Howdy it's me!

A little about me: I competed in Congress for 4 years as a high schooler across the Illinois and National Circuit, having made the final rounds of Emory, Harvard, TOC, and more! Hope I can bring a lot of that experience and give you good feedback!

Anyways, here's what I'm looking for: I tend to weigh content above delivery, so most of my paradigm will center around my content expectations. 

You should have different content for different stages of the debate, and I have different expectations of you at these different stages. I don't really rank one type of speech over the other – it's just who fulfills their chosen role the best in the round that picks up my ballot!

Sponsorship: A basic sponsorship has three key components: A problem bloc (show me why we need this bill, what's the problem that you are trying to solve?), a solvency bloc(how does this legislation come into play? reference the legislation specifically!), an impact bloc (what are the impacts of this legislation? Who, what benefits?) I should not feel the need to fill any of these blocs at the end of your speech. Since this is a pre-prepared speech, strong sources and delivery are the expectations. To go above and beyond, what makes an excelling sponsor would be its ability to capture my mind. Does your rhetoric vividly paint the world before and after this legislation, is there a theme to your speech, does it stand out from what's considered "stock"? Unless it's asked for by the other judge in the room, I generally don't like pre-refutations, a practice where you try to pre-emptively refute the other side. My problem with it is that you may have just wasted 10 seconds of your time refuting an argument that might not even be made when you could instead use it towards creating a stronger picture of the legislation and your advocacy. I won't dock points because of it if it's in a sponsor, but if you're giving pre-refutations in any speech other than the sponsorship, and you don't give a single relevant ref to a relevant speaker, that's going to be raising some eyebrows from me.

Constructives (1-3rd Cycle): A good constructive should either introduce new arguments that weren't in the round before or extend off of the rest of the debate. Again, Congress is a debate event, so I especially love to see speeches that integrate well into the round so far – rather than speeches that stand alone without any interaction to the round whatsoever, so an early round speaker that integrates relevant refutations well into their speeches will pick up my ballot! Ask yourselves, who or what's been the strongest speaker/argument from both sides? What can you add to the debate that hasn't been brought up already to support or challenge these arguments?

Late-Round(4th-6th): Generally, the late-round speakers who rank the best on my ballot are the speakers who can identify the biggest clashes of the round and add their own original unique take/analysis on it. A brief overview helps, but you should be doing a lot more than just summarizing. Is there a round-breaking statistic you can bring that no one has brought up? Is there something the entire round has been forgetting? Is there a glaring hole in the other side's arguments that no one's brought up? In these types of speeches, content will be especially weighed more heavily than delivery (you likely prepared this in-round, so the rhetoric/lay appeal might not be fully there, which is completely understandable), but if you do a good job in both, then you'll REALLY excel on my ballot! :)

PO's: A lot of my Congress career was based on presiding and I truly recognize the importance of a strong, good PO. I'm looking for PO's that maintain a strong sense of control over the room, PO's that can lead the chamber to a successful session with their own individual flair (the occasional humor, etc.). Unless something goes terribly awry, like the splits aren't even and we're stuck in recess for 10 minutes or longer because someone has to give a speech and you didn't do anything to address the situation, or you weren't being efficient or equitable, I'll always rank a good PO high, within my Top 4! :)

Questioning: Please question as much as possible! It not only helps you to maintain a round presence – if you gave a great speech but didn't question AT ALL, it's going to hurt you more than it helps you. If you gave an early-round speech, round's not over! Defend your speech against the other speeches in cross-x, and if you are speaking later, question early on, maybe give some thematic hints of what you'll say in the later round!

What not to do: I generally encourage everyone to avoid the super congress-y lingo – your speech should be accessible to all listeners. Ask yourself, is this something I can give to my 5th Grade sibling and have them easily understand it? If the answer's no, make it more accessible! Also, don't be rude to others – if I think you're rudely cutting people off in cross or being extremely rude/offensive, you won't rank well on my ballot.

That being said, I know y'all got this, and will use your best judgment to perform at your best! Good luck today! I know I can say this on the behalf of all the other judges when I say, we're here to support you, wish only the best for you, and help you to grow for your next tournament! Most importantly, have fun!

If you have any questions, feel free to email me at jimmyjhbaek2@gmail.com!

FULL PARADIGM CAN BE FOUND HERE! This page is meant to be something you can read right before round and get a general idea of what's up

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

Bullies get dropped

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

www.ImpactInstituteDebate.com

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

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

Any pronouns work, but do not call me mister

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

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

Parli (NPDA) for the University of Minnesota 19-20, 20-21 (I read topical affs and cap/ableism on neg)

PNW CARD Debate for 1 semester (closed research packet, but I loved sliding in Marxist lenses)

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

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

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

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

LD:

-Ask before you spread. I probs can't understand your spreading, I'll clear/slow you until I can, but 70% is a decent starting point

-Not flowing off a speech doc but pls share it w me

-Tech>everything: I used to say “except for xyz” but instead, just be a good debater. I’ll vote for stupidity idc. However, “get good” is probably an able normative response to “speed bad” so b careful w ur language. Wipeout, war good, dedev, truth>tech, idc just say it w your chest and let it rip.

-Judge instruction is my fav part abt this activity, followed by conceding fwk, followed by turns of any kind

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

Congress:

#AbolishPOs (don’t worry I still rank y’all)

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Background:

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

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

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

All Events:

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

Congress:

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

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

How I evaluate arguments

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

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

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

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

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

Roles of Speakers

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

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

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

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

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

POs:

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

Miscellaneous

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

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

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

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

Hey everyone! I'm Arik (he/him), a debater from Dreyfoos School of the Arts in Florida.

I've competed in numerous speech & debate events (Congress, WSD, PF, XDB, BQ, Parli, OO, IMP, EXT, etc.) over the past five years of my experience in the activity, finaling and semifinaling the likes of NSDA, Harvard, Stanford, Emory, Blue Key, Sunvite, GMU, and more. In short, I'm very well-versed with the dynamics and flow of each event, especially Congress & World Schools Debate (my main events).

OVERARCHING THOUGHTS ABOUT STYLISTIC PREFERENCES & EQUITY

No debate round or ballot should be contingent on extremely narrow preferences for what judges like stylistically/what they're biased toward. Trust me, I've seen it win (and lose) rounds on my side; I will always prioritize your content & strategy for a debate round and will NEVER weigh what someone sounds like or what they look like in a ballot*. The stylistic preferences I include in the event-specific sections of this paradigm is optional & certainly not one that is mandatory.

THAT BEING SAID, I will not hesitate to drop you or bring an equity concern for individuals who display any trace of sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, etc. behavior or action. That's my one non-negotiable. My priority as a judge is to make a round as safe and inclusive as possible before casting a ballot: the conclusion of this section is just to be respectful to the maximal extent :)

WORLD SCHOOLS

In Worlds, I adjudicate on content, strategy, and style (in that order). Content and strategy is what wins you rounds, style is what determines speaks. I believe that doing well in all three categories is what makes good debaters great persuasively and substantively. A couple of notes from the top of this paradigm for Worlds:

- Make & take POIs! It's the best (and only) form of direct engagement with the other side, make use of it! I'm cool with 1-2 POIs being taken in a speech.
- Stylistically*, I think conversational tone/pace speeches are the most enjoyable to listen to as long as you cover what you need to!
- Have clear signposting & flag sections of your speech + its strategic importance in the round to make it easier on me to understand what we're getting into/why it's important.
- In First, cover all of the important things in framing (i.e. a counterfactual if THR, model if THW, etc.) & prove that you analyzed the motion well! I always love a bit of pre-emption & give me clearly structured and understandable substantives with robust mechanisms and accessible illustrations!
- In Second, open and delete paths to victory for your side- what are you winning on? How do you deal with the other side's material (refute) and how do you expand and maintain your side's arguments (rebuild)?
- In Third, tell me the clashes to consolidate & organize this debate: why is the clash important, what did they say (and how did you respond), what did you say (and how did it hold throughout the round), and how you explicitly win on the material & in the round. Weigh up your arguments against theirs and show me how your side has won the debate!
- In Reply, provide the voter issues/areas of the debate you won & give me a biased OA/RFD for ways your side won and how the debate developed from First.

CONGRESS

My perspective: Congress is a combination of speech AND debate, not just one or the other. Your approach to how you attempt to win a round may differ from person to person, so I don't mind how you go about it; I encourage you to play to your strengths. A key factor that plays into my decisions as to who gets ranked where is round adaptation- a speech that is well-placed in a round (be it early, middle, or late) that effectively contributes to the debate speaks to your ability to adapt to the needs of the round. In my eyes, that's what the best legislator in the room looks like.

What I look for in a debater: I'm a fan of extremely clear arguments that are easy to understand and is distinguished from other speeches preceding you. Refutation is an absolute must in every speech following the first affirmative. Outstanding delivery is a prerequisite for evaluating your arguments; it's far more beneficial to have a distinctive style and use of rhetoric because it's what differentiates Debater A and Debater B (who may have similar argumentative/analytical skills). Additionally, I like speeches that break out of the two-point structure and take on a fluid form that is intended to cover other necessary content in the round (but a great two-constructive speech gets the job done as well). Be active in the round & make sure to stay engaged! As always, no rehash.

Round adaptation/POs/final thoughts: For speeches- don't be afraid to flip! It reflects well on you to do a service to a chamber, so I won't mind if your speech is a little lower in quality than the speech you intended on giving because you adapted to the round; if anything, you'll get rewarded for taking up the task (as I've had to for countless debate rounds). For POs- avoid making mistakes and make sure the round flows as smoothly as possible. As a PO for high-level rounds at Harvard, NSDA, Yale, Sunvite, Blue Key, etc., I understand the value of a good PO for the round; that said, I rank POs in the middle-to-high end at the beginning (and it moves up or down according to your performance). Stay true to yourself, have some self-confidence, and bring some humor to the presidency! You got this.

Hi, my name is Austin Kelachukwu. I am a debater, public speaker, adjudicator and a seasoned coach.

Within a large time frame, i have gathered eclectic experience in different styles and formats of debating, which includes; British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), Australs, Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), World School Debate Championship(WSDC), Public Forum(PF), amongst others.

As a judge, I like when speakers understand the format of the particular tournament they’re debating, as it helps speakers choose their style of speech or debating. Speakers should choose to attack only arguments, and not the opponent. I do take equity serious, so I expect the same from speakers. When speakers understand the tournament’s format, it makes things like speaker roles, creating good and solid arguments easy, so they can act accordingly, and through that understand how the judge understands the room as well.

I suppose that speakers are to understand the types of arguments that should run in the different types of motion, their burden fulfillment and other techniques used in debate.

I take note of both key arguments, and the flow at which such argument is built, so speakers shouldn’t just have the idea, but should be able to build that idea also to create easy understanding of the argument. On understanding also, i prefer when speakers speak at a conventional rate, to aid easy understanding of what the speaker says.

I appreciate when speakers keep to their roles, i.e when a summary or whip speaker knows one’s job is not to bring new arguments but to rebut, build partner’s case, and explain why they won.

I value when speakers keep to time, as arguments made after stipulated time wouldn’t be acknowledged.

Austin Kelachukwu.

email: austinkelachukwu@gmail.com

Hello, I am currently a debater in the Carolinas and have participated in LD and Congress as my main events.

CONGRESS: Please(if needed) switch sides to ensure even splits.

Authorships/Sponsorships/First AFF: Focus on advocating the bill, refutations and counter arguments will and should come later in the cycle. This to me is a Framing speech focus on the legislation itself and how it will affect United States citizens. Impact! Impact Impact!

PO: I recommend online precedence and recency charts, so everyone can follow along! Just try to run the chamber quick as possible, go above and beyond as PO you will get a high rank for me.

Refutation Speeches: Shows you are adaptable but also needs to progress debate somewhat to get a high score from me.

Questions: Overall, my favorite part of Congress, people who question often but don't ask softball questions will most likely be in my top 5.

Speaking: Overall, have fun with speaking, Congress is one of the events where YOU can choose how to communicate and speak, show your own personality through your speaking style! If i can hear that above all else you are passionate with this event through speaking that will be a 1 in my ballot.

Update for MSTOC: Tricks and theory tend to be even more of a cheapshot strategy against people who don't know what they are. I'm uninterested in judging you go for eval vs a lay debater. Make real arguments, please.

Sage Oak '24

Cal Berkeley '26

kritiksarecheating@gmail.com

I'm agnostic about being on the chain. I flow without the doc.

I. Basics

None of us had to be here at 8 am on a weekend. I will give my full attention to whatever you have to say, whether that's the death K, Baudrillard, or the rider DA. Likewise, I expect to you to treat your opponent with respect.

"That means I will not be half-flowing speeches while texting friends, I will not be checking Twitter or spacing out during CX, I will not "rep out", and I will not rush my decision to get back to my own team faster" - pat

I flow on my laptop, but will not have other tabs open.

II. Ground rules

Nothing you do or say will change these factors in my decision calculus.

A. Debate is a game that requires 1 winner and 1 loser.

B. Do not misgender people. This is non-negotiable.

C. Do not be racist, sexist, etc.

D. Ad homs will not earn you the ballot. They will earn you 25 speaks. "entirely uninterested in adjudicating the character of minors i don't know" - pat.

E. The affirmative speaks first and last and thus has the burden of positive proof. The negative speaks second and thus has the burden of rejoining the aff.

F. Speech times. 6-7-4-6-3. These do not change.

G. If an accusation of clipping or an ev ethics violation are alleged and the round is explicitly staked, I will stop the debate and decide internally whether the accusations are true or false. The winner gets a W29, the loser an L20.

III. Thoughts on specific arguments

A. Kritik/K affs

I was involved in a substantial portion of these debates in high school. I am better for K debaters that are highly technical, and make arguments that seek to rejoin the plan. I am worse for K debaters that rely on fanciful rhetoric, grandstanding, and edgy performances to win.

Link turns case and K impact turns it are arguments that are criminally underutilized in LD. I'm increasingly frustrated with the amount of time LD K debaters spend grandstanding instead of explaining their theory of power or how the link indicts the 1AC. This is probably due to the way that judging traditionally considered "good for the K" has evolved, especially on the East Coast. Nonetheless, explaining why the link interferes with 1AC solvency makes the 3 minute 2AR on plan focus and extinction outweighs far harder to give, albeit still convincing.

People should impact turn Ks more. Every K probably thinks heg and cap are bad (or they probably don't solve the link). Although the LD 1AR is too short to read some of the better heg cards, impact turns as a component of offense against Ks other than cap should definitely become a more substantive part of the meta.

I lean slightly neg on T-framework. I am persuaded by the idea that debates over a topical plan are good, but can be convinced to vote the other way. Impact turning framework is likely more convincing than a counterinterpretation that purports to solve the negative's limits offense.

B. Disads

I largely went for these negating. 2NRs on DA/case should be short on internal link explanation/overviews, heavy on turns-case analysis. Two sentences is a sufficiency. You should also weigh. Weighing is good and important. Explain why your offense comes before theirs.

Meta-weighing is also good and criminally underutilized - a lot of debaters just assert that timeframe comes before magnitude, or vice versa, without a warrant. "Intervening actors check" is not an argument.

Evidence quality matters, but sometimes analytics are better than evidence. Card quality in LD is atrocious - sometimes, instead of reading your russia D from 2012, you'd just be better off making analytic arguments about how Ukraine proves Russia's washed. It takes less time too.

Uniqueness controls the direction of the link. If there is a 50% chance that Ukraine aid passes in the world of the plan, but a 0% chance that it passes in the world of the DA, I vote aff.This isn't to say that the link CANNOT control the direction of uniqueness, but that the inverse is generally true for most disads (especially politics, dipcap, etc).

This should also highlight the importance of cutting updates to internal link ev and uniqueness. I don't want to judge the farm bill DA with uniqueness from 2020. That passed a year ago. Cmon guys.

C. Counterplans

Dense counterplan competition throwdowns were the debates I was least involved in and, by extension, the debates I am the least comfortable with judging. That said, I should be relatively okay for these rounds.

Debaters should think a lot more about the quality of evidence for a lot of process CPs. The authors of a lot of these articles are writing in the context of legal hypotheticals and often hasten to explain that anybody who tried these things in the real world would be patently insane. Letting the solicitor general, courts, or whatever make decisions about how the military works or whether UBI should be implemented would probably collapse the entire US government and it's legal, institutional, and historical legitimacy. Aff teams should say these things more.

Function > text. I'm not sure why changing "ought" to "should" means that the counterplan competes. This change in wording probably doesn't affect whether or not the counterplan could be implemented in the world of the aff. I think the most persuasive argument for textual competition is that it's most consistent with the legal process, but this seems to be fallacious. While legal interpretation certainly places an emphasis on semantics, it is generally recognized that the functional effect of the law should supersede quibbles over it's wording.

Likewise, I'm not persuaded by textual nonintrinsicness as a check on full intrinsic permutations. Functional competition makes a lot more sense to me in a purely logical sense - if the counterplan cannot occur in the world of the aff, it likely competes.

Advantage counterplans are good, but debaters should write real planks. "Substantially increase aid to the Middle East" is not a real plank. Where? Who? How? It makes no sense to me that process counterplan debaters are generally forced to delve into the minutia of the mechanics by which their arguments function, but advantage counterplans are written incredibly vaguely.

D. Topicality

Don't have much to say here. Definitions are good. You should counterdefine words in the topic as the basis of an argument for why your interpretation of the topic is predictable and do a lot of comparative analysis when giving a 2NR on limits/precision. I think there's probably little distinction between "semantics" and "pragmatics" per se. There is probably a semi-bidirectional link between the two.

I have little patience for LDers that treat T like frivolous theory. No, I will not be happy evaluating your RVIs.

E. Phil/Theory

This is the type of debate in which I am the least experienced. I'll still vote on these arguments, but I had relatively little contact with them as a debater. However, I am studying philosophy in college, so I'll hopefully have some idea about what you're talking about. Better for fully carded kant, skep, etc (in the Texas DK style) and less good for cheapshots like hidden indexicals, etc.

I'm bad for theory that isn't from policy debate. ASPEC, condo, etc are fine. Spec status is not.

I will evaluate the debate after the 1NC. The 2AR is after the 1NC.

IV. Closing thoughts/idiosyncrasies

"Clipping tags is not a thing. Insert rehighlightings; read recuttings." - iva

"If you ask for a 30, you will receive a 25." - iva

"Not voting on call outs. Not my business." - brett

Hello!
Thank you for competing!

I judge under the notion that you debate as the best debater you are, and I will evaluate you on that metric. Please engage with each other's arguments, and be intentional in both cross and speeches.

Don't overcomplicate points that should be simple, and don't drop arguments, and have refutations that logically link. As a congress debater and competitor I do value a good presentation and speaking, if that helps.

Please don't go too fast as in spreading if it harms your delivery. I appreciate a good framework and roadmaps.

Have fun! Be nice!

Background:I am from Africa.Currently residing in Seattle and i have been judging and training for the past one and a half years .I have debated and judged multiple debate tournaments across continents. I studied Economics and Finance as my university degree and spend most of my free time judging, debating ,eating and traveling.

Judging criteria.
1.Clarity: The claim must be proven with strong reasoning and evidence. The second level of proving the truth of your claim is by responding to rebuttals of your proof of claim from the opposing team. This is important because the other team can attack a logical gap in the truth of your argument and without sufficient response, the likelihood of your claim being true is diminished. This means that your impacts are unlikely to occur because the claim has been proven to be false which , in turn, reduces your chances to win the debate
2.Mechanizations. It's also important to give reasons why your claim or counter-claim is true. This is done by showing why your claim is the most important in the debate, So don't just state claims and rebuttals by explaining what's important. This will improve the quality of the debate by having you claim tag along with mechanization.
3.Weighing: This means one should take the best-case scenario of the opposing side and give a comparative analysis with the case provided. Most responses in debates only tackle the other team's arguments and do not necessarily prove them to be completely false. The importance of weighing you can use different metrics to weigh in your arguments such as which one has a higher sense of urgency, affects more people ,long-term impacts, and many others to prove your arguments is more important.
4.Structure.It is important to present your speeches in a clear and simple way. Having clear and simple structure helps your case. Note that this also entails having a detailed analysis. This makes us easier for panelists and the team to understand your arguments. This is done by having a linear flow( carefully explaining your arguments in a systematic manner from point A to B to C) and having clear comparatives in your speech.
5.Synergy:How you and your partner build your case is important. This is dine by having solid support and extensions to support arguments mentioned by your partner. Ensure you do not sound contradictory or have a different speech from your partner.Ensure you have a coherent and supporting speeches.

My name is Lillian Myers (they/them) new at judging, but I was the team captain of the Oregon City High School speech and debate team in 2019-2020 and I was a 2020 National Tournament Qualifier in Congress. I competed in Parliamentary, Lincoln-Douglas, Congress, Radio Commentary, Informative, Prose, Programmed Oral Interpretation, and Extemporaneous. Currently, I'm a sophomore at Simmons University as a Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies and Africana Studies double major.

My rounds will always be a respectful and inclusive space for everyone. Disrespectful or offensive language and misgendering will not be tolerated in my rounds. I didn't think I'd have to remind people of this but I would like people to check for racial bias in their cases and language. You can affirm or negate any resolution without biased arguments.

In debate events I am looking for a few things: confidence in both your argument and your delivery, quality arguments and rebuttals, and a fair and respectful debate.

Clarity is of utmost importance to me. I will not tolerate spreading of any kind, you must speak clearly and at a normal pace. It is an accessibility concern for me, as well as other debaters and judges with disabilities. Your presentation of your speeches is important to me as well as the content. Deliver your speeches with confidence and clarity. Because of my disability please do not spread. I don't want to have to mark you down for this, so please don't spread during my rounds.

I'm not very particular about how you debate, all I ask is that it is logical and easy to follow. With that said, I am not a fan of kritiks or debate theory. If you do choose to use them, do not stray too far from the resolution. I would rather you spend more time on your case and addressing the resolution than trying to stray from the topic or argue about the debate itself.

Hello!

I am Esther Olamide Olayinka, a graduate of University of Ilorin Nigeria. I am an advanced level judge and debater with over 2 years involvement in debating. In these years, I have experienced/ participated in over 200 rounds of debating in BP, LD, WSDC, AP, PF and Policy Debates.

I have no conflicts and you can always contact me through olamideakanbi2000@gmail.com

Simply, I value and take note of arguments that are well analysed and impacted. I don't really have a preference for speaking styles or speed as long as you're comfortable with it and your arguments doesn't violate equity policies. Please within rounds, ensure you keep to time, abide by the tournament's policies and respect both I and other speakers in your room.

Finally, I find comparative arguments to be very persuasive. Good luck in your rounds. Thank you!

Hi! I'm a junior at FAU HS and this is my 6th year competing in congressional debate.

Debate is not a game
You're usually discussing matters of life and death -- this entire activity is a dialectic about how to improve the nation and the world. Your rounds are about more than just getting the 1 or a W. Similarly, debate affects the lives of people who participate in it. Success can mean scholarships or admittance to great colleges. Please don't trivialize how important that can be for people.

"Principally!!!" is a trendy new filler word in congress
I WILL mark you down for saying this. It adds nothing to your content and does not make you sound smarter. Also a nice little litmus test to see if you actually read my paradigm lol.

Speeches & style -- I'm judging you based on the result, not the process.
"Constructive," "rebuttal," and "crystallization" speeches are a social construct! They are a lens to understand your role as a speaker, not a strict blueprint for a speech. I don't care if you use CWDI, block structure, or just freestyle. I don't care if you use a legal pad or an iPad or nothing. These are just your tools -- I'm judging you based on the result, not the process.

If I've heard your exact speech before I will literally drop you even if it's the best speech in the round. Do not pawn other people's prep off as your own.

No one knows how to weigh in congress so please weigh.

Empirical citations =/= Causal analysis. Telling me why your arguments are true and why they matter are different things entirely. Don't mix em up!

In terms of congressional debate, most rounds have two issues: the debate is surface-level yet pretty damn confusing. I love speakers who can cut through to the heart of a topic and implicate that back to the debate as a whole.

I appreciate original, novel, and funny rhetoric. Try to distinguish yourself!

Delivery & presentation
Presentation is necessary to help you get your point across. If you neglect presentation that will reflect on your overall performance.

OK so people have started using iPads a lot more since I first wrote this paradigm. For context, I don't know anyone who has been using an iPad for longer than I. If you use an iPad, you need to look and sound like a fluent speaker with a legal pad. Bulky cases will weaken your performance. Having to hold the iPad in front of your face the whole time will weaken your performance. Pad dependency, as always, will seriously count against you. The iPad is a tool, not a crutch.

Laptops are a flat out no. You won't get a rank from me speaking off a laptop.

Love padless performances, they're impressive af.

Presiding officers
POs are the worst part of congress. There is no way to fairly rank a room of speakers against someone whose entire job is to update a spreadsheet and bang a gavel. If I had it my way, every round would have a tournament-provided PO. But don't worry. I have a fair way to evaluate POs regardless of anything else: Bad POs will be dropped, good POs will at least get a rank good enough to advance to the next round.

A good PO is fast, fair, aware of parliamentary procedure & tournament-specific rules, and serves as a leader and problem-solver in the round.

I rank POs in final rounds differently. I don't think POs deserve to champ unless they do something brilliant or demonstrate exceptional leadership. I've never seen a final round where I thought the PO deserved to champ, even though they often do. I will never give a PO the 1 in a final round. Think that's unfair? Not really. POs often champ without getting a single 1. If I'm judging a debate tournament, I'd rather give the 1 to a debater.

If you're a PO and get no feedback from me, that means you did a good job. Fret not.

Other stuff
"Automatic previous question after 3 speeches on the same side" is not a rule unless we're at TOC or tournaments that specifically use TOC rules.

Speech equity is great and important, but there is no such thing as a formal base system. I have nothing against someone getting the chance to speak more than everyone else if it keeps debate going and fresh.

Don't yell or be mean in cross-ex. Avoid talking over eachother. If someone starts yelling or talking over you in cross-ex, let them. I promise it's more strategic to let them look bad and perhaps call them out for it, compared to fighting fire with fire. That being said, questioners AND answers should keep questions AND answers concise.

I see all the politicking for what it really is

Tobi is a student sometimes, a part-time oceanographer and an amazing adjudicator every day. If there is anyone to be referred to as one of the faces of adjudication in Africa, Tobi is one of your go-to people. With over 60+ breaks in tournaments, you can think about, Grand-Final and Semi Judge at about 25 including, PAUDC 21, Western IV 2022, and IIT Bombay 22. He has served as Language Officer at Campbelltown Australs, NEADC 22, SANUDC 22, and was on Appeal for Madrid WUDC 2023. He is the absolute definition of excellence meets hardwork. He is also the first West African to judge the Quarter-finals of the World Universities Debating Championship, Belgrade 22, talk about awesomeness. He was on CAP over 10+ tournament including, RRAC 23, Kampala Open 23, Debate A+ 23, Uganda National Team trials, Zimbabwe National Team trials and, Jozi Open, others. Outside of the debate room, Tobi is that sweet and soft guy you want on your corner everyday of the week. Always willing to help however he can.

I am an enthusiastic and open-minded individual who has been judging the past two years and I love debating. I studied Economics and Finance for my undergraduate and spend most of my time reading novels, debating, writing and traveling. The metrics I mostly use when judging are:

Truth Assertion:

The claim a team provides must contain strong evidence and should explain what the debate is about. The second proof of claim is responding to the rebuttals provided by your opponents. This is important since they can argue a link of truth that might discredit the points given. In the end, it can cause your impacts to be disregarded and reduce your chances of winning the debate.

Classification:

It is important for you to give good reasoning on why your claim is true. This is done by showing why or how your claim is true and important in the debate. The more well-proofed the evidence is, the higher chances of you have winning the argument. The claim should also within reasoning and proven.

Weighing:

Take your opponent's best case and make a comparison to the case provided from your bench. You'll have earned a solid win if you can show me that even if your side's best case fails, your average or worst case scenario is still much better than your opponent's case. This is also done through providing strong reasons supported by clear pieces of evidence. Prove to us why you believe the arguments provided by your opponents is unlikely the case and why its also false.

Framework:

It is important to lay out a structure in a simple and direct format that is easy for me to understand. You can also do this by showing me your breakdown before you begin your speech. Having a simple structure with in-depth analysis makes it easy for me to judge and helps your opponents understand your arguments. Having a coherent speech with logical flow makes it easy for me to understand your speech word for word.

Team Chemistry:

How you and your partner present yourself is also quite important. I will need strong well-structured points to strengthen the cases presented. Having your teammate support your arguments or defend the points initially made is very important and it will be an add-on during weigh-in.

Lastly, it is very important to respect your opponents during debates. Avoid using obscene or rude remarks during the debate. I encourage you to have fun and be as creative as you can when interacting with different people in the debate forums.

Hi! My name's Fiona (she/her), Westridge '25. I mainly have experience in congress.