments, I expect you to be giving a crystallization speech

-Crystallization speeches should not just be a summary or a line-by-line of the round; the purpose of a crystallization is to weigh each side of the debate and prove why one side wins over the other

Questioning

-I really value participation in questioning; staying involved, asking good questions, and using questioning to further the debate can be the determining factor between two speakers who are tied in my ranks

-Refrain from talking over each other, cutting each other off, or shouting—keep it civil

-Avoid prefacing (making a statement instead of asking a real question) while it technically isn’t against the rules, it’s not a good use of a question and I don’t consider it helpful to the debate

What to Avoid if You Want a Better Rank (Speakers)

-Being disrespectful

-Reading off prewritten speeches

-Reading off a laptop (unless it’s for accessibility reasons)

-Repeating and rehashing points

-Giving an oratory speech (not including refutation/clash or interacting with the debate)

-Breaking cycle and having a one-sided debate

-Being unprepared and then recessing to figure out what you’re going to do or to write speeches

-Not participating in questioning—even if you give a great speech you have to stay involved

-Prefacing in questioning

-Trying to move the previous question even if someone still wants to speak

-Ending the debate early or using excessive recesses when there is still time to debate and get more speeches in—I understand that might mean some people get an extra speech, but remember, it’s quality over quantity

Presiding

-I consider the Presiding Officer (PO) to be one of the most integral parts of the round; if you preside, you will start with my 1—it is your rank to lose

-As PO, you should have good control over the chamber—it should run so smoothly that I never have to step in

-You need to follow NSDA rules, Robert’s Rules of Order, and then any tournament-specific rules

-Clearly explain your gaveling procedures, how you will call on speakers and questioners, and how you will be keeping track of precedence and recency (p/r)

-I dislike online PO sheets if they are the ones that automatically track p/r and determine the next speaker to call on. Having an algorithm do all the work for you is neither skilled nor impressive—I rank competitors, not algorithms

-I expect you to be able to provide speech times, what side a speech was on, and current precedence and recency at any time

-I can provide clarifications, recommendations, and assistance, but I expect you to guide the chamber and promote a healthy debate

-I will not call you out for small mistakes such as P/R because it’s the duty of the chamber to keep you accountable, but I will take note, and every mistake you make will hurt your rank

-Overall, you need to follow the structure of Parliamentary procedure, uphold the rules, and preside fairly, accurately, and efficiently

What to Avoid if You Want a Better Rank (Presiding Officer)

-Using an online PO sheet that automatically tracks and says what speaker to call on

-Using an unnecessary amount of words (not being efficient)

-Gaveling too loudly—I’m sitting right next to you, please don’t give me a headache

-Incorrect Parliamentary Procedure, especially:

-Not knowing the vote needed to pass different motions (like 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, etc)

-“Assuming unanimous consent” for important votes

-Calling for orders of the day to go over the stats from the chamber (that’s not what it is, it’s used for voting on tabled legislation at the end of the session)

-“Amending the docket/agenda” (this motion does not exist and should be ruled out of order)

-“Motion to address the chamber” (this motion does not exist and should be ruled out of order)

Prathibha Natarajan Revere HS

Daniel Norris Ridge High School

Last changed on Mon February 20, 2023 at 6:08 AM EDT

Fourth-year assistant coach at Ridge High School.

I teach AP Government, Politics, & Economics, Global History, and AP Euro there as well. I will be able to follow any content/current event information you include.

I've coached and judged all major debate topics. I work most closely with our Congressional debate team, but also have experience judging PF, LD, and Parli.

PF: I think it's important for you to remember the goal of the event. Anyone should be able to walk into your round and follow the debate. With that said, I do flow and will try to give tech feedback as well as general commentary. I think some speed is ok in PF, but I think spreading absolutely does not belong.

LD: I am not a former debater myself; I really struggle to follow theory debate, K's, and spreading in general. I've learned a little about it over the past few years, but if you are a tech/theory/spreading team you should probably strike me (just being honest!). For all other levels--I will flow both framework and case and have voted on both. Try to be concrete in connecting your evidence to your claims. I've found that LD debaters can sometimes get carried away with "debater math"...and no, not everything can lead to nuke war. I am partial to probability arguments--I'm a realist at heart :)

Congress: As a teacher of Government & Politics, I really enjoy this event. You should always be roleplaying being an actual representative/senator. What would your constituents think about your speech? Why is your advocacy in their interest? I really like constitutionality arguments--we have a federal system, and sometimes bills being debated are directly in violation of those principles. Feel free to cite those Supreme Court cases all day. As you get later into the round, I will be highly critical if you are just repeating points from previous speeches. I want to see crystal/ref speeches later on--as do your fellow competitors, I'd presume.

Clinton Oreofe Hire None

Ying Pan Cooperative Alliance Academy

Sandy Parsotan South Plantation

Ved Patel Pine View School None

Vidya Patil Timber Creek HS None

Carlos Perez Belen Jesuit Prep None

Daniel Perez Hire

Andrea Peterson-Longmore Neenah High School

Last changed on Wed May 24, 2023 at 12:01 PM CDT

andrea.peterson-longmore@neenah.k12.wi.us thats my email before you ask.

I have sections below specific to each category, so just scroll and look for the bolded section you are interested in.

Experience: I am currently the head coach for Neenah high school Speech & Debate (but currently only assisting in LD/PF... if that makes sense? I do all the other things) and have been a coach for the last 6 years. I have students who compete locally as well as nationally- we had the national champion at NSDA in Congress, and a Quarterfinalist in LD, a national competitor in Speech, middle school nats competitors....so I have judged all over the place. This is my ninth year as a judge ('22-'23). I judge all categories, except varsity policy. I was not a debater in school, so I have a more basic understanding of the more obscure things that go on in debate.

"I have 5 minutes and wanted to check your paradigm quick, whats the headlines?"

Congress is my JAM. I love it and I prefer to see that level of enthusiasm/preparation from the participants.

I wasn't a debater- explain things clearly or I drop arguments I don't understand. ***note on that- I understand the terms of debate (link, turn, impact, etc), just not more niche philosophies and less popular arguments***

Be nice to each other- respect will get you far with me

Impact calc and weighing of final arguments is the best strat with me

Don't argue with me in RFD. If I drop you and you think you should have won, explain it better next time.

I can handle spreading, but if you can't... don't. It's awkward to have to tell you that you don't make sense.

Use a timer, and stick to it- I hate it when kids go over time. I stop flowing within 5 seconds of the end of your time. I will not warn you about this- you know your time limits.

Okay, I love these little things I have seen on other paradigms, so hopefully this helps.

For your pref sheets: (1 being top pref, just to be clear)

K's 1<-------------------------------X------>5 (I like them, but I feel like I am not a good judge for them)

Policy – 1<----X--------------------------------->5 /strike

Phil – 1<-------------------X------------------>5

T/Theory- 1<-------------------------------X------>5

Tricks – 1<-------------------------------------X>5 Actually... X. <== I HATE them. Please don't run them.

Trad – 1<--X----------------------------------->5

See below for more in-depth explanations divided by category

Congress

Behavior: You are acting as a member of congress- keep that in mind in how you behave! Please make sure to respect the rules of your parli and PO. For the love all that is good, please pay attention to the round. This is far more fun when everyone participates! If I see you on your phone for more than a minute at a time I will be annoyed. Obviously you can answer a text or check the time quick, but if you are disengaged I will notice and I will not be happy.

Speeches: I LOVE *actually* extemporaneous speeches. Please breathe some life into your words- you are trying to make your fellow congresspeople vote for or against the bill! Make sure you include stats, citations, and some analysis of other speaker's points. I believe that if legislation is up for debate, there is current research to be read about it, thus I expect you are only using sources from AT MOST the last 5 years. Better if they are from the last 3. A good, weird AGD is fun. Please avoid the common Taylor Swift/Disney/over used quote choices though. Bonus if you can make me a crack a smile with it! (not really, but I remember them when I am doing my rankings)

PO's: Have a CLEAR sheet for people to follow, keep it updated. If you make a mistake, fix it and move on quickly. LEARN your chamber's names. It is so awkward to hear POs continually mess up the names in the chamber. If you need it, but a phonetic pronunciation spot in your sheet and ask them to put their name in that way for you. I tend to rank PO's high, as long as they are engaged and well versed in the congress rules, (or at least learning them!) if they are not engaged and EFFICIENT, they can expect a low ranking. I can't stand it when a PO says a whole 30 second thing after every speech and questioning block.

Questioning: Ask short, clear questions. Don't have a ton of lead up. I don't mind if you need to argue with each other a bit, but keep it civil and don't cut each other off unless its clear they are wasting your time or are not answering the question. It drives me insane to have a silent room for questions and no opposition to a bill, please ask lots of questions! It plays into my ranking- great speeches will only get you so far with me! If you don't ask any questions in a bill cycle, don't expect a rank of over 6 from me. This hold true even if you didn't speak on the bill. It doesn't require research to think critically and ask thoughtful questions.

Recesses: Keep them short. Do not ask for more than 5 minutes between bills- I am not willing to extend the end of the session to accommodate the chamber wasting time during the session.

Overall Preferences: I can't stand it when kids want to break cycle to just give a speech. I realize this isn't your fault, but that means the debate is stale and we need to move on. Unless you are giving a whole new perspective on the bill, you are far better off moving on to a new bill and giving a speech there. I am especially critical of these speeches in terms of quality of content and sources, because if you are insisting we listen to your extra speech, it must be REALLY good and worth not moving on.

Public Forum

Preferences: Please be clear and professional in round. I hate that the attitudes and behaviors seen in other styles is seeping into PF. As noted in other sections, I was not a debater, so don't expect me to know every single term you share. Generally, if I make a somewhat confused face, define your term.

A few things I love to see: Please, collapse arguments. It's so awesome to watch a veteran team (or even a novice team) weigh arguments and determine the largest impacts and points in the round and weigh them against each other, rather than slowly increase their speed in through the debate to try and get every single argument in to the last speech.

A few things I hate in rounds: Veteran debaters being overly hard on novices- we want to keep them in the activity, don't discourage them by running super dense over the top arguments- you will probably win if you just run a standard argument simply by being more experienced. "Stealing" prep- if you need prep take it, don't make me sit for 35 seconds and then tell me you're taking prep. If you want cards, fine... but ask for them all at once and get it over with quickly. It is super annoying to go through CX and then have a 15 minute "card trade" before getting back into debate.

Lincoln Douglas

Preferences: This is what the majority of my students do. I will flow everything and I will say clear if necessary, but only once before I stop flowing you. I was not a debater, so my knowledge of really weird arguments is lacking. Let me say that again. I WAS NOT A DEBATER- EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN. It has become more and more common to use really dense philosophies in your framing- this is something I have little experience with. Make sure to explain your super specialized philosophy carefully or I can't use it as a weighing mechanism. I encourage you to run whatever you like, but explain it very well, especially if it is not something common. Err on the side of caution if you are not sure if it is common- like I said I am not well versed in most of the different arguments. In terms of speed I judge a lot of policy, so I would say I am comfortable with most speeds seen in LD.

A few things I love to see in round: Please weigh & tell me how to vote so I don’t have to intervene in any capacity. I also like to see super high respect for your opponent. This is such an underrated part of PF that is not nearly as present in LD or Policy, and it totally should be. If you have nearly identical frames, I love to see kids recognize that and show how they can fit into each other's frame, rather than making the round about whether I should weigh using "limiting suffering" or "increasing societal welfare." Let's be honest, those are pretty similar, and if you fit in one you probably can fit in the other.

A few things I hate in rounds: Swearing- This seems like an obvious one, but is lacks professionalism if it is not needed to actually make the points. "Stealing" prep- if you need prep take it, don't make me sit for 35 seconds and then tell me you're taking prep. Veteran debaters being overly hard on novices- we want to keep them in the activity, don't discourage them by running super dense over the top arguments- you will probably win if you just run a standard argument simply by being more experienced. Last thing: if you run a "fairness" argument that you couldn't prep against your opponent and then you have a case against your opponent, expect me to completely drop your fairness argument. You just proved that you lied about the fairness since you prepped that argument.

Policy

Preferences: I do not like any tricks or unprofessional behavior in round, but snark is always okay. I prefer not to hear teams talking to each other while their opponents are presenting, as it is distracting to me as a judge. Open speeches are a no-go. If you don't have your own stuff ready, then take prep time. If you're out of prep time, organize yourself better next time. I generally only judge novice policy once in a while, so be aware you might be my only round this year, and I probably don't have a comprehensive knowledge of the subject area.

I am fine with spreading, (probably a 6/10 for speed) however if you are not understandable, I will only tell you clear two times before I stop flowing you. Please be aware of your own speaking issues- for example, if you have braces and rubber bands, you probably should not spread, since you will be almost unintelligible. On the topic of spreading- I understand it is a strategy to get as many arguments in as possible, but be aware that a large breadth of arguments you do not understand is basically useless.

Impact calc is huge for me. If I don't clearly hear you explain why your impacts are bigger or more important, I judge completely by what is on my flow. DA's and CP's are fine in a round, and good experience for a novice/Post nov. I always flow cross x, and keep track of questions asked. I do not want to see a framework in novice policy.

Misc. Stuff for any style debate:

-I am not about speaker points- I think its a really biased system, but I do it because its required. I would not consider myself generous with points, but I try to be fair with the way the system is set up. That said, if you’re mean to your opponent I will substantially dock your speaks. If you can’t control your round without being disrespectful there is something wrong. Since I have been asked, I average about 28 for speaks.

-I don't flow things from CX unless I am told to. I find it to be one of the more telling parts of any round about who has stronger arguments and better understands the content, but if you want it to weigh in to my decision, you need to bring it up in speeches.

-Please understand whatever you’re running before you run it in front of me- it is super frustrating to hear kids hem and haw about defining terms when they didn't take time to understand what they are saying.

-I dislike timing rounds and I've found I'm extremely inaccurate. I will keep time, but it is best if we have multiple timers going to ensure accuracy. Please time yourselves and hold your opponent accountable so that I don't have to. I HATE having to cut people off because they are over time- I actually prefer if their opponent has a timer that goes off so I can hear it.

TLDR: Be respectful, know & define your stuff, use current sources, watch your time.

Florence Petit Pompano Beach High School

Keith Pittman Asheville High School

Last changed on Fri April 17, 2020 at 11:40 AM EDT

General overview:

I was a high school and college debater and have been an active high school coach ever since. I am chair of my state league as well as an NSDA District Chair. Dating back to high school, I have over 35 years of experience in the activity. However, please don't consider me as "old school" or a strict traditionalist. Like any activity, speech and debate is constantly evolving and I am open to and embrace most changes. You'll clearly understand all of the rare exceptions to that as you read my paradigm.

It is very important to remember that debate is a communication activity. As such, I expect clear communication. Well articulated, supported and defended arguments, regardless of quantity, are far more important to me than who has the most cards that they can spout out in a speech. While I'm okay with a limited amount of speed, excessive speed beyond what you would use in the "real world" is not effective communication in my mind. Communicate to me effectively with well reasoned and fully supported arguments at a reasonable pace and you will win my ballot. I don't accept the "they dropped the argument so I automatically win the argument" claim. You must tell me why the dropped argument was critical in the first place and convince me that it mattered. I look at who had the most compelling arguments on balance and successfully defended them throughout the round while refuting the opponent's arguments on balance in making my decision.

Things to keep in mind about the various events I judge:

Policy debate is about policy. It has a plan. Plans have advantages and disadvantages as well as solvency or the lack thereof. Some plans also might warrant a counterplan from the negative if it is good, nontopical, and can gain solvency better than the affirmative plan.

Lincoln Douglas Debate is about values. I am interested much more in values in this type of debate than any sort of policy. However, I'm not a strict traditionalist in that I don't require both a value premise and a value criterion that is explicitly stated. But I do want to hear a value debate. That said, I also want to hear some pragmatic examples of how your value structure plays out within the context of the resolution. All in all, I balance my decision between the philosophical and the pragmatic. Persuade me of your position. However, please don't present a plan or counterplan. Switch to policy debate if you want to do that. Bottom line: debate the resolution and don't stray from it.

Public Forum Debate is about current events and was intended for the lay judge. Don't give me policy or LD arguments. Clear communication is important in all forms of debate, but is the most important in this one. I am not open to rapid fire spreading. That's not communication. Please don't give me a formal plan or counterplan. Again, reserve that for policy debate. Communicate and persuade with arguments backed up by solid research and your own analysis and do this better than your opponents and you will win my PF ballot. It's that simple. Debate the resolution without straying from it in a good communicative style where you defend your arguments and attack your opponent's and do this better than they do it. Then you win. Persuade me.

Congress Paradigm: (I'll be honest. It's my favorite event.)
Congressional Debate is designed to be like the real Congress when it functions as it was intended. Decorum is absolutely critical. While humor may have its place in this event, you should not do or say anything that a United States congressperson of integrity would not do or say. You should also follow Congressional decorum rules and address fellow competitors with their proper titles. When judging congress, I want to see clash/refutation of previous speakers (unless, of course, you are giving the first speech of the topic). Try to avoid "canned" speeches that are largely prewritten. This is not dueling oratories. It is still debate. I look for a combination of new arguments and clash/refutation of arguments already made. I do not like rehash. If it's been said already, don't say it unless you have a uniquely fresh perspective. I am not impressed by those who jump up to make the first obvious motion for previous question or for recess. Obvious motions score no points with me, as they are obvious and can be made by anyone. It's not a race to see who can be seen the most. I am, however, impressed by those who make great speeches, regularly ask strong cross examination questions and show true leadership in the chamber. Simply making great speeches alone is not enough. If you give three perfect speeches but never really ask good cross examination questions or rarely participate proceduraly in the chamber, you might not get the ranking you were hoping for. Although speeches are very important and a major factor in my decision, they are not the complete package that I expect from a competitor. I'm looking at your total constructive participation in the chamber (in a productive sense, not a "just to be seen" sense). Finally, to reiterate what I said at the beginning, I take decorum very seriously. You should too.

Congress Presiding Officers: Keep your wording as brief and concise as possible. Avoid the obvious. Please don't use phrases like "Seeing as how that was a negative speech, we are now in line for an affirmative speech." Here is a MUCH better option: "Affirmative speakers please rise" or "We are now in line for an affirmative speech." There is no need to tell anyone that the previous speech was negative. We should know that already. Just immediately call on the next side. It is acceptable and advisable to also very quickly give the time of the previous speech for the reference of the judges, but we do not need to be reminded of what side the previous speech was on. The phrase I dislike the most in Congress is "seeing as how . . ." So how do I judge you as a P.O. in relation to the speakers in the chamber? Most (but not all) presiding officers will make my top eight ballot if they are good with no major flaws. But how do you move up the ballot to get in "break" range? I place a great deal of weight on fairness and decorum, knowledge of parliamentary procedure and the efficiency in which the chamber is conducted. I reward presiding officers who are precise and have minimal downtime. And, as mentioned earlier, it does not require a great deal of language (especially jargon and phraseology) to be an excellent presiding officer. I'm not judging you on how much I hear you speak. I'm judging you on how efficient the chamber ran under your leadership. An excellent P.O. can run a highly efficient chamber without having to say much. Keep order, know and enforce the rules, and be respected by your peers. That said, you should also be prepared to step in and be assertive anytime the chamber or decorum gets out of hand. In fact, you should step in assertively at the first minute sign of it. Finally, while it is often difficult for a P.O. to be first on the ballot, it is also not impossible if your excellence is evident. And as a side note, while this is not a voting issue for me, it is worth noting. When giving your nomination speech, you don't need to tell me (or the rest of the chamber) that you will be "fast and efficient." That phrase is overused and heard from almost every candidate I've ever seen nominated. Everyone makes that claim, but a surprising number don't actually follow through on it. Come up with original (but relevant) reasons that you should be elected.

Things to avoid in any event I judge:

"Spreading" or rapid fire delivery.

Ad Hominem attacks of any kind. Stick to the issues, not the person. This is the first thing that will alienate me regardless of your position.

Kritiks - You must be extremely persuasive if you run them. I'll consider them and vote for them if they are excellent, but I'd rather hear other arguments. Very few kritiks are in that "excellent" category I just mentioned. These are mainly only appropriate for Policy debate. I'll reluctantly consider them in LD, but never in PF.

Debate that strays outside the resolutional area. Stick to the topic.

Lack of respect for your opponent or anyone else in the room. Disagreement and debate over that disagreement is great. That's what this activity is about. But we must always do it respectfully.

Condescending tone or delivery. Don't even try it with me. Trust me, I'll hear a condescending tone/delivery much louder than any argument you make, no matter how good the argument is. I'll make a condescending tone a voting issue that does not play in your favor. You don't want that.

Kristin Potter-Oliveri FAU High School None

Saurabh Pradhan Naperville Central None

Hilary Rochelle Milton Academy None

Isaac Saadi John Paul Stevens High School

Quest Sandel James Logan High School

Last changed on Mon February 13, 2023 at 11:14 AM PDT

quest.sandel@ascendspeech.org for any and all questions. Please CC your coach if you reach out with a question. This paradigm is written for Congressional Debate.

Hey,

I am the Founder/Camp Director/Co-Owner at Ascend Speech & Debate, Director of Congressional Debate at James Logan High School, and former Director of Speech and Debate at John F. Kennedy High School in Sacramento, California.

Lastly, be respectful and have fun. If you aren't having fun then you're doing this activity wrong. Best of luck!

Elizabeth Sandridge St Thomas More None

Siddharth Satish Hire

Ojasvi Saxena Adlai E Stevenson High School

Last changed on Mon February 20, 2023 at 7:16 PM CDT

Hi! I'm Ojasvi. I'm a sophomore at Berkeley studying Data Science, Economics, and American Studies. I competed in Congress for all four years in high school, and got 3rd at Harvard my senior year. I have been coaching/judging since I graduated.

If you are reading your speech word for word, and not making any attempt to be extemporaneous or hold eye contact, I will not rank you. You should also be speaking from a legal pad or piece of paper, instead of using your laptop or iPad.

My judging is 75:25 content to delivery ratio when it comes to my ballot. I should be able to understand all of the links in your speech. If I can't understand a link, then I probably won't look too highly at everything that came after it. Make sure to warrant well. If you're asserting that something is true, I need to understand why it's true; there should be nothing in your speech that is being asserted without a clear explanation of why that thing is true. Most of the time, the argument that wins the round is the one that ties it back to the status quo because it very clearly explains how things will get better or worse. If I don't understand the present, then there is no way I can understand the impacts of the bill clearly enough.

Excellent delivery will help you, and bad delivery, especially if it's hurting my understanding of your argument, will hurt you. This paragraph applies to extemp speaking too - my biggest thing in all events is you should have very good logic + very good logic chain(s) throughout your speech.

Clash is needed if you are after the 1st AFF, and I do expect you to be performing your place in the round well (whether or not you performed your place in the round is something I do factor into ranks) – if you're giving what should be a crystal based on your place in the round, then I should be hearing a crystal. Anyone can get my 1 in the round (including the sponsor) so don't be afraid to sponsor – if no one is sponsoring/giving a speech and you offer to do it then I will take that into consideration.

I think clash has been something that was severely underdeveloped in a lot of the rounds I've judged. You should be (1) explaining why other people are wrong using logic/evidence (2) leveraging your own argument to explain how someone else is wrong so that I understood how your argument interacts with others arguments and/or (3) telling me why your argument is the most important in the round. If you state your argument in a vacuum without acknowledging/refuting anyone, then you are leaving me as the judge to decide how I think it interacts, instead of telling me what you want me to know about how your argument is more important. This becomes especially true the more a round goes on – if all of the AFFs arguments can be boiled down to one major theme, and the NEG a different theme, regardless of what side you are on, you have to tell me why your side is more important and who I should listen to. Essentially you want me to be doing as little thinking as possible about whose argument has the impact I should prioritize the most, because you as a speaker should be telling that to me in your speech.

I pay a lot of attention during questioning (especially direct questioning). While I was competing I thought questioning was the most fun part of the event! Ask good questions, and if you can poke some solid holes in your opponent's arguments (instead of just going like 'what about x argument' which has basically 0 connection to what their speech was on) that would be awesome. I really can not overstate how much I love questioning and very attentively pay attention during it.

On my ranks, I reward good - excellent POs, and drop POs who make chamber run inefficiently or unfairly.

Above all though, be respectful. If you're not respectful - in your speech, in your questioning, etc - that's the easiest way for you to get dropped on my ballot. That being said, have fun with it. As long as you're not going on ad-hominem attacks or being racist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist, if you want to make some jokes, I'll be chill with it and will probably laugh.

Have fun with it! The rounds where I did best were always when I was just having a blast.

Tl;dr: Content is king, warrant well, have clash if you're after the first AFF, be respectful, ask good questions, and have fun. Good luck!

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at ojasvi.saxena@berkeley.edu.

Amal Sayed Hire

Stuart Schneller Taravella High School None

Meghan Shreeve James Bowie High School

Namrata Singh Thomas Jefferson HSST None

Kaeli Smith Cardinal Newman High School

Amanda Soczynski Edina High School

Last changed on Sat October 8, 2022 at 6:23 AM CDT

Amanda Soczynski’s Judge Philosophy

A little about myself; I have been involved with forensics for 18 years as a student, judge, and coach. I am currently in my 7th 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. I have been judging debate for the last 12 years, in all categories. I judged CX for the beginning years and the last 5 in LD, PF and Congress. I graduated with a Mass Comm 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!

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

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!

Michael Sowell Barringer High School

Sarah Sowell Lake Travis High School None

Chris Straw Cape Elizabeth High School None

Melissa Swauncy-Coleman Boston Latin School

Last changed on Fri March 24, 2023 at 3:37 PM EDT

Background: 1 year High School Debate and Speech (Policy, Poetry Interp, Extempt). 1 year debate at Hawaii Pacific University (World Schools and British Parliament). 2 Years Debate at Middle Tennessee State University (IPDA/NPDA). 5 years teaching and developing high school and middle school curriculum for Metro Memphis Urban Debate League (Policy), 2 years as assistant debate coach at Wichita East High (Policy, LD, Speech), currently Head Debate Coach at Boston Latin School (Congress, LD, PF & Speech)

Go ahead and add me to the email chain: MEswauncy@gmail.com

Quick Prefs:

Phil/Trad - 1

K - 2 or 3

LARP/Theory- 4

Tricks - 5/Strike

Overall Philosophy: I do not believe "debate is a game". I believe in quality over quantity. Clear argumentation and analysis are key to winning the round. Narratives are important. I like hearing clear voters in rebuttals. While I don't mind a nice technical debate, I love common sense arguments more. This is DEBATE. It isn't "who can read evidence better". Why does your evidence matter? How does it link? How does it outweigh? These things matter in the round, regardless of the style of debate. Pay attention to your opponent's case. Recognize interactions between different arguments and flows and bring it up in CX and in speeches. Exploit contradictions and double-turns. Look for clear flaws, don't be afraid to use your opponent's evidence against them. Be smart. You need to weigh arguments.

I am typically a "truth over tech" judge. I think tech is important in debate and I pay attention to it but tech is simply not everything. Meaning unless the tech violation is AGGREGIOUS, you won't win obviously questionable or untrue arguments just because you out teched your opponent. Arguments need to make sense and be grounded in some sort of reality and logic.

I am one of those old school coaches/competitors that believes each debate event is fundamentally different for good reason. That means, I am not interested in seeing "I wish I was policy" in LD or PF. Policy is meant to advocate for/negate a policy within the resolution that changes something in the SQ; LD is meant to advocate for/negate the resolution based on the premise that doing so advances something we should/do value as a society; PF is meant to effectively communicate the impacts of whatever the resolution proposes. This is not in flux. I do not change my stance on this. You will not convince me that I should. If you choose to turn an LD or PF round into a policy round, it will a) reflect in your speaks b) probably harm your chances of winning because the likelihood that you can cram what policy does in 1.5 hours of spreading into 1 hour of LD/PF while ALSO doing a good job doing what LD/PF is SUPPOSED TO DO (even if you spread) is very low.

Theory I will not vote on:
Disclosure theory, Paraphrasing Theory, Formal Clothes Theory, Dates Theory. All of these are whack and bad for debate. If your opponent runs any of the above: you can literally ignore it. Do not waste valuable time on the flow. I will not vote on it.

Spreading theory: Feel free to run it in LD or PF. It is the only theory I really consider. Do not run it if you are spreading yourself, that is contradictory.

I "may" evaluate a trigger warning theory IF your opponents' argument actually has some triggering components. Tread VERY carefully with this and only use it if there is legitimate cause.

Kritieks:
I am not amused by attempts to push a judge to vote for you on the vague notion that doing so will stop anti-blackness, settler colonialism, etc etc. As a black woman in the speech and debate space, IMO, this approach minimizes real world issues for cheap Ws in debate which I find to be performative at best and exploitative at worst. That being said, I am not Anti-K. A K that clearly links and has a strong (and feasible) alt is welcome and appreciated. I LOVE GOOD, WELL DEVELOPED Ks. I am more likely to harshly judge a bad K in LD as LD is supposed to be about values and cheapening oppression and exploiting marginalized people for debate wins is probably the worst thing for society.

Tricks: No.

Conditionality: I believe "Condo Bad" 89% of the time. Do not tell me "Capitalism Bad" in K and then give me a Capitalism centered CP. Pick one.

Decorum: Be respectful, stay away from personal attacks. Rudeness to your opponent will guarantee you lowest speaks out of all speakers in the round, personal attacks will net you the lowest speak I can give you. I recognize that being snarky and speaking over your opponent and cutting them off in CX is the "cool" thing to do, particularly in PF. It is not cool with me. It will reflect incredibly poorly on your speaker points. Do not constantly cut your opponent off in CX. It's rude and unprofessional. WORDS MATTER, using racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic or any other type of biased phrases unintentionally will reflect on your speaks. We need to learn to communicate and part of learning is learning what is offensive. Using it intentionally will have me in front of tab explaining why you got a 0.

Lastly, there is no reason to yell during the round, regardless of the format. I love passion, but do not love being yelled at.

Public Forum Debate

Speed/Spreading: While I accept spreading in Policy rounds; I DO NOT ENTERTAIN SPREADING IN PF. I will absolutely wreck you in speaks for trying to spread in PF, and I will stop flowing you if it is excessive and you don't bother to share the case. That is not the purpose of this format.

Weighing: You must weigh. I need to know why I should care about your argument and why it matters. If you do not do this, you might lose no matter how great the evidence.

Impacts: If your argument has no impact it is irrelevant. Make sure your impact makes logistical sense.

I will ignore any new arguments presented in second summary (unless it is to answer a new argument made in first summary), first final focus or second final focus.

Lincoln Douglas Debate

I am somewhat annoyed by the trend in LD to become "We want to be policy". LD cannot do policy well due to time constraints and things LD is actually supposed to do. That being said if you choose to present a plan: I will judge that plan as I would judge a policy debate plan. You must have inherency, you must have solvency for your harms, etc etc. If your opponent shows me you have no inherency or solvency and you can't really counter within your four minute rebuttal, you lose by default. If you choose to run a K: I will judge you like I would judge a K in a policy debate. Your link must be clear, your alt must be well developed and concise. If your opponent obliterates your alt or links and you cannot defend them well and did not have time to get to strong A2s to their case, you most likely will lose. I am well aware that you probably do not have "time" to do any of this well within LD speech constraints. But so are you before you make the decision to attempt to do so anyway. So, if you opt to be a policy debater in an LD round; do know that you will be judged accordingly. :)

LD is meant to be about values, failure to pull through your value, link to your value, etc will likely cost you the round

Speed/Spreading: Spreading in LD will reflect in your speaker points but I can flow it and won't drop you over it.

Value/Criterion: Even if I do not buy a particular side's value/criterion, their opponent MUST point out what is wrong with it. I do not interventionist judge. I base my decision on the value and/criterion presented; make sure you connect your arguments back to your criterion.

Framework: UNDERSTAND YOUR FRAMEWORK. I cannot stress this enough. If your framework is absolutely terribly put together, you will lose. If you blatantly misrepresent or misunderstand your framework, you will lose.

I will ignore all new arguments after the first AR.

Policy Debate

Solvency: THE AFF PLAN MUST SOLVE

Topicality: I am VERY broad in my interpretation of topicality. Thus, only use Topicality if you truly have a truly legitimate cause to do so. I am not a fan of hearing T just to take up time or for the sake of throwing it on the flow. I will only vote for T if is truly blatant or if the aff does not defend.

Ks: If you are unsure how to run a K, then don't do it. I expect solid links to case, and a strong alternative. "Reject Aff" is not a strong alternative. Again, use if you have legitimate cause, not just to take up time or to have something extra on the flow.

Critical Affs: If you are unsure how to run a K, then don't do it.

DAs: Make sure you link and make your impact clear.

CPs: Your CP MUST be clearly mutually exclusive and can NOT just piggy back off of your opponent's plan. Generic CPs rarely win with me. (Basically, "We should have all 50 states do my opponent's exact plan instead of the Federal Government doing it" is just a silly argument to me)

Speed/Spreading: I don't mind speed as long as you're speaking clearly.

Fiat: I don't mind fiats AS LONG AS THEY MAKE SENSE. Please don't fiat something that is highly improbable (IE: All 50 states doing a 50 state counterplan on a issue several states disagree with). "Cost" is almost always fiated for me. Everything costs money and we won't figure out where to come up with that money in an hour and a half debate round.

Tag Team Debate/ Open CX: For me personally, both partners may answer but only one may ask. UNLESS tournament rules state something different. Then we will abide by tournament rules.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me before the round begins.

Sohaer Syed Sidwell

Zhe Tang Sidwell

Tammy Trout-McIntyre East Ridge High School

Last changed on Sat April 29, 2023 at 5:22 AM CDT

I am currently the Assistant Coach for East Ridge High School in Woodbury, Minnesota. I coach Congressional Debate and Public Forum.

Background:

High School Debate (Iowa): Public Forum Debate, Congressional Debate, and Speech

College Debate (Loyola U): Parliamentary Debate

Coach/Mentoring: The Chicago Debate League, MN Urban Debate League

Retired Attorney – Business Law for pay and Constitutional Law for fun.

Congressional Debate:

-Congressional Debate is not a Speech event; I am looking for argumentation skills that further the debate.

-I encourage signposting, great intros, and a quick summary conclusion. When appropriate, a joke or pun is always welcome.

-I expect clash, cited evidence, and rebuttal.

-I also appreciate students who immerse themselves in the debate and act as if their votes have importance to their constituents back home.

-The authorship or sponsorship speech should address the status quo, lay out the problem(s), and explain with specificity how the legislation solves it. The first con should be equally as strong. Second-round speeches and beyond should advance the debate – offer something new, clarify something that has been said, or refute something proffered.

-If you are speaking near the end of the debate, then a top-notch, crystallization speech is in order and very much enjoyed when done well.

-One amazing speech will always beat out three mediocre speeches.

-No same-sided questions...it does not further debate.

-Don't break the cycle of debate; either flip sides or give a speech on another piece of legislation.

-Refrain from the three Rs: Repeat, Rehash, Recycle.

-Make your arguments stronger, not louder.

-I expect you to treat your colleagues with respect and civility. Shouting, pointing fingers (literally), and being downright rude in questioning will drop you quickly. I like questions that further debate and shore up the arguments. I frown upon unsportsmanlike shenanigans – no “gotcha” or snarky questions. My frown will extend to chamber rankings.

Presiding Officer: Please consider the job of PO ONLY if you are comfortable with Parliamentary Procedure, keeping track of recency and precedence, and running a controlled chamber. If you are a presiding officer, I want it to run so smoothly and fairly that I never have to step in. I do not mind some levity, but this is also a competition. As PO, please explain your gaveling procedure, your understanding of recency and precedence, and how you call on representatives for questioning. Please do not call for "orders of the day" in front of me. Y'all are using it wrong to give your stats from the round.

Public Forum Debate:

>>>SPEED: I am a Coach, but I still can't write as fast as I hear you. You never said if it does not make it to my flow.

Clear signposting.

Off-time roadmaps work for me.

I am a fan of clear and smart frameworks.

Don't cherry-pick your evidence.

I want to hear debate on the NSDA PF resolution only. Run anything else at your own risk!

I really need narrative and great warranting - please extend them through the flow. Quantitative impacts mean nothing to me if I don't know how to weigh them.

Are you still terminally impacting to Nuclear War in 2021? If so, use caution because the probability is about 1%. I know that, you know that, and the academic literature states that.

I prefer line-by-line rebuttals.

Collapse as necessary to keep the debate sharp.

Please weigh in summary and final focus. If you want something to be a voting issue, put it in both the summary and final focus. If you don't weigh the round for me, I will, and I will use criteria that will definitely frustrate at least 50% of competitors in the round.

Sierra Valdez Hire

Nagajyothi Vemulapalli Edavalapati Independent

Katelynn Warmbold The Potomac School

Last changed on Sat April 15, 2023 at 4:06 AM EDT

I am a coach at The Potomac School. Experience in coaching and competing in speech and debate at the High School and College levels - 12 years.

Basic round guidelines:

-General courtesy towards other debaters/speakers. Good sportsmanship before, during, and after rounds.

-Be careful about making large scale claims about minority/marginalized groups, arguments need to be more general (i.e. people in x situation generally do y. NOT this group does y in x situation.). In my mind this is the easiest way to create a friendly and educational environment that doesn't exclude people or make them uncomfortable.

Congress:

Delivery - At a minimum I must be able to hear and understand the words you are saying. I am not a fan of visual aids, I find they usually waste time and distract from the speech's purpose.

Evidence usage - Evidence should inform and bolster your argument. Looking for a good balance of evidence variety and volume.

Analysis - I need to know the context of the evidence that is being provided and see how it connects to your argument. I will not connect the dots myself.

Decorum - Maintain good sportsmanship and a professional atmosphere.

Voting - If there is an outstanding decorum issue, this will be my primary voting point and I will note it in your ballot. Other than that, I will always lean towards analysis.

Debate Rounds:

-Heavier on content than delivery, but delivery must be understandable, (i.e. slow enough to understand, If you do spread, I'll do my best to flow and follow the speech but if it's too fast, the arguments get dropped) have a sense of clarity, and some composure.

-Round clash is important - including directly answering questions from opponents.

-Warranting and impacting makes up a large part of my ballot.

Speech:

-Looking to see the full range of your speaking capabilities.

-Please make sure I can hear you in rounds, if I cannot hear you, I cannot rank you properly.

-Do NOT use your phones during rounds. Please show respect to your fellow speakers.

Arthur Weissman American Heritage Broward HS

Kim Wingo Purvis High School None

Fumihiko Yashiro Scottsdale Preparatory Academy

Ann Yu Lambert High School

Alex Zhang Stratford

Jin Zhang Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy

Michael Zhao Hire

Login to Tabroom:

49th Harvard National Forensics Tournament

2023 — Cambridge, MA/US

Congress (HS-In Person) Paradigm List

Judges