Extemp:

y'all know what to do. Prioritize delivery > content for now. However, if you have exceptional content, that will be recognized.

CX Paradigm:

***Full disclosure: I'm not in Policy anymore...I'm not too familiar with the new resolution, so make sure to def acronyms/shortened phrases in your constructives so I can follow.

I'll be judging Rhetoric like a normal lay judge because that's who you'll have for the rest of the year. Have a consistent story throughout all ur speeches. Also, make sure to clearly extend args. Don't make the flow too cluttered. Whoever has clearer args + weighed better wins obv.

Be kind.

My Background:

Undergraduate degree in Business Administration (Berkeley Haas).

I'm a program manager for a speech and debate program.

I have little to no experience judging debate.

What I look for:

Be respectful. Confidence without attitude.

Please keep your delivery slow and clear.

I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.

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!

Intro:

**Edit 12/5 for Rhetoric Policy Tournament: grading will obviously be a lot easier since this counts for a school grade. You should still strive to achieve everything I've outlined in the paradigm, but also focus on what you've learned in Rhetoric, as this debate day also attempts to assess your skills from that class. I don't know Policy that well (Congress is better though) but I've outlined a simple rubric and some basic pointers to help you get a good grade.NO SPREADING

Hello! I'm currently a sophomore at Bellarmine College Preparatory, located in San Jose, California. I have four years of experience in Congressional Debate and Impromptu speaking (and competed in Middle School SPAR debate for two years), so you will likely be reading this because I am judging your round in one of these events. In middle school, I've been among the state finalists for Congress multiple times, as well as winning a Bronze Medal in Congress at the 2021 Nationals, along with other achievements. I also have recently picked up Extemporaneous speaking, so I can judge that as well. Overall, if you have me as a judge in any round, a summary of the entire paradigm is the following: Make your points matter to me, whether it's a unique argument, showing emotion in speeches, or weighing arguments perfectly in the last speech of the round. I use rubrics and score each speaker out of 100 points on their ballot, as a tool to make it easier for me to rank everyone.

Policy Rubric:

See my paradigm below for more information. I don't do Policy so I'll go much easier on grading; this rubric just assesses if you can make strong, impactful arguments, and can apply what you learned in Rhetoric.Winners earn 3 extra points each.DO NOT SPREAD OR DO ANYTHING REMOTELY RELATED TO FAST/CIRCUIT DEBATE.

Overall Constructive (6 pts)

Overall Rebuttal (6 pts)

Cross-Examination: Attack (3 pts)

Cross-Examination: Defense (3 pts)

Logic/Argumentative Skills (6 pts)

Vocal Delivery (3 pts)

Physical Delivery (3 pts)

Impromptu Rubric:

See my paradigm below for more information.

Intro (10 pts)

Thesis Clarity (10 pts)

Overall Evidence/Examples (15 pts)

Example Analysis (15 pts)

Gestures/Body Language (10 pts)

Facial Expressions/Eye Contact (10 pts)

Fluency (5 pts)

Modulation (10 pts)

Tone (10 pts)

Tempo (5 pts)

SPAR Rubric:

Everything in this rubric is affected by your ability to disprove the opposition as well. You should be able to bring up evidence that directly counters your opponent's points and make sure you listen to your opponent and flow. Use prep time efficiently.

Intro (10 pts)

Thesis (10 pts)

Examples (10 pts)

Analysis (10 pts)

Crossfire (10 pts)

Refutations (10 pts)

Gestures/Posture (10 pts)

Facial Expressions/Eye Contact (10 pts)

Fluency (5 pts)

Emotion (10 pts)

Tempo (5 pts)

Extemp Rubric:

See the info below in the Extemp section for what you need to do. This is one of the few events where I think content and delivery have equal value.

Intro/Background/Context (10 pts)

Thesis (10 pts)

Point 1 (10 pts)

Point 2 (10 pts)

Point 3 (10 pts)

Memorization/Credibility/Fluency (10 pts)

Posture/Body Language/Confidence (5 pts)

Hand Gestures (5 pts)

Facial Expressions/Eye Contact (5 pts)

Volume (5 pts)

Articulation (how clear you sound) (5 pts)

Tonal Variation (5 pts)

Tempo (5 pts)

Humor/Energy (5 pts)

Congress Rubric:

See below paradigm for what to do well. For the scores here, since most rounds have 2 speeches, I'll give you a score on each bill (half the round) out of 50 points, and add them for your final score. If the round is only on one bill, or for whatever reason you only give one speech, you'll just get your grade out of 50 made into 100. This paradigm is for all senators, if you are a PO, then you'll start with a 100%, and then for every thing I think you could have done better (or mistake you make), I'll ding you by a certain amount of points and mark it on your ballot. A flawless PO will get a perfect score.

Argument Clarity (5 pts)

Argument Importance (5 pts)

Argument Evidence/Analysis (5 pts)

Activeness In Round (5 pts)

CX Question Quality (5 pts)

In-Speech Refutations/CX Defense (5 pts)

Rhetoric(5 pts)

Presence/Fluency (5 pts)

Physical Delivery (5 pts)

Vocal Delivery (5 pts)

Policy:

• To start, I have only competed in Policy during Rhetoric, and regularly compete in Congress, as you would have noticed by now.
• As I said earlier, DO NOT do anything remotely related to fast or circuit debate. I will not give examples; I'm sure Mr. Langerman would have warned you against them, and if you are in doubt about doing something, it's probably best not to do it. In short, this is not a round to see who can speak the fastest, who has better arguments, or who won the stock issue of solvency: I want to see your ability to make and respond to impactful arguments that demonstrate your understanding of the concepts in Rhetoric.This means you should read at a slow, speech-level pace, not overcomplicate your case, and make your points clear. Treat me like a parent judge, because in a majority of cases, they will judge you.
• The best way to score well is to do exactly what has been outlined for you in Rhetoric. You need to mix both the Rhetoric skills and generally strong content/delivery in order to win over a parent.
• Everything I've said about content and delivery is equally important here as it is in other events.
• Regardless of whether you are 1A, 2A, 1N, or 2N, I assess your constructive and rebuttal speeches holistically. These speeches require a clear structure with good evidence, tags, and analysis. Your speech should also be relevant to the content of the round - and clearly make an impact for your side. If your speech does not attempt to change the complexion of the round for your side in some way, it won't appeal to a parent judge, and you'll 1) lose the debate and 2) make the round incredibly boring and lopsided.
• Remember to impact every single part of your speech. You cannot simply give me a statistic and move on in the 1AC, or reference a card in the 2NR without explaining its importance. What does this statistic change for people? You also cannot only say that an impact occurs; make me care. What's the relevance of that impact to the round?
• How I assess your argumentation depends solely on one question: Were you logical? Just like a real speech, link each statistic to a powerful WARRANT that is backed up with EVIDENCE. While the power of your impact and ability to tie arguments to the round will be assessed in the speech scores, your argumentation needs an explanation for each topic. HOW would a Federal Jobs guarantee be implemented? Don't just stop there; does the United States have what it takes to implement FJG? And then you can proceed to impacts. No impact exists without a proper warrant.
• For cross-examination, I've split the rubric into your Offense and Defense. Remember to follow every aspect of cross-examination taught in Rhetoric; Mr. Langerman made you participate in numerous CX drills for a reason. At the end of the day, Policy is Cross-Examination (CX) Debate, so you need to focus on disproving your opponent here. Make offensive attacks on what they say when you are the cross-examiner. When you are defending your claims, don't defend yourself against what your opponent says; attack by explaining the genuine benefits your side brings. Also, add passion and prove through this cross-examination that your points matter, but don't let this turn into the British House of Lords. Please.
• Delivery in Policy may seem completely irrelevant; but it still matters, even beyond just speaking slowly. Having charisma and strong presentational skills help you captivate anyone you talk to. Delivery is a life skill.
• I will give 2 extra speaker points to the winners of the debate. Your grade and your record are entirely separate from each other - grades reflect your application of Rhetoric and record reflects your ability to win the debate, but I wanted to emphasize that winning does matter and reward the best debaters in the room.
• One last thing: I genuinely love Speech and Debate and am incredibly excited to judge all of you, but Speech and Debate is a tiring activity for both judges and competitors. You should be enjoying the debate and helping everyone around you enjoy it as well. Demonstrate energy and passion for what you speak about, and the rest will come to you naturally.

Impromptu/SPAR:

• I prefer quality over quantity. You don't need three examples if you can't come up with them. However, you should be able to give well-developed and logical examples that make sense.
• I don't believe in any of the technical elements of these events. You don't need to give a word-for-word refutation of everything your opponent says (for SPAR) or claim that what your opponent says is false, you should instead focus on why your argument is true and why it matters. Being logical and clear is most important in your content, and be sure to explain the negative impacts of your opponent's point.
• Regardless of whether I'm judging you in Impromptu or SPAR, make sure that you spend the majority of your examples impacting. I don't need to know the concrete effects of your examples, because I can probably figure them out myself. You should sum up your effects in 2-3 sentences and spend the rest of your example linking it to impacts, and explaining HOW this proves your thesis. Every time you make a statement, ask yourself WHY because I will be doing the same thing on my ballot. Whoever can prove their impact best has the best content.
• Delivery is the most important aspect of a speech. I need good tonal variation and consistent modulation, as well as some emotion and passion in your delivery. If you can't make me feel this matters with your delivery, I don't care how good your content is, but I promise you you won't get a very good rank. I prefer a person who has great delivery and slow-paced, decent analysis over a person with several examples and perfect points. With that said, theatrics are unnecessary; you should really believe in what you are arguing for and use that emotion as you deem necessary.
• The most important value to me is humanity. Discussing more emotional and powerful topics where you can save suffering people and help them should be the goal of everyone in our world, and make sure you can connect your impacts to this.
• Be respectful to your opponent at all times for SPAR.

Extemp:

• Having seven sources and three examples is important. Slow down so that I can hear the cite. With that said, your cites should be concise and never really need to offer more than 3 major statistics. Analysis is much more important than your sources.
• be clear in your thesis, use an UMBRELLA THESIS (a reason your thesis is overall true that connects all of your points, like "Russia has been losing the war to Ukraine because they haven't got resources in 3 key areas") to streamline your points together. Theses without an attempt at an umbrella will receive 5/10 or below.
• Like how I said for IMP and SPAR, make sure you ask WHY your points are valid, and HOW it matters. You need to be able to link everything for your analysis. Make sure you still give concrete impacts and then explain why the impacts matter. If you say doing something will create lots of jobs and give more money to working-class Americans, explain WHY giving this money to working-class Americans proves your thesis, and why that is a fundamentally good thing.
• Humor is not extremely necessary. If you can't come up with an actually good joke, don't use it. Don't use any of the common jokes that regularly circulate for Extemp, I will mark you down for that because that's just boring. If you have a great joke, then I strongly advise you to use it. Just be original.
• Again, delivery is the most important part of this event. Speak slowly, be understandable, and still carry emotion where necessary. Extemp can be a very dry event, so make sure you keep me engaged.
• I have more topic knowledge than most parent judges and read over 5 news articles per day, so make sure what you are saying is factually true. I won't buy a stat unless you explain why it's true. Also, use reputable news sites like Reuters, the NY Times, NBC, Yahoo, The Atlantic, NOT Fox News OR their opinion page, The Hill, Washington Post, etc. I'll give you bonus credit for using The Guardian. Small news sites are okay and encouraged, as long as their content is really relevant. In fact, using smaller sites proves to me that you're going beyond the most obvious or mainstream news and going more in depth with your research. If you use an extremely non-reputable source, points will be deducted.
• Memorization is not that important. Make sure you can go through the whole speech fluently, but if you slightly mess up the date (I don't care if your dates are exact), I won't dock you. I understand (and sometimes in my own speeches do this) that some people might accidentally switch around the order of their cites, which is still bad, but won't count against you.

Congress:

• This is the event I am probably best at and have competed in for the longest.
• I'll start with my PO paradigm. The PO should be energetic more than anything else. You can make jokes if you feel it's necessary, sometimes even make subtle comments on what's going on in the round, and demonstrate exemplary knowledge of Congressional procedure. In general, be a good speaker and have confidence. Don't make too many major mistakes, but if you make a mistake, don't hesitate to apologize for it and move on with the round. The show must go on at all times.
• Keep in mind everything I said about content and delivery for the other events. They all matter here.
• Make sure to make good eye contact; don't just read from your pad.
• You should ideally fill in all of your speaking time (between 3 mins and 3 mins 15 seconds). I don't mind if you get cut off in the middle of your conclusion, but get everything you want to say for your main points done in under 3 minutes.
• Be active in cross-examination. I will give higher ranks to those who ask the best questions, and also those who ask the most. You should be active throughout the round, and if you can dominate the round by smoking people during CX and using it to prove your points, you will easily finish in the top three just because of this. With all of this said, please be respectful.
• You can use some original rhetoric pieces if you would like, but DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT copy rhetoric from other people around you. There are some rhetoric pieces I have heard over twenty times from several different people, but if your rhetoric is not original, it's not hard-hitting, and won't help your case. Honestly, rhetoric does not matter very much if you have a solid vocabulary and have an emotional impact.
• Keep your statistics as short as you can. I prefer your actual summary of a statistic rather than a drawn-out quotation from the author. Impact evidence and put it in the context of the round. I never assume links.
• Demonstrating strong topic knowledge is very helpful to you, and as a person who uses that himself when competing, I think it will help your ballot too.
• Having good arguments and saying what you believe in is more important than winning the round. Phrases like "my entire side has completely flawed arguments, so let me save them..." come off as arrogant and hurt your team's case, unless your entire side strongly disagrees with you. I would prefer wording like "here's the statistic that closes the book on this round..." or "Senator Bob did a great job proving ____ in his speech. Allow me to advance his points by saying why they matter..."
  

Good luck! Contact me at vivaan.chopra26@bcp.org or vivaan.chopra@gmail.com if you have any questions regarding your ballot. Most importantly, HAVE FUN; you shouldn't be here if you don't love these events!

I look for debaters who have all of the components necessary for an LD case. Focus on explaining your impacts and weighing your and your opponent's arguments. Do not engage in an evidence dump.

Also, please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Be respectful to your opponent; being rude or interrupting will play a role in my decision.

DEBATE: Please speak clearly and not too fast. I value evidence especially for bold arguments, refutation of opponents arguments, and respect given to fellow competitors.

SPEECH: Prove your interpretation to me, I go into every round with no agenda, and take my perspective out.

Over all, I prefer:

1. Clear expression;
2. Well-organized content;
3. Good gesture and voice;
4. Humor;
5. Strong evidence about your topic.

Experience: Competed in LD, Congress & Policy in MS & HS; LD for two years in college. On the IE side, competed in pretty much the entire range of interp and original events, both prepared & extemporaneous, in HS and college. Have judged in middle school, high school, and college circuits off and on over the past 20 years.

For all formats of debate: Remember that at its core, debate is the art of convincing your audience, through civil discourse, that your position on the resolution (aff/neg) should be upheld. Don't be condescending (to your opponent or your audience), but don't expect the audience (and the judge) to do the analysis work for you. Clear arguments in support of your position, with appropriately connected and explained supporting material, will win over simply bombarding me (and your opponents) with a mountain of potential arguments and piles of evidence. Quality can be more important than quantity; you may extend if your opponent drops an argument, but don't necessarily assume a dropped thread or two wins you the round. Speed is fine, but clarity is more important. I need to be able to understand, follow, and flow; I can't give you credit for points I don't catch as you go along, and the art of debate, as a speech activity, is in the oral delivery of your speeches and arguments--not me reading the text [technical issues that may occur in online rounds excepted]. I don't enter any round looking for specific arguments or issues to be addressed; it is up to you to convince me that your argument/proposal/approach/perspective is superior, within the general expectations and framework of the event format.

LD: I'm a flow judge when it comes to LD. The arguments made in round, the clash between those arguments, and how well you support your position and connect your arguments typically weigh heavily in my decision--value clash is an area I find can be key to the overall debate. Ks and CP arguments are fine by me, though I find it is most effective if you can make very clear links when doing so. I will consider theory arguments, but be sure they do in fact specifically connect to what is going on in the round. I'm not a fan of spreading in LD; I won't drop or mark down a debater if they can do it effectively, but I defer to the quality can be more important than quantity idea in this respect. Bear in mind that, at its core, LD debate should be framed through the lens of values and what ought to be. The side that can most effectively argue for their position as a general principle through a compelling value framework is likely to get my vote.

Policy: I take essentially a tabula rasa approach when judging policy/CX debates. While stock issues, disads, etc., can (and very often do) all play a role in making my decision, I am open to hearing from both sides what issues should be weighed most heavily in determining the outcome of the round--as I recognize the importance of each can change not only based on the resolution but also based on the issues that are raised in the course of the round itself. I will entertain theory arguments, but be careful that they don't end up obscuring the arguments you are presenting in support of your side of the resolution or your plan/counterplan/advantages/disadvantages.

PF: I am open to considering any type of argument (progressive is fine), as long as you clearly link it to the resolution. PF is meant to focus on advocating for a position, so don't get bogged down in specific plans or counterplans for implementation. I generally find it hard to consider completely new arguments in summary or final focus. In my experience, I tend to decide rounds based on impacts, so be clear with those and be prepared to convince me that your impacts weigh more heavily than those on the other side. Clash is important. I will consider theory arguments (see first sentence of this section), but I find they can muddle the overall debate if not executed well--just sharing that so you're aware of my perspective.

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

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

Congressional Debate

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

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

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

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

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

Policy/LD/PUFO/Parli

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

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

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

IE's

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

Hello! My name is Emma Kavcioglu! I have been competing in Congressional Debate for around 4 years now! I have some experience in speech and other forms of debate, but Congress is my main event and I know the event well.

• In order to be ranked highly by me you must be active in CX throughout the round. Direct examination needs to have a goal or strategy through a line of questioning. Do not use the entire block to ask one long question, I want to see back and forth. In all honesty, cross examination is the make or break for me when it comes to rankings.

• Author/Sponsorship - Thank you for having the courage to speak first, we definitely appreciate that when no one wants to get the ball rolling! Make sure to set up a good foundation for debate, and address the solvency.
• 1st Negation through Mid-Round Speeches - They MUST have some level of clashing, (different from name dropping), where you take opposing arguments and challenge them with evidence or reasoning in order to prove why your point stands and theirs doesn't. I also appreciate weighing arguments in terms of importance. A funny intro/conclusion is always appreciated.
• End of Round Speeches/Crystallization Speeches - Weigh on what has happened constantly throughout the round, and explain to my why your side was won the debate. Although in my opinion it is not the time to introduce new arguments, it is the time to introduce new evidence in terms of weighing. Be clear and explain the round to me. The best late round speakers explain a chaotic and confusing debate in a concise way.

- I do not appreciate using congressional procedures to shut someone out from speaking (eg. calling previous question when someone still obviously wishes to speak) will result in a drop in my rankings. We should use congressional procedures to uplift and help others.

Have fun!

I'm a former Congress and LD debater prioritizing content and evidence over rhetoric and delivery.

-- Congress--

Content

Don't repeat others' points or evidence. If three or more speakers have already used your tagline, it's far enough in the round that you should be considering switching up your points or writing a new one. Make sure your two/three areas are clearly distinguishable and don't list too many arguments unless you can clearly defend them with evidence and analysis. Quotes/statements/declarations from politicians or public figures will not be your strongest evidence; use stats or historical precedent to guarantee that something is likely to happen.

Clash

Clearly naming the representatives/senators that you are clashing with will indicate that you were paying close attention (rather than simply saying "representatives on the affirmation claim..."). When evidence clashes, engage with your opponents' evidence directly. Don't just compare the credibility of your source (unless your opponent's source is known to be biased or oversimplified); sources will have different findings, but they only do so based on methods, directness of application, and recency.

Crystals

Engage with your opponents' content, not their character. Crystallization speeches should also be more than refuting what everyone else said; be sure to summarize in the last thirty seconds or so of your speech to link to an impact for your side.

Delivery

Ultimately, Congressional debate is still a debate event, so your content will be weighed far more than your delivery. Avoid excessive and purposeless rhetoric (ie. moral calls to action for the last minute of your speech). The only place where your delivery may impact my evaluation of your speech would be using overused "creative" intros: true or false, doctor/lawyer/engineer, Declaration of Independence (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), etc.

Cross-Examination

I find that cross is really one of the best places to demonstrate your ability as a debater. For speakers, answer questions directly and with evidence, but don't just read off a previously established point in your speech. Don't ask questions back and forth unless you really need further clarification. For questioners, make sure your question is directly relevant to the speech. You can try to set up your own speech if you know you have good enough priority to be going soon after, but try not to use niche pieces of un-introduced evidence as a "gotcha" against your opponents.

Other

Avoid excessively referring to the chair or the judges in your speech. Refer to your opponents as "representative" or "senator" rather than "Mr./Ms. [last name]." Don't negate a bill only because you feel it should be doing more; make sure there's actual harm to affirming the bill as it stands.

Policy debater @ Archbishop Mitty. Class of ‘24.

Good for anything. I like niche, complex arguments. Be respectful, give it ur all.

My name is Satish Ponnaluri and I am a parent judge

Congress -

I value speeches that are rightly timed in the progression of the debate. This means I will equally weigh an author who explains the status quo as the same as a speaker who gave a crystal with minimal refutation rehash. I value speaking a lot as well. You need to convince me why I should believe you. That being said, I will drop senators who give rhetoric in lieu of evidence and logic chains.

PO will usually get the top 5 on my ballot if you are adequate with few mistakes. Overall round presence is extremely important, this includes effective cross-ex, round leadership, and familiarity of motions. Other than that, be kind to everyone else in the round and have fun!

Speech Events:

I give weightage to quality of arguments and the evidence provided.

UPDATED 6/1/2022 NSDA Nationals Congress Update

I have been competing and judging in speech and debate for the past 16 years now. I did Parli and Public Forum in High School, and Parli, LD and Speech in College. I have judged all forms of High School Debate. Feel free to ask me more in depth questions in round if you don't understand a part of my philosophy.

Congress

Given that my background is in debate I tend to bring my debate biases into Congress. While I understand that this event is a mix of argumentation and stylistic speaking I don't think pretty speeches are enough to get you a high rank in the round. Overall I tend to judge Congress rounds based off of argument construction, style of delivery, clash with opponents, quality of evidence, and overall participation in the round. I tend to prefer arguments backed by cited sources and that are well reasoned. I do not prefer arguments that are mainly based in emotional appeals, purely rhetoric speeches usually get ranked low and typically earn you a 9. Be mindful of the speech you are giving. I think that sponsorship speeches should help lay the foundation for the round, I should hear your speech and have a full grasp of the bill, what it does, why it's important, and how it will fix the problems that exist in the squo. For clash speeches they should actually clash, show me that you paid attention to the round, and have good responses to your opponents. Crystallizations should be well organized and should be where you draw my conclusions for the round, I shouldn't be left with any doubts or questions.

POs will be ranked in the round based off of their efficiency in running and controlling the round. I expect to POs to be firm and well organized. Don't be afraid of cutting off speakers or being firm on time limits for questioning.

Public Forum

• I know how to flow and will flow.
  • This means I require a road map.
  • I need you to sign post and tell me which contention you are on. Use author/source names.
• I will vote on Ks. But this means that your K needs to have framework and an alt and solvency. If you run a K my threshold for voting on it is going to be high. I don't feel like there is enough time in PF to read a good K but I am more than willing to be open to it and be proven wrong. For anyone who hits a K in front of me 'Ks are cheating' is basically an auto loss in front of me.
• I will vote on theory. But this doesn't mean that I will vote for all theory. Theory in debate is supposed to move this activity forwards. Which means that theory about evidence will need to prove that there is actual abuse occurring in order for me to evaluate it. I think there should be theory in Public Forum because this event is still trying to figure itself out but I do not believe that all theory is good theory. And theory that is playing 'gotcha' is not good theory. Having good faith is arbitrary but I think that the arguments made in round will determine it. Feel free to ask questions.
• Be strategic and make good life choices.
• Impact calc is the best way to my ballot.
• I will vote on case turns.
• I will call for cards if it comes down to it.

Policy Debate

I tend to vote more for truth over tech. That being said, nothing makes me happier than being able to vote on T. I love hearing a good K. Spread fast if you want but at a certain point I will miss something if you are going top speed because I flow on paper, I do know how to flow I'm just not as fast as those on a laptop. Feel free to ask me any questions before round.


LD Debate

Fair warning it has been a few years since I have judged high level LD. Ask me questions if I'm judging you.

Framework
You do not win rounds if you win framework. You win that I judge the round via your framework. When it comes to framework I'm a bit odd and a bit old school. I function under the idea that Aff has the right to define the round. And if Neg wants to me to evaluate the round via their framework then they need to prove some sort of abuse.

OVERVIEW

Hello! My name is Sanjay Somasundaram and I am a sophmore at Bellarmine College Preparatory. With over two years of experience in Congressional Debate, I have been among national semifinalists at the 2022 Middle School Nationals and champions of numerous tournaments ranging from Stratford Shamrock and Bay Area Middle School Tournaments.

Throughout the world of Speech & Debate, Congress serves as the perfect synthesis of these two worlds, incorporating critical skills such as eloquence, rhetoric, fluency, and delivery along with argumentation and logic. While I judge speeches, I look for unique, cogent argumentation that alters the landscape of the round while with strong delivery and emotion.

CONGRESS PARADIGM

• If you are delivering late-round, do not rehash argumentation and give your speech in a vacuum - instead, clash with other debaters, counter your opponents’ arguments, and introduce new evidence or logic into the debate

• Great delivery always serves as the bread and butter for a well-performed speech! Speaking clearly and emotionally.

• In addition to ethos, pathos, and logos, don’t forget kairos - make sure your speeches work on time; be sure to balance your time well - don’t spend too much time on the introduction, too much time on rhetoric, and too less time on argumentation.

• Respect and behavior take precedence before all other factors; while at times when debate escalates tension, stay calm and conversational and respect others

• Use rhetoric!! But don’t over-use it to the point where it blurs your argumentation OR old rhetoric recycled from other top national debaters

• Use original, unique intros that relate to the legislation - generic intros always bland the debate up and introductions that can be applied to any piece of legislation

• This is Congress Debate - in addition to delivery, you also need good argumentation! I look for argumentation that logically makes sense, backed by solid evidence, as well as clear and impactful warrants.

• PO Rankings - I start off with a score of 100 - each mistake will merit a loss of 5 points; your final score will determine your final rank. POs, please preside with enthusiasm and energy to the chamber - in addition to maintaining order and justice in the chamber, speed and efficiency also act as important factors in your ranking.

Hi! My name is Navya, and my pronouns are she/her.

I’ve been doing debate for the past three years at Archbishop Mitty High School (I’m a junior) — I’m most experienced in Congress, (debated on regional and national circuit) National Extemp, (mostly lay extemp) and LD, (ONLY LAY.)

But, I’ve also done Impromptu, OA, OPP, POI, and Parli. (So fundamentally, I’m comfortable with all speech and debate events, and I’ll try to judge impartially and fairly.)

DEBATE PARADIGM

• PLEASE DON’T SPREAD. I can keep up with moderately fast speaking, but if you begin spreading I will drop my pen and stop flowing. That probably also means an auto-lose, SO WATCH SPEED!
• I’m normally tech over truth, but if your link chain is barely flowable and you have terminal impacts I will probably drop it from the flow and not use it to decide final ballots. Terminal impacts are great, but internal links should be EASILY flowable if you want to me to use them as voters
• I VALUE PRESENTATION. I’M NOT A CIRCUIT DEBATER, AND I DO MANY SPEECH EVENTS. I’m like a parent judge in this way, in that I will take your presentation into consideration when writing my ballot. I understand that delivery isn’t everyone’s strong suit, but outstanding presentation will stand out (ik that’s redundant) to me.
• I don’t normally flow CX, but if major concessions are made then I’ll flow
• COMPORTMENT MATTERS! I want a respectful debate. Any ad hominem attacks or blatantly rude harangue will result in an auto 20L. I also won’t tolerate any sexist or racist arguments, point blank.
• FOR CIRCUIT: I PREFER POLICY AFFS, as I’m not experienced in circuit, so please explain well if you’re running T shells or Ks. I know the basic Ks like Cap and Fem, but please make it very clear if you do choose to run circuit offs. I will usually buy Topicality if run against a K aff, bc I do find Ks abusive to the neg.
• I will drop a debater/team that runs AfroPess if they’re not people of color!
• For LD, I LOVE VALUE CRITERION DEBATES. But, please remember to connect back to vc in 2AR & NR, if you’re collapsing on it. AND obv directly compare which vc I should be prioritizing—because I will be voting solely on which side better empirically upholds vc, and that means also knowing which vc to use. Also, if you want vc to be a voter, ensure that you’re WEIGHING ON IT. (ie: if you’re running Rawls, don’t weigh on scope obv.)

CONGRESS

• I’ve competed Congress for 3 years at the league and national level, and I’m pretty lenient as to what styles of congress I rank higher, bc everyone debates differently
• Obviously, congress isn’t straight debate, so I do value delivery very high—presentation will often help decide final places
• I LOVE fresh rhetoric, and I might rank u higher j bc you use strong rhetoric to humanize an otherwise esoteric impact or internal link
• disclaimer: I’ve watched my fair share of final rounds, so if you’re reusing someone else’s rhetoric I’ll prolly know
• If you’re giving late round speeches, PLEASE don’t rehash and try to paint it like something that hasn’t been talked about earlier, USE CLASH! The later your speech, the more clash there should be, and the less you should be relying on your legal pad.
  - ALSO: I don’t consider just referencing another Senator’s name during your speech as strong clash. It’s good, but clash should consist of targeted, direct responses to another Senator’s case.
• If you’re giving a crystal, PLEASE WEIGH IMPACTS OR INTERNAL LINKS
• I rank PO’s well, but usually not in top 2. Ofc, it differs by circumstance, and if you’re an extraordinary PO then I might just rank you number 1! I expect PO’s to be proficient with most-all parliamentary procedures, and manage recency well. The chamber should NEVER have to correct PO! I usually start PO at a 4, and add ranks for efficiency/drop a rank for every mistake.
• I pay lots of attention to CX! I expect congress CX to be very respectful, and if I see you throwing insults or accusing someone of “lying” during CX, I will drop you a rank

EXTEMP

• this should be self explanatory, but extemp is a MEMORIZED EVENT! So, don’t use notes! If you have to look at your notes, I won’t give you a 1
• Delivery matters! I regard presentation in extemp very highly, and I want you to speak with poise, good posture, and gesticulation
• You should be saying your question sometime in your speech (this should be obvious)
• PLEASE sign post points after intro!
• I love a good intro, try to refrain from using canned quotes or jokes!

pf debater

tech>truth

make a good pun and ill give you 30