I coach both speech and debate. During debate events, I will flow your speech, and can keep track as long as your vocal production is clear. Please do not spread, I will struggle to pay attention and you will likely lose me. I like to see how you address previous speaker's points/contentions.

About Me: Hi! I'm a parent judge who's judged a number of LD and Speech tournaments over the past several years.

Speech

I understand that each speech event is a bit different, but generally, I will judge your speech based on topic/piece selection, your technical speaking skills (enunciation, projection, etc.), your ability to engage me in the topic or piece, your ability to inhabit the characters and world of the story (Interp), and the flow and persuasiveness of your speech (OO). I view speech activities from the perspective of a former courtroom lawyer as well as a former theater kid.

LD

I was not a debater in school but I'm a (former) litigator whose instinct is to view LD as analogous to some of the hardest fought cases I argued in court.

Framework/Standards Debate: Set a standard for the round that makes sense in terms of the activity. If you are debating LD, I want to hear about the resolution.

Case Structure: Contentions should be carefully crafted, contain warrants and impacts, and link back to the standards to provide a well-researched, well-reasoned case position. I will be listening for case positions that are supported by research and evidence.

I strongly prefer argument-focused rounds over technicality- or definition-focused rounds. I won't be able to follow the intricacies of a technicality-focused round, so it will not help you anyway.

I will flow anything that I can of what you run, and evaluate based on my flow. I am not familiar with the K or with theory. If you're running either I expect you to slow down on taglines, provide clear links and impacts (and a well defined alternative for the K). If I can't understand it, I can't evaluate it.

If running abstract Ks, complex theory with few links, or blippy philosophy with no clear in round and out of round applications, I am not the judge for you. I'm looking for something better developed and more understandable.

Speed: I take detailed notes throughout a round (don't worry; I'm a fast typer). Speaking too quickly -- especially spreading! -- likely just means I will miss a key point. Please speak slowly enough to ensure I catch every contention, piece of evidence, and rebuttal.

Time: Feel free to time yourself, but I will also track time. When time finishes, I will let you finish a word or phrase, but then I will cut you off.

RFD and Speaker Points: My decision will be in favor of, and I will award the most speaker points to, the debater who best provides analytically sound arguments that tie directly to the resolution, effectively rebuts their opponent's arguments, establishes points in a logical, cogent manner, speaks clearly and confidently, holds my attention, particularly through (appropriate) humor and/or interesting but not convoluted or overly technical language, and maintains standards for decorum.

Good luck!

I am an experienced public speaker and debater who appreciates good preparation and confident delivery. I do not believe in the practice of "spreading" - speaking as rapidly as possible so as to pack maximum words into minimum time. This is unfair to an audience - or judge - because it impedes their ability to follow the flow of the debate and accurately evaluate the strength of a debater's arguments. I always encourage debaters to consider that their goal is to persuade the audience, and that persuasion is undermined when the audience is unable to keep up with a torrent of words that obscure the validity of the arguments. I prefer that opposing debaters address each other, rather than me as a judge, although this is all right in a summation.

Pronouns: Him/He

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

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

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

At the Top

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

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

T is a voter (see #8 below).

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

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

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

Some Non-Negotiable Things

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

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

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

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

The Rest of It

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Additions Please Read

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

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

A bit of Background

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

Is He a Person Who Should be Judging Me?

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

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

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

Some Basics that are Not Negotiable

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

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

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

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

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

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

Things for LD and Policy Debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Forum

Public Forum Debate

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

Congress

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

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

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

Speech

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

I am a traditional/quasi-progressive judge. I enjoy creative arguments of any sort as long as they are argued well. However, if you chose to run more policy-oriented arguments, do not drop the value debate. That always is a key element when deciding the round. Also, do not drop any arguments. I am less focused on whether someone followed the correct format of addressing a specific type of argument but rather the analysis and thought behind it.

If an argument is dropped, do not simply tell me that it was dropped; explain the impact of dropping the argument. On the same note, do not just extend all your cards during your rebuttal. That does nothing to help you win the round. Focus on the arguments and provide clear impacts of why specific arguments were dropped.

Use all the allotted time for both cross-ex and rebuttals. Extra time at the end of your speeches hurts your speaker points. Also, provide clear voting issues.

Please road map before your rebuttals and clearly signpost throughout.

I can handle speed but do not spread. The goal is to be comprehensible.

I was a LD debater when I was in high school and have judged for the past 8 years. Additionally, I research all the LD topics. As a result, I am very familiar with the LD format and the arguments for the given topic.

I am a parent judge with an extemp past.

In LD, I try hard not to impose my own stylistic or strategic preference onto competitors. Do your thing. That being said, clarity and the art of rhetorical persuasion matter, especially if the evidence and argumentation are close.

Off-time roadmaps = okay but not especially worthwhile.

Hello, debaters! I'm Linda Webb coach of Manchester High School, and I've been coaching for five years now, delving into Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, and Congress Debate. While I may not have a formal debate background, my focus is on overall presentation, weighing both arguments and delivery. I appreciate a respectful tone between opponents and prefer a clear, measured pace over spreading.

**Debate:**

**Weighing Arguments:**
I approach debates with a keen interest in both the substance of your arguments and the way you present them. I value well-structured, impactful cases that are supported by evidence and logical reasoning. Remember, quality over quantity is key.

**Delivery:**
Effective communication is crucial. Articulate your points clearly, and ensure that your delivery enhances the persuasiveness of your arguments. I appreciate debaters who prioritize clarity over speed.

**Respectful Tone:**
Maintaining a respectful tone is essential. I expect debaters to engage in a civil manner, recognizing the importance of respectful discourse. Rudeness or disrespect will not be looked upon favorably in my evaluations.

**Congress:**

**Parliamentary Proceedings:**
As a Parliamentarian, I defer to the Presiding Officer to run the room efficiently. I actively observe participation, noting who is asking questions, making motions, and contributing positively. Participation and compliance with the Presiding Officer's requests are crucial for a successful session.

**Respect:**
Respect is paramount in the chamber. I expect all participants to engage in a respectful manner, and any lack of respect will be duly noted on your ballot. This applies to interactions with fellow participants, as well as adherence to parliamentary procedures.

**Speech Evaluation:**
In Congress, I look for impactful speeches that clearly convey the reasons why a particular bill or resolution should be passed and become part of American history. Make sure your speeches are well-organized, persuasive, and contribute meaningfully to the overall discussion.

**Conclusion:**
Ultimately, I'm here to appreciate and evaluate the efforts you put into presenting your arguments and participating in the debate or Congress session. Remember to communicate effectively, respect your opponents, and make a compelling case. Best of luck to all of you, and let's have a great round!