I am a Software Engineer working in the Industry for about 20 years primarily on Security and Networking.

As a judge I primarily look for ideas presented with confidence, passion while connecting with audience.

Hi! I'm currently a college freshman and was involved on the national circuit for all four years of high school, competing in speech (dec, OI) one year and congress for the remaining three. I judge congress, so my background in these events has provided me a balance for appreciation for both content and style.

For speakers:

• I heavily focus on and require refutation after authorships/sponsorships. This is a debate event, so I expect you to be interacting with other competitors and integrating their claims into your arguments. Please don't rehash—I expect each subsequent speech to build off clash of previous ones, but you still should be bringing new information and ideas to the table that distinguish yourself from other speakers (especially for crystallization speeches!)
• Additionally, while I do find same-side refutation to be interesting (when necessary), I don't want to see entire speeches contesting your own side as it just becomes repetitive and insignificant to the overall debate if overdone.
• Please be respectful of one another! Everyone deserves to feel comfortable and respected, and you can expect your ballot to be impacted if you don't abide that.
• Follow the guidance of the PO throughout the round but don't be afraid to raise point of order if there is a clear issue. If not, interrupting them only makes the round longer and could cause people to not get all their speeches in.
• Don't talk over others in questioning blocks, especially over Zoom. Yelling at each other kind of just results in a loud clutter of noise that no one can understand coming out of a computer. Also, when the questioning period is over, please stop talking and allow the PO to proceed. We're sometimes on a tight schedule, so getting through rounds efficiently as possible is absolutely key.
• Have fun! I love good rhetoric and speech themes, so don't be afraid to integrate them into your speeches as it makes the round more lively and intriguing.

For POs:

• Please run the room efficiently and be respectful of all competitors
• Review procedures at the beginning of the round (and throughout if competitor clarification is needed)
• I always take POs into consideration as their role is really valuable to the round, but that becomes less evident in my rankings if consistent mistakes are made
• Let me know how you will be tracking recency as it is extremely important to round functioning
• Be respectful of all competitors! There is no need to hold grudges and structure the round to hurt anyone; please don't exploit your power as a PO to do so.

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. I support the NSDA's position that every student deserves a caring and welcoming environment—one that is committed to conditions of fairness, fosters inclusion, affirms identity, celebrates lived experiences, and protects from harassment and discrimination.

Hi, my name is Isabelle Bennette. I've competed and judged in Individual Events, Public Forum, and Congress.

I prefer a polite debate/speech space.

For debaters, time yourself. Speed is not a factor in my decision. Have sources for all content and do not purposely misinterpret your opponent's arguments. Impacts are the most important element of your case. Signpost everything.

For speakers, try your best to enunciate, use hand motions, and make eye contact. For dramatic speeches (Prose/Poetry, Duo, POI, HI, DI, etc.), I want to see and experience strong emotion. For informational speeches (Extemp, OO, etc.) try to include humor, speak clearly and conversationally.

Best of luck to all of you! I will try my best to be a fair judge.

I did debate all 4 years of high school, I competed 3 years at State and 1 year at Nats in Policy. My main debate event was Policy debate, which I debated both circuit and lay. I also competed in Public Forum, LD, Parli, Big Questions, and Congress so I am pretty well versed in all debate formats. I am pretty well versed in theory but I do hold a preference to policymaker positions, although I am not opposed to a well argued kritique. Overall I am pretty tech over truth, but I do draw the line at overly aggressive and/or combative argumentation. While I do believe that debate is a game, I do not believe that debate trump's my morals as a person. So make sure to be respectful at all times or I will dock speaker points. I am mainly a flow judge so make sure to have clear signposting in order to make it easier for me to record argument rebuttals on the flow. I do not mind spreading as long as I am added to the email chain (trinitybergen@gmail.com). Overall I enjoy debate and I like to see people having fun with the activity.

Policy Debate Paradigm:

Overview:

The things you are probably looking for:

Speed: I’m fine with whatever you are comfortable with--no need to try to impress me.

Performance: I do not mind a performance but make sure the performance is tied directly to the case and purpose of the debate. I am NOT some old fart, but I am a bit old school with a blend of progressive ideology.

Pre-dispositions: Please do not make arguments that you do not understand/cannot explain in order to fill the time or to confuse the opponent—I will definitely take notice and probably will not vote for you. Keep things well researched and logical and everything should be fine.

Sportsmanship: Please always be respectful of your opponents. Mean-spiritedness is not a way to show me you’re winning. Even though I will always vote for the better arguments, if you display signs of cruelty towards your opponent, your speaker points will suffer.

****Make sure you have great links…nothing worse than sitting through a round where no one understands how any of the arguments relate to the topic*********

Specifics:

Disadvantages: Unless if your strategy is extremely sophisticated/well thought out/well-rehearsed (I have encountered quite a few when I competed), I think you should always run at least 1 DA.

· The Counterplan: If done well, and the strategy around them is logical and thought-out, these are generally winners. If done poorly and you just inserted one to fill the time, I will be sad and bored.

· Procedurals/Topicality: I love a good meta-debate, and I am open to these if you guys have a solid strategy around these arguments (for example: if your opponents are illogical/made mistakes, point that out to me). However, I usually see T’s used as generic fillers, and I will not vote for a generic filler.

· The Kritik: Love Ks if done well and showcases your knowledge of the topic and argument. However, if I can sense that you don’t know what you’re talking about, running a K might hurt you.

Overall, have fun ( I understand how stressful this event can be), show me you're prepared, and always try to learn something.

Lincoln-Douglas, Big Questions Debate, and Public Forum Debate Paradigm:

My job as a judge is to be a blank slate; your job as a debater is to tell me how and why to vote and decide what the resolution/debate means to you. This includes not just topic analysis but also types of arguments and the rules of debate if you would like. If you do not provide me with voters and impacts I will use my own reasoning. I'm open all arguments but they need to be well explained.

My preference is for debates with a warranted, clearly explained analysis. I do not think tagline extensions or simply reading a card is an argument that will win you the debate. In the last speech, make it easy for me to vote for you by giving and clearly weighing voting issues- these are summaries of the debate, not simply repeating your contentions! You will have the most impact with me if you discuss magnitude, scope, etc. and also tell me why I look to your voting issues before your opponents. In terms of case debate, please consider how your two cases interact with each other to create more class; I find turns especially effective. I do listen closely during cross (even if I don't flow), so that is a place to make attacks, but if you want them to be fully considered please include them during your speeches.

Email: dhbroussard1763@gmail.com

I am an alumni that did congressional debate all four years of highschool, and thus know my way around congress quite well. I am looking for clash and rebuttal as soon as the second speaker when possible, but definitely at and past the fifth speech mark. Overall I view congress as a debate event, and while I value good presentation, I prefer good arguments.

No rehash, you can restate evidence if you can expand upon it or provide insight, but make sure to relate to the previous speaker.

I love a good PO, and will rank you high if you do a good job. That being said follow the rules of the chamber, and don't go over the grace period or talk over the PO.

Debate:

I vote based on organization. Your arguments need to get me from A to D, have good impacts that make sense and if you are claiming abuse you must be clear what was abusive. If shoes lead to death give me step to step as to why. I won’t do the work for you, I will know your speaks after the first two speeches but I look at the flow after the round to see how the over all round went. If your case doesn’t make sense on my flow then you may be dropped. Persuasion is how the other processes what they hear you say, not what you think you said.

IE:

Limited Prep:

Origination, clear follow through of how each point ties to the topic and attention getter is how I weigh the speech it’s self. Knowing your walk, time management, eye contact and good projection is what I expect the speaker to show.

Everything Else

If you do not have cards then be memorized. If you are not then be on cards, you can be a great speaker on cards but not on a minute long of a 9 minute speech. At least practice your walk, eye contact, projection and body control. You might be ranked lower for being on cards but I cannot give you the 4 or 5 if I hear a minute.
If your character is supposed to make me cry, then make every cry, make me angry make me what ever emotion your character is expressing so I can feel your message through your performance.

speak clear, speak loud and be bold. I purposely sit in the back because you need to own the room and have everyone be involved in the work you put into your piece.

Hi! I'm Ricky (she/they) and I'm a third year at Cal Poly SLO majoring in Ethnic Studies. I was a Congress kid, so if I get put into another event for judging please keep that in mind :)

I am open to theory and things like Ks, the largest thing is just spreading for me. If you spread too fast I will have trouble keeping up but you don't have to talk super slow just be mindful.PLEASE GIVE ME A COPY OF YOUR CASE IF THIS IS PF/LD/CX, etc.If this is Speech/Congress PLEASEdon't use any cookie cutter speech openers like "My opponents arg is like a cone of cotton candy, it seems nice at first but when you take a closer look, it's fluff and no substance' plssss thats so corny lol.

Also if this is Congress, PLEASE CLASH! Clash is what makes the event fun and exciting to watch.If you PO more then likely you will be getting a 3-5.

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round!

I am a lay judge, so PLEASE DON'T SPREAD. I won't flow/vote off of what I can't understand.

I prefer unique arguments over stock arguments.

Extend all arguments in summary and final focus and make it clear why you win the debate.

Three things I look for in 2nd half debate:

1. Frontlining: This is extremely important.

2. Weighing: Be sure to use comparative weighing instead of just saying you outweigh. Also explain why (i.e. We outweigh based on magnitude vs. we outweigh on magnitude because saving lives is more important than saving the economy.)

3. Extend your responses to your opponents case.

4. Do not be rude in cross.

Once again, do not spread.

Have fun!

By event type, you can see my general thought process below:

Congress:

I value the PO (having been one myself in the past) and consistently rank excellence in PO over excellent in round speakers, as the PO is "on" for an entire session, rather than just for a few minutes over a couple of hours. If you are seasoned in congress, I would expect that you run for PO, it is your way to give back to the event, while still giving you plenty of opportunity to win your chamber. For PO's: please be loud enough to be heard in the back of the room (where I will generally be), and DO NOT POINT your gavel at the participants - for me, it is a cardinal sin of a PO (you WILL be deducted for it!)

After the first speech on each side, remember your burden - there should be a recognition that you will need to further your side of the argument, and also defend against the other side to be truly effective. There is an extemporaneous element to speeches that should be evident, rather than reading only a canned speech. I do expect a full citation on all sources. During cross, I do look for a speaker to be able to defend their aff/neg contentions - the inability to do so will hurt you in scoring of the session (I use cross as my tiebreaker with speakers - so I am listening!). At the end of the day, congress is meant to be conversational and persuasive, articulating the possibility of change - it is not necessarily meant to change the world in 90 minutes. Have some fun with this - you did a large amount of preparation for this event (up to 10 billis, aff/neg for all and cards for quick prep). The hard part is done in advance - the speeches are the end result. BONUS POINTS for you if you can make the room laugh during the round.

Impromptu

I am super open to the creative side of this event. It is the only event that does not allow for a preplanned presentation, has almost no prep, yet expects you to still make sense of a completely random topic, meme, or idea. Those that tend to do well with me will not only use their allotted time (within margin is ok), but tells me a story about their topic that is easy to follow, has structure, and gives me something to think about. Originality in this event is rewarded, and bonus points for you if you have jokes during your delivery (it is super hard to do, and shows you to be comfortable in one of the most uncomfortable environments on the circuit).

Extemp

This is, and always has been, my favorite event! I value the analysis and warranting of a topic over a volume of evidence your speech. Draw me the map of the topic, why you are choosing your direction and how you are supporting your ideas. I will find it difficult to rank you highly if all that you do is throw out card after card throughout the presentation. Remember, there is a presentation element to this event - there should not be a need for more than 4 or 5 sources, as they are meant to be supportive of your spin on the topic, not the crux of the argument. Presentation quality is a HUGE factor - and is most likely my tiebreaker in many rounds. Lay out the ideas in order and summarize at the end. Leave me something to remember you by - what sets you apart in round, how do I justify giving you the 1?

LD

DO NOT SPREAD in this event. I have expectations that LD is a more traditional debate format, where the conversational nature of the event is to persuade me to believe in your conclusions, so I expect a traditional case. There should not be progressives, kritiks or counterplans in an LD round - if you want to play that way - you should look at competing in policy, not LD. I rely on framework to evaluate the round and value warranting and analysis over volumes of evidence. The articulation of the value definition, your analytical ability and weight of your argument in the framework of the case are primary ballot drivers.

As a judge, I rely on the debaters to handle and treat their evidence properly. Do not cut off a card to make it fit your point. If the whole card actually means something else, find a proper card to support your contention. If there are questions about use of evidence and I ask for your card, you should be very concerned. I assume all debaters will make ethical use of evidence. That said, I will follow tournament procedures for any and all violations and will immediately drop a competitor who misuses evidence. This format is meant to be a conversational exchange of the ideas at hand, not an exercise in debate theory or technical games. If you wish to explore those options in round, it is highly unlikely that you will earn my ballot.

Policy

Spreading: I think this is an educational activity; therefore, I do not like any sneaky tactics that give you an unfair advantage. For this reason, I am not a huge proponent of the spread format. Overall, spread rounds make debate inaccessible for the general public, diminishes the impact of your arguments, and forces your opponent to also spread so they can respond to all of your points. Generally I will be very annoyed and hate judging this type of round, and though I CAN flow it all, I am generally not going to reward you for trying to spread your opponent out of the round. (Exception - National Invitational Tournaments - spread debate is the expectation at the highest level of competition. You should be able to spread properly if you are entering a high end invitational - this is the time when you should truly let it all go!).

I WILL NOT BE ON AN EMAIL CHAIN! Policy debate is meant to be an oral argument about a proposed POLICY, so I should be able to hear and understand what you are saying. Run whatever you want. K's, CP's, DA's, conditionality are all fair game. If you choose to spread and you are inaudible, I won't get your insights on the ffow - which has dire consequences for your side of the case. There is plenty of time (8 minutes) in a constructive to put out a variety of supports to your case, DA's, CP's, K's and the like. If you choose to spread, tread carefully.

Evidence Violations: While I am not going to be on your email chain, If I catch you committing an evidence violation I will automatically drop you and cite that as the reason for the loss. Evidence violations are getting worse on the circuits and I believe it is no longer enough to just drop the argument. Make sure your card says what is says - if you cut it off, and I notice, and if the full card is not advancing the same argument as the partial you are using - that is an evidence violation. If I am asking to review a card (or cards) at the end of the round, that is a bad omen!

Cross examination/fire: I do flow this! While you may see me checking over my flow during this time - I am still paying attention. This portion of the round is meant to be a period for you to clarify ideas and defend your statements, not do another rebuttal. No tag teaming in cross! The reason I say this is that 1). It was never originally meant to be that way. 2) I want to see each individual's skill in questioning and defending, tag teaming allows you to hide a poor cross ex member, rather than them getting better at this function of the debate.

Signposts, Weighing, Solvency, Impacts, Extensions and 1R/2R: Please signpost! Telling me you are responding to the first contention isn't enough. Tell me "On C2, "specific warrant", we have "x number" of responses". If you are responding to a DISAD tell me if you are responding to uniqueness, external link, impact or internal link. Please be as organized and specific as possible - if I can't match it to my flow easily, it is a wasted idea or argument. If you are going to address an argument as a whole, tell me (us), and tell me why that should be enough. You still have to tell me that your opponents dropped something - I am not just going to automatically flow that through, that is your responsibility. Pull dropped items forward by telling me why they matter - You MUST extend in every speech. You need to analytically interact with your opponent's responses and tell me why I should buy your argument over your opponent. A note on impacts - while it may be fun to have everything end with nuclear war, that type of impact is not going to sway me. Be realistic, a harm that is viable and a likely outcome is much more impactful than counting up dead bodies in a worst case scenario.

BQ & PF:

Similar to LD philosophy above. No need to try and get too exotic or fast.

Hello! My name is Gi Colby. I have been on the speech and debate circuit for over 6 years. I competed in Extemp and Congress in high school, and now I compete in IPDA at the college level. Congress was my main event in high school, and I competed at the likes of Harvard and TOCs and was a finalist at GMU, Sunvitational, and Princeton. I am currently an assistant coach at Tierra Linda Middle School in California, and I work under Marty De to coach events like PF, Parli, Congress, World Schools, and informative events. My former school affiliation was Western High School, and my current university that I attend is the University of Florida.

But enough about my debate career, I would like to emphasize what I like in events.

For interpretation events such as HI and Duo, I like to be entertained. I am not so much of a technical judge with these events as I do not have much experience with them, but I do know the basics, and in general, I just want a well-polished piece that makes me feel something, and a speaker who is great as using gestures and their body language to put a piece together. I do not coach in these events, so I am not as experienced.

With informative and OO, which I do coach in, I like a piece that is meaningful and has a topic with depth. I also value organization and excellent speaking; in fact, I would go as far as to say that I value speaker quality over topic choice. I want you to change my opinion on something or teach me something new; that is the point of these events.

With impromptu, extemp, and Parli, I like a speaker who can think on the fly and is casual about it. All of these events are centered around a lay judge, meaning that the judge has no clue what you are talking about, so I want you to be able to convey and explain the topic and its points effectively. I want to go out of a round as a judge and understand what you are saying. Specifically Parli, I value a team that can "have a conversation" with the other teams' points, meaning that they refute all of the other team's points while staying clear and concise. I also am more of a flow judge in Parli if we are speaking technical terms. Again, I value a good speaker in all events, but in general, I will rank high if you are put together, speak well, and have excellent linkage.

For Congress, SPAR, and PF, the topics that I know the most about, I value refutation. These are called debate events for a reason; if you debate well, have clash, and interact with other speeches in the round well, you have my vote. If you are the first negation in Congress, I expect you to have a basic refutation if you are on the high school level. I want a person who can argue well but also remain collected and composed. I will drop you if you yell at someone else in round. Specifically for Congress, I do not give the winning rank to POs, however, I do respect them enough to give an in-between rank. For PF, I want a well-structured Final Focus, and specifically in this event, I will consider individual performance as well as team performance.

For World Schools (as it is an exception to everything here),I do tend to value the things that you are judged on, like style, content, and strategy. I like a team that is put together, and works well together as a unit, but also has great refutation and a solid framework to the round. I also value speaking more here than at other events because a team that enunciates and has pauses in the right areas is a team for me that speaks great. Like Parli, I am more of a flow judge, but more accommodating to what is going on in the structure of this event. But overall, if you speak clearly, have great points that go with my flow, and you all work cohesively as a team, you have my ballot.

In general, what I value is a good speaker who is polite and fair, but also suited to their event, meaning debate events can argue well, informative events inform me as a judge, etc. Also, I don't particularly appreciate spreading in any event, so I will not tolerate that. I am not scared to drop you if you are rude because regardless of the event, everyone should have respect for each other as basic human beings. But, just to wrap things up, I want you to be passionate about what you are talking about and convey that passion to me. Best of luck!

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

College debate: University of Louisville then Towson University.

Grad work: Cal State Fullerton.

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

Email for chain: Devenc325@gmail.com

Speaker Point Scale

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cultural Context

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

Post Rounding

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

"Community" Members

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

Judging Proper

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few issues that should be clarified:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STRUCTURE OF SPEECHES

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

REFUTATION

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

EVIDENCE USE

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

ANALYSIS

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

About me:

Email: mcopeland2017@gmail.com

Background: Currently, I am a coach for Liberty University, where I also debated for four years, NDT Octofinalist and CEDA Octofinalist; I started by doing policy args, moved to Kritical/performance things with most of my arguments starting with black women and moving outward such as Cap, AB, Set Col, and so on). As a novice, I started debate in college and worked my way to varsity, so I have a pretty good understanding of each division.

Judging wise (general things)

How I view debate: Debate is, first and foremost, a game, but it's full of real people and real consequences, so we should keep that in mind as we play, even though it's a game with real-life implications for many of us.

Facial Expressions: I often make facial expressions during the debate, and yes, they are about the debt, so I would pay attention to it; my face will usually let you know when I am vibing and when I'm confused

Speaker points: --- subjective these days. I try to start at 28.7 and then go up and down based on a person's performance in a debate. Do you want to earn higher speaks? Don't risk clarity over speed. I'm not straining my ear to understand what you are saying. And a 2NR and 2AR that have judge instruction and tell me what I am voting on are chefs ki.ss

K AFFs --Tend to think these should be in the direction of the room. You should be prepared to answer these questions if you read these affs. What is the point of reading the 1AC in debate? What is your beef with the debate or the resolution? I think you need to have a reason why people should have to engage with your model of debate and why the education you produce is good.

K's --- What's the link? Links need to be contextualized to the aff; generally, don't be generic or links of omission unless they are entirely dropped—the more specific the aff, the better. Leveraging the framework in your favor is an underrated strategy, but I enjoy those debates. At the end of the debate, some explanation of the alternative that solves the links needs to be explained. Less is more condensed than the K in the 2NR, and you can sit and contextualize the args you go for to the 1AC and what is happening in the debate. In general, I understand most K's. Still, you should assume that I don't explain your literature base/theory or power, especially if you read psychoanalysis, Baudrillard, or anything like that in front of me.

(Putting the K on the case page makes my flow so messy, and I like pretty flows....lol)

Policy AFFs -- I always think less is more; the more advantages and scenarios, the less likely those internal link scenarios make sense.

Framework -- Framework makes the game work. The most important thing with the framework is getting OFF your blocks and answering the specific offense. I don't think TVA has to solve all of the AFF, but I do think they need to be TOPICAL, and I think you need to prove that they can access the same scholarship under the TVA.

DAs and CPs -- These are fine; CPs need to be competitive and solve the aff or significant portions of the aff with a net benefit. DAs are okay links that should be specific to the aff, and impact weighing in the 2NR is key.

Theory: Theory is fine, but just reading blocks back and forth at one another is not --- to win theory, a significant portion of the 2NR and 2AR need to be dedicated to them to win this in front of me -- and disclosure is something I would say I have a higher threshold on really need to prove in round abuse to win

Speak at a pace that people can understand. In order to cover too many thing in your time limit don't speak so fast that i cannot understand anything .

Be authoritative in what you say. if you are not convinced what you are saying, i am not convinced either.

Enjoy speech and debate!!!!

Former National Qualifier in LD; Head Coach; Senior Debate Instructor for Capitol Debate

General: No spreading, no K's

Lincoln-Douglas

I am an old school LD'er. I want a lot of value clash. Your case should be supported by philosophy. I think evidence cards are important but I don't believe that you have to be doing evidence clash the entire round to win. Usually, the person who wins the value debate wins the round.

Every contention should tie back to your value and criterion. Bringing up cross examination in your rebuttals is a plus.

The NR should just be 3 minutes of defense, and 3 minutes of voting issues. The 2AR should only be voting issues.

Public Forum

Have a weighing mechanism. Definitions and Observations are good if applicable to the resolution, and I do want you to revisit them in Summary and Final Focus. Rebuttal should include evidence clash. I may call for cards if I question the validity of the evidence.

In Crossfire, please be polite. While I don't flow crossfire, I do consider it in my final decision.

Summary - go over main points from rebuttal, collapse on main issues

Final Focus - voting issues only.

World Schools

I'm very big on framework. Definitions and burdens will be very important. If it's an esoteric resolution, it would be nice to get some history/background info before delving into your argumentation.

I like hearing arguments that can tie into the real world - per the NSDA, Prop and Opp teams should engage with the debate on a principled level and a pragmatic level. While evidence is good, it's also good to be able to argue your position on a logical level.

I don't really like it when teams reject every single POI. While you don't have to answer every one, you should be able to answer at least one per speech. Answering POI's can strengthen your argument if you are prepared.

The reply speech should just be voters/crystallization.

Finally, I really value clear, succinct speaking without too much repetition.

I am a former coach (2 years) for JHS and current English teacher on campus. I have spent more time judging speech, but much more time coaching in Congress and WSD. For Congress, I am looking for:

-Civil treatment of peers, stay engaged in round--I shouldn't see you on your phones! Respond with rhetoric and emotional inflection of course, but take care not to come across as combative. I am interested in the clash of ideas, not personalities. Substance over style.

-I know good sources and unique points of view when I see them and will credit your time well spent in preparation. Show me that work in your speech with clear, solid warrants and evidence to back them up.

-I comment actively as I listen and revise my order frequently throughout the round. Do not feel that you have wasted a round because of a single mistake. Every speech is a new speech, but you are expected to work to stand out above your peers for higher ranking.

-Clarity is key but the best argument carries the cycle: every round has a lot of speeches, how can you make your speech distinctive by differentiating your perspective from others in speeches and questioning rounds? Can you defend yourself against expected points of contention? Did you save any evidence for questioning or did you just memorize your cards? Good arguments should contain both evidence from qualified sources AND analysis. Solvency/Concluding remarks should be brief but impactful for success.

-(rare) Trigger warnings for speeches containing graphic descriptions of violence or sexual assault; this is rarely relevant to policy but a general rule of thumb

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

Background:

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

Collegiate and Professional Competitive Experience:

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

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

Pro Competitor at Archers, Acolytes, and Associates from LA

DEBATE:

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

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

IE'S/SPEECH:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coaching Experience:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW WHEN I JUDGE YOU:

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

2. Evidence

A. Recency

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

B. Citing

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

C. Sourcing

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

D. Conflicting evidence

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

E Quality/Bias:

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

3. Delivery:

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

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

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

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

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

4. Argumentation

Types of Arguments I will and won't listen to

A. All events:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Event Specific Notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. Congress ONLY:

1. CLASH is the most important part of congress.

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

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

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

3. Speaking order

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

4. Organization

A. Within a speech

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

B. Within an argument

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

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

5. PO'S

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

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

Director of Forensics at Bentley School, Lafayette
High school and college experience

I flow the round, but I promise there is a high probability that I will get lost if you go too fast or jump around with your arguments. You’ll benefit from signposting and staying organized. I prefer fleshed out arguments and not blips. Don’t assume I know theory. If something is a voting issue, explain it to me. Always tell me "why".

I’ve spent many years coaching speech events and I appreciate quality public speaking skills, along with respect towards your teammate and opponents.

By the end of the round, you need to tell me why I should be voting for you over your opponent. What are the voting issues and how do your impacts outweigh your opponent's impacts?

What I like to hear: when it comes down to it, pacing, and emphasis on important points are key to great speech delivery, and direct refutations are a must

Total old school debater, just prove how you win each stock issue, and be convincing. Speech roadmaps and organization is much appreciated!

Normally, T and Spec arguments mean that the neg doesn't have much to run, but if it is blatantly untopical, ect., go for it.

Spreading/Champ Reading- awesome, as long as you're good at it. don't try spreading if you haven't practiced, ect.

Public Forum- Clarity is important, why your reasoning is most logical, impact/advantage magnitude, weighing

Ks and CPs- Yes. Kritiks are great as long as you make the three parts clear, and I'm a sucker for philosophy Ks. Counterplans are cool, just again compare stock issues, show how you solve better.

Congress- clash is obviously super important judging aspect, speech organization with a brief overview/roadmap is always great

LD-well developed value&criterion, demonstrate steps of refutation

Policy Debate

I am not interested in spreading! I can hang with some speed, but will GREATLY value impact crystallization and a touch of rhetorical flare.

I have NSDA VCX judging experience, and am a veteran coach/director, with over 15 years of experience and Congress was my primary debate event.

Would prefer not to have to judge the "K" but am down for whatever you decide...If I hear racism, discrimination, sexism, or even tacit xenophobic arguments of any sort I'll drop you immediately and take appropriate follow-up steps.

Congressional Debate

I competed in the NSDA during the 1999-2001 seasons and Congressional Debate was my primary national event. I value an actual "debate" of the legislation at hand, enthusiastic competitors who carry the debate forward in every facet of the round, and adept usage of parliamentary procedure. I ABSOLUTELY view Congress as a debate event and will base my acceptance of evidence predicated on appropriate citation provision. Clash is king in the round and I fully expect direct refutations and spirited, clever, cross-examination sessions.

My email:

jgarrett@nhusd.k12.ca.us

I've been judging Congressional Debate at the TOC since 2011. I'm looking for no rehash & building upon the argumentation. I want to hear you demonstrate true comparative understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the plan presented by the legislation. Don't simply praise or criticize the status quo as if the legislation before you doesn't exist.

L-D Paradigm:

Each LDer should have a value/value criterion that clarifies how their case should be interpreted.

I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting whose V/VC weighs most heavily under their case. Winning this is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning at the contention level, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round.

Voting down the flow, if both sides prove framework and there’s not a lot of clash I would move on to the contention level and judge off the flow.

PUBLIC FORUM

SPEED
Don't. I can't deal with speed.

EVIDENCE
Paraphrasing is a horrible practice that I discourage. Additionally, I want to hear evidence dates (year of publication at a minimum) and sources (with author's credential if possible) cited in all evidence.

REBUTTALS
I believe it is the second team's duty to address both sides of the flow in the second team's rebuttal. A second team that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as whichever arguments go unaddressed are essentially conceded.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point.

FINAL FOCUS
FOCUS is key. I would prefer 2 big arguments over 10 blippy ones that span the length of the flow. If you intend to make an argument in the FF, it should have been well explained, supported with analysis and/or evidence, and extended from its origin point in the debate all the way through the FF.

IMPACTS

I rock with the nuclear war impact, but it's getting a little old, lol. The concept of a nuclear war is too complex and I find that it's been thrown too loosely in the debate space. I know it's cliche, but please don't generate this impact and tell me you win on magnitude and expect that to be a reason for me to give your team an easy ballot. If one of your impacts genuinely leads to an outbreak of a nuclear war, please warrant it well.

INTERPoverall: I pay real close attention to the introduction of each piece, I look for the lens of analysis and the central thesis that will be advanced during the interpretation of literature. When the performance is happening, I'm checking to see if they have dug down deep enough into an understanding of their literature through that intro and have given me a way to contextualize the events that are happening during the performance

POI: I look for clean transitions and characterization (if doing multiple voices).

DI: I look for the small human elements that come from acting. Big and loud gestures are not always the way to convey the point, sometimes something smaller gets the point more powerfully.

HI: I look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. And of course the humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well researched speech that has a strong message to deliver. Regardless of the genre of info you're presenting, I think that showing you've been exhaustive with your understanding is a good way to win my ballot. I'm not wow'd by flashy visuals that add little substance, and I'm put off by speeches that misrepresent intellectual concepts, even unintentionally. I like speeches that have a conclusion, and if the end of your speech is "and we still don't know" then I think you might want to reassess the overall direction you are taking.

FX/DX: When I'm evaluating an extemp speech, I'm continually thinking "did they answer the question? or did they answer something that sounded similar?" So keep that in your mind. Are you directly answering the question? When you present information that could be removed without affecting the overall quality of the speech, that is a sign that there wasn't enough research done by the speaker. What I vote on in terms of content are speeches that show a depth of understanding of the topic by evaluating the wider implications that a topic has for the area/region/politics/etc.

OFFICIALLY RETIRED

I judge and rate based on comparative rating of the following elements of the presentation - quality of content, timing and flow of speech, confidence in arguments and defense, body language, references/examples used to support the topic. Good luck!

The factors of utmost persuasion for this judge, good enunciation, a confident demeanor, and a passionate and well-fought speech. Please be personable and respectful. Thank you :D

Background/Top-Level:

He/him/his

I am beginning to judge more events other than just policy but I have almost zero experience with other forms of debate.

Please include me on the email chain: joshlamet@gmail.com. Everyone gets plus .1 speaks if I'm not asked to be put on, and I'm just automatically put on the chain. Ask me any questions about my paradigm in person or via email, although I try to update it regularly with the most important stuff.

School conflicts: Minnesota, Glenbrook North, Como Park

I don't care what you read as long as you convince me to vote for you, I will.

Stuff related to online debating:

Don't delete analytics from the speech doc, please. I'll probably dock your speaks if I remember to. Online debate is harder to flow than in-person so it's good practice if you want me to catch everything you're saying.

Please slow down a little (especially on T and theory*) because the number of arguments I flow is rarely equal to the number of arguments the speaker actually makes, and those numbers will be much closer to each other if everyone prioritizes clarity and slowing down a bit. Don't just read this and think you're fine. Slow down, please. I know half of all judges ever have something like this in their paradigm but I'm a slower flow than average because I flow on paper.

Sliders:

Policy------------------x-------------------K

Read a plan-------------------------------x---------Do whatever (probably at least sorta related to the topic)

Tech--------------x----------------------------Truth -- I hate myself for it, but I am kind of a truth-orientated judge in that I really don't want to vote for silly args, and the worse an arg is, the more leeway I give to answering it

Tricks---------------------------x--------------Clash

Theory-------------------------------------x--------- Substance -- condo is really the only theory arg that gets to the level of "reject the team", I simply feel that most other theory args are reasons to reject the arg, not the team. Unless the negative goes for the CP/K to which the theory applies in the 2nr, it's a tough sell for me to vote on, "They read [insert abusive off-case position], they should lose".

Conditionality good--------x---------------------Conditionality bad -- this being said, I would much rather see 4-6 good off, than a 7+ mix of good and bad

States CP good (including uniformity)-----------x----------------------50 state fiat is bad

Always VTL----------------x---------------------Never VTL

Impact turn (*almost) everything-x-----------------------------I like boring debate -- to add to this, I'm a huge sap for impact calc and specifically rebuttals that provide a detailed narrative of the impacts of the debate and how they interact with the other team's. Impact comparison and impact turns are often the deciding factors for me in close debates

*Almost meaning I'll vote on warming good, death good, etc. but not on args like racism good or ableism good. Why don't people read death good anymore? I am an edgy teenager at heart and could be convinced the human race should go extinct.

Limits---------------x-------------------------------Aff Ground

Process CP's are cheating----------------------x---------------Best fall-back 2nr option is a cheating, plan-stealing CP

Lit determines legitimacy-------x-----------------------Exclude all suspect CPs

Yes judge kick the CP--x-------------------------------------------Judge kick is abusive -- as long as the 2nr says to kick the CP, I'm gonna kick it and just analyze the world of the squo vs the aff and I'm pretty sure there's nothing the aff can really do if condo bad isn't a thing in the round. Heck, I judged a debate where the CP was extended for 30 seconds and not kicked but I still voted neg because the neg won a large risk of a case turn. What I'm saying, is that when you are aff and the neg goes for more than just the CP with an internal NB, beating the CP doesn't equate to winning the debate outright

Presumption----------x--------------------------Never votes on presumption

"Insert this rehighlighting"---------------------x--I only read what you read

I flow on my computer ---------------------------------------x I'm gonna need to borrow some paper

I try to give out speaker points that are representative of how well you performed in the round compared to the tournament as a whole. I try to follow the process detailed here, but I often find myself handing out speaks sort of indiscriminately. Getting good speaks from me includes being respectful and making good choices in the rebuttals (smart kickouts, concessions, and flow coverage).

Clash! I like judging debates where the arguments/positions evolve about one another as opposed to simply in vacuums.

Don't be sloppy with sources.

Random things I am not a fan of: Excessive cross-applications, not doing LBL, email/tech issues, making my decision harder than it should be, and 2ACs and 1ARs that don't extend case impacts (even when they're dropped).

T-USFG/FW:

Fairness is an impact----------x-------------------Fairness is only an internal link -- My threshold is usually how close your aff is to the topic in the abstract, i.e. econ inequality and nukes. I do feel like in the end the main goal of doing debate is to win. The activity serves a ton of other purposes but at the end of each debate, one team wins, and one team loses. This doesn't mean that I think reading a planless aff is unfair and can be convinced that a "fair" debate produces something bad, but it's going to be very hard to convince me that debate is not a game.

Topic education is decent for an education impact but policymaking and policy education are meh. Critical thinking skills can also be extracted from debate and critical skills about calling out state action and for revolution planning.

If you don't read a written-out advocacy statement: Impact turn framework---------x---------------------------Procedural

Debate and life aren't synonymous but I understand that many of your lives revolve heavily around debate, so I will respect any arg you go for as long as you make smart arguments to support it.

For congressional debate judging, I would pay attention to the contents, the logics of evidence and how it supports the argument. In later rounds of delivery, I am emphasized on rebuttal to previous representatives, which is critical as we are in a congress debate. Most importantly, please enjoy your debate!

Congress paradigm:

• Canned speeches (unless 1st affirmative) are going to be ranked lower; Meaning that debating and involving other competitors' points will be seen as a high-ranking speech; Don't read off a prewritten speech
• Questioning; Don't deflect questions given; No expository questions; Don't try to stump other competitors to prove them incorrect unless you will have it added to your points in your speech.
• Confidence is key!

Hi, my name is Khloe Maldonado, my pronouns are she/her/hers.

Southeast High School 23' || Wake Forest University 27'

A little bit about me:

I competed in congressional debate for four years- all of my high school and speech & debate career. I am very well versed in Tabroom and online competing as my sophomore year of debate was done through only online tournaments. I am a 2x NSDA & NCFL national qualifier, and I competed at NCFL nationals in 2022 where I advanced to the semi-finals. I routinely won first place at my debate tournaments from the start of my junior year till the end of my senior year.

Decorum:

-I will not tolerate being mean or impolite to any representatives within the chamber. Congress tends to get a bit feisty and it's easy to be mean to other representatives

-Do not roll your eyes during others' speeches

-Do not purposely misgender other individuals

-No cross-questioning

Congressional Debate:

-Be an ACTIVE member, what does this mean? Ask questions! Try to ask at least one question after every speech, get me and the other judges to remember your name, it makes a difference.

-Do not give simple reasons for why the chamber should support the affirmation or negation of a piece of legislation, I am looking for complex points of evidence and for representatives to not copy each other's points unless it is in the form of a rebuttal, the point of all these speeches to introduce new information to either support or negate the legislation

-Make sure you reference other representatives within your chamber, rebuke or support their points- the choice is yours, but I will give more points to those who make a point of referencing other representatives

-Eye contact: do not read directly from your legal pad/paper/computer/etc. look up every so often, make eye contact with the rest of the chamber, including the judges

-Talk at a pace that works for you, enunciate your words, and make your point clear. The point of Congress is to be strong in your opinion and make sure the rest of the chamber knows you're strong as well- this becomes apparent when you create your own speaking voice and convey your words effectively

-Try to move around a little bit- but not too much. Do not be stagnant during your speech, using your body correctly is just as important as using your voice correctly- take this piece of advice with you into the chamber.

-Humor during speeches is fine, but keep it appropriate

Presiding Officer:

-Do not be afraid to be PO, it can be a fun job and a good way for a judge to see a different side of you!

This is my second year judging and I'm excited to be your judge! A little bit about me - I've worked in the pharmaceutical industry for over 20 years and specialize in the area of Regulatory Affairs. In my role, I interpret regulatory guidelines and provide strategic advice to my peers and senior management. I write and provide scientific summaries to health authorities like the FDA, Health Canada and EMA. I also have experience attending meetings that clinical trial sponsors (the companies) have with the FDA. I'm interested in how students provide a concise and persuasive positions. I normally pay attention to the tone and pace of the participant in addition to the relevance of the argument to the category round.

Hi,

I work in technology space in Bay Area.

I judge for Dougherty Valley Bridge. I keep myself up to speed with the latest and greatest news and happenings in the world.

I will be taking notes during the debate.

I will judge based on the impact of the argument, how thorough and deep ones research is, hence the arguments, cross examination and refutations are. I look at how well the speech / argument is delivered, how confident the speaker is and how they are actively participating in their rounds. I definitely expect the speakers to be respectful to each other. I consider the overall presentation skills, fluency, speaking should be clear (no spreading as I will probably miss what you are saying), tone modulation and eye contact

Don’t be nervous, enjoy your speech and most importantly have fun and learn something new.

Hi,

I would like the students to speak clearly and not rush through while debating.

Understand the topic and provide the arguments relevant to the topic.

Have a healthy environment when debating and not be too aggressive when debating on your topics.

Debate gets repetitive towards the end, try to bring unique perspective

Do not read out the points

All the best and good luck for the competition.

Congress: I'm looking for a deep understanding of the topic, regardless of the event and its understanding "requirement." I appreciate well-structured arguments which tie into the debate and topic well. Uniqueness of claim(s) is important, rehash is looked down upon. Being able to articulate/defend the claim is just as important as the evidence itself. There should be a strong willingness to refute/provide substantial arguments in opposition of the other side.

PF: I’m a parent judge so if you could speak slow, I’d appreciate it. Really break down the topic for me, don’t depend on debate jargon to win my ballot. I need to be able to understand your arguments

I am a parent judge and I have been judging events for the last 2-3 years.

For congress debate tournaments:

I look for clarity, speaking to the point, using floor space, eye contact, respect to other members. If you spread, talk too fast, run through impact parts too fast, I won't be able to keep track and will ignore them.

I try to focus and listen the entire duration of your speech. I write my feedback simultaneously as I listen to the speech. I also listen carefully to cross examinations, and will take account of every time you make a good point or defend effectively. Use your cross examination time effectively, I won't reward when there is a stalemate.

My decision is based on: framework, arguments, reasoning, evidence... Focus on why your impacts are important why they are better than your opponent. It would be good if you start out with specifics and then at the end you summarize.

I am a lay parent judge who is new to judging congress. Please speak loud and clear, and don't speak too fast. I am an attorney, so I am not a stranger to argumentation, I simply lack experience in the debate space, so please be accessible towards a lay judge.

CONGRESS PARADIGM

I am a parent judge who has been judging congress at a local, state, and national level for over 3 years. I hope this paradigm tells you a bit more about what I'm looking for.

If you deliver a speech I already heard a different competitor give before, I will give you a lower rank. There is no good reason to copy your teammate's speeches, especially at prestigious bid tournaments. This goes for authorships/sponsorships, too.

PRESENTATION Congress is partially a speech event. Your presentation and delivery will factor into my judging. I love when people take more interesting, performative approaches that break up the monotony of a congress round. Please don't speak too quickly. I will hold it against you if you are reading too much from your pad and have poor eye contact. You should be familiar enough with the content of your speech to not be completely dependent on your pad. I have nothing against electronics. An iPad instead of a legal pad is perfectly fine as long as you don't let it hamper your performance.

CONTENT If you are making claims, make sure they are substantiated with evidence, especially if they are provocative or important new claims in the round. Round adaptation is extremely important. If you're just saying the same things as the previous five speakers before you, I have no reason to give you a good rank. Debaters have an obligation to engage with, build on, and refute what has been said by others in the round.

Always 1. link to the bill and 2. terminalize your impacts. Every speech needs to explain how passing this bill specifically causes a distinct harm or benefit. I don't have strict requirements for how you structure your speeches because I think that stifles innovation in this event, as long as it's a clear, understandable, effective speech.

RHETORIC I love an interesting rhetorical narrative. I think cookie cutter intros are boring. In the best case, each speech has an introduction relevant to the bill or even what has been previously said in the round. Rhetoric is not a substitute for substance. I've heard many brilliant rhetorical performances with very little content, and as much as I enjoy them, I can't rank them very high in the context of a congress round.

PRESIDING OFFICERS
I always rank competent POs well. A congress round can't run without a PO, and I will never punish someone who knows what they're doing for stepping up to perform this vital function. Please don't PO if you don't know what you're doing. Yes, everyone has to PO for the first time at some point, but you should still be coming prepared and as someone who is already familiar with how congress works. POing should not be a cop-out for being underprepared.

Some notes for novices/people who are new to congress:

• Memorize parts of your speech
• If you're speaking later in the round, don't just deliver the speech you came prepared with - adapt!
• Be prepared to switch sides on a one-sided bill: you're doing the chamber and your judges a favor
• Be courteous: don't use parliamentary procedure as a tool to exclude or disadvantage others
• Enjoy yourself! Winning 1st place doesn't mean much if you didn't have fun

School Affiliation: Dougherty Valley High School

Event Type: Congress

Hi everyone! This is my first year judging so I'm still relatively new to the concept.

The main things I look for are to establish an active presence in the chamber and continue participating throughout the entirety of the round.

I appreciate humorous, conversational-style speeches that can hold my attention alongside strong impacts to understand why your argument is relevant to me.

For late-round speeches, I look for engagement with other speakers as well as strong refutations with minimal rehash.

During questioning, I value respect, which involves letting others respond without cutting them.

Since I won't be taking any notes, but rather listening in on the debate, it's on you to distinguish yourself so that I can remember you as I submit my rankings afterward.

Good luck!

I am an experienced coach and judge. I have competed, coached and judged in all areas of speech & debate.

I am a 'tabula rasa' judge, which for me means that I will listen to any reasonable argument. I am always interested in hearing creative approaches to any resolution. However, I fully support the format, style and philosophy of each debate and speech event.

I am not adverse to rapid speaking, because debate time is limited. BUT I will not condone 'spreading' as a tactic. If you insist you win because the opponent did not address all of your issues, I may or may not accept your premise.

Evidence is primary to any good argument. You should be able to coherently present your evidence with citation in every instance. Referencing 'cards' in a case is ambiguous, since I will not have your case in front of me.

In all Cross Ex portions, LISTEN to your opponent. Address their concerns and their rationale for opposing you. Be civil and understand they have as much a right to be here as you do.

I will not make your case for you. I may be very familiar with the resolution, strategy and line of reasoning you are using, but I will not assume you even know what you are talking about. You have to know your case and be able to defend it.

In Congress, competitors must listen to the line of argument and offer unique and relevant arguments. Repeating points or delivering a prepared speech that does not advance the debate is poor practice and means you do not know the bill. Logic and analysis are fine, but a warrantless argument will not have a very big impact.

I do not rank POs particularly high. A competent PO will score near the middle of a typical Congress round.

In Extemp, I want to learn new things, hear unique ideas and understand my world better.

In LD, I am neither a traditionalist or progressive; I want to hear a values-based argument founded on a good philosophical framework. Values are precursors to behaviors, so there is no solving of problems or plans of action.

I have judged HS and MS debate for 4 years now, so I have am familiar with the inner workings of Congress and PF. Some things I look for:

Clash and Refutations- As the round develops, there needs to be more refutations/analysis of the debate as a whole. I don’t want a repetition of points and want you to engage with other senators

Rhetoric/Speaking: I need to be able to hear you properly. Speak clearly and at a reasonable rate. I like emotion and rhetoric in speeches, but make sure your arguments are sound too

As always, be respectful of everyone, especially during cross-ex. Things can get a little tense in cross-ex, so just be professional you’ll be alright.

Hey,

My name is Jay and I have competed for 4 years in Congressional Debate, World Schools and Extemp in the national circuit.

For Congressional Debate:

The main thing I judge is checking to see if you are establishing a clear net benefit or net harm. You are getting dropped on my ballot if you are on the negation and don't clearly tell me how the bill harms the American public. Similarly for the affirmative, I expect a clear establishment of the net benefit. Additionally, I expect a proper framework of debate. This means early speeches should be constructive to the round, with later speeches becoming extensions and rebuttals that add to previous speeches. Weighing the impacts of the affirmation vs. the negation is also very important in late-round speeches.

I am not a big stickler for rhetoric, but I look for a clear link between arguments (rhetoric is always secondary to clean argumentation). That being said, better rhetoric does add to your speech and make your speech even better in a round with great competitors. However, I expect intros/conclusions to be memorized and the speaker to have tonal variety. I am also fine with anything on cross-examination- I just want a clear point to get across with every question.

I usually rank presiding officers in my top 5. However, I expect them to run a fast and efficient round and a round with little to no mistakes. I highly discourage one-sided debate, especially at tournaments that allow internet access and I urge the presiding officer to emphasize that in rounds and work with the chamber to find solutions.

For WS:

The main thing that I look for is a clear net benefit and harm. Good weighing will immediately get you my ballot. For the rest on rhetoric, check above.

Good luck today- I hope everyone has fun!

1. Group your arguments clearly, usually persuaded by large set of well developed & cited arguments.
2. Deliver your arguments slowly and clearly, backed up with evidence (historical/political/data) and adequate reasoning.
3. Evidences should be cited with author and any other relevant info.
4. I'd look for a well structured plan, impact and evidences over pragmatic analysis.
5. Be polite, civil and exhibit eye contact with your fellow debaters as well as with the judges.

Email - chulho.synn@sduhsd.net.

tl;dr - I vote for teams that know the topic, can indict/rehighlight key evidence, frame to their advantage, can weigh impacts in 4 dimensions (mag, scope, probability, sequence/timing or prereq impacts), and are organized and efficient in their arguments and use of prep and speech time. I am TRUTHFUL TECH.

Overview - 1) I judge all debate events; 2) I agree with the way debate has evolved: progressive debate and Ks, diversity and equity, technique; 3) On technique: a) Speed and speech docs > Slow no docs; b) Open CX; c) Spreading is not a voter; 4) OK with reading less than what's in speech doc, but send updated speech doc afterwards; 5) Clipping IS a voter; 6) Evidence is core for debate; 7) Dropped arguments are conceded but I will evaluate link and impact evidence when weighing; 8) Be nice to one another; 9) I time speeches and CX, and I keep prep time; 10) I disclose, give my RFD after round.

Lincoln-Douglas - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop debater for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) PICs are OK; 5) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition and impact of definition on AFF/NEG ground wins; 6) Progressive debate OK; 7) ALT must solve to win K; 8) Plan/CP text matters; 9) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 10) Speech doc must match speech.

Policy - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop team for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition wins; 5) Progressive debate OK; 6) ALT must solve to win K; 7) Plan/CP text matters; 8) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 9) Speech doc must match speech; 10) Questions by prepping team during prep OK; 11) I've debated in and judged 1000s of Policy rounds.

Public Forum - 1) I flow; 2) T is not a voter, non-topical warrants/impacts are dropped from impact calculus; 3) Minimize paraphrasing of evidence; I prefer quotes from articles to paraphrased conclusions that overstate an author's claims and downplay the author's own caveats; 4) If paraphrased evidence is challenged, link to article and cut card must be provided to the debater challenging the evidence AND me; 5) Paraphrasing that is counter to the article author's overall conclusions is a voter; at a minimum, the argument and evidence will not be included in weighing; 6) Paraphrasing that is intentionally deceptive or entirely fabricated is a voter; the offending team will lose my ballot, receive 0 speaker points, and will be referred to the tournament director for further sanctions; 7) When asking for evidence during the round, refer to the card by author/date and tagline; do not say "could I see your solvency evidence, the impact card, and the warrant card?"; the latter takes too much time and demonstrates that the team asking for the evidence can't/won't flow; 8) Exception: Crossfire 1 when you can challenge evidence or ask naive questions about evidence, e.g., "Your Moses or Moises 18 card...what's the link?"; 9) Weigh in place (challenge warrants and impact where they appear on the flow); 10) Weigh warrants (number of internal links, probability, timeframe) and impacts (magnitude, min/max limits, scope); 11) 2nd Rebuttal should frontline to maximize the advantage of speaking second; 2nd Rebuttal is not required to frontline; if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline 2nd Summary must cover ALL of 1st Rebuttal on case, 2nd Final Focus can only use 2nd Summary case answers in their FF speech; 12) Weigh w/o using the word "weigh"; use words that reference the method of comparison, e.g., "our impact happens first", "100% probability because impacts happening now", "More people die every year from extreme climate than a theater nuclear detonation"; 13) No plan or fiat in PF, empirics prove/disprove resolution, e.g., if NATO has been substantially increasing its defense commitments to the Baltic states since 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea, then the question of why Russia hasn't attacked since 2014 suggest NATO buildup in the Baltics HAS deterred Russia from attacking; 14) No new link or impact arguments in 2nd Summary, answers to 1st Rebuttal in 2nd Summary OK if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline.

Hello!

Important: Respect others (surprisingly a lot of people don't do this)

Overall:

If I see anything that is unethical or discriminatory, you can expect a losing ballot. Please address TWs if you think you have one, and feel free to let me know if you are unsure about it.

Congress:

Speaker:

1) What cards do you have to prove we need to pass/fail the status quo and how strong are those impacts? If I can't find any substantial reasoning or no harms are weighed in the issue there is no reason for your speech.

2) I appreciate good rhetoric and ATG. It makes the 3 hours more bearable.

3) Structure: I enjoy a 2-reasoning speech and use the space around you (unless we are online)

4) Clashing: Do bring my attention to which speaker mentioned it originally and please don't rehash.

5) In crystallization speeches, I better hear the card that's been causing an issue, and how it has been resolved/not-resolved by other speakers in the round.

6) Questioning Period: Follow the PO! If they tell you to stop, then stop. Additionally, don't talk over each other or be aggressive. I hate that. We are in congress and let's respect the questioning period. Of course, if the response is taking too long, rephrase to get a specific answer.

7) Please do what the PO's procedures are! If they ask to recognize you by holding your placard up, then keep it there

PO:

1) How well did you handle the room?

2) Please always do your procedures thoroughly at the beginning, and keep to the rules you stated

3) POs will always break for me, but each mistake you make will result in a lower ranking.

4) Don't be afraid to interrupt the questioners etc, you do have the floor and what you say should go

5) Know the constitution for your bracket

6) 12 speeches/hour (try aiming for it)

Extempt

1) Don't forget to answer the question

2) Be confident and entertain me

3) This is a speech event, so any basic filler words are a no-go.

I am pretty much a debate judge, I can follow along and flow a debate really well. I understand parli jargon, but I dont like to see it outside of appropriate rounds. I also very much favor structure in debate. If you can make your arguments clear and understandable, then it makes it so much easier for me.

I have been involved with speech and debate since my son competed from 2009-2013 and have judged on and off since about 2011. My experience is mostly in speech, but have also watched a little bit of both high school and college debate. I’ve also seen a decent amount of Congress, but it is a bit more difficult for me to keep track of so many students at once. Part of my background is in theater and choir so I firmly believe in the power of public speaking. Additionally, my career was in print production so organization is of the utmost importance to me when I judge rounds. Furthermore, as someone who worked for a decade as a video producer, I have grown to appreciate well-prepared research and commitment to performance.

Alum of the program, competed 4 years and have coached for the last 2 (give or take). I have judged pf before as well as multiple speech events.

I look for who has the better cohesive argument. I also look closely for who is better able to thoughtfully deconstruct the other sides argument in cross. I am not picky, just be coherent.

I look for clear evidence and also don't rush your speech. Please do not read the arguments from your laptop or from your document and speak with confidence

TLDR: I am an interventionist judge that prefers truth over tech. The way to get me to get me to buy your arguments is to explicitly explain the link chain running through your case and spend LOOOOTS of time on the warrants and links for each card you read, each off-case, and each rebuttal. Just spreading piles of cards will get you dropped. I do weighing and cross-application myself as I flow, only spend time on it if you say something non-obvious, otherwise I ignore it. If you want to win on framework, focus on it almost exclusively, as blippy ink all over the flow for everything is too easy for me to disregard. It's not that I prefer traditional debate to progressive, it's that I want progressive debate to be used to raise the skill ceiling rather than lowering the skill floor.

Edit for Congress and Parli: If you are an opening/authorship speaker, you have a natural disadvantage, try to have at least one preemptive response to an obvious argument the opponents will bring up, otherwise, you risk reading non-interactive material purely based on how the rest of the debate goes. For parli this is less of a problem, so be sure to carefully and responsibly frame the debate so that other teams can interact without going too far afield.

Edit: I DO NOT VOTE ON CROSS APPLICATION ALONE. YOU MUST WIN YOUR CASE FIRST TO CROSS APPLY. SAY IT BRIEFLY IN YOUR FIRST SPEECH. BUT SAVE THE EXTENDED WEIGHING FOR THE END, DONT WASTE YOUR SPEECH ON CA WHEN YOU SHOULD BE ATTACKING OPPONENT'S WARRANTS.

CARDS ARE JUST DATA. YOU MUST STILL SUPPLY AND EXPLICITLY EXPLAIN THE WARRANT. TELL ME HOW THE NUMBER WAS ARRIVED AT AND READ YOUR OPPONENT'S NUMERICAL IMPACT CARDS TO CHALLENGE THEIR WARRANT. I will vote for someone who explains mechanisms of action but has no cards over someone with all the cards and no explanation. If you don't explain the warrant, and defend against opponent's alternate explanation, you don't get to claim the number. Don't just have cards that form a link chain. EXPLICITLY EXPLAIN THE LINK CHAIN. This sets out clearly what the opponent must do to respond.

I only vote off framework if the cases are a wash or you spend a ton of time on it. I'm much more easily persuaded by resolutional analysis on how an example is or isn't part of the aff world, and how relevant the stats are as a result.

Counterplans must explain how they are explicitly different from aff world (especially if the aff is claiming ground that the prewritten cp was not meant for), else Neg loses all unique offense.

Did PF and LD in high school, extemp in college.

I don't need to be on the email chain if you speak normally, but do if you spread. Most debaters who spread read too much evidence to effectively use, and most of the time reading the card reveals that the tag does not match the card text, or card text is more equivocal than the supported claim. Spreading can be used to lower the standard of evidence, as opponent has less time to respond. Therefore, I will intervene much more heavily on your side of the flow to compensate, cutting out any and all cards and links I don't personally buy.

Most arguments are fine.

If I miss something due to speed, it's not flowed. If you spread at least pause through author and date, missing those may cause me to put something in the wrong place on the flow.

The only time it's acceptable to extend an argument without briefly explaining it is your final speech.

Even if I know the K lit, I'm only voting on it if properly explained and linked.

SIGNPOST. SIGNPOST. Tell me where you are on the flow and what you're responding to.

Overviews and roadmaps shouldn't go longer than 10 seconds.

I don't vote off cross ex alone unless someone concedes something. Use it for clarification or to set up your next speech. If you use it to attack a warrant, you can save time in your next speech by referencing cross instead of reexplaining, I like it when people do that!

I strongly dislike when the text of a card does not match or fulfil its tag. If tag says extinction, the text should either say or be easily linked to extinction.

I dislike frameworks whose only function is to lock opponents from the round. In the case of a framework tie, I prefer the wider, more permissive framework.

If I'm not told how to weigh the round, I'll have to intervene. My default is to tally up the offence that links to the winning framework. I will vote off topicality.

hi yall! i coach congress for leland, but i also did pf and policy a fair bit during my time debating

TOC '22 Congress Quarterfinalist

Congress:

- dont feel pressured to do only late round speeches — I'll bump up good constructives/authorships so don't worry about not getting clash in as an early speaker

- PO's will generally be ranked pretty highly, depending on how many mistakes you make/how efficient you are

- i vote between a mix of argumentation and presentation — both are important for ranking well

- i like questions that try to point flaws in logic, try to keep new evidence for your own speeches (basically no leading questions)

- debatey terminology like "warrant" and "framework" are okay with me, but i know some judges don't like it so proceed with caution

- don't forget the congress roleplay! That also means that you can include arguments that come as a consequence of previous legislation — e.g. if theres a docket that includes VAT tax and UBI, and VAT tax was passed in an earlier round, then you can now use that to fund the UBI bill! don't forget the congressional rhetoric too

- please please please please figure and stick to splits at the beginning of the round — too many times in which people got screwed because the aff/neg cycle screws over later speakers. if you are forced/choose to flip, ill bump you up

General debate (excluding Congress):

- if rules allow, add me on the email chain: smmzhu@gmail.com

- feel free to run unique and strange arguments, as long as they are explained well and arent offensive

- progressive arguments (Ks, high theory) may be evaluated if i can understand them, but I have basically no experience in progressive arguments, so run at your own risk

- spread at your own risk (250+ wpm), and send a speech doc past 200+ wpm

- signpost pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

- anything racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc. = automatic drop (duh), also make sure to include content warnings when necessary

- please don't be rude

- being funny will help ur speaks, debate can get dry without it

- ill disclose if tourney rules allow and both teams agree

PF:

- paraphrasing is okay, I will assume that your card tags are correct until someone contests them (if there is slight ambiguity then that's okay, but if there's wild misconstruing I may have to intervene)

- in cross, i'll be watching but not flowing so if theres anything flow worthy, bring it up in the subsequent speech

- please extend your links and warrants throughout the debate, i swear i will cry if you dont

- extend in rebuttal, and second rebuttal should have frontlines — anything you go for must be in summary and FF

- you can win off of a turn, but you would need to weigh those turns against the opponents contentions

- please do your own weighing, i dont wanna do weighing for you cuz im super lazy

- hopefully i dont have to read through cards at the end of the round, but i will do so if it RFD depends on it

- no third final focus, you know who you are

Policy:

- ive done a bit of lay policy, so i know about how the general debate format works

- anything circuit (kritiks, theory) must be explained spectacularly to a dodo like me, also run at your own risk since i know nothing about k lit

- framework (burden of proof, net benefits, etc.) will default to utilitarianism until someone provides a framework to follow

LD/Parli:

- im a bit newer to these debates, but i think most of the general debate concepts dont change, so just explain your jargon

gj for making it thus far into my paradigm, hope round runs smoothly

any questions? email me at smmzhu@gmail.com